In 2008, government took an average of $0.40 per $3 gallon of gas.BDKJMU wrote:Baloney- Big Govt profits far more off of oil than Big Oil does.Grizalltheway wrote:
Trust me, between the 6 billion+ of us, we COULD figure out much better ways to produce all the energy we need, but nothing compares with the profitability of King Oil.
Its not unproven and unsafe. Its proven to operate fine and safely if people are operating it properly. Heck, since the middle of last century and for about 30k wells its largely proved to operate fine. The only thing proven is if people operate it improperly & negligently like BP you can have an accident.Appaholic wrote:Of course I use coal...everyone does....but if given the choice to use coal vs oil, I would use oil as it doesn't fok up my backyard like blowing off the local mountaintops will & I'm in the process of pricing solar panels or windmill to power my house. If the people in the Gulf are willing to take a chance on obviously unproven & unsafe technology to provide themselves money to purchase a bass boat & a tricked-out dually to haul it with down to the Redneck Riviera for vacation, then let them....saves my mountains....travelinman67 wrote:
Yep, and the nat avg per gallon tax is about 48 cents a gallon.native wrote:In 2008, government took an average of $0.40 per $3 gallon of gas.BDKJMU wrote:
Baloney- Big Govt profits far more off of oil than Big Oil does.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/13/news/ec ... /index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Agree. I stand corrected. The technology is safe & proven. Also proven is the company's using it are willing to take unnecessary chances to increase profits with little disregard to the surrounding environment or their workers. Also, the government has proven to be incapable or lack the intestinal fortitude to enforce the policies their dpeartments were established (& funded with plenty of tax dollars) to oversee on behalf of it's citizens.BDKJMU wrote:Its not unproven and unsafe. Its proven to operate fine and safely if people are operating it properly. Heck, since the middle of last century and for about 30k wells its largely proved to operate fine. The only thing proven is if people operate it improperly & negligently like BP you can have an accident.Appaholic wrote:
Of course I use coal...everyone does....but if given the choice to use coal vs oil, I would use oil as it doesn't fok up my backyard like blowing off the local mountaintops will & I'm in the process of pricing solar panels or windmill to power my house. If the people in the Gulf are willing to take a chance on obviously unproven & unsafe technology to provide themselves money to purchase a bass boat & a tricked-out dually to haul it with down to the Redneck Riviera for vacation, then let them....saves my mountains....
...and I guarantee a majority of the coal miners would rather be working the mines than laid off due to the practice of surface mining. My problem isn't with traditional mining, but with surface mining that removes mountaintops & takes jobs from miners to maximize profits without regard of the surrounding environment.BDKJMU wrote: As far as coal, I can guarantee you the majority of people in coal country wouldn't vote to end coal mining as you want to do.
Yep. If the government is concerned with stimulating the economy, put a temporary moratorium on the gas tax to lower transportation costs. It's not as if the money is being used to provide enforcement of MMS policies to protect our coastal areas.native wrote:In 2008, government took an average of $0.40 per $3 gallon of gas.BDKJMU wrote:
Baloney- Big Govt profits far more off of oil than Big Oil does.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/13/news/ec ... /index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Okay Einstein, care to tell us what most of the revenue from the gas tax goes towards?BDKJMU wrote:Grizalltheway wrote:
Trust me, between the 6 billion+ of us, we COULD figure out much better ways to produce all the energy we need, but nothing compares with the profitability of King Oil.
Baloney- Big Govt profits far more off of oil than Big Oil does.
The reason surface mining is done:Appaholic wrote:
...and I guarantee a majority of the coal miners would rather be working the mines than laid off due to the practice of surface mining. My problem isn't with traditional mining, but with surface mining that removes mountaintops & takes jobs from miners to maximize profits without regard of the surrounding environment.
A bunch of union guys at road construction sites standing around?Grizalltheway wrote:Okay Einstein, care to tell us what most of the revenue from the gas tax goes towards?BDKJMU wrote:
Baloney- Big Govt profits far more off of oil than Big Oil does.
Hey, feel free to maintain your own roads from now on.BDKJMU wrote:A bunch of union guys at road construction sites standing around?Grizalltheway wrote:
Okay Einstein, care to tell us what most of the revenue from the gas tax goes towards?
Sorry. Let me clarify. The surface mining I am referring to is MountainTop Removal and it's done for these reason:"BDKJMU wrote:The reason surface mining is done:Appaholic wrote:
...and I guarantee a majority of the coal miners would rather be working the mines than laid off due to the practice of surface mining. My problem isn't with traditional mining, but with surface mining that removes mountaintops & takes jobs from miners to maximize profits without regard of the surrounding environment.
"Surface mining is used when deposits of commercially useful minerals or rock are found near the surface; that is, where the overburden is relatively thin or the material of interest is structurally unsuitable for tunneling (as would usually be the case for sand, cinder, and gravel). Where minerals occur deep below the surface—where the overburden is thick or the mineral occurs as veins in hard rock— underground mining methods are used to extract the valued material. Surface mines are typically enlarged until either the mineral deposit is exhausted, or the cost of removing larger volumes of overburden makes further mining uneconomic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_mining" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There is the environmental negatives as you say. But after a few years/decades of surface mining there is reforestation that can be done (which I realize takes a few years to decades to complete).
http://www.heraldleaderphoto.com/2009/0 ... the-mines/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Also is a chunk of flat land, which in mountainous areas, can be a premium.
Sure companies may be "maximzing profits" as you say, local, state and the fed govts are also reaping the reward of increased tax revenue, lease/rights fees in many cases, and surface mining also provides lots of jobs. Coal mining provies for about half the electricity in the US. And surface mining is about 60% of that. And our electricity needs are only going to increase as more electric cars come online. End surface mining and you'll see unemployment in those coal regions rise, local, state and fed tax revenue drop, and energy prices go WAY up. You'd have to cover half (ok, slight exxagerration) the country in windmills and solar panels to make up for that. A suitable tradeoff would be building a huge # of nuke plants, but you have enviros who'll fight tooth and nail to block that.
I'd rather have nuke, too, but unfortunately the decades of stonewalling against increasing it hasn't been overcome. Sure MTR is more economical that subsurface mining. So is using a tractor more economical than an ox drawn plow. Its called being able to do a far greater volume in x amount of time. End MTR, and you WON't be able to make up for it with traditional sub surface mining.Appaholic wrote:Sorry. Let me clarify. The surface mining I am referring to is MountainTop Removal and it's done for these reason:"BDKJMU wrote:
The reason surface mining is done:
"Surface mining is used when deposits of commercially useful minerals or rock are found near the surface; that is, where the overburden is relatively thin or the material of interest is structurally unsuitable for tunneling (as would usually be the case for sand, cinder, and gravel). Where minerals occur deep below the surface—where the overburden is thick or the mineral occurs as veins in hard rock— underground mining methods are used to extract the valued material. Surface mines are typically enlarged until either the mineral deposit is exhausted, or the cost of removing larger volumes of overburden makes further mining uneconomic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_mining" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There is the environmental negatives as you say. But after a few years/decades of surface mining there is reforestation that can be done (which I realize takes a few years to decades to complete).
http://www.heraldleaderphoto.com/2009/0 ... the-mines/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Also is a chunk of flat land, which in mountainous areas, can be a premium.
Sure companies may be "maximzing profits" as you say, local, state and the fed govts are also reaping the reward of increased tax revenue, lease/rights fees in many cases, and surface mining also provides lots of jobs. Coal mining provies for about half the electricity in the US. And surface mining is about 60% of that. And our electricity needs are only going to increase as more electric cars come online. End surface mining and you'll see unemployment in those coal regions rise, local, state and fed tax revenue drop, and energy prices go WAY up. You'd have to cover half (ok, slight exxagerration) the country in windmills and solar panels to make up for that. A suitable tradeoff would be building a huge # of nuke plants, but you have enviros who'll fight tooth and nail to block that.
"Mountaintop removal mining is a form of surface mining that involves the topographical alteration and/or removal of a summit, summit ridge, or significant portion of a mountain, hill, or ridge in order to obtain a desired geologic material.
The MTR process involves the removal of coal seams by first fully removing the overburden laying atop them, exposing the seams from above. This method differs from more traditional underground mining, where typically a narrow shaft is dug which allows miners to collect seams using various underground methods, while leaving the vast majority of the overburden undisturbed. The overburden waste resulting from MTR is either placed back on the ridge, attempting to refect the approximate original contour of the mountain, and/or it is moved into neighboring valleys.
Mountaintop removal has been practiced since the 1960s. Increased demand for coal in the United States, sparked by the 1973 and 1979 petroleum crises, created incentives for a more economical form of coal mining than the traditional underground mining methods involving hundreds of workers, triggering the first widespread use of MTR."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining
IMO, land flat enough to build a walmart on is not necessarily a plus in the mountainous regions. Certainly not at the expense clean water, increased cancer rates & the coal companies being irresponsible neighbors to the locals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marti ... y_home.jpg
Sure, the local municipality get tax revenue. But that's a trade off as well since the coal company needs to the municipality's infrastructure to transport their commodity. And the revenue (nor the Mining company pay) isn't exactly providing the affected areas with a high quality of life. Sure, that's how the municipality's allocate the tax revenue but it's either a case of not enough revenue to improve the quality of life for affected citizens or the local leaders (who typically will not be elected without Mining Company support) are corrupt. I'd rather have the nukes.....
I'm all for it once we get the TWR thing figured out. Even until then, it's still a better option than goal and gas power generation, and more practical than solar or wind.BDKJMU wrote:I'd rather have nuke, too, but unfortunately the decades of stonewalling against increasing it hasn't been overcome. Sure MTR is more economical that subsurface mining. So is using a tractor more economical than an ox drawn plow. Its called being able to do a far greater volume in x amount of time. End MTR, and you WON't be able to make up for it with traditional sub surface mining.Appaholic wrote:
Sorry. Let me clarify. The surface mining I am referring to is MountainTop Removal and it's done for these reason:"
"Mountaintop removal mining is a form of surface mining that involves the topographical alteration and/or removal of a summit, summit ridge, or significant portion of a mountain, hill, or ridge in order to obtain a desired geologic material.
The MTR process involves the removal of coal seams by first fully removing the overburden laying atop them, exposing the seams from above. This method differs from more traditional underground mining, where typically a narrow shaft is dug which allows miners to collect seams using various underground methods, while leaving the vast majority of the overburden undisturbed. The overburden waste resulting from MTR is either placed back on the ridge, attempting to refect the approximate original contour of the mountain, and/or it is moved into neighboring valleys.
Mountaintop removal has been practiced since the 1960s. Increased demand for coal in the United States, sparked by the 1973 and 1979 petroleum crises, created incentives for a more economical form of coal mining than the traditional underground mining methods involving hundreds of workers, triggering the first widespread use of MTR."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining
IMO, land flat enough to build a walmart on is not necessarily a plus in the mountainous regions. Certainly not at the expense clean water, increased cancer rates & the coal companies being irresponsible neighbors to the locals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marti ... y_home.jpg
Sure, the local municipality get tax revenue. But that's a trade off as well since the coal company needs to the municipality's infrastructure to transport their commodity. And the revenue (nor the Mining company pay) isn't exactly providing the affected areas with a high quality of life. Sure, that's how the municipality's allocate the tax revenue but it's either a case of not enough revenue to improve the quality of life for affected citizens or the local leaders (who typically will not be elected without Mining Company support) are corrupt. I'd rather have the nukes.....
You mean we WON'T be able to maintain the current profit margins (& associated lower energy costs) with only traditional sub surface mining. I imagine you could stil mine large volumes by hiring some of the unemployed located in WV & Kentucky. Yes, this will increase the cost to the end-user, but we are currently subsidizing these costs with poor business practices. When the customers start paying a true cost, then maybe small-scale alternative energy production (for residential areas primarily IMO) become a more attractive option.BDKJMU wrote:I'd rather have nuke, too, but unfortunately the decades of stonewalling against increasing it hasn't been overcome. Sure MTR is more economical that subsurface mining. So is using a tractor more economical than an ox drawn plow. Its called being able to do a far greater volume in x amount of time. End MTR, and you WON't be able to make up for it with traditional sub surface mining.Appaholic wrote:
Sorry. Let me clarify. The surface mining I am referring to is MountainTop Removal and it's done for these reason:"
"Mountaintop removal mining is a form of surface mining that involves the topographical alteration and/or removal of a summit, summit ridge, or significant portion of a mountain, hill, or ridge in order to obtain a desired geologic material.
The MTR process involves the removal of coal seams by first fully removing the overburden laying atop them, exposing the seams from above. This method differs from more traditional underground mining, where typically a narrow shaft is dug which allows miners to collect seams using various underground methods, while leaving the vast majority of the overburden undisturbed. The overburden waste resulting from MTR is either placed back on the ridge, attempting to refect the approximate original contour of the mountain, and/or it is moved into neighboring valleys.
Mountaintop removal has been practiced since the 1960s. Increased demand for coal in the United States, sparked by the 1973 and 1979 petroleum crises, created incentives for a more economical form of coal mining than the traditional underground mining methods involving hundreds of workers, triggering the first widespread use of MTR."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining
IMO, land flat enough to build a walmart on is not necessarily a plus in the mountainous regions. Certainly not at the expense clean water, increased cancer rates & the coal companies being irresponsible neighbors to the locals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marti ... y_home.jpg
Sure, the local municipality get tax revenue. But that's a trade off as well since the coal company needs to the municipality's infrastructure to transport their commodity. And the revenue (nor the Mining company pay) isn't exactly providing the affected areas with a high quality of life. Sure, that's how the municipality's allocate the tax revenue but it's either a case of not enough revenue to improve the quality of life for affected citizens or the local leaders (who typically will not be elected without Mining Company support) are corrupt. I'd rather have the nukes.....
I don't believe they will be able to make up for it volume wise as you seem to think, even with employing lots more people. And what they do mine will cost more. So those increased costs mean higher energy costs for many of us, which also means higher costs for many goods and services. No thanks.Appaholic wrote:You mean we WON'T be able to maintain the current profit margins (& associated lower energy costs) with only traditional sub surface mining. I imagine you could stil mine large volumes by hiring some of the unemployed located in WV & Kentucky. Yes, this will increase the cost to the end-user, but we are currently subsidizing these costs with poor business practices. When the customers start paying a true cost, then maybe small-scale alternative energy production (for residential areas primarily IMO) become a more attractive option.BDKJMU wrote:
I'd rather have nuke, too, but unfortunately the decades of stonewalling against increasing it hasn't been overcome. Sure MTR is more economical that subsurface mining. So is using a tractor more economical than an ox drawn plow. Its called being able to do a far greater volume in x amount of time. End MTR, and you WON't be able to make up for it with traditional sub surface mining.
