Quote:
Originally Posted by savman
Jiggs,
You should consider a career in PR for the government, or some other kind of propaganda machine, as you possess an uncanny ability to ignore facts, make up definitions to suit your fancy, and rely on specious logic to wiggle your way out of any statement you make. While this is apparent to the educated reader, the masses will fall for it every time.
what a load of pretentious crap. you're the one wiggling out of statements, as evidenced below. ... no, what's apparent is that even though you believe you're smarter than a guy like
Michael Klare, you don't really know much of what you're talking about, as evidenced by your punt to "nuclear will save the day." .... it won't. ... but it IS funny that you believe my "error" was countered in your link's assumption that we can just keep dismantling nuclear weapons and continue "re-enrichment" to make up for the annual uranium shortfall. that was amusing.
there's a lot of "could" in your link from the NEA... no mention of grade, location... so as usual, critical analysis of the industry's own claim is always necessary.
http://canada.theoildrum.com/node/5744
The conventional world-wide uranium resources are estimated by the authors of the Red Book as 5.5 million tons. Out of these, 3.3 million tons are assigned to the reasonably assured category, and 2.2 million tons are associated with the not yet discovered but assumed to exist inferred resources. Our analysis shows that neither the 3.3 million tons of "assured" resources nor the 2.2 million tons of inferred resources are justified by the Red Book data and that the actual known exploitable resources are probably much smaller.
Dr. Michael Dittmar. Dr. Dittmar is a researcher with the Institute of Particle Physics of ETH Zurich, and he also works at CERN in Geneva.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savman
As for you supposed refutation that the worlds deepest well was drilled a mere 9 months ago, all I can tell you is that is the nature of constantly advancing technology. The worlds greatest, biggest, fatest, etc. _________ is almost always only a few months or years prior. It is the nature of human civilization and I, for one, do not see it changing any time soon.
that was conveniently sugar coated... so this is essentially a semantics argument presented, unsolicited, by you because you have a personal problem with me and my well-supported thesis regarding global energy.
i can't even remember now, you've moved the goalposts so effectively... what was your original beef again? that i said the technology was still very new, and they're growing more desperate to extract the crude? or merely that i said the word "unprecedented"? You ignored most every quote in my post as usual, so I'll assume, at this point, we can both agree that it IS still very new technology, that it IS far more expensive to extract, and that risks ARE being taken without proper safeguards in place (IMO, because of that desperation).
Quote:
Originally Posted by savman
BTW the world record well in question was more than twice the depth below sea level that the supposed bleeding edge Maconda Prospect was, so thanks for highlighting it.
You're welcome. What's your point? It's still very new technology, and the link I provided (and you ignored) admitted such an accident was the result of sloppy safeguards amid new technology. I'll provide it again for you to ignore.
What can be addressed now is the larger issue that a flawed, risky well plan for the MC 252 well was approved by the MMS, and BP, Anadarko and Mitsui management. Similar or identical plans were undoubtedly approved and used by many operators on other wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico. A plan that does not include enough cement to overlap the final and previous casing strings, and that does not require running a cement-bond log to ensure the integrity of the seal is a defective plan. The fact that there have not been blowouts on previous wells does not justify the approval and use of an unsafe plan.
Last edited by JiggsCasey; 05-25-2010 at 03:00 AM.