Re: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast
Here's a summary of Methane hydrates from Jeremy Leggetts book 'The Carbon War' - a good read. His main concern is that masses of methane will be released by some deposits as a direct result of climate change. (The global warming potential of methane is 20 X more than CO2) 'Huge amounts of carbon are locked away under the sea bed in the form of Methane hydrate, which is kept there by a combination of low temperature and high pressure. All together there's an estimated 10,000 billion tonnes of carbon locked away as methyl hydrate, but fortunately most of it is stored in deep ocean sediments where global warming will never have an effect. But there are stores of methyl hydrates, in relatively shallow waters around the periphery of the Arctic ice cap, which are within reach of the effects of global warming. The exact amount isn't known but estimates put the figure at certainly tens of billions of tonnes, which are more than enough to trigger major changes to the present climate characteristics'. ie. Rapid, catastrophic climate change. James Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast
- Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 00:18 Subject: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast Not that Hubbert's Peak makes much sense to me anyway, even without methane hydrate, since there are immense reserves of coal and long-established technology for converting it into fuel. Nor does that make much sense because climate change will inevitably change the whole ball-game. You have that right, I was once told that the 'Green River Formation' (of western Colorado and surrounding area ) oil shale deposits hold at least as much oil as the Middle East. Granted, the oil is locked up in shale, but, it's been said that when gas gets to be $3.00 - $5.00 dollars a gal. it will be profitable enough to build the plants to extract it. For that matter maybe we will mine the oil shale like coal to be ground up and tossed on the fire and then have the 'used up grounds' be removed and tossed away like so much sand? I have to wonder, if the Hubbert's Peak took in to account these deposits that are so expensive to develop? Greg H. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast
So what effect could this have on the famous Hubbert's Peak of fossil fuel supplies down whose steep slopes we'll allegedly soon be tobogganing towards the end of CAWKI? Also, how do these apparently regular accidental discoveries of new energy resources reflect on all the assurances we've had that current knowledge of the extent of fossil-fuel reserves means that much more than it did in the past (damn all)? Not that Hubbert's Peak makes much sense to me anyway, even without methane hydrate, since there are immense reserves of coal and long-established technology for converting it into fuel. Nor does that make much sense because climate change will inevitably change the whole ball-game. Keith A few quick points: I don't think mining this stuff is without its hazards. I think that anews story I read last year implied that it was in a relatively delicate thermal balance, or something, and one wouldn't want to tip that balance. I'm sorry that I can't be more specific or accurate. Ocean-releases of Methane bubbles have been suggested as a possible reason for Bermuda Triangle mysteries (i.e.: they could kill folks on ships or affect planes' flight). I agree with your damn-all how this sort of requires a re-working of assumptions, but on the other hand, I'm a fan of human industry, and if we can make use of this methane without overly upsetting some pre-existing balance of nature, then I say it's an interesting prospect. The Second article mentioned some very interesting claim as to a find that there is a rapid rate of new formation of the Methane. Now *that* would be *really* interesting. Almost like trees and biomass growing all the time on land, so if you harvested only-so-much it would be a renewable resource or at least its finite nature would be much-extended. The second article also talks about involvement in the global climate cycle of these hydrates. That sounds like it would ask for more study before we mine it as an alternative to petroleum. As you say, the bottom line here is Global Warming. If we can find some way to make non-renewable fuels less-damaging under Global Warming Theory (scrubbing the atmosphere? Carbon sinks?) then maybe the Global Warming objection could be changed or modified, but until then, it is hard to see using newly found non-renewable hydrocarbon assets with abandon. They would seem to just continue to make things worse. MM Among the most surprising findings of the recent offshore drilling was the fast rate at which gas hydrate is forming. Ocean drilling plays a critical role in addressing questions about hydrates because it provides the only means available of directly sampling the material and the sediments that host them deep beneath the seafloor. In 1995, ODP researchers drilled into gas hydrates in a relatively stable area off the U.S. east coast. Scientists have estimated that area could contain enough methane to supply U.S. energy needs for more than 100 years. They also found evidence suggesting that hydrates are involved in the global climate cycle, and that they can cause massive landslides. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast
So what effect could this have on the famous Hubbert's Peak of fossil fuel supplies down whose steep slopes we'll allegedly soon be tobogganing towards the end of CAWKI? Also, how do these apparently regular accidental discoveries of new energy resources reflect on all the assurances we've had that current knowledge of the extent of fossil-fuel reserves means that much more than it did in the past (damn all)? Not that Hubbert's Peak makes much sense to me anyway, even without methane hydrate, since there are immense reserves of coal and long-established technology for converting it into fuel. Nor does that make much sense because climate change will inevitably change the whole ball-game. Keith Hello MM A few quick points: I don't think mining this stuff is without its hazards. No, I don't think it is. I think that anews story I read last year implied that it was in a relatively delicate thermal balance, or something, and one wouldn't want to tip that balance. I'm sorry that I can't be more specific or accurate. There seem to be a number of objections, but perhaps the chief one is that methane has a lot to do with climate change, and the hydrate reserves could be a key part of the climate mechanism. Not that such quibbles have stopped us much in the past, or stopped our glorious leaders rather. http://healthandenergy.com/methane_hydrate.htm Methane Hydrate Historic Global Warming Linked to Methane Release Ocean-releases of Methane bubbles have been suggested as a possible reason for Bermuda Triangle mysteries (i.e.: they could kill folks on ships or affect planes' flight). Not UFOs? Aw. Rather less romantic to get blown away by a sea-fart. Anyway, my main concern in posting these two articles was as a counterpoint to the Hubbert's Peak arguments, and I guess to thump my drum again on climate change being more important. That methane, and especially methane hydrate, is itself a factor in climate change, maybe a critical factor, perhaps underlines the importance of making a real effort at long last to find out how the thing works. David Teal wrote in a previous message: Terry mentioned methane hydrate, the solid stuff. With global warming now inevitable, it is important that these rich resources of fossil fuel should be captured for use soon, otherwise they will vaporise to methane in the atmosphere and become a VERY potent cause of further warming. We've got a positive feedback timebomb with this stuff! Damned if we do, damned if we don't? This seems to put the dilemma quite nicely: Experts say that the entire reserve of methane hydrate in the waters near Japan could provide 6 trillion cubic meters of methane. This is enough to support Japan's expenditure of natural gas for a century. Since Japan imports 100% of its crude oil and 82% of all its primary energy (energy directly obtained from natural resources, such as oil, coal, natural gas, hydro, and geothermal), the prospect of gaining an extensive domestic pool of energy comes with high expectations. The worldwide total of methane hydrate is estimated to be equivalent to 250 trillion cubic meters of methane gas. Research on this substance has been active overseas since the early 1990s, but attention is focused more on its potential to contribute to climate change than to provide energy. If temperatures were to rise on a global scale, causing some permafrost to melt, then massive amounts of methane would be released into the atmosphere to aggravate global warming. This would create a relentless cycle by melting yet more permafrost, thereby releasing even greater amounts of methane. http://jin.jcic.or.jp/trends98/honbun/ntj980623.html FLAMMABLE ICE: Methane Hydrate Opens Possibility for New Energy Now you'd think they'd resolve the second bit before rushing headlong into the first bit, wouldn't you? Well, you or I would, but them? Don't bet on it. I think this whole climate change disaster could have an upside. It's very belated (of course!), but the climate change study must be approaching about the biggest scientific study ever: It's about damn' time science got involved in a detailed, integrated examination of the biosystem... Maybe only climate change as the header would serve to make it integrated enough to counter science's great love of splintering itself in the name of specialisation, learning more and more about less and less. This huge climate-change study could turn out to be the most important thing they've ever done, whatever the results for the global warming case. Bit of a lousy reason for it, and who knows if the upside will balance the downside, but maybe we might at last learn to stop fiddling with things we don't understand and then being amazed by the unfortunate side-effects, if we even notice them, as they usually involve somebody else's discipline. Need a new definition of that word too, or at least a return to the old one. I agree with your damn-all
Re: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast
I'm a fan of human industry, Well then, it would make perfect sense to take present and future energy sources and utilize them in the production of renewable industries, thereby cutting lifetime emissions of any given amount of energy consumed to a mear fraction (a really small fraction, not a large fractiondoh!) of what they would be without the renewables infrastructure, all the while feeding the growth of an industry? make use of this methane without overly upsetting some pre-existing balance of nature, then I say it's an interesting prospect. Of course you realize that the most intelligent (that's theoreticallly most intelligent) species on the planet has yet to admit in its totality that species extinction, global warming and ozone depletion are sufficient enough realities as to give cause to corporate modification of behavior. How is it that you expect the same species to accurately define overly upsetting, much less conform to a regimen that never exceeds overly? The Second article mentioned some very interesting claim as to a find that there is a rapid rate of new formation of the Methane. Now *that* would be *really* interesting. Almost like trees and biomass growing all the time on land, so if you harvested only-so-much it would be a renewable resource or at least its finite nature would be much-extended. It would only be renewable if the regeneration rate can be certified to a pinpoint of certainty. With biomass it's rather easy...one ton consumed, one ton reproduced, give or take a few calculations for moisture rates. Not much of a chance of an error of exponential misplacement there, eh? The second article also talks about involvement in the global climate cycle of these hydrates. That sounds like it would ask for more study before we mine it as an alternative to petroleum. As you say, the bottom line here is Global Warming. If we can find some way to make non-renewable fuels less-damaging under Global Warming Theory (scrubbing the atmosphere? Carbon sinks?) then maybe the Global Warming objection could be changed or modified, but until then, it is hard to see using newly found non-renewable hydrocarbon assets with abandon. They would seem to just continue to make things worse. Ditto. (Do I have to vote Republican now?) Todd Swearingen Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast
These discoveries sound nice, but when a few large companies control the resourses and can manipulate energy prices to justify further developement, it just ends up taking money out of everyones pockets. Here in Saskatchewan, as far as I know, we are the only Canadian province that can't set up solar or wind gathering systems and hook up to the grid. So the government sets up a wind farm and allows anyone who wants to use wind energy to pay more on their electric bill for this new free energy. Now the natural gas company here is using this expensive free energy for their offices. Now I can see our natural gas rates increase because of this. Can we consentrate on biodeisel and other energies to become selfreliant individuals instead of supporting big companies that we have no control over? Brent From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:18:20 +0900 tvoivozhd commented on the Homestead list recently: About time attention was turned to this energy resource---about four times that contained in more familiar coal, oil and gas reserves. Some danger of a blowout if pressure is inadvertently released, and you wouldn't want to breathe a methane bubble emerging from the ocean floor any more than you would want to breath methane in a coal mine. But methane hydrate in crystalline form is concentrated, like it would be if compressed at very high pressure in a pressure-tank. Not like impractical-to-compress hydrogen which for automotive use must be generated by an onboard converter from gasoline or other liquid fuel, or stored in nanotubes or metal hydride, releasing by application of heat. Releasing pressure on the hydrate causes it to sublime to methane---which is a lot easier to process and cleaner than coal or oil. Moreover, gases are a lot easier and cheaper to move long distances through a pipeline than oil or slurries. Methane hydrate deposits exist off many continental and island shelves. I have a vague recollection that a big one lies off the U.S. east coast too. So what effect could this have on the famous Hubbert's Peak of fossil fuel supplies down whose steep slopes we'll allegedly soon be tobogganing towards the end of CAWKI? Also, how do these apparently regular accidental discoveries of new energy resources reflect on all the assurances we've had that current knowledge of the extent of fossil-fuel reserves means that much more than it did in the past (damn all)? Not that Hubbert's Peak makes much sense to me anyway, even without methane hydrate, since there are immense reserves of coal and long-established technology for converting it into fuel. Nor does that make much sense because climate change will inevitably change the whole ball-game. Keith http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17697/story.htm Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast CANADA: September 10, 2002 VICTORIA, British Columbia - A fishing boat's accidental catch has led to the discovery of a huge potential energy reserve off Canada's Pacific coast that could meet the country's energy needs for 40 years, researchers said yesterday. A remote controlled submarine discovered glaciers of frozen methane hydrates, which can be used to produce methane gas, on the sea floor about 130 km (85 miles) west of Vancouver Island, according to University of Victoria geophysicist Ross Chapman. The technology needed to recover seabed methane is still in the development stage, but Chapman said researchers hoped the discovery of such a large deposit would spur more research. This is a very big discovery for us. It is important for (the industry) to know that there is hydrate right on the sea floor, Chapman said, noting that frozen hydrate is usually found several hundred metres (yards) beneath the seabed. The researchers said seismic studies indicate the reserves in the undersea Barkley Canyon cover about 4 square kilometres (1.5 square miles) and could descend another 250 metres (820 feet) beneath the surface. The methane, which freezes at higher temperatures under pressure, is trapped in frozen water molecules. Officials were alerted the deposit two years ago when a fishing trawler dragged up a one-tonne chunk of the ice. The frightened crew hauled the hissing, melting mass on to their ship before shoveling it back into the sea. Chapman said the crew was lucky not to have been poisoned as the methane gas escaped from the melting ice. The hydrates could also be an indicator of conventional oil and gas deposits beneath the sea floor. Their composition is similar to finds from the Gulf of Mexico associated with major oil and gas reserves, Chapman said. When the submersible craft poked the seafloor, both oil and gas emerged and floated slowly to the surface. The discovery comes as British Columbia and Ottawa are looking at lifting a 30-year ban on
Re: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast
Duh, yes. Focusing on Hubbert's Peak commonly leads to that omission. Mere substitution of fossil fuels is not the answer. But if you consider climate change, the need for reduction is obvious. So long as we have something like political-economic systems that are oriented to the idea that one can place increased demand on the system and simply pay more and suppliers will build more supply, then I don't see much way, by a simple market system, to curb the appetite for energy. I am open to suggestion as to how the system should be changed, or guided, in reaction to what is a worldwide economic and environmental threat. I think innovation is more important, and harder, at this basic level of addressing: how do we set up a system that can have some internalized cognizance of precautionary principles without sacrificing principles of freedom. Some advocates of discussion of worldwide-disaster enviro issues are doing in order to call for some curb on freedom, or without proper respect for freedom's value. So, advocates of freedom develop the idea that all enviro discussions are just there as a pretext to attack freedom without regard for its value, and they, in turn, are sometimes shallow and refuse to acknowledge the science or need for caution that science seems to imply. So, I think the hard innovation will come when we can figure out a way to get our system to respond better to pressing worldwide environmental issues, *if* they're genuine, without sacrificing hegemony of nations or individuals. And it would be nice if we could have a discussion of this and figure it out sometime before 2414 or whenever. These are my tentative opinions anyway. I think an opposite case could be made that freedom is freedom and screw the calls for global enviro concern because they can't be consistent with freedom. Since no one I see or hear seems to be discussing any of this, I'm a bit at odds to form a clear opinion, though I can do so, it would be nice to see if anyone else sees the issues as I do. I think it's much easier to do a global scientific research project than it is to figure out the best philosophic political way to approach how to revise (if at all) our system, and whether it's even appropriate to speak of revision on a macro scale, where hegemonous countries and hegemonous individual human beings are involved. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast
The Second article mentioned some very interesting claim as to a find that there is a rapid rate of new formation of the Methane. Now *that* would be *really* interesting. Almost like trees and biomass growing all the time on land, so if you harvested only-so-much it would be a renewable resource or at least its finite nature would be much-extended. It would only be renewable if the regeneration rate can be certified to a pinpoint of certainty. With biomass it's rather easy...one ton consumed, one ton reproduced, give or take a few calculations for moisture rates. Not much of a chance of an error of exponential misplacement there, eh? I'm not sure, but I don't think I've read an article that's looked hard at where this methane is coming from (!). Since many of us are here partly because of our interest in being gentlemen scientists, I'd like to take a look at this for a moment. I know that one objections to dams is the amount of methane produced by flooding previously above-ground biomass in a man-made lake. Perhaps the source of the methane is from the decay of dead biomass in the oceans, floating to the bottom, being chilled (due to the low heat at the bottom) and through whatever-other-process finding itself in the state that we find it. Perhaps, further, the ocean and the ocean floor have their creatures which are analagous to our on-land creatures (termites, other bacteria and critters?) which digest some biomass, up to a point, and have methane as a waste product, even if we don't see methane as fully digested from our point of view of useable energy. Anyway, so maybe these methane deposits bear some comparison to a forest of biomass, some of it dead. So, I do wonder if we could calculate the replenishment rates and use the methane without over-much damage to our ecosystem. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast
convinced. If we want to go on using fossil-fuel with such profligacy I don't see anything that's going to stop us. Except climate change - much more important than Hubbert's Peak. That's the reason to cut down on fossil fuels and find alternatives, not because we're going to run out of them. IMHO. Agreed. Aside from Global warming, the other anti-fossil-fuel use arguments are of lesser value to me. I forgot to mention something I had on my mind in the political comments I made: where are the insurance companies? If we can get them lobbying for change (usually at the end of a disaster when the costs are more apparent?) then we can have more effect. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast
Hello again MM Duh, yes. Focusing on Hubbert's Peak commonly leads to that omission. Mere substitution of fossil fuels is not the answer. But if you consider climate change, the need for reduction is obvious. So long as we have something like political-economic systems that are oriented to the idea that one can place increased demand on the system and simply pay more and suppliers will build more supply, then I don't see much way, by a simple market system, to curb the appetite for energy. I am open to suggestion as to how the system should be changed, or guided, in reaction to what is a worldwide economic and environmental threat. I think innovation is more important, and harder, at this basic level of addressing: how do we set up a system that can have some internalized cognizance of precautionary principles without sacrificing principles of freedom. Some advocates of discussion of worldwide-disaster enviro issues are doing in order to call for some curb on freedom, or without proper respect for freedom's value. So, advocates of freedom develop the idea that all enviro discussions are just there as a pretext to attack freedom without regard for its value, and they, in turn, are sometimes shallow and refuse to acknowledge the science or need for caution that science seems to imply. So, I think the hard innovation will come when we can figure out a way to get our system to respond better to pressing worldwide environmental issues, *if* they're genuine, without sacrificing hegemony of nations or individuals. And it would be nice if we could have a discussion of this and figure it out sometime before 2414 or whenever. These are my tentative opinions anyway. I think an opposite case could be made that freedom is freedom and screw the calls for global enviro concern because they can't be consistent with freedom. Since no one I see or hear seems to be discussing any of this, I'm a bit at odds to form a clear opinion, though I can do so, it would be nice to see if anyone else sees the issues as I do. I think it's much easier to do a global scientific research project than it is to figure out the best philosophic political way to approach how to revise (if at all) our system, and whether it's even appropriate to speak of revision on a macro scale, where hegemonous countries and hegemonous individual human beings are involved. Freedom of whom? I think you might find that people arguing for freedom vs environmental responsibility are in fact arguing for *corporate* freedom, not individual freedom, though they might think that's what they're arguing for. Some guy posted a message here a while back attacking us for being anti Big Oil, IIRC, saying if the likes of us had our way poor old Big Oil would suffer the same dreadful and undeserved fate as Big Tobacco. I think I've quoted this before, from tvo: Small-scale capitalism works out fine, but as scale increases the departure from real capitalism becomes more pronounced---profits are privatized, but costs are socialized. The attendant repair and maintenance are left to succeeding generations if possible, if not, to present low and middle income taxpayers. The departure from democracy also becomes more pronounced - big corporations are not democratic, they're autocratic, and arguably anti-democratic. Keep it small and local, and the argument vanishes, IMO - neither freedoms nor the environment are likely to be threatened, or not beyond remedy at any rate. For the most part I don't have much more time for Big Enviro than I have for any other kind of Big. Big just ain't beautiful. Big, centralized, top-down is mainly what causes these problems. Small, decentralized, local is human, and manageable. In the Industrial World small businesses account for more technological advances in their areas of expertise than government supported researchers or research departments in massive corporations. - Steve Troy, Sustainable Village. I never asked him for his references for that, but I'm sure he could provide them. As for national hegemony, it's the poorest countries with the lowest per capita energy consumption, only fractions of a percent of those in the US, that will pay the most heavily for the disproportionate US share in causing global warming. Would you call that freedom? If the opposite were true and they were dumping on you like you're dumping on them, would you call it freedom? Keith Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Re: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast
Preach it Brother Keith! Evening services begin at dusk? Todd Swearingen Freedom of whom? I think you might find that people arguing for freedom vs environmental responsibility are in fact arguing for *corporate* freedom, not individual freedom, though they might think that's what they're arguing for. Some guy posted a message here a while back attacking us for being anti Big Oil, IIRC, saying if the likes of us had our way poor old Big Oil would suffer the same dreadful and undeserved fate as Big Tobacco. I think I've quoted this before, from tvo: Small-scale capitalism works out fine, but as scale increases the departure from real capitalism becomes more pronounced---profits are privatized, but costs are socialized. The attendant repair and maintenance are left to succeeding generations if possible, if not, to present low and middle income taxpayers. The departure from democracy also becomes more pronounced - big corporations are not democratic, they're autocratic, and arguably anti-democratic. Keep it small and local, and the argument vanishes, IMO - neither freedoms nor the environment are likely to be threatened, or not beyond remedy at any rate. For the most part I don't have much more time for Big Enviro than I have for any other kind of Big. Big just ain't beautiful. Big, centralized, top-down is mainly what causes these problems. Small, decentralized, local is human, and manageable. In the Industrial World small businesses account for more technological advances in their areas of expertise than government supported researchers or research departments in massive corporations. - Steve Troy, Sustainable Village. I never asked him for his references for that, but I'm sure he could provide them. As for national hegemony, it's the poorest countries with the lowest per capita energy consumption, only fractions of a percent of those in the US, that will pay the most heavily for the disproportionate US share in causing global warming. Would you call that freedom? If the opposite were true and they were dumping on you like you're dumping on them, would you call it freedom? Keith Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast
Freedom of whom? I think you might find that people arguing for freedom vs environmental responsibility are in fact arguing for *corporate* freedom, not individual freedom, though they might think that's what they're arguing for. Amen. Big time. My point exactly. A lot of them *equate* the two. The damage done by folks running amuck with *equating* Big Business with Property rights is extensive. Ayn Rand is often I think at the base of their thinking, but although she championed Big Business as a persecuted Minority, she, herself, was *quite* clear (at least in my opinion) that at base she was a proponent of man's rights being defined, politically, as property rights, whether for individuals or incorporated bodies of individuals. She did not, to my knowledge, favor this equivalency of Big Business with Property Rights and screw-the-little-guy's-rights, although I'm sure others might argue with my interpretation of her work. As for national hegemony, it's the poorest countries with the lowest per capita energy consumption, only fractions of a percent of those in the US, that will pay the most heavily for the disproportionate US share in causing global warming. Would you call that freedom? If the opposite were true and they were dumping on you like you're dumping on them, would you call it freedom? I think, hopefully, this argument can be brought to bear against the bean-counters in the US, in some way. I've been hoping to hear a sort of Ok, US, if you don't want to be part of Kyoto, fine, but then if Global Warming does turn out to have a lot of merit, and if massive damage is done, then please be advised that we will be expecting Trillion-Dollar-Level Insurance compensation, not necessarily from those initially responsible, but particularly from those who refused corrective action once the problem became more apparent. Not that I'd look forward to seeing my country felled by this, and hopefully we can avoid it, but if the pocketbooks of those involved can be brought into the picture, they might see Global Warming Preventative ACtion a bit differently. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast
Ayn Rand was mistress to one of the Rothschilds. I suppose you could consider her an insider. Kirk -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 12:41 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast Freedom of whom? I think you might find that people arguing for freedom vs environmental responsibility are in fact arguing for *corporate* freedom, not individual freedom, though they might think that's what they're arguing for. Amen. Big time. My point exactly. A lot of them *equate* the two. The damage done by folks running amuck with *equating* Big Business with Property rights is extensive. Ayn Rand is often I think at the base of their thinking, but although she championed Big Business as a persecuted Minority, she, herself, was *quite* clear (at least in my opinion) that at base she was a proponent of man's rights being defined, politically, as property rights, whether for individuals or incorporated bodies of individuals. She did not, to my knowledge, favor this equivalency of Big Business with Property Rights and screw-the-little-guy's-rights, although I'm sure others might argue with my interpretation of her work. As for national hegemony, it's the poorest countries with the lowest per capita energy consumption, only fractions of a percent of those in the US, that will pay the most heavily for the disproportionate US share in causing global warming. Would you call that freedom? If the opposite were true and they were dumping on you like you're dumping on them, would you call it freedom? I think, hopefully, this argument can be brought to bear against the bean-counters in the US, in some way. I've been hoping to hear a sort of Ok, US, if you don't want to be part of Kyoto, fine, but then if Global Warming does turn out to have a lot of merit, and if massive damage is done, then please be advised that we will be expecting Trillion-Dollar-Level Insurance compensation, not necessarily from those initially responsible, but particularly from those who refused corrective action once the problem became more apparent. Not that I'd look forward to seeing my country felled by this, and hopefully we can avoid it, but if the pocketbooks of those involved can be brought into the picture, they might see Global Warming Preventative ACtion a bit differently. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast
You don't have to leave Victoria to find an abundance of gas in BC. POC On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Keith Addison wrote: tvoivozhd commented on the Homestead list recently: About time attention was turned to this energy resource---about four times that contained in more familiar coal, oil and gas reserves. Some danger of a blowout if pressure is inadvertently released, and you wouldn't want to breathe a methane bubble emerging from the ocean floor any more than you would want to breath methane in a coal mine. But methane hydrate in crystalline form is concentrated, like it would be if compressed at very high pressure in a pressure-tank. Not like impractical-to-compress hydrogen which for automotive use must be generated by an onboard converter from gasoline or other liquid fuel, or stored in nanotubes or metal hydride, releasing by application of heat. Releasing pressure on the hydrate causes it to sublime to methane---which is a lot easier to process and cleaner than coal or oil. Moreover, gases are a lot easier and cheaper to move long distances through a pipeline than oil or slurries. Methane hydrate deposits exist off many continental and island shelves. I have a vague recollection that a big one lies off the U.S. east coast too. So what effect could this have on the famous Hubbert's Peak of fossil fuel supplies down whose steep slopes we'll allegedly soon be tobogganing towards the end of CAWKI? Also, how do these apparently regular accidental discoveries of new energy resources reflect on all the assurances we've had that current knowledge of the extent of fossil-fuel reserves means that much more than it did in the past (damn all)? Not that Hubbert's Peak makes much sense to me anyway, even without methane hydrate, since there are immense reserves of coal and long-established technology for converting it into fuel. Nor does that make much sense because climate change will inevitably change the whole ball-game. Keith http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17697/story.htm Huge seabed methane find off Canada's west coast CANADA: September 10, 2002 VICTORIA, British Columbia - A fishing boat's accidental catch has led to the discovery of a huge potential energy reserve off Canada's Pacific coast that could meet the country's energy needs for 40 years, researchers said yesterday. A remote controlled submarine discovered glaciers of frozen methane hydrates, which can be used to produce methane gas, on the sea floor about 130 km (85 miles) west of Vancouver Island, according to University of Victoria geophysicist Ross Chapman. The technology needed to recover seabed methane is still in the development stage, but Chapman said researchers hoped the discovery of such a large deposit would spur more research. This is a very big discovery for us. It is important for (the industry) to know that there is hydrate right on the sea floor, Chapman said, noting that frozen hydrate is usually found several hundred metres (yards) beneath the seabed. The researchers said seismic studies indicate the reserves in the undersea Barkley Canyon cover about 4 square kilometres (1.5 square miles) and could descend another 250 metres (820 feet) beneath the surface. The methane, which freezes at higher temperatures under pressure, is trapped in frozen water molecules. Officials were alerted the deposit two years ago when a fishing trawler dragged up a one-tonne chunk of the ice. The frightened crew hauled the hissing, melting mass on to their ship before shoveling it back into the sea. Chapman said the crew was lucky not to have been poisoned as the methane gas escaped from the melting ice. The hydrates could also be an indicator of conventional oil and gas deposits beneath the sea floor. Their composition is similar to finds from the Gulf of Mexico associated with major oil and gas reserves, Chapman said. When the submersible craft poked the seafloor, both oil and gas emerged and floated slowly to the surface. The discovery comes as British Columbia and Ottawa are looking at lifting a 30-year ban on offshore drilling on the Pacific Coast. The province has launched a C$4 million ($2.6 million) review of the moratorium and hopes for a decision within 12 months. Attention has been focused on conventional reserves north of Vancouver Island near the southern end of the Alaska panhandle, and any effort to allow drilling is expected to meet heavy opposition from environmentalists. Chapman said scientists are also interested in the impact of such frozen methane deposits on global warming. Methane is a greenhouse gas and, as the ice melts. it could be released into the atmosphere. The area off Vancouver Island is an active earthquake zone and Chapman said scientists also believe that earthquakes could break the ice free, releasing large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Story by Paul Willcocks REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
