On 9/11/2014 6:34 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 9/10/2014 9:23 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>>> Are you understanding me at all?
>>>>>
>>> yes, he never said "everyone". Did you not get that? Or are you too
>>> busy
>>> arguing with yourself?
>>>
>>>
>> He is playing a game, do you not get that?
>
> I haven't been following closely, but I should have guessed, given how long
> the thread has become. Rather Julieesque.
>
>
Of course, this fictional spat between he and his sycophant Squishy is
just one more lame Kabuki show.

The two of them are clearly mentally touched, and not in a healthy way.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:47:20 -0300, wrote:

> In my part of Canada we could boast that we have prevented
> them from starting in on fracking, we were being told it was okay
> because they are doing it all the time in the great USA. We didn't
> listen.

Hopefully Canada won't start letting billionaires and mega
corporations take over the government the way we have allow in the
USA.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 9/12/2014 12:47 PM, wrote:
> In my part of Canada we could boast that we have prevented
> them from starting in on fracking, we were being told it was okay
> because they are doing it all the time in the great USA. We didn't
> listen.


So what exactly has been the damage form fracking?

Any cites?

Do you know what a confined geologic stratum is?

On 9/12/2014 2:00 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:47:20 -0300, wrote:
>
>> In my part of Canada we could boast that we have prevented
>> them from starting in on fracking, we were being told it was okay
>> because they are doing it all the time in the great USA. We didn't
>> listen.
>
> Hopefully Canada won't start letting billionaires and mega
> corporations take over the government the way we have allow in the
> USA.
>
>
Too late.

On 9/12/2014 2:23 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:00:42 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:47:20 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>> In my part of Canada we could boast that we have prevented
>>> them from starting in on fracking, we were being told it was okay
>>> because they are doing it all the time in the great USA. We didn't
>>> listen.
>>
>> Hopefully Canada won't start letting billionaires and mega
>> corporations take over the government the way we have allow in the
>> USA.
>
> I believe there is fracking out west but this time, for once, our
> provincial politicians were feeling jumpy about gatherings of
> 'anti-fracking' people - they called for an enquiry and it really
> didn't go their way, turned out the return is often not great and yes,
> it does affect the water tables. You don't go far from
> Halifax/Dartmouth area to be on well water!
>
As long as the stratum being fracked is a confined one, there is no problem.

Maybe your drillers aren't using sound geology.

On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
> On 9/12/2014 2:23 PM, wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:00:42 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:47:20 -0300, wrote:
>>>
>>>> In my part of Canada we could boast that we have prevented
>>>> them from starting in on fracking, we were being told it was okay
>>>> because they are doing it all the time in the great USA. We didn't
>>>> listen.
>>>
>>> Hopefully Canada won't start letting billionaires and mega
>>> corporations take over the government the way we have allow in the
>>> USA.
>>
>> I believe there is fracking out west but this time, for once, our
>> provincial politicians were feeling jumpy about gatherings of
>> 'anti-fracking' people - they called for an enquiry and it really
>> didn't go their way, turned out the return is often not great and yes,
>> it does affect the water tables. You don't go far from
>> Halifax/Dartmouth area to be on well water!
>>
> As long as the stratum being fracked is a confined one, there is no
> problem.
>
> Maybe your drillers aren't using sound geology.

I'm afraid not! It has come about from the scare tactics and LIES that
Greenpeace and its allies have propagated.

BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
Graham

On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>> On 9/12/2014 2:23 PM, wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:00:42 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:47:20 -0300, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In my part of Canada we could boast that we have prevented
>>>>> them from starting in on fracking, we were being told it was okay
>>>>> because they are doing it all the time in the great USA. We didn't
>>>>> listen.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully Canada won't start letting billionaires and mega
>>>> corporations take over the government the way we have allow in the
>>>> USA.
>>>
>>> I believe there is fracking out west but this time, for once, our
>>> provincial politicians were feeling jumpy about gatherings of
>>> 'anti-fracking' people - they called for an enquiry and it really
>>> didn't go their way, turned out the return is often not great and yes,
>>> it does affect the water tables. You don't go far from
>>> Halifax/Dartmouth area to be on well water!
>>>
>> As long as the stratum being fracked is a confined one, there is no
>> problem.
>>
>> Maybe your drillers aren't using sound geology.
>
> I'm afraid not! It has come about from the scare tactics and LIES that
> Greenpeace and its allies have propagated.

You think?

The same thing goes on here.

> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
> Graham


Point taken.

On 9/12/2014 5:29 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:05:17 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2014 12:47 PM, wrote:
>>> In my part of Canada we could boast that we have prevented
>>> them from starting in on fracking, we were being told it was okay
>>> because they are doing it all the time in the great USA. We didn't
>>> listen.
>>
>>
>> So what exactly has been the damage form fracking?
>>
>> Any cites?
>>
>> Do you know what a confined geologic stratum is?
>
> Yes I understand what fracking is, I understand that many have made a
> lot of bucks from it but I also understand that the ordinary joe who
> lives where fracking has taken place is left without clean water and
> far less than they had before.

The _only reason_ that might happen is if an unconfined stratum is fracked.

Is that your assertion?

> Lovely if you are the money maker,
> not so great if you just happened to live nearby.

What is your home to well pad spacing regulation?

> They will have to prove to me the land will be unharmed, or, that if
> it is, they will be financially responsible to those people.

And what would constitute proof of that?

Would you accept a geologic cross section map and details of casing and
chemicals injected?

> Now when you offer them that deal, for some reason, they are suddenly
> reluctant, that tells me everything.

So you say without presenting the slightest bit of proof.

Here's an example from the UK, which was opposed to any fracking, of
what you might wish to look at:

http://www.qemsolutions.com.au/news/...ing-fuss-about

Fracking starts with a deep well (av. 8000ft) drilled into the shale
formation. The well is lined with a multilayer cement casing to help
prevent leaching and ground contamination. The casing is perforated
using carefully placed explosives. Large quantities of fracking fluid
(1-8 million gallons per well) is pumped into the shale at extremely
high pressures (9000 – 15000psi) in multiple stages.

The injection pressure forces the fracking fluid into the fissures and
the sand within the fluid props open the fissure and additional fluid is
injected to maintain the fissure formation. The well may be fractured in
stages dependent on environment and plugged/opened in stages as
required. Eventually the well is depressurised and the gas laden waste
fracking fluid is returned to the surface. The gas is then recovered and
separated from the waste fracking fluid.

The government announced in mid-December 2012 that exploratory fracking
for shale gas could resume in the UK, subject to new controls outlined
by Ed Davey, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary3;

A prior review before fracking begins must be carried out to assess
seismic risk and the existence of faults;
A fracking plan must be submitted to DECC showing how seismic risks will
be addressed;
Seismic monitoring must be carried out before, during and after fracking;
A new traffic light system to categorise seismic activity and direct
appropriate responses. A trigger mechanism will stop fracking operations
in certain conditions.
Since then Cuadrilla have wasted no time working closely with the
authorities and according to the BBC4 have already submitted a planning
application in December of 2012, to frack a well in Anna's Road site in
Westby.

http://www.nnsl.com/frames/newspaper...c2_13chem.html

The corporation was required to submit the management plan within 60
days prior to the commencement of its operations.

Within 30 days of the completion of fracking operations, the corporation
will be required to submit a list of additives and total water volumes
used in each well.

The Sahtu Land and Water Board introduced filing requirements for
companies fracking in the NWT, which call for companies to disclose the
chemicals they plan to use in fracking to the National Energy Board
either before or soon after they drill.

On 9/12/2014 5:32 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:11:26 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2014 2:23 PM, wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:00:42 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:47:20 -0300, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In my part of Canada we could boast that we have prevented
>>>>> them from starting in on fracking, we were being told it was okay
>>>>> because they are doing it all the time in the great USA. We didn't
>>>>> listen.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully Canada won't start letting billionaires and mega
>>>> corporations take over the government the way we have allow in the
>>>> USA.
>>>
>>> I believe there is fracking out west but this time, for once, our
>>> provincial politicians were feeling jumpy about gatherings of
>>> 'anti-fracking' people - they called for an enquiry and it really
>>> didn't go their way, turned out the return is often not great and yes,
>>> it does affect the water tables. You don't go far from
>>> Halifax/Dartmouth area to be on well water!
>>>
>> As long as the stratum being fracked is a confined one, there is no problem.
>>
>> Maybe your drillers aren't using sound geology.
>
> They aren't getting the chance to make a mistake, even better!
>
Iow, damn the science just obstruct?

I do hope you do not use any products even tangentially related to
natural gas or oil.

Because if you do, it's hypocrisy.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:

>On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>> Graham
>
>Point taken.

Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...

On 9/12/2014 5:52 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>> Graham
>>
>> Point taken.
>
> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>
It's always been a long running battle between corporations and greenies.

If you think they aren't regulated, blocked, taxed, etc. you're not
being realistic.

And as big a resource play as Oz is you ought to know better.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:56:34 -0600, Mayo > wrote:

>On 9/12/2014 5:52 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>> Graham
>>>
>>> Point taken.
>>
>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>
>It's always been a long running battle between corporations and greenies.

LOL, a very one-sided battle, more like.

>If you think they aren't regulated, blocked, taxed, etc. you're not
>being realistic.

How could they not be without causing outrage across all sectors of
society. That's a silly thing to say. You say that as though they're
struggling to stay in business.

>And as big a resource play as Oz is you ought to know better.

I know better than you when it comes to Australia, clearly. You also
seem to assume that they always know what they're doing, even in
respect to what's best for themselves. Frequently they don't. The
forestry industry in Tasmania is a perfect example of that.

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>> Graham
>>>
>>>Point taken.
>>
>>Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>
>I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>- are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>to the light.

Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
between us and them.

No, they don't *always* get their way - not straight away at least. If
they did, even the typical consumer/voter/TV watching public would get
up and do something about it. It's just done gradually.

Remember the proposed 'Australia Card', and the overwhelming outrage
over that plan? Now look at what we have! LOL... nothing compared to
what we have now.

On 9/12/2014 6:09 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:56:34 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2014 5:52 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>>> Point taken.
>>>
>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>
>> It's always been a long running battle between corporations and greenies.
>
> LOL, a very one-sided battle, more like.

That would depend on the venue.

But obviously energy production is critical enough that it can't simply
be obstructed willy nilly.

>> If you think they aren't regulated, blocked, taxed, etc. you're not
>> being realistic.
>
> How could they not be without causing outrage across all sectors of
> society. That's a silly thing to say. You say that as though they're
> struggling to stay in business.

No, I say it as though WE are struggling to replace politically unstable
ME oil with domestic production.

>> And as big a resource play as Oz is you ought to know better.
>
> I know better than you when it comes to Australia, clearly.

You should, yes.


> You also
> seem to assume that they always know what they're doing, even in
> respect to what's best for themselves.

Nope.

I know science and technology is a moving target.

> Frequently they don't. The
> forestry industry in Tasmania is a perfect example of that.

Well with any luck lessons have beene learned.

The Brazilian rain forest spoilage is another mess, but that is for food.

Does it make it any less a tragedy to lose the lungs of the planet if it
feeds empty stomachs?

On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:44:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:

> On 9/12/2014 5:29 PM, wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:05:17 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/12/2014 12:47 PM, wrote:
> >>> In my part of Canada we could boast that we have prevented
> >>> them from starting in on fracking, we were being told it was okay
> >>> because they are doing it all the time in the great USA. We didn't
> >>> listen.
> >>
> >>
> >> So what exactly has been the damage form fracking?
> >>
> >> Any cites?
> >>
> >> Do you know what a confined geologic stratum is?
> >
> > Yes I understand what fracking is, I understand that many have made a
> > lot of bucks from it but I also understand that the ordinary joe who
> > lives where fracking has taken place is left without clean water and
> > far less than they had before.
>
> The _only reason_ that might happen is if an unconfined stratum is fracked.
>
> Is that your assertion?
>
> > Lovely if you are the money maker,
> > not so great if you just happened to live nearby.
>
> What is your home to well pad spacing regulation?
>
> > They will have to prove to me the land will be unharmed, or, that if
> > it is, they will be financially responsible to those people.
>
> And what would constitute proof of that?
>
> Would you accept a geologic cross section map and details of casing and
> chemicals injected?
>
> > Now when you offer them that deal, for some reason, they are suddenly
> > reluctant, that tells me everything.
>
> So you say without presenting the slightest bit of proof.
>
> Here's an example from the UK, which was opposed to any fracking, of
> what you might wish to look at:
>
> http://www.qemsolutions.com.au/news/...ing-fuss-about
>
> Fracking starts with a deep well (av. 8000ft) drilled into the shale
> formation. The well is lined with a multilayer cement casing to help
> prevent leaching and ground contamination. The casing is perforated
> using carefully placed explosives. Large quantities of fracking fluid
> (1-8 million gallons per well) is pumped into the shale at extremely
> high pressures (9000 – 15000psi) in multiple stages.
>
> The injection pressure forces the fracking fluid into the fissures and
> the sand within the fluid props open the fissure and additional fluid is
> injected to maintain the fissure formation. The well may be fractured in
> stages dependent on environment and plugged/opened in stages as
> required. Eventually the well is depressurised and the gas laden waste
> fracking fluid is returned to the surface. The gas is then recovered and
> separated from the waste fracking fluid.
>
> The government announced in mid-December 2012 that exploratory fracking
> for shale gas could resume in the UK, subject to new controls outlined
> by Ed Davey, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary3;
>
> A prior review before fracking begins must be carried out to assess
> seismic risk and the existence of faults;
> A fracking plan must be submitted to DECC showing how seismic risks will
> be addressed;
> Seismic monitoring must be carried out before, during and after fracking;
> A new traffic light system to categorise seismic activity and direct
> appropriate responses. A trigger mechanism will stop fracking operations
> in certain conditions.
> Since then Cuadrilla have wasted no time working closely with the
> authorities and according to the BBC4 have already submitted a planning
> application in December of 2012, to frack a well in Anna's Road site in
> Westby.
>
> http://www.nnsl.com/frames/newspaper...c2_13chem.html
>
> The corporation was required to submit the management plan within 60
> days prior to the commencement of its operations.
>
> Within 30 days of the completion of fracking operations, the corporation
> will be required to submit a list of additives and total water volumes
> used in each well.
>
> The Sahtu Land and Water Board introduced filing requirements for
> companies fracking in the NWT, which call for companies to disclose the
> chemicals they plan to use in fracking to the National Energy Board
> either before or soon after they drill.

Do you work for BP by any chance? You know how much they can be
trusted.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 9/12/2014 6:18 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>> Graham
>>>
>>> Point taken.
>>
>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>
> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
> to the light.
>

Because it produces tax revenues, employs residents, and produces
gas/oil in a far less environmentally impactful manner than more
traditional methods of extraction.

On 9/12/2014 6:43 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>>> Point taken.
>>>
>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>
>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>> to the light.
>
> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
> between us and them.

That's not wholly different from here, btw.

> No, they don't *always* get their way - not straight away at least. If
> they did, even the typical consumer/voter/TV watching public would get
> up and do something about it. It's just done gradually.

Frog in water, yes.

> Remember the proposed 'Australia Card', and the overwhelming outrage
> over that plan? Now look at what we have! LOL... nothing compared to
> what we have now.

Can you explain for us non-Aussies?

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:17:52 +1000, JohnJohn >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>
>>>>>Point taken.
>>>>
>>>>Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>
>>>I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>- are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>to the light.
>>
>>Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>between us and them.
>
>Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.

You won't believe this - but I lump them in the same category as Labor
or Liberal. They seem a lot less concerned with green issues as they
do with pushing socialist/nanny state issues. I'll never forget Bob
Brown's support for a one-world government:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/br...629-1gqz1.html
Since then - he denies having said it. Reminds me of somebody else
around here... I would dearly love them to be a real alternative -
but they're not.

>>No, they don't *always* get their way - not straight away at least. If
>>they did, even the typical consumer/voter/TV watching public would get
>>up and do something about it. It's just done gradually.
>
>>Remember the proposed 'Australia Card', and the overwhelming outrage
>>over that plan?
>
>That's from before my time.

Really? You're a lot younger than I thought.

>>Now look at what we have! LOL... nothing compared to
>>what we have now.
>
>Tax File Number? Medicare card?

Everything is linked now anyway, whereas in the past most personal
data between departments was not shared - by law. The idea of the
Australia card was to have a single I.D which links all data from all
departments. Well, we have that now, without an Australia card.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Card

On 9/12/2014 6:49 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:44:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2014 5:29 PM, wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:05:17 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/12/2014 12:47 PM, wrote:
>>>>> In my part of Canada we could boast that we have prevented
>>>>> them from starting in on fracking, we were being told it was okay
>>>>> because they are doing it all the time in the great USA. We didn't
>>>>> listen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what exactly has been the damage form fracking?
>>>>
>>>> Any cites?
>>>>
>>>> Do you know what a confined geologic stratum is?
>>>
>>> Yes I understand what fracking is, I understand that many have made a
>>> lot of bucks from it but I also understand that the ordinary joe who
>>> lives where fracking has taken place is left without clean water and
>>> far less than they had before.
>>
>> The _only reason_ that might happen is if an unconfined stratum is fracked.
>>
>> Is that your assertion?
>>
>>> Lovely if you are the money maker,
>>> not so great if you just happened to live nearby.
>>
>> What is your home to well pad spacing regulation?
>>
>>> They will have to prove to me the land will be unharmed, or, that if
>>> it is, they will be financially responsible to those people.
>>
>> And what would constitute proof of that?
>>
>> Would you accept a geologic cross section map and details of casing and
>> chemicals injected?
>>
>>> Now when you offer them that deal, for some reason, they are suddenly
>>> reluctant, that tells me everything.
>>
>> So you say without presenting the slightest bit of proof.
>>
>> Here's an example from the UK, which was opposed to any fracking, of
>> what you might wish to look at:
>>
>> http://www.qemsolutions.com.au/news/...ing-fuss-about
>>
>> Fracking starts with a deep well (av. 8000ft) drilled into the shale
>> formation. The well is lined with a multilayer cement casing to help
>> prevent leaching and ground contamination. The casing is perforated
>> using carefully placed explosives. Large quantities of fracking fluid
>> (1-8 million gallons per well) is pumped into the shale at extremely
>> high pressures (9000 – 15000psi) in multiple stages.
>>
>> The injection pressure forces the fracking fluid into the fissures and
>> the sand within the fluid props open the fissure and additional fluid is
>> injected to maintain the fissure formation. The well may be fractured in
>> stages dependent on environment and plugged/opened in stages as
>> required. Eventually the well is depressurised and the gas laden waste
>> fracking fluid is returned to the surface. The gas is then recovered and
>> separated from the waste fracking fluid.
>>
>> The government announced in mid-December 2012 that exploratory fracking
>> for shale gas could resume in the UK, subject to new controls outlined
>> by Ed Davey, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary3;
>>
>> A prior review before fracking begins must be carried out to assess
>> seismic risk and the existence of faults;
>> A fracking plan must be submitted to DECC showing how seismic risks will
>> be addressed;
>> Seismic monitoring must be carried out before, during and after fracking;
>> A new traffic light system to categorise seismic activity and direct
>> appropriate responses. A trigger mechanism will stop fracking operations
>> in certain conditions.
>> Since then Cuadrilla have wasted no time working closely with the
>> authorities and according to the BBC4 have already submitted a planning
>> application in December of 2012, to frack a well in Anna's Road site in
>> Westby.
>>
>> http://www.nnsl.com/frames/newspaper...c2_13chem.html
>>
>> The corporation was required to submit the management plan within 60
>> days prior to the commencement of its operations.
>>
>> Within 30 days of the completion of fracking operations, the corporation
>> will be required to submit a list of additives and total water volumes
>> used in each well.
>>
>> The Sahtu Land and Water Board introduced filing requirements for
>> companies fracking in the NWT, which call for companies to disclose the
>> chemicals they plan to use in fracking to the National Energy Board
>> either before or soon after they drill.
>
> Do you work for BP by any chance?

Nope.

> You know how much they can be trusted.

As much as Exxon.

On 9/12/2014 7:17 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>
>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>
>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>
>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>> to the light.
>>
>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>> between us and them.
>
> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.

And if they throttle your economy to a standstill?

>> No, they don't *always* get their way - not straight away at least. If
>> they did, even the typical consumer/voter/TV watching public would get
>> up and do something about it. It's just done gradually.
>
>> Remember the proposed 'Australia Card', and the overwhelming outrage
>> over that plan?
>
> That's from before my time.
>
>> Now look at what we have! LOL... nothing compared to
>> what we have now.
>
> Tax File Number? Medicare card?
>

On 9/12/2014 7:20 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:50:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2014 6:18 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>
>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>
>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>
>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>> to the light.
>>>
>>
>> Because it produces tax revenues, employs residents, and produces
>> gas/oil in a far less environmentally impactful manner than more
>> traditional methods of extraction.
>
> Yes, that's the one-sided pro story.

No, it's reality.

> But, regardless, politicians
> should do what people want, especially their potential voters.

Even if people are ill-informed, emotional, and illogocal?


> And they're all against. End of story, you'd hope.


"All"?

Seriously?

You have some polling on that?

On 9/12/2014 7:45 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> Everything is linked now anyway, whereas in the past most personal
> data between departments was not shared - by law. The idea of the
> Australia card was to have a single I.D which links all data from all
> departments. Well, we have that now, without an Australia card.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Card

Thanks for the backgrounder.

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:21:35 +1000, JohnJohn >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:45:28 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:17:52 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Point taken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>
>>>>>I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>- are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>to the light.
>>>>
>>>>Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>>usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>>between us and them.
>>>
>>>Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>>controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>
>>You won't believe this - but I lump them in the same category as Labor
>>or Liberal. They seem a lot less concerned with green issues as they
>>do with pushing socialist/nanny state issues. I'll never forget Bob
>>Brown's support for a one-world government:
>>http://www.theage.com.au/national/br...629-1gqz1.html
>>Since then - he denies having said it. Reminds me of somebody else
>>around here... I would dearly love them to be a real alternative -
>>but they're not.
>
>Bob's retired, unfortunately. But what then? Donkey vote or an
>independent?

Well, there's the rub. The average voter always thinks in those terms.
So nothing will change for the foreseeable future.
Coke or Pepsi - Labor or Liberal. Choose your brand of empty calories
<G>. Or maybe carob flavoured soy milk if you like the Greens.

I'd prefer to see independents - even the ones I have no time for,
even if they do make big mistakes. I am ready and willing to take the
risk. Of course, outside forces won't let this happen anyway. The last
government we had that wasn't a 'team player' was ousted and our PM
was sacked.

>>>>Remember the proposed 'Australia Card', and the overwhelming outrage
>>>>over that plan?
>>>
>>>That's from before my time.
>>
>>Really? You're a lot younger than I thought.
>
>I mean, from before I moved to Australia.

Eww. A boat person

>>>>Now look at what we have! LOL... nothing compared to
>>>>what we have now.
>>>
>>>Tax File Number? Medicare card?
>>
>>Everything is linked now anyway, whereas in the past most personal
>>data between departments was not shared - by law. The idea of the
>>Australia card was to have a single I.D which links all data from all
>>departments. Well, we have that now, without an Australia card.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Card
>
>If it would stop tax evasion or Jihadists coming back to Australia, is
>it that bad?

Do you *really* think they are real issues of significance, especially
when there were/are mechanisms in place to deal with those anyway?
Not that Jihadists were an issue in 1985, anyway (no need for them
back then, as we already had communism to perform duties as the evil,
horrible bogeyman).

And of course, it would do nothing about the real tax avoidance that
harms us, namely from corporate sources.

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:16:35 +1000, JohnJohn >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:58:40 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:21:35 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:45:28 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>You won't believe this - but I lump them in the same category as Labor
>>>>or Liberal. They seem a lot less concerned with green issues as they
>>>>do with pushing socialist/nanny state issues. I'll never forget Bob
>>>>Brown's support for a one-world government:
>>>>http://www.theage.com.au/national/br...629-1gqz1.html
>>>>Since then - he denies having said it. Reminds me of somebody else
>>>>around here... I would dearly love them to be a real alternative -
>>>>but they're not.
>>>
>>>Bob's retired, unfortunately. But what then? Donkey vote or an
>>>independent?
>>
>>Well, there's the rub. The average voter always thinks in those terms.
>>So nothing will change for the foreseeable future.
>>Coke or Pepsi - Labor or Liberal. Choose your brand of empty calories
>><G>. Or maybe carob flavoured soy milk if you like the Greens.
>
>I'll take the skimmed organic soy milk with Bolivian fair trade
>mountain honey.

GAG!

>>I'd prefer to see independents - even the ones I have no time for,
>>even if they do make big mistakes. I am ready and willing to take the
>>risk. Of course, outside forces won't let this happen anyway. The last
>>government we had that wasn't a 'team player' was ousted and our PM
>>was sacked.
>
>That must also have been before my time.

It was - the dismissal of our then Prime Minster, Gough Whitlam. The
crazy guy wanted to shut down the U.S bases in Australia. He sure
wasn't a 'team player' like we otherwise always had/have. Didn't go
down well with our real (external) government...

Of course, my above explanation isn't the official story of what led
to the dismissal.


>>Do you *really* think they are real issues of significance, especially
>>when there were/are mechanisms in place to deal with those anyway?
>>Not that Jihadists were an issue in 1985, anyway (no need for them
>>back then, as we already had communism to perform duties as the evil,
>>horrible bogeyman).
>
>I'm not sure what the pros and cons are. Would it be different from a
>social security number?

It would have been, at the time.

>Actually, if Abbott and Hockey are for it, I'm
>against it. I don't know how anyone can trust those two thugs.

Me neither, although I would argue that they merely have poor
image/presentation compared to say, how Gillard and Rudd did.
More transparently evil, let's just say.

On 9/12/2014 8:22 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:53:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2014 7:17 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>
>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>> to the light.
>>>>
>>>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>> between us and them.
>>>
>>> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>
>> And if they throttle your economy to a standstill?
>
> Then we all start building windmills to re-activate the economy.
>
They don't work when the wind stops blowing.

That's the peak load dilemma.

The answer is tidal power turbines.

Tides are constant.

But storage is key.

On 9/12/2014 8:26 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:55:56 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2014 7:20 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:50:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/12/2014 6:18 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>
>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because it produces tax revenues, employs residents, and produces
>>>> gas/oil in a far less environmentally impactful manner than more
>>>> traditional methods of extraction.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's the one-sided pro story.
>>
>> No, it's reality.
>
> It's one side of the story and more than 90% of people here believed
> the other side. The remaining 10% are probably undecided or mentally
> ill

So the group think rules?

Sad.

Lemmings always find cliffs.

>
>>> But, regardless, politicians
>>> should do what people want, especially their potential voters.
>>
>> Even if people are ill-informed, emotional, and illogocal?
>
> Even then. That's democracy.
>
No, that's social fratricide.

On 9/12/2014 8:58 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:21:35 +1000, JohnJohn >
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:45:28 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:17:52 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>>> between us and them.
>>>>
>>>> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>>> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>>
>>> You won't believe this - but I lump them in the same category as Labor
>>> or Liberal. They seem a lot less concerned with green issues as they
>>> do with pushing socialist/nanny state issues. I'll never forget Bob
>>> Brown's support for a one-world government:
>>> http://www.theage.com.au/national/br...629-1gqz1.html
>>> Since then - he denies having said it. Reminds me of somebody else
>>> around here... I would dearly love them to be a real alternative -
>>> but they're not.
>>
>> Bob's retired, unfortunately. But what then? Donkey vote or an
>> independent?
>
> Well, there's the rub. The average voter always thinks in those terms.
> So nothing will change for the foreseeable future.
> Coke or Pepsi - Labor or Liberal. Choose your brand of empty calories
> <G>. Or maybe carob flavoured soy milk if you like the Greens.
>
> I'd prefer to see independents - even the ones I have no time for,
> even if they do make big mistakes. I am ready and willing to take the
> risk. Of course, outside forces won't let this happen anyway. The last
> government we had that wasn't a 'team player' was ousted and our PM
> was sacked.
>
>>>>> Remember the proposed 'Australia Card', and the overwhelming outrage
>>>>> over that plan?
>>>>
>>>> That's from before my time.
>>>
>>> Really? You're a lot younger than I thought.
>>
>> I mean, from before I moved to Australia.
>
> Eww. A boat person
>
>>>>> Now look at what we have! LOL... nothing compared to
>>>>> what we have now.
>>>>
>>>> Tax File Number? Medicare card?
>>>
>>> Everything is linked now anyway, whereas in the past most personal
>>> data between departments was not shared - by law. The idea of the
>>> Australia card was to have a single I.D which links all data from all
>>> departments. Well, we have that now, without an Australia card.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Card
>>
>> If it would stop tax evasion or Jihadists coming back to Australia, is
>> it that bad?
>
> Do you *really* think they are real issues of significance, especially
> when there were/are mechanisms in place to deal with those anyway?
> Not that Jihadists were an issue in 1985, anyway (no need for them
> back then, as we already had communism to perform duties as the evil,
> horrible bogeyman).

What is Pol Pot for $400 in the killing fields?


> And of course, it would do nothing about the real tax avoidance that
> harms us, namely from corporate sources.

IS communism immune to taxation?

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:05:12 +1000, JohnJohn >
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:56:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>>On 9/12/2014 8:22 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:53:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:17 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>>>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>>>> between us and them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>>>> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>>>
>>>> And if they throttle your economy to a standstill?
>>>
>>> Then we all start building windmills to re-activate the economy.
>>>
>>They don't work when the wind stops blowing.
>>
>>That's the peak load dilemma.
>>
>>The answer is tidal power turbines.
>>
>>Tides are constant.
>
>Sounds good. Is there anything against that? A nearly extinct tidal
>slug maybe?
>
>>But storage is key.
>
>Yes, batteries, nanobatteries.

Or hydro power, which works very well here.

On 9/12/2014 10:05 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:56:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2014 8:22 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:53:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:17 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>>>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>>>> between us and them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>>>> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>>>
>>>> And if they throttle your economy to a standstill?
>>>
>>> Then we all start building windmills to re-activate the economy.
>>>
>> They don't work when the wind stops blowing.
>>
>> That's the peak load dilemma.
>>
>> The answer is tidal power turbines.
>>
>> Tides are constant.
>
> Sounds good. Is there anything against that? A nearly extinct tidal
> slug maybe?

Not that I know of, no.

>> But storage is key.
>
> Yes, batteries, nanobatteries.

Lithium is the next resource war.

On 9/12/2014 10:10 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:58:22 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2014 8:26 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:55:56 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:20 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:50:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 6:18 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it produces tax revenues, employs residents, and produces
>>>>>> gas/oil in a far less environmentally impactful manner than more
>>>>>> traditional methods of extraction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's the one-sided pro story.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's reality.
>>>
>>> It's one side of the story and more than 90% of people here believed
>>> the other side. The remaining 10% are probably undecided or mentally
>>> ill
>>
>> So the group think rules?
>>
>> Sad.
>>
>> Lemmings always find cliffs.
>
> "Nobody wants it, so let's do it!" Sounds a bit strange, doesn't it?

No.

Sounds like what happens.


>>>>> But, regardless, politicians
>>>>> should do what people want, especially their potential voters.
>>>>
>>>> Even if people are ill-informed, emotional, and illogocal?
>>>
>>> Even then. That's democracy.
>>>
>> No, that's social fratricide.
>
> Sometimes it's the same thing. When Bush Jr gets elected, for
> instance.

Not YOUR nation, and not YOUR call to make, capisce?

On 9/12/2014 10:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:05:12 +1000, JohnJohn >
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:56:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/12/2014 8:22 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:53:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:17 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>>>>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>>>>> between us and them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>>>>> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if they throttle your economy to a standstill?
>>>>
>>>> Then we all start building windmills to re-activate the economy.
>>>>
>>> They don't work when the wind stops blowing.
>>>
>>> That's the peak load dilemma.
>>>
>>> The answer is tidal power turbines.
>>>
>>> Tides are constant.
>>
>> Sounds good. Is there anything against that? A nearly extinct tidal
>> slug maybe?
>>
>>> But storage is key.
>>
>> Yes, batteries, nanobatteries.
>
> Or hydro power, which works very well here.
>
In _some_ locales, but isn't drought a factor?

On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:27:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:

>On 9/12/2014 10:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:05:12 +1000, JohnJohn >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:56:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/12/2014 8:22 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:53:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:17 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>>>>>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>>>>>> between us and them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>>>>>> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if they throttle your economy to a standstill?
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we all start building windmills to re-activate the economy.
>>>>>
>>>> They don't work when the wind stops blowing.
>>>>
>>>> That's the peak load dilemma.
>>>>
>>>> The answer is tidal power turbines.
>>>>
>>>> Tides are constant.
>>>
>>> Sounds good. Is there anything against that? A nearly extinct tidal
>>> slug maybe?
>>>
>>>> But storage is key.
>>>
>>> Yes, batteries, nanobatteries.
>>
>> Or hydro power, which works very well here.
>>
>In _some_ locales, but isn't drought a factor?

Well, obviously not! Otherwise it wouldn't work very well here, would
it? The entire state runs on hydro power - for those on the grid,
anyway. Mine is home made and combined with solar panels. I do use
batteries for the solar of course.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:26:48 -0600, Mayo > wrote:

>On 9/12/2014 10:10 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:58:22 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/12/2014 8:26 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:55:56 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:20 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:50:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>> But, regardless, politicians
>>>>>> should do what people want, especially their potential voters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if people are ill-informed, emotional, and illogocal?
>>>>
>>>> Even then. That's democracy.
>>>>
>>> No, that's social fratricide.
>>
>> Sometimes it's the same thing. When Bush Jr gets elected, for
>> instance.
>
>Not YOUR nation, and not YOUR call to make, capisce?

Your government is by extention ours (and other nations) as well. You
guys don't seem to appreciate that.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:23:40 -0600, Mayo > wrote:

>On 9/12/2014 10:05 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:56:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/12/2014 8:22 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:53:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:17 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>>>>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>>>>> between us and them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>>>>> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if they throttle your economy to a standstill?
>>>>
>>>> Then we all start building windmills to re-activate the economy.
>>>>
>>> They don't work when the wind stops blowing.
>>>
>>> That's the peak load dilemma.
>>>
>>> The answer is tidal power turbines.
>>>
>>> Tides are constant.
>>
>> Sounds good. Is there anything against that? A nearly extinct tidal
>> slug maybe?
>
>Not that I know of, no.
>
>>> But storage is key.
>>
>> Yes, batteries, nanobatteries.
>
>Lithium is the next resource war.

No, water is. Well, it already is, come to think of it.

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:54:02 +1000, JohnJohn >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:37:43 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:27:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/12/2014 10:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:05:12 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:56:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 8:22 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:53:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:17 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>>>>>>>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>>>>>>>> between us and them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>>>>>>>> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And if they throttle your economy to a standstill?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then we all start building windmills to re-activate the economy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> They don't work when the wind stops blowing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the peak load dilemma.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The answer is tidal power turbines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tides are constant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds good. Is there anything against that? A nearly extinct tidal
>>>>> slug maybe?
>>>>>
>>>>>> But storage is key.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, batteries, nanobatteries.
>>>>
>>>> Or hydro power, which works very well here.
>>>>
>>>In _some_ locales, but isn't drought a factor?
>>
>>Well, obviously not! Otherwise it wouldn't work very well here, would
>>it? The entire state runs on hydro power - for those on the grid,
>>anyway. Mine is home made and combined with solar panels. I do use
>>batteries for the solar of course.
>
>Are those batteries available for Joe Homeowner? I thought they were
>still in the early stage.

Sorry, no, I didn't mean to say I had nanobatteries. Just ordinary
batteries.

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:52:13 +1000, JohnJohn >
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:27:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>>On 9/12/2014 10:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:05:12 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:56:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/2014 8:22 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:53:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:17 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>>>>>>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>>>>>>> between us and them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>>>>>>> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if they throttle your economy to a standstill?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then we all start building windmills to re-activate the economy.
>>>>>>
>>>>> They don't work when the wind stops blowing.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the peak load dilemma.
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer is tidal power turbines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tides are constant.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds good. Is there anything against that? A nearly extinct tidal
>>>> slug maybe?
>>>>
>>>>> But storage is key.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, batteries, nanobatteries.
>>>
>>> Or hydro power, which works very well here.
>>>
>>In _some_ locales, but isn't drought a factor?
>
>Not where I lived in Tasmania.

Probably thinks it's all like the 'outback' here
That said, this coming summer is shaping up to be a relatively dry
one.

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 15:42:23 +1000, JohnJohn >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 15:01:50 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:54:02 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:37:43 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:27:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 9/12/2014 10:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:05:12 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:56:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 8:22 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:53:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:17 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>>>>>>>>>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>>>>>>>>>> between us and them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>>>>>>>>>> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And if they throttle your economy to a standstill?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then we all start building windmills to re-activate the economy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They don't work when the wind stops blowing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's the peak load dilemma.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The answer is tidal power turbines.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tides are constant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds good. Is there anything against that? A nearly extinct tidal
>>>>>>> slug maybe?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But storage is key.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, batteries, nanobatteries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or hydro power, which works very well here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>In _some_ locales, but isn't drought a factor?
>>>>
>>>>Well, obviously not! Otherwise it wouldn't work very well here, would
>>>>it? The entire state runs on hydro power - for those on the grid,
>>>>anyway. Mine is home made and combined with solar panels. I do use
>>>>batteries for the solar of course.
>>>
>>>Are those batteries available for Joe Homeowner? I thought they were
>>>still in the early stage.
>>
>>Sorry, no, I didn't mean to say I had nanobatteries. Just ordinary
>>batteries.
>
>I meant any batteries. So we can store daytime solar for use after
>dark?

Umm, yes You use solar panels to charge the batteries, then an
inverter to convert it 230-250VAC (for Aus).

Even just a really good truck battery can give you enough power for
one night, depending on what you're using, of course.

The 'proper' batteries are still very expensive, but nowhere near
expensive as they once were, and are far more efficient into the
bargain. There isn't a specific 'solar' battery, really.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:51:07 -0600, Mayo > wrote:

> > Do you work for BP by any chance?
>
> Nope.
>
> > You know how much they can be trusted.
>
> As much as Exxon.

Heh, what a recommendation!


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>> On 9/12/2014 2:23 PM, wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:00:42 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:47:20 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In my part of Canada we could boast that we have prevented
>>>>>> them from starting in on fracking, we were being told it was okay
>>>>>> because they are doing it all the time in the great USA. We didn't
>>>>>> listen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully Canada won't start letting billionaires and mega
>>>>> corporations take over the government the way we have allow in the
>>>>> USA.
>>>>
>>>> I believe there is fracking out west but this time, for once, our
>>>> provincial politicians were feeling jumpy about gatherings of
>>>> 'anti-fracking' people - they called for an enquiry and it really
>>>> didn't go their way, turned out the return is often not great and yes,
>>>> it does affect the water tables. You don't go far from
>>>> Halifax/Dartmouth area to be on well water!
>>>>
>>> As long as the stratum being fracked is a confined one, there is no
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> Maybe your drillers aren't using sound geology.
>>
>> I'm afraid not! It has come about from the scare tactics and LIES that
>> Greenpeace and its allies have propagated.
>
> You think?
>
> The same thing goes on here.
>
>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>> Graham
>
>
> Point taken.

I know I have said so before, but Graham is a Geologist and has been in the
business for many year.



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
> On 9/12/2014 7:20 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:50:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/12/2014 6:18 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the
>>>>>>> company
>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>
>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>> to the light.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because it produces tax revenues, employs residents, and produces
>>> gas/oil in a far less environmentally impactful manner than more
>>> traditional methods of extraction.
>>
>> Yes, that's the one-sided pro story.
>
> No, it's reality.
>
>> But, regardless, politicians
>> should do what people want, especially their potential voters.
>
> Even if people are ill-informed, emotional, and illogocal?
>
>
>> And they're all against. End of story, you'd hope.
>
>
> "All"?
>
> Seriously?
>
> You have some polling on that?

It will be interesting to see (if I am still around which I hope not) if
they win, how they will cope when all fuel is spent because there is no
where else to obtain any. Windmills? How many millions will that take and
what happens when the wind isn't blowing. The other answer is nuclear but
the greens wouldn't be happy with that either. There is tidal but how many
tides are there in the huge areas across USA and Aus?

Perhaps they should start praying that their god will provide!

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/