NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_field_shutdown_11



Major Alaskan oil field shutting down By MARY PEMBERTON, Associated Press Writer
24 minutes ago



In a sudden blow to the nation's oil supply, half the production on Alaska's North Slope was being shut down Sunday after BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. discovered severe corrosion in a Prudhoe Bay oil transit line.

BP officials said they didn't know how long the Prudhoe Bay field would be off line. "I don't even know how long it's going to take to shut it down," said Tom Williams, BP's senior tax and royalty counsel.

Once the field is shut down, in a process expected to take days, BP said oil production will be reduced by 400,000 barrels a day. That's close to 8 percent of U.S. oil production as of May 2006 or about 2.6 percent of U.S. supply including imports, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The shutdown comes at an already worrisome time for the oil industry, with supply concerns stemming both from the hurricane season and instability in the Middle East.

"We regret that it is necessary to take this action and we apologize to the nation and the State of Alaska for the adverse impacts it will cause," BP America Chairman and President Bob Malone said in a statement.

A 400,000-barrel per day reduction in output would have a major impact on oil prices, said Tetsu Emori, chief commodities strategist at Mitsui Bussan Futures in Tokyo.

"Oil prices could increase by as much as $10 per barrel given the current environment," Emori said. "But we can't really say for sure how big an effect this is going to have until we have more exact figures about how much production is going to be reduced."

Victor Shum, an energy analyst with Purvin & Gertz in Singapore, said he expected the impact to be minimal.

"The U.S. market is actually well-supplied; crude inventories are very high," he said. "So while this won't have any immediate impact on U.S. supplies, the market is in very high anxiety. So any significant disruption, traders will take that into account, even though there is no threat of a supply shortage."

Light, sweet crude for September delivery was up 36 cents to $74.95 a barrel in midmorning Asian electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Malone said the field will not resume operating until the company and government regulators are satisfied it can run safely without threatening the environment.

Officials at BP, a unit of the London-based company BP PLC, learned Friday that data from an internal sensing device found 16 anomalies in 12 locations in an oil transit line on the eastern side of the field. Follow-up inspections found "corrosion-related wall thinning appeared to exceed BP criteria for continued operation," the company said in a release.

Steve Marshall, president of BP Exploration Alaska, Inc., said at an Anchorage news conference that testing in the 16 areas found losses in wall thickness of between 70 and 81 percent. Repair or replacement is required if there is over an 80 percent loss.

"The results were absolutely unexpected," he said.

Marshall said Sunday night that the eastern side of Prudhoe Bay would be shut down first, an operation anticipated to take 24 to 36 hours. The company will then move to shut down the west side, a move that could close more than 1,000 Prudhoe Bay wells.

Marshall said BP is looking at repairing, bypassing or totally replacing the line.

Only one of BP's three transit lines is operating. The third was shut down in March after up to 267,000 gallons of oil spilled. BP installed a bypass on that line in April with plans to replace the pipe.

While they suspect corrosion in both damaged lines, they can't say for sure until further tests are complete. Corrosion is primarily caused by carbon dioxide that comes up with water, oil and gas during drilling.

BP puts millions of gallons of corrosion inhibitor into the Prudhoe Bay lines each year. It also examines pipes by taking X-rays and ultrasound images.

"Up until Friday of this weekend we were of the opinion the techniques we were using were ultimately reliable," Marshall said.

Workers also found a small spill, estimated to be about 4 to 5 barrels. A barrel contains 42 gallons of crude oil. The spill has been contained and clean up efforts are under way, BP said. "Our production while all this is in place is going to be marginal," said Will Vandergriff, spokesman for Gov. Frank Murkowski. "That presents some technical problems because it's a high capacity line and it's meant to be filled."

Vandergriff said he did not know exactly what potential problems a sudden drop in oil flow might cause the pipeline. Alyeska Pipeline Co. officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

A prolonged shutdown would be a major blow to domestic oil production, but even a short one could be crippling to Alaska's economy.

According to forecast figures from the Alaska Department of Revenue, a 400,000 barrels of oil per day production drop would mean approximately $4.6 million per day lost to the state. That is money going to both the state treasury and the state's oil wealth savings account, the Alaska Permanent Fund.

"That starts adding up to big bucks in a hurry," said House Finance Co-Chairman Mike Chenault, R-Nikiski. "It could start having a disastrous effect on the state as early as today."

BP said it was sending additional resources from across the state and North America to hasten the inspection of the remaining transit lines. About 40 percent of the lines have been inspected.

BP previously said it would replace a 3-mile segment of pipeline following inspections conducted after up to 267,000 gallons of oil spilled onto the frozen ground about 250 miles above the Arctic Circle in March.

House Speaker John Harris said it was admirable that BP took immediate action, although it's sure to hurt state coffers.

"This state cannot afford to have another Exxon Valdez," said Harris, R-Valdez.

The Exxon Valdez tanker emptied 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound in 1989, killing hundreds of thousands of birds and marine animals and soiling more than 1,200 miles of rocky beach in nation's largest oil spill.



Great...How much do you bet that oil companies will use this as an excuse to push gas prices to $4.00 a gallon on average?:mad:

Ugh. That is great, even higher gas prices here we come.

Great, as if $3.45 wasn't high enough.

Damn, I would love to go back down to 3.45us/gallon (the lowest ive seen,, vancouver, bc, canada is around 4us/gallon (assuming 0.92cd/1us and 3.86L/usgal)) soo be glad while ya can,, and apperently (tho ive heard conflicting account from british ppl I see at work (a gas station shockin enuf) about whether 113.3 Cent/l (cdn) is a good or bad price,, I've heard a bit of both. When I see prices drop 6 or 7 Cents/Liter a day and go back up; tho, I think companies shouldnt play games and instead just go back to consistent pricing all day
M_H

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_field_shutdown_11







Great...How much do you bet that oil companies will use this as an excuse to push gas prices to $4.00 a gallon on average?:mad:

'S long as anyone with a networth of below one million quid, euros or dollars is still buying, it ain't high enough in MY book.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_field_shutdown_11







Great...How much do you bet that oil companies will use this as an excuse to push gas prices to $4.00 a gallon on average?:mad:

Buy a hybrid car.

Buy a hybrid car.
Damn right.

Buy a hybrid car.
And think you're saving the planet while in actual fact you're getting a lower mileage than a standard diesel.

Hybrids are fashion statements, and nothing more.

And think you're saving the planet while in actual fact you're getting a lower mileage than a standard diesel.

Hybrids are fashion statements, and nothing more.

What's wrong with teh fashion? :confused:

What's wrong with teh fashion? :confused:
It's followed by sheep with no brains.

It's followed by sheep with no brains.

But it's so fashionable. *drools*

But it's so fashionable. *drools*
Baaaaa.
http://www.mr-sheep.com/main_images/sheep.jpeg
:p

And think you're saving the planet while in actual fact you're getting a lower mileage than a standard diesel.

Source that. And if you pull out the motorcycle argument, you will be ostracized.

Source that. And if you pull out the motorcycle argument, you will be ostracized.
I beg your pardon? The Motorcycle argument being what, exactly?

It's followed by sheep with no brains.


Are you in favour of sheep having brains, oh Shepherd?
*tickles*

Baaaaa.
http://www.mr-sheep.com/main_images/sheep.jpeg
:p

Well *I* haven't bought a hybrid car. :)

And I'd check the figures if I were going to buy one.

Well *I* haven't bought a hybrid car. :)
Aw, but that means you can't well nice green wellies.

I beg your pardon? The Motorcycle argument being what, exactly?
A while back, a number of posters claimed that diesel cars were better than hybrids because diesel motorcycles got more miles per gallon than hybrid cars.

I'm still waiting on the source, by the way.

Fashion compared to actual fuel effiency (ive had customers report lower milage than my civic gets (i tend to sit around 30-35 mpg.. nominally i say 32 mpg american) with a warped head, and serious valve seal issues (I'm fairly certain my engine has a warped head, plus i think the head gasket between cylinders 1 and 2 have a head gasket leak) and average around 400km per 30L (eg 32 and 1/6 .. 32.1666666... (ad infinium) mpg) and i see hybrids getting similar or worse mileage and their newer (i run a 1.6L dual over head cam, 16 valve 4 banger, by marking a d16a6,, by guess its an engine outta an '88 honda crx, rather than the 90 civic si it should be) take thes guess the fashion statement is moot at best (and yes i live in an city persay, vancouver, BC, Canada where the civic should show some advantage compared to the normal 2L (accord style engine) and a the hybrids should show the main advantage. Specially seein as I regularly seem long distance travel milage in excess ito what hybrids show,, on my lil 1.6L engine.. (My family live a ferry and a 4h drive away at speed limits) live in new Westminster BC, family lives in Campbell River BC a 2 hr ferry ride away and than some.) <this is compared to a brand new civic hybrid, to my 90 Civic Si with the engine from an 88 Honda CRX,, I ended up spending around $20 less in fuel costs. Not including the Liter and a half of Oil my car burnt (10w-30,, gone 20w-50 and it burns less now)
m_h

A while back, a number of posters claimed that diesel cars were better than hybrids because diesel motorcycles got more miles per gallon than hybrid cars.

I'm still waiting on the source, by the way.
Sorry, I got distracted by motorbikes. I don't like motorbikes, so I had to ask what on earth you were talking about. :p

Toyota Prius: 67.3 MPG
Volkswagen Polo Diesel: 68.9 MPG
Ford Fiesta Diesel: 74.3 MPG
Renault Clio Diesel: 68.9 MPG

:O…

Look what I found:

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1096/zebraf3qshadowiv6.jpg

Fashionable and eco-friendly. :p

:O…

Look what I found:

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1096/zebraf3qshadowiv6.jpg

Fashionable and eco-friendly. :p
hmm...stylish.

hmm...stylish.

And damned useless for anyone who needs a vehicle to actually do something other than merely driving from Point A to Point B..

Sorry, I got distracted by motorbikes. I don't like motorbikes, so I had to ask what on earth you were talking about. :p

Toyota Prius: 67.3 MPG
Volkswagen Polo Diesel: 68.9 MPG
Ford Fiesta Diesel: 74.3 MPG
Renault Clio Diesel: 68.9 MPG
Look up the definition of the word "source" in the dictionary, since that sure as hell ain't one.

And damned useless for anyone who needs a vehicle to actually do something other than merely driving from Point A to Point B..
Well, it's only any good for that if point B is only three and a half feet away from point A. And there's a power point there to charge it up again.

Well, it's only any good for that if point B is only three and a half feet away from point A. And there's a power point there to charge it up again.

Lovely in cities though. :)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_field_shutdown_11
<press quote>
Great...How much do you bet that oil companies will use this as an excuse to push gas prices to $4.00 a gallon on average?:mad:

Excuse my ignorance, since I don't drive a car. So I don't get gas rage, or whatever it is you have.
You're angry that an oil company (BP, one of the biggies) has to do maintanence on it's facilities, reducing the supply of oil, and putting the price up?
Or, you just hate them blindly, while buying petrol off them?
Wazzup?

Look up the definition of the word "source" in the dictionary, since that sure as hell ain't one.
:rolleyes:

Look up the definition of the word "polite" in the dictionary, since that sure as hell ain't it.

I forgot to put the link up. You only had to ask.
http://www.whatcar.com/

Or perhaps you were trying to pretend it's not accurate information because it blows your argument out of the water so completely?

:O…

Look what I found:

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1096/zebraf3qshadowiv6.jpg

Fashionable and eco-friendly. :p

Where's the other one? ANd where do I insert my feet?

;)

:rolleyes:

Look up the definition of the word "polite" in the dictionary, since that sure as hell ain't it.

I forgot to put the link up. You only had to ask.
http://www.whatcar.com/

Or perhaps you were trying to pretend it's not accurate information because it blows your argument out of the water so completely?
So, your entire argument is based on a site that is not valid in debates?

Where's the other one? ANd where do I insert my feet?

;)

Where do you normally put your feet in zebras? :eek:

Where's the other one? ANd where do I insert my feet?
;)

:D Sure you can afford a pair, Goof?

So, your entire argument is based on a site that is not valid in debates?
Excuse me? Not valid in debates?

It is an independent car site that gives the official fuel consumption figures.

Deary me, this debating thing isn't your strong point, is it?

Where do you normally put your feet in zebras? :eek:

I'd draw you a picture, but its against forum rules. :eek:

So, your entire argument is based on a site that is not valid in debates?

It is also interesting that he didnt compare hybrid Lexus SUV or luxury sedan with other cars in respective classes. Or other hybrid versus non hybrid comparisons. I guess he thinks hybrid means Toyota Prius :) No wonder he will reach to his sheep conclusion....

:D Sure you can afford a pair, Goof?

Probably. :)

It is also interesting that he didnt compare hybrid Lexus SUV or luxury sedan with other cars in respective classes. Or other hybrid versus non hybrid comparisons. I guess he thinks hybrid means Toyota Prius :) No wonder he will reach to his sheep conclusion....
I have no figures for the Lexus's, and seeing as the Prius is by far the most popular and widespread hybrid it is the most obvious car to use in comparison.

It's sad to see that you have swallowed the 'hybrid = better' argument so completely without actually thinking about it at all.

Excuse me? Not valid in debates?

It is an independent car site that gives the official fuel consumption figures.

Deary me, this debating thing isn't your strong point, is it?
Official fuel consumption figures are wrong, and it's well known. It's a commercial site. Scientific studies are valid. Commercial sites are not. A company's claim as to the performance of their car is not.

Great, as if $3.45 wasn't high enough.It's $3.97 over here. Quit bitchin' ;)

I have no figures for the Lexus's, and seeing as the Prius is by far the most popular and widespread hybrid it is the most obvious car to use in comparison.

It's sad to see that you have swallowed the 'hybrid = better' argument so completely without actually thinking about it at all.

LOL. You are the one who doesnt have the figure comparing hybrid SUVs (SUVs has a major percentage of market and any reduction of their oil usage will have considerable effects) vs non-hybrid ones. Hence you are in no position to suggest I'm not thinking since you are the one equating hybrid with Prius.

Official fuel consumption figures are wrong, and it's well known. It's a commercial site. Scientific studies are valid. Commercial sites are not. A company's claim as to the performance of their car is not.
I'm the first to accept that official fuel consumption figures are not particually accurate when it comes to real world performance, but it is the only way to compare cars. These are not manufacturers figures; they are tests conducted by the EU Body of Wasting Money, or something with a similar name.

If you don't like official figures, however, let's talk 'real world'.
I ran a Prius for six months. Having adapted to the car to use it regeneratively as much as possible, my overall average was 49mpg after six months and 5,000 miles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml;jsessionid=WNU4QVTA0EDPTQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/motoring/2006/08/05/mrjon05.xml

I'm the first to accept that official fuel consumption figures are not particually accurate when it comes to real world performance, but it is the only way to compare cars. These are not manufacturers figures; they are tests conducted by the EU Body of Wasting Money, or something with a similar name.

If you don't like official figures, however, let's talk 'real world'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml;jsessionid=WNU4QVTA0EDPTQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/motoring/2006/08/05/mrjon05.xml
Did I say I wanted anecdotal evidence? No. I said I wanted scientific studies, since those are the only things that are valid in this sort of debate.

LOL. You are the one who doesnt have the figure comparing hybrid SUVs (SUVs has a major percentage of market and any reduction of their oil usage will have considerable effects) vs non-hybrid ones. Hence you are in no position to suggest I'm not thinking since you are the one equating hybrid with Prius.
*Sigh*

ok then, Lexus RX400h (hybrid): 34.9 MPG. Lexus 350 (non hybrid): 25.2 MPG.
There is no diesel version, so this is also a pretty pointless comparison, in light of my original point.

Buy a hybrid. You can save the planet really, really, really slowly. :)

www.lexus.co.uk

Meh, I'd heard that some guys managed to get the prius to achieve over 100 mpg.

Anyway blanket mpg figures are an unfair comparison. If you're doing a lot of highway driving then a hybrid car is not for you as it has to carry extra weight, which won't be of any use at high speeds. However, if you spend most of your time stuck below 20mph in a city, or in first gear a lot then a hybrid car offers better fuel economy.

A diesel Polo gets 37 mpg in a city whereas the Prius gets 60 mpg. Simple, get the car that suits your needs.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=21884&browser=true
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=19813&browser=true

Did I say I wanted anecdotal evidence? No. I said I wanted scientific studies, since those are the only things that are valid in this sort of debate.
No, you don't seem to like anything actually. I provided you with evidence from official scientific studies, and you dismissed it.

*Sigh*

ok then, Lexus RX400h (hybrid): 34.9 MPG. Lexus 350 (non hybrid): 25.2 MPG.
There is no diesel version, so this is also a pretty pointless comparison, in light of my original point.

Buy a hybrid. You can save the planet really, really, really slowly. :)

www.lexus.co.uk

It's a step in the right direction and that silly joke in last sentence wont change the fact that you have been wrong during the whole thread :) , while actually calling hybrid drivers sheeps. Do you have to try this hard to be original as to take it to the point of not thinking? Or was the sheep comment meant to mask your limited knowledge and/or lack of thinking about this issue?

Anyway blanket mpg figures are an unfair comparison. If you're doing a lot of highway driving then a hybrid car is not for you as it has to carry extra weight, which won't be of any use at high speeds. However, if you spend most of your time stuck below 20mph in a city, or in first gear a lot then a hybrid car offers better fuel economy.
Official figures are misleading, but, like I say, the only way to compare cars like for like.

To prove the point, take this article:
Three cars missed the target by more than 10mpg, the worst "offender" being the Toyota Prius. The official figure for this car is 65.7mpg, but What Car? managed only 52.0mpg.

In a press release previewing the article, What Car? editor Steve Fowler said that "with fuel prices already topping £1 per litre in many places, fuel economy is an increasing concern for car buyers. But on average, they're having to pay £87 a year more than they'd expect based on car makers' claims - and that figure will only rise as fuel prices increase further.

"However, the fault lies not with the manufacturers, but the unrealistic method of testing cars' economy enforced by the EU. Tests are carried out in laboratories, not on roads, with only gentle acceleration and at high temperatures - very different to real-world driving conditions."
http://www.itv-motoring.com/news/2006/august/04/10966.asp

Hybrids might work in labs, but they don't work in reality.

It's a step in the right direction and that silly joke in last sentence wont change the fact that you have been wrong during the whole thread :) , while actually calling hybrid drivers sheeps. Do you have to try this hard to be original as to take it to the point of not thinking? Or was the sheep comment meant to mask your limited knowledge and/or lack of thinking about this issue?
Aw, how cute. The little troll is doing his straw dance because he doesn't have any arguments.

From a Phd, much reliable then a commercial car site...


Q8: What about the cost of hybrid models? Do they make obvious economic sense?
A8: In general the MSRP and dealer invoice prices of hybrid models seem to be about $3,000 to $5,000 more than their non-hybrid counterparts. (There is no such thing as a non-hybrid Prius or Insight.) With $3/gal. gasolene and an EPA city milage comparison of 50 mpg vs 30 mpg , you get $6,000 (hybrid) vs $10,000 (non-hybrid) for the total cost of gas to drive 100,000 miles. The incremental purchase cost is up front, while the gas savings is spread over at least several years of driving. So the decision to buy the hybrid is not obviously justified by fuel savings alone, unless the cost of gas rises well above the $3 level in the lifetime of the car. It's well known that ordinary cars seldom deliver EPA-rated milage performance. This is often attributable to poor driving habits and tire under-inflation, which would have a large detrimental effect on hybrid milage also. Driving green, as if you had a thorn sticking into the bottom of your right foot, may be the best way to save on gas expense.


http://www.weltycenter.org/energy3.htm

Aw, how cute. The little troll is doing his straw dance because he doesn't have any arguments.

No arguments? You must have misunderstood something again, as usual. :)

I went to visit my shrink, riding my squeaky bicycle with only one brake, today.
I still say I'm saner than anyone else in this thread.

From a Phd, much reliable then a commercial car site...
I couldn't have put it better myself. Driving sensibly is the best way to make real world savings.

Oh, and don't forget the survey's that factor in all environmental factors such as construction and transportation costs:

Hybrid vehicles use more energy than traditional petrol-powered cars and even some 'gas-guzzling' 4x4s, claims a new report published in the US.

CNW Marketing Research spent two years gathering US market data on how much energy a car uses over its lifetime, from initial development right through to disposal, then converted that energy usage into a cost per mile figure.

The report found that hybrids such as Toyota's Prius had an energy cost-per-mile figure of £1.83, while the Jeep Wrangler off-roader's was just 34p.http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=219584

I went to visit my shrink, riding my squeaky bicycle with only one brake, today.
I still say I'm saner than anyone else in this thread.
Wibble?

Official figures are misleading, but, like I say, the only way to compare cars like for like.

To prove the point, take this article:

http://www.itv-motoring.com/news/2006/august/04/10966.asp

Hybrids might work in labs, but they don't work in reality.They weren't official figures. The site collects statistics from US car users. Just like your site/source really.

But don't you think there's something wrong about these comparisons still. It's still comparing 'miles per gallon'. What's a gallon of electricity? How do you compare the efficieny of an electric engine and a diesel engine?

I couldn't have put it better myself. Driving sensibly is the best way to make real world savings.

Oh, and don't forget the survey's that factor in all environmental factors such as construction and transportation costs:

http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=219584

Some part of the energy required for the hybrid cars is produced by the electric motor which is enviromentally clean and doesnt use oil. That's the point :rolleyes: If a windmill powered home uses more energy than a coal plant powered home, is it a bad thing? :rolleyes:

Some part of the energy required for the hybrid cars is produced by the electric motor which is enviromentally clean and doesnt use oil. That's the point :rolleyes: If a windmill powered home uses more energy than a coal plant powered home, is it a bad thing? :rolleyes:
What's that got to do with the environmental costs of construction, transportation and disposal?

From a Phd, much reliable then a commercial car site...



http://www.weltycenter.org/energy3.htm
What part of "scientific study" do you not understand? That is not a scientific study.

Some part of the energy required for the hybrid cars is produced by the electric motor which is enviromentally clean and doesnt use oil. That's the point :rolleyes: If a windmill powered home uses more energy than a coal plant powered home, is it a bad thing? :rolleyes:


It ain't windmill powered - it comes from the same energygrid as the electricity that came from the coal powered one...

No, you don't seem to like anything actually. I provided you with evidence from official scientific studies, and you dismissed it.
No, you gave company figures and some random journalist's writings. Those are not scientific studies. A scientific study is a paper on a subject that has gone through the process of peer-review and has been published in a scientific journal.

Hybrid vehicles use more energy than traditional petrol-powered cars and even some 'gas-guzzling' 4x4s, claims a new report published in the US.

CNW Marketing Research spent two years gathering US market data on how much energy a car uses over its lifetime, from initial development right through to disposal, then converted that energy usage into a cost per mile figure.

The report found that hybrids such as Toyota's Prius had an energy cost-per-mile figure of £1.83, while the Jeep Wrangler off-roader's was just 34p.

Now, you're veering into the environmental impact side of cars. The production costs are already known to the driver of the car (they pay most of them at the showyard.)

Just stick to the cost to the motorist of operating the car, huh?

Now, you're veering into the environmental impact side of cars. The production costs are already known to the driver of the car (they pay most of them at the showyard.)

Just stick to the cost to the motorist of operating the car, huh?

So you mean 'externalise your costs'?

What's that got to do with the environmental costs of construction, transportation and disposal?

You should read what you are quoting. It wasnt that long. Or is this a typical misunderstanding case again? :)
From your source:


CNW Marketing Research spent two years gathering US market data on how much energy a car uses over its lifetime, from initial development right through to disposal, then converted that energy usage into a cost per mile figure.


The comparison you provided doesnt compare "environmental costs of construction, transportation and disposal". It compares overall energy usage from "initial development right through to disposal". Or did you think cars dont use energy while driving? :)

No, you gave company figures and some random journalist's writings. Those are not scientific studies. A scientific study is a paper on a subject that has gone through the process of peer-review and has been published in a scientific journal.
Very well. I have provided you with figures from the standard applied to all new cars in the EU. You have banged on and on about 'scientific studies', but still haven't provided any yourself.

I have given clear, easy to interpret and fair comparisons, produced under the same conditions. You have just said 'they're wrong'. Perhaps you could put your money where you mouth is and actually produce some of this 'evidence' you seem to love so much?

No, you gave company figures and some random journalist's writings. Those are not scientific studies. A scientific study is a paper on a subject that has gone through the process of peer-review and has been published in a scientific journal.

"Calling BS" contributes to a debate.
Quibbling about sources for several posts in a row without saying anything else contributes to the impression of someone who just wants to argue, but has nothing to say.
What is your position again? Was it something like "hybrid cars are teh suck"?

You should read what you are quoting. It wasnt that long. Or is this a typical misunderstanding case again? :)
From your source:



The comparison you provided doesnt compare "environmental costs of construction, transportation and disposal". It compares overall energy usage from "initial development right through to disposal". Or did you think cars dont use energy while driving? :)


You mean cars don't drive between getting initially developped and getting disposed of?

The comparison you provided doesnt compare "environmental costs of construction, transportation and disposal". It compares overall energy usage from "initial development right through to disposal". Or did you think cars dont use energy while driving? :)
This is exactly what I said, young friend. Would you like it repeated?
It compares overall energy usage from "initial development right through to disposal.

What part of "scientific study" do you not understand? That is not a scientific study.

No Shit. What part of I wasnt answering to you, you do not understand? It was a phd written article against a commercial website thing.

No Shit. What part of I wasnt answering to you, you do not understand? It was a phd written article against a commercial website thing.
Yeah, I transposed the names of you and the other guy in my head.

Yeah, I transposed the names of you and the other guy in my head.
:p

We've been confused for each other, Nordligmark. Whoever would've thought it?

Very well. I have provided you with figures from the standard applied to all new cars in the EU. You have banged on and on about 'scientific studies', but still haven't provided any yourself.
I am making no argument. I am simply asking for a peer reviewed scientific study, which you did not provide.

I have given clear, easy to interpret and fair comparisons, produced under the same conditions. You have just said 'they're wrong'. Perhaps you could put your money where you mouth is and actually produce some of this 'evidence' you seem to love so much?
I am taking no position. I merely wish you to provide me with a goddamn peer-reviewed scientific article published in a reputable scientific journal.

This is exactly what I said, young friend. Would you like it repeated?

No I dont. But you seem to need to be repeated of my answer.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11507597&postcount=55

To explain it further for you to understand, what I was saying was that energy cost comparisons doesnt mean how much it is bad for the environment since the techniques to gain that energy is different (electric motor being clean). Hence the house example where even though house with windmill spends more energy (hence more costly), it is still cleaner due to the method. Hope this solves your misunderstanding, again. :)

I am making no argument. I am simply asking for a peer reviewed scientific study, which you did not provide.


I am taking no position. I merely wish you to provide me with a goddamn peer-reviewed scientific article published in a reputable scientific journal.


Trouble is that they don't do foul language in reputable scientific journals...

"Calling BS" contributes to a debate.
Quibbling about sources for several posts in a row without saying anything else contributes to the impression of someone who just wants to argue, but has nothing to say.
What is your position again? Was it something like "hybrid cars are teh suck"?
My position is irrelevant, because I'm not arguing. I'm asking Philosophy to back up his statement. Hell, for all you know, I might even agree with him.

I am making no argument. I am simply asking for a peer reviewed scientific study, which you did not provide.

I am taking no position. I merely wish you to provide me with a goddamn peer-reviewed scientific article published in a reputable scientific journal.
So you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?

This is an internet forum, not the British Library. If you don't like the sources provided either submit some of your own or stop spamming the thread with the same complaint.

So you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?

This is an internet forum, not the British Library. If you don't like the sources provided either submit some of your own or stop spamming the thread with the same complaint.

Heh-hem. I may not be British, but I think it is not polite to talk while others are reading. ;)

You mean cars don't drive between getting initially developped and getting disposed of?

That was the point I was making. How did you manage to understand the opposite? From what?

That was the point I was making. How did you manage to understand the opposite? From what?

You implied that they did not, like, drive in between?

Either that, or your criticism of Philosophy reads like: 'I asked for a left handed batsman, but instead you fobbed me off with a Molly Dooger!'

Logic isn't your forte.

You implied that they did not, like, drive in between?

Either that, or your criticism of Philosophy reads like: 'I asked for a left handed batsman, but instead you fobbed me off with a Molly Dooger!'

Logic isn't your forte.

LOL...right...Dont try this hard...

LOL...right...Dont try this hard...


I'll give it to you in easy words:

I PWNed joo - PH34R ME NOOB!

I'll give it to you in easy words:

I PWNed joo - PH34R ME NOOB!

Ok if PWNing me means so much to you that you have to imagine things I didnt imply and said (and hence you couldnt quote) to arrive a silly conclusion about logic, take it...You have never been my "target audience" anyways, I really dont care...

Ok if PWNing me means so much to you that you have to imagine things I didnt imply and said (and hence you couldnt quote) to arrive a silly conclusion about logic, take it...You have never been my "target audience" anyways, I really dont care...

Bottom line is that your 'logical' attack on Philosophy had as much sense in it as 'You can't say this, because I have a pink horse, and it is pretty!'.

You implied that they did not, like, drive in between?

Either that, or your criticism of Philosophy reads like: 'I asked for a left handed batsman, but instead you fobbed me off with a Molly Dooger!'

Logic isn't your forte.

Bogmarsh, logic may well be your forte, but if so, it's a talent well hidden.

A little anecdote: (can be skipped by those seriously intent on the subject.)
At a railway station near where I live, earlier today, I carried my bicycle down the stairs, overtaking a tired-looking cove in a fluorescent jacket. I don't know him, but I guess he was a road-worker.
At the bottom of the stairs, in the tunnel, I slung my leg over and began to ride my bicycle. From behind me, he remarked without rancour: "You know you're not supposed to do that here, don't you?"
I replied "Yeah?" while riding.
"So why're you doing it?" he queried me, sounding a bit offended.
"Because I'm only going at walking speed, and I can see I'm not going to run into anybody" I replied, turning to look at him. He didn't look angry, just sort of surprised.
"That proves something" he said.
Just then, a kid on a small bike appeared at the end of the tunnel, and rode down the slope into the tunnel, getting up to 25 km/h or so, and aiming to pass between me and the cove in the fluoro jacket.
"Like him" I added.
"No he's not!" the cove said, bending down and waving his arm directly in front of the kid's bike, only yanking it away within inches of contact.
At that point I stopped looking back to see what the cove was doing, since I was (admittedly) proceeding at more than walking pace. The tunnel goes down, and then up, and I had to pedal to get up more than I usually do.

Many thoughts went through my mind after that, the next ten minutes or so.
My thoughts would constitute a moral to the story. I offer none.

This sucks, hardcore. But I read on CNN international they only expect prices to raise 5 cents which isnt too bad considering. I just hope they get it back online as soon as possible.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_field_shutdown_11







Great...How much do you bet that oil companies will use this as an excuse to push gas prices to $4.00 a gallon on average?:mad:
That's right. Supply and demand are just shams perpetrated on us by those evil corporations.

That's right. Supply and demand are just shams perpetrated on us by those evil corporations.

You're close.
Those corporations have for a century supplied cars and the fuel to run them, and an entire demand economy has grown around it.

Most cities have grown around a supposedly public thoroughfare, the width of a two-wheeled chariot (the Roman standard). In some, the footpaths have been reduced or eliminated to allow for two-way traffic of automobiles.

Go to Google -> More -> Google Maps. Look at where you live, the photo if your can.
If you live in a city, chances are that half of your city is given over to these mobile boxes of private propery, either their passage or their parking. Or more than half.

Aww, I didn't mean to kill the thread.

Just my 2 cents.