What Do We Think About Climate Change

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by Pericles, Feb 19, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Marco1
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 113
    Likes: 28, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 240
    Location: Sydney

    Marco1 Senior Member

    Data?

    Oh come on...look back on this thread, it has been posted 2 or 3 dozen times.
     
  2. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

  3. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member


    Typical of a man who thinks that posting altered data and misinformation will not only win an argument but actually change science to fit the lie, but that is why he is .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .Boston the Weasel!!!!!
     

    Attached Files:

  4. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    SOUND THE ALARMS, SOUND THE ALARMS, GROUND THE PLANES, OUTLAW PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF AUTOMOBILES AND OTHER PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION, MOVE THE HUMAN RACE TO THE TROPIC BELT TO STOP USING OIL FOR HEAT, BAN PRIVATE BOATING, VACATION TRAVEL, BAN PLASTICS, BAN ANY AND ALL USE OF PETROCHEMICALS OF ANY SORT, BETTER YET, HAVE THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE COMMIT MASS SUICIDE AND INCERERATE THE BODIES USING SOLAR OVENS.............


    WHY YOU SAY, WHY?????????


    Because ocean levels have risen 4.8 inches in the last 60 years. Of course there is no proof it is caused by anthropogenic C02 or the use of fossil fuels but hey, we can't be too careful now can we?


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100603/ap_on_sc/as_south_pacific_growing_islands
     
  5. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    This is what passes for rational discourse these days.....
     
  6. mudman
    Joined: Mar 2007
    Posts: 88
    Likes: 5, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 72
    Location: Madisonville, LA

    mudman Junior Member

    I am not a driller, that was someone else. I am an engineer/project manager and work upstream/midstream on the process side and and have been for the past 10 years. I am a professional and considerd an expert in my field. I asked questions about drilling, because I do not deal much with the drilling side, but would like to know more. This is what I know to be fact.

    There was a volcano in Jackson MS, known as Jackson Dome. Plenty fields there and we recover 99% CO2 and the other 1% are VOC's. If you know about midstream, we test the 20 or so wells coming into a test site as governed by law. Each well must be tested at least once a month. A wellstream is water/oil/gas as you know. When separated each is measured. Well we only want the oil, so either we flood the field with water, or CO2. As you said, if the recovery is not feasable, then we must flare the Natural Gas. In this case, the CO2 is considered "natural gas" from the wellstream, not because it is mathane/butane,and propane, but because it has occured naturally. In the state of Mississippi and also in Louisiana, CO2 can be handled like Natural cas, though it's properties are very different. All I'm saying is that the rules in place are stupid, since I know and you know that CO2 is not really "natural gas".

    CO2 recovery is very big in North LA and Southwest MS. I'm telling you that in that area, this is what we do, since there is no clear definition on exactly what to do with the CO2. It is treated as a Natural Gas. CO2 recovery is very big in Colorado as well as parts of Canada.

    Here is your law on flares alanrockwood. http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title40/40-10.0.1.1.1.18.18.8.html

    A flare must maintain a certain BTU value. We inject Propane as an assist gas to make it appear to burn, though we are only burning the 1% VOC's. The CO2 will not burn and has 0 BTU value.

    Tough Crowd.
     
  7. alanrockwood
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 133
    Likes: 17, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 116
    Location: USA

    alanrockwood Senior Member

    Thanks for a link to the law. Note that it does not mention CO2.

    When you said "it's the law to burn the CO2" (post 7528) I thought you meant that you meant that you had to burn CO2, since that was the literal language of what you said.

    However, it appears that what you really meant (and explained in your last post) is that you are required to make a flamable mixture and burn the mixture. CO2 may be part of the mixture, but it does not burn, though other compounds in the mixture do burn.
     
  8. alanrockwood
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 133
    Likes: 17, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 116
    Location: USA

    alanrockwood Senior Member

    marco1,

    In an recent post you said "CO2 has been increasing steadily from all sources including human yet the temperature does not follow" and that is a statement that i was commenting on. The problem with that statement is that it is contrary to the facts. CO2 has been rising for over a hundred years, and so has the temperature.

    Regarding your more recent statement quoted above, you are clearly misunderstanding the meaning of random fluctuations in data and the concept of statistical significance. This was already pointed out to you in the last couple of days or so, both by me and by Boston.

    You need to understand that no one in the global warming research community claims that CO2 is the only thing contributing to temperature changes, and no one claims that there will be an absence of fluctuations about a general trend. Fluctuations are a fact of life and are not meaningful unless they are statistically significant.
     
  9. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    I may owe you an apology, but not until I've seen it from someone besides you. I'm quite familiar with pumping CO2 into an oilfield to increase production, and I suppose some of it comes back with the oil. But this is the first I've ever heard of CO2 being the predominant gas from an oil well, instead of methane.

    edit: I do know that excessive CO2 in natural gas causes hydrates, as well as affecting how it burns. So if you have high levels of it, it needs to be separated and recovered. But even with 'high' levels, we're still talking only a small percentage of the gas mixture.

    Excuse me while I go google....:cool:

    Bingo. That took about two minutes....you seem to have garbled things a little. Jackson Dome is not an oil field, and they aren't flaring the CO2 from it. As you say, it's a volcanic structure with trapped CO2. The wells there are specifically drilled to tap into that CO2. Then they pipe the CO2 to 'depleted' oil fields, and inject it to improve production. Here's an article specifically about the company that's exploiting Jackson Dome. Very interesting; I had no idea there were such things as CO2 wells. But a CO2 well is not an oil well.

    http://www.epmag.com/archives/features/1969.htm

    I suppose it's possible the gas that comes up from the injected oilfield wells is mostly CO2, and they're flaring it the way you describe. If they are, it doesn't make much sense to me; why aren't they collecting it, adding it to the piped-in CO2, and putting it right back into the ground again?

    At any rate, I'll stand by my original contention: oil wells do not produce CO2, except as a relatively small part of natural gas. If the gases from an oil well are predominantly CO2, it's because they've been injecting CO2.
     
  10. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 189, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Bingo!
     
  11. mudman
    Joined: Mar 2007
    Posts: 88
    Likes: 5, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 72
    Location: Madisonville, LA

    mudman Junior Member

  12. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    Go to my edited post above. Jackson Dome is not an oil field, and they aren't 'flaring' CO2 from it. It's a CO2 field, and they're piping that CO2 to depleted oil fields to increase production.
     
  13. mudman
    Joined: Mar 2007
    Posts: 88
    Likes: 5, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 72
    Location: Madisonville, LA

    mudman Junior Member

    I agree Troy. They are producing what was injected. But at any rate, it is considered wellstream. CO2 is artifically coming from an Oil well, but it is CO2 in the Oil well none the less. Sorry for the confusion.

    We recover the majority of CO2. At the large sites, we do recover, but at the smaller sites, especially when wells go LP, it is int feasable to put an 1100 HP compressor to send it down the pipe back to a large facility. So it is released to atmosphere through a flare. You aren;t talking about much, probably 5MMSCFD of CO2 flared, which needs about the same ammount of propane to make the flare burn. 600 ft propane tanks that are filled weekly to keep the flares up.

    My point is that it is dumb to Flare CO2 and inject massive ammounts of propane to keep enviormentalists happy, when at the end of the day, the CO2 is released to atmosphere anyway. We are just burning energy for no reason, at incredible costs to oil companies. In turn the consumer pays the price.

    This global warming nonsense costs me every time I turn around, but I guess I cant complain, because it keeps me working.
     
  14. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 189, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    The Global Warming so waived by the GWA crowd it is not so "global". It is a northern hemisphere and mainly Arctic phenomenon. Recent times Artic temperature measurements are the main contributors to the rising of the global mean temperature. But, is it the recent Arctic warming something extraordinary?

    The first figure is from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) Figure 9.6 (2007). It shows the change in temperature (C per decade) by latitude. The black line shows the observed temperature, the blue band shows the output of the computer models including only natural factors, whereas the pink band shows the output of computer models including anthropogenic CO2. Notice that the models without CO2 (blue shaded area) can explain all of the warming for most of the world up to 30 degrees north latitude. This figure also shows cooling in Antarctica with warming increasing in the Arctic.


    The second figure compares the Arctic temperature trends with global temperature trends.[http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/aw/index.php] Two observations are evident from this graph: the recent Arctic warming is not unprecedented, and the Arctic warming is much greater than the global warming.
     

    Attached Files:


  15. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    Well, in the process of sorting things out I learned something. It's probably a good thing for the sake of my dignity you didn't just mention that they deliberately drill for CO2 in some places, instead of natural gas or oil...
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.