text:
Four new posters for the upcoming Les Miserables -- THE MOST ANTICIPATED MOVIE OF THE HOLIDAY SEASON (Hobbit what?) -- have been released but... and you know how much I love Les Miserables ... I hate them. Hate the cheesy tag lines even if they're germane to the story (Heart Full Of Love on a poster, I don't care how hard you try to argue it, is never not eye-rolly) and hate especially how glossy the women are. Is it a fragrance ad? Lorella compared it to a Twilight promotional photo. And she's right. Anne Hathaway and Amanda Seyfried look like Cullens. Blasphemy! Hugh Jackman seems like he's about to pull out a gun and drive away in a fast sports car. The least offensive of the lot, to me, is Russell Crowe's Javert. Because of the prominence of the fleur-de-lis. And his downcast eyes.
Anyway, whatever. It's only a poster. It's the way they feel they have to sell it to a certain demographic. It doesn't mean the movie won't fulfill the promise of the trailer. Let's watch the trailer again while we wait for a new trailer (when???) and countdown to when we can all hold hands and cry and see it over and over again.


text:
Standard Delivery Service - £4.99
Delivery takes 3-5 working days and will be shipped via Hermes. This is a flat charge for an unlimited number of items.
UK Express Delivery - £7.99
(£8.99 for highlands/islands) Order and receive your order the next working day.
Express pre-noon - £11.95
UK mainland only
To see postage options for your destination please choose your shipping country at the top of the page.
If for any reason you are not satisfied with your purchase from Worcester Warriors, you may return the product(s) to us within 28 days of the purchase date for a refund or exchange.
Free exchanges (UK only) - We will then re-send the replacement item(s) back to you on standard delivery service at no extra cost.Find out more about returning products

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Movin' on (A.D.)
I'm a bigger fan of the Toronto Blue Jays today than I was a week ago.
Whaaaa? I'm a bigger fan of the Doc-less Jays than of the team fronted by the biggest fucking ace in major league baseball? Well, in a manner of speaking, yeah. I guess I am.
Seems impossible, but it's true. Hell, I probably led the brigade dreading the inevitable transaction - where do you think the "I don't know what I'm gonna do if the Jays trade Doc" tag came from? And that tag is like, a season and a half old. I've been sweating this forever, man. But here we are, on the other side of Armageddon, and I'm OK. We're all OK. And if you're not - kindly feel free to jump the fuck off the train.
This is my team. This is our team. This is the team we all want to see return to glory. It was never going to be easy - with or without Doc. I'm starting to believe in The Plan. When it comes right down to it, we really have no choice but to believe, or risk turning into an even more cynical group of miserable pricks. But no, really, I'm starting to come around. I think I just might be buying what Anthopoulos is selling. Building. Adding to the core. Young players growing - and staying - together.
70 wins in 2010 or not, sign me up for a plate of that. It beats the shit out of 80 wins with Mencherson (God bless 'em) and Millar.
101 Reasons for Offseason Optimism: Vernon Wells. That's right.
Vernon Wells. You heard me.
Look (sorry HTV), forget about the goddamned contract. Wrap all of your thoughts on that matter into a tidy little ball and toss it in the G. It's not going anywhere, he's never going to exercise the opt-out (so save your booing), and it is what it is.
I think Vernon is going to bounce back. Our boy eyebleaf bankrolls that cheerleading brigade, and friends, I'm down. I had originally planned an entire post around this, but, uh, on further investigation, I don't really have a tonne of substance to back my belief. It's just a feeling I have.
Do I think we'll see a monster season, like the one the Jays based his contract on (you would have signed it too, so just stop)? No. Do I think we'll see a reasonable facsimile - a definite improvement over last season's debacle (too strong?)? Yeah, I do. Think .280/.340/.470. An OPS just north of .800. Is that worth $20M per? No, probably not, but Vern seems like a proud guy. He'll bounce back.
39 comments:
- Navin Vaswani (@eyebleaf) said...
I believe in Vernon Wells.
- December 19, 2009 at 1:23 AM
- The Ack said...
Oh, I know you do, dude. This is me talking myself into it.
- December 19, 2009 at 1:24 AM
- Peter Gentleman said...
Well, he was playing pretty much the entire season hurt (and it was obvious). I don't see why he wouldn't bounce back to somewhere around his pre-2007 averages.
- December 19, 2009 at 1:47 AM
Look, I will deliver what it is the masses demand.
I promised that I wouldn't trade Doc to the Yankees or Red Sox, and that I would convince the Phillies to hand over their future, and I succeeded.
I may be conniving and generally dishonest; some may even (justifiably) call me a con-artist or a dirty thief, but I get results. Whether its overcharging consumers for NFL dreams or bringing second-rate US college football to town, you can't argue that I always win. And my team will win. Count on it.
In a couple years time, we will have one of the strongest MLB lineups and farm systems underhanded business deals can produce. You fans can count on my extreme wit and sexy business style to exorcise the ghosts of the recent past and fulfill your fantasy of a true contender in Toronto. Trust me.
What about 2010, you ask? The team that I have built will shock the world. Vernon will be back. Snider will explode. Rzepcynski will emerge. I also have a few tricks up my finely-tailored sleeves, in the form of a few surprise moves to come. Stay tuned.
My strategy has only begun to emerge. Keep watching SportsNet and listening to the FAN590, or you may be last to hear of my magnificent plays.
I am ridiculously handsome, and my wit is unparalleled. I expect you to have, or at least to show, a little faith in my utter brilliance. After all, you are lucky to have such a handsome, savvy business professional on your side.
Sincerely and honestly,
Handsome Tony Viner
- December 19, 2009 at 2:14 AM
- The Ack said...
I shall sleep easy tonight.
- December 19, 2009 at 2:24 AM
- Torgen said...
Wasn't the last successful tear-it-down rebuilt the 1997-2003 Marlins? That's not very good odds.
- December 19, 2009 at 3:25 AM
- Jay Hill said...
I posted it earlier, but I believe in AA. I've been sold this snake oil before, but this one sounds like it will cure EVERYTHING!
Will Vernon bounce back? I don't know. I do know he's good for 15-20 hr, 75-90 RBI, and .280 avg. That's not bad. It's not 20 million good, but like it's been said before - it's only Rogers money. Handsome Tony will just have to make due with Moet and Chandon in his bathtub instead of Dom Perignon until 2015.
- December 19, 2009 at 4:00 AM
- dave said...
Though I have a hard time believing in VW anymore I do agree that it is almost a big positive to see they have picked a direction.
It'll be an interesting couple of years that will make the playoffs in 2013 that much more fun. Let's dig in.
- December 19, 2009 at 5:01 AM
Agree with this article 100%...the team finally has direction, or more importantly a strategy that is logically sound.
The Ricciardi experiment was nothing more than a novelty act, one that Rogers management bought into because there was little risk ($$). Why not try? At the time Moneyball had a pretty decent track record.
Nadir Mohammed, Tony Viner, Paul Beeston, Alex A. are all singing the same song. One that has a proven track record..build from the ground up. It has to be done to compete in the AL East.
Hate to see Halladay go, but that is more a reflection of the Paul Godfrey era than anything else. One of the greatest canadian sports brands at a time, and now zilch! I have lived in Toronto my entire life, and this is the only team that has bothered to win a championship. For that I am indebted.... Go Jays!
- December 19, 2009 at 7:40 AM
- Leaker19 said...
This seems plausible. I mean, for Wells, there's nowhere to go but up, right? He couldn't get worse, could he?
- December 19, 2009 at 9:42 AM
- The Ack said...
Torgen, you need to have a big bowl of happysauce, man.
Rebuild/Building/whatever - it's just a term to signify something other than opening the wallet completely amd trying to spend with the big boys (Yanks, Sox).
Look at the Phillies - they built their core internally with young players who grew together - Howard, Utley, Rollins, Victorino, Werth - who wasn't developed internally, but came over as an upside play, Hamels, Happ, etc. When those pieces were in place, they added through FA or trade - Ibanez, Lee, Blanton, Lidge, etc.
Isn't that exactly what the Jays are doing? Following the Phillies template?
Honestly, what's the alternative? Try to match the Yankees and Sox dollar for dollar? That's a losing proposition if I ever saw one. I think the last seven or eight seasons are a testament to that fact, in some regards. It would be one thing if the team was just one or two pieces away from being a championship club....but they're not. There isn't enough there at the major league level, and the system is pretty bare.
So, yeah. Building.
- December 19, 2009 at 11:22 AM
- QJays said...
Great post Ack.
On the first point - none of us knew what it would feel like to have Halladay leave. The fact that we were able to build up to its inevitability probably helps, but there was a reason that we remained Jays fans in the past too -- so there it is. (and it helps that the trade wasn't crap)
Letting Vernon be Vernon is the best way to move past this mess. There is just no way to cut a loss like that - you gotta adapt. If the young pitching turns out, this team could be very good with a few additions in the near future, so let's see if it happens.
- December 19, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Torgen is just a contrary fuck-clown. And Handsome Tony is my personal hero.
- December 19, 2009 at 2:00 PM
- Torgen said...
The Phillies spent over $130M last year. Matching the Phillies' template IS spending with the big boys, because the Phillies are among the big boys.
- December 19, 2009 at 3:50 PM
- Jay Hill said...
The Phillies spend $130 million *now*. They sucked the ass end of a dead rhino for their share of years before they became 2-time defending National League Champs and a World Series winner.
The Jays will end up with a payroll in that neighbourhood growing a core internally, but we'll have to suck first. We had big budget teams already, and they didn't work out. I want to root for some kids making the major league minimum for a while. BUILDING!
- December 19, 2009 at 4:17 PM
"We had big budget teams already, and they didn't work out"
No we haven't. Spending 98m one time, the same year the Yankees are well over 200m, does not constitute having a big budget team.
"The Jays will end up with a payroll in that neighbourhood growing a core internally, but we'll have to suck first."
I just don't get this idea that you have to suck first to grow an internal core. It doesn't make an iota of sense. It's one thing to stay away from 5 year deals to Jason Bay when you don't think you can contend...but there's no reason for this team to not be spending at least 100m in this market at the same time that it's "building". The Jays could have picked up talent like Rich Harden, Erik Bedard, Nick Johnson, Orlando Cabrera etc. without having to compromise their future, but they are just taking the cheap and easy way out. Anyone oblivious to this is missing the boat, and continues to gobble up the lies Beeston starting selling you over one year ago.
- December 19, 2009 at 4:28 PM
- Torgen said...
Look at the Mariners. It's Zduriencik's 2nd year and they're the favorite to win the AL West. And don't talk about their 100 loss year because 1) it came before Zduriencik took the job, and 2) it didn't happen because they were trying to sacrifice the present for the sake of the future--Bavasi just sucked.
- December 19, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Torgen, the next apologist excuse is that the Mariners have the luxury of not being in the AL East so they can do something like that...of course this will completely ignore the fact that, as currently constructed, the Red Sox are not a very imposing team and appear quite catchable for a Wild Card spot. Don't get me wrong, they are still the obvious favourites for it, but they can be caught the same way the Mariners think they can catch the Angels.
- December 19, 2009 at 4:56 PM
- The Man With The Golden Arm said...
Vernon is on the decline. Face the facts.
- December 19, 2009 at 5:29 PM
- The Ack said...
Oh, fuck off with playing the apologist card, Ari. Seriously. I'd rather go with young arms than pay market for injuries waiting to happen in Bedard and Harden. And Nick Johnson/Orlando Cabrera are championship pieces? Really?
Anyway, Torgen's point about the Phillies @ $130M is taken, though the number I saw was $113M. But whatever. Rogers is never going to spend $150M. $120M? Maybe. But anything above that is dreaming, so what AA is doing is prudent, in my opinion. Serious question - what do the Mariners project to be at payroll-wise this season? Anyone know?
What pisses me off, though, is that the big bitch last season (mine included) was the Jays had no direction. Well, now they do - and the new bitch is "I don't agree with the direction". Hey man, at least it's a plan.
And VW may very well be on the decline, but one down season hardly makes it "fact".
- December 19, 2009 at 5:41 PM
"I'd rather go with young arms than pay market for injuries waiting to happen in Bedard and Harden."
First of all, "market" incorporates their gigantic injury risk, which is why a pitcher of Harden's talents only got one year, 7.5m (which he's been worth in 4 of the last 6 seasons, and in 3 of them double that)...
But yet you'll apologize for the team when they sign guys like Bautista, JMac, and AGon, right? I'd rather have gone with Buck Coates, Joe Inglett, and Angel Sanchez than waste money on those useless veterans...either pretend like you want to field a competitive baseball team, or don't. Don't tread water in the middle, which is exactly the start this regime has gotten off to by being willing to spend money on barely above replacement level players, as opposed to none at all or on veterans who actually possess talent. Once the inefficient spending begins, there's no reason to not target Nick Johnson instead of Jose Bautista, and Orlando Cabrera instead of Alex Gonzalez in a market as big as Toronto's.
I got a call from the Blue Jays season ticket department this past week, and guess what, my tickets didn't go down this year because the Jays are "building". Payroll shouldn't either.
- December 19, 2009 at 6:19 PM
- The Man With The Golden Arm said...
I respectfully disagree. It is a fact. Stop by my site in a couple of days. I will have a post waiting for you....
- December 19, 2009 at 7:06 PM
- Torgen said...
Including the money owed to Eaton and Jenkins, it was ~$128.6M. (The spreadsheet comes from Cot's.)
- December 19, 2009 at 7:53 PM
- The Ack said...
But yet you'll apologize for the team when they sign guys like Bautista, JMac, and AGon, right?
Uh, no, actually. Flip through the comment threads between here and DJF and you'll see me railing against the 2 year deal for J-Mac, not on the Bautista train, and indifferent at best on AGon.
I'm not saying we all have to agree on everything all the time - that would be boring...but don't throw the apologist tag on me just because I have a different opinion on the plan.
Torgen - thanks for that. My quick & dirty google search had the Phils at $113.
- December 19, 2009 at 8:43 PM
- dave said...
When did angry people start commenting here?
You see no difference between the Mariners catching the Angels and the Jays catching the Red Sox? The Angles lost their top arm TO the Red Sox. The Red Sox are filling the couple of the holes they did have (at short for example) while the Angels are creating holes in their lineup.
You want the Jays to pick up a couple pieces here and there and make a run for it with this team? Another wasted year.
The Phillies analogy is a perfect one. Wait for when Wallace, Snider, Drabek, Romero, Cecil and Arencibia/d'Arnaud are ready to go, mix in the prime years of Hill and Lind, and THEN spend the money to fill some holes to make a REAL run for it. Not a half-hearted one.
- December 19, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Well put, dave. Exactly how I feel.
- December 19, 2009 at 11:13 PM
"You want the Jays to pick up a couple pieces here and there and make a run for it with this team? Another wasted year."
I don't want them to "make a run for it". I want them to spend at least 100m and be a good team. I have yet to see one logical reason why this can't happen at the same time that they are "building", as they claim. It's only a bad idea to do this if you are blocking the playing time of young people who deserve it; this is clearly not the case with the Toronto Blue Jays. We have more than enough innings for all the young arms, seeing as we don't have a starter who has thrown 200 innings at any level - a decent starter or two on a one year deal with an option would not hinder this team. And on the offensive side, there was room for improvement in the Gonzalez acquisition and the Bautista retainment, at the very least. The current FA market, which seriously hinders the ability for mid-level veterans to receive multi-year deals, is perfect for the Jays current situation.
- December 20, 2009 at 12:14 AM
- Navin Vaswani (@eyebleaf) said...
I can't wait for Vernon to prove the "Vernon's on the decline" cats wrong.
- December 20, 2009 at 8:19 AM
You can't just "go out and spend $100m" though. Otherwise you end up wasting money on FA's like Bay and Wolf.
The Phillies are an excellent example of how you build your payroll up to the $100m+ level. Most of their payroll is on Howard, Utley, Hamels, Rollins and Werth - guys who were developed or were brought in during Arb years. Then they paid them as they grew together.
From what I've heard Beeston say repeatedly over the past year, Rogers will shell out for a young core and supplement it with FA's as the need arises. But the first priority is to get the system to a point that can sustain the core.
- December 20, 2009 at 10:13 AM
"You can't just "go out and spend $100m" though. Otherwise you end up wasting money on FA's like Bay and Wolf."
I'll try a third time. How on earth is it a waste of money, if we're consistently told the draft and payroll budgets have nothing to do with eachother?! I specifically mentioned that you stay away from long term deals like Bay, because that has the potential to hamstring you in the future when you have to guarantee him 5 years. However, Randy Wolf is exactly the type of player they should be targeting. Last year Wolf signed for 5m plus incentives, and ended up with a shiny Type A status. It bothers me when guys like Abreu and Matsui sign for one year, 5-6m, and the Jays sit back on Jose Bautista for 2.5m. Either spend some money like the big-market team that you are, or don't spend any AT ALL.
- December 20, 2009 at 12:12 PM
- Ty said...
Ari: Sure, in retrospect Wolf was a steal last year, but would you really want the Jays to sign him to the 3 years and $30 million the Brewers overpaid for him? That would be a waste of money, no matter how you look at it.
- December 20, 2009 at 12:33 PM
- Ty said...
The Reds just extended Rolen through 2012, so presumably Juan Fancisco is available. His OBP has always been pretty low but he did hit 27 homers in the minors last season, and completely raked in his 20-something game callup with the Reds.
Anybody know anything about this guy defensively? If we can flip one of our young pitchers for him -- should we?
- December 20, 2009 at 12:53 PM
- Leaker19 said...
I would like to kill the myth that Toronto is a small market team. This myth is perpetuated by various Jays ownership groups to forgive consistent failure.
- December 21, 2009 at 3:45 AM
- Bwilly said...
Ari I hear what your saying, somewhat. I'd love for the Jays to go out and sign some vets that wouldn't be taking the spots of youngsters that are ready. Would they challenge for a playoff spot? no, would it make for more enjoyable baseball games to watch? yes. And who knows, maybe they put together a decent season and you flip them at the deadline for prospects or they gain a type A/B status and they end up with more picks.
But here's where the plan falls apart/we disagree. Nick Johnson does not take 1 year plus a "mutual" otion for 5.5 million a year to sign with the Jays. Abreu/Matsui are looking to win and aren't even going to look at a team like the Jays regardless of money (maybe years but thats against the plan). Why would Orlando Cabrera come to Toronto? So we are left with scraps like Alex Gonzalez, which, I can live with. The only exception may be getting in on a Harden/Bedard/Sheets/ starting pitching reclamation type player, but only if the money would make sense. But Harden's 6.5 plus 3.5 in incentives with an 11 mil mutual option for 2011 that has a 1 million dollar buyout, seems a little steep to be trying to catch some lightning in that bottle.
- December 21, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Come on...Adam Dunn signed an extremely reasonable, 2/20 deal last offseason with the frickin Nationals. Pat Burrell basically got no offers, he didn't go to TB "to win". Abreu settled for so little because no one was willing to offer him anything. OCab signed with the Athletics...The bottom line is these guys go after the best offer they can get, and only care about winning when all else is equal. Guys would come here on one year deals knowing it's a good opportunity for them to receive sufficient playing time to post nice counting numbers and have a better shot at the market the following offseason.
- December 21, 2009 at 2:32 PM
"I'm a bigger fan of the Jays today than I was a week ago."
Amen. There is actually a plan in place now. Oh I know JP said he had a plan, but I'm not sure looking back if he didn't make moves according to wind directionality.
Is it slow and painstaking? Yes. Is it the right and possibly only strategy to take in this God forsaken division? Absolutely. If you don't agree, ask yourself how the Jays built up to the championship years. Did they go out and buy a whack of free agents? Only when the core ranneth over. Up until that point, it was draft and development, scour the Dominican for as much young, amateur talent as possible, exploit the Rule V draft and make shrewd trades. Then when the organization had been built up from top to bottom, free agents were brought in to help put us over the top.
That's the blueprint for success in any sport except perhaps basketball due to its 12 man rosters which allow for top free agents to make a huge impact. That's the blueprint that will get us back to where we should be. That blueprint got lost in the wilderness during the Interbrew/Ash/Ricciardi years. AA appears to be showing signs that he wants to resurrect it and with it this franchise. I am definitely down with that.
- December 21, 2009 at 3:49 PM
- QJays said...
Just on the topic that a few people have brought up --can someone provide some solid evidence that the Jays are a "big market" team? If actual market-size is the basis, a quick perusal suggests that the Jays market is about at the median and below the average.
- December 21, 2009 at 5:50 PM
The only American cities bigger than the megacity of Toronto are NY, LA, and Chicago, and Philadelphia is right there too. Note how the first 3 all have two teams. The fact that the Jays are the only team in Canada makes their potential market much greater. It's sickening how Rogers operates the Blue Jays.
- December 21, 2009 at 9:07 PM
- Bwilly said...
Ari -The 4 players you listed are terrible examples. What good has Adam Dunn been? Nobody's clamoring to trade for him, if he leaves as a free agent he'll be tight to gain type A status, probably looking at Type B, 20 million for a sandwich? Tampa is desperately trying to dump Burrell now, they even thought about swapping him for Milton Bradley. Cabrera (FYI led the league in errors amongst SS) was a Type A free agent, he would have cost the Jays a 1st round pick last year, cost the A's a 2nd rounder, odds are that 2nd rounder will be better than the prospect the Twins sent at the deadline (not too mention the A's sent cash). There were a handful of teams that offered Abreu more money last year, but he went with the angels.
- December 22, 2009 at 12:00 AM


text:
"Penny Lane is in my ears and in my eyes.
There beneath the blue suburban skies."
The above Beatles lyrics refer to Penny Lane in Liverpool, but they could easily have been singing about Le Plateau Mont Royal. This district is one of those vibrant and colourful regions of Montreal that invigorates and stimulates the senses with its diverse, tasteful architecture, great shopping and inviting cafés and bistros.
Now there is a new property being listed by Sotheby's International Realty Quebec which is upping the ante in contemporary architecture in that borough.
That domicile, designed and built in 2010-2011 by the award-winning architectural and design firm naturehumaine is located at 4614 rue Boyer, just north of Mont-Royal.
Listed for sale at $1,097,500, the three-storey cottage (with mezzanine and finished basement) features 1,800-square feet of living space, three bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, 16-foot ceilings and three terraces.
"Originally, there was a mechanics garage on the property and the owner at the time wanted a house built. There was enough land to permit us to build a small house but we had to abide by local zoning laws which came with many restraints," said architect Stephane Rasselet, co-founder (with Marc-André Plasse) of naturehumaine (naturehumaine.com). "So we worked out something to allow us to build a house while optimizing the space."
Rasselet's influences in the architecture of the Boyer property combined a little concept from here, and a little concept from there. But a main influence is Japanesestyle design.
"I like contemporary Japanese architecture. They build very small, tight buildings in small constrained spaces while optimizing the space."
The architect explained that there was a simplicity they wanted to keep in the house because they didn't have a particular client they were building for.
"We wanted fluidity, and since we were restricted by space, we positioned the stairwells in the home to use the least space. We treated the staircase like an origami sculpture so it bends and becomes a sculptural element in the house."
His philosophy of design in the home's interior was: "For openness and transparency from space to space, especially on the third floor and mezzanine."
In terms of overall colour schemes he decided to stay in white and charcoal while using a touch of colour, with different yellows and greens, to add contrast and give a focus to the spaces.
"This way it is also easier for the new owners to change the colour scheme if they want to change it."
He used huge Alumilex tiltand-turn windows, skylights and white spaces to expand the size. These factors also provide for great luminosity. Different ceiling levels also add to the sense of openness.
The flooring and stairwell are made of maple and cherry wood to give the home a clean, rich and natural feeling. There is a Nordic or Quakerlike atmosphere to the property. The interior appears open, but definitely not empty.
On the third floor, pivoting panels with a mirrored side allow the owner to direct sunlight from the south side of the building to the north side.
"On this street this style of structure is rare because everything is filled-in and one-dimensional from the street level, whereas, in this case, we had a chance to make a house that is visible on three sides. The house was made to resemble a little jewel or sculptural object," described Rasselet.
The exterior shell uses brick (a pre-requisite of the city ordinance), galvanized steel panel and cement fibre board. The brick front has very small metal nuggets infused into it and in different light it reflects different tones, from dark red to a dark grey-blue.
There is a kind of industrial-chic look to the outside building, influenced by the neighbouring back-alley storage sheds and fire escapes that date back to the early '30s.
These use a patchwork of different sidings, and by using galvanized steel in the back west-facing side of the Boyer residence; it reflects more light into a formerly subdued, dark area.
The three outdoor terraces offer a choice of quiet places to relish a warm coffee and croissant and surf the Net, or just plain chill out.
"The fact that we played with three different terraces allowed us to create a bigger sense of space, and for somebody who likes to grow plants, it's great. You can also grow a small Zen garden on the roof."
The garage is attached, heated, single width and has direct access to the inside home, and in an area short on parking spaces, this is a great relief, especially in winter.
All kitchen appliances are top quality GE Monogram stainless steel appliances. It also features quartz counters and Italian fittings.
The master bedroom has radiant floors and the ensuite bathroom has an extra-large bath with a separate shower, body jet, rain shower and a terrace. A nice feature is the heat lamp system installed just outside and above the shower stall. Even on the chilliest days, this lamp system will keep you toasty-warm after your morning shower. There are also radiant floors in the finished basement.
According to real estate broker Cyrille Girard, (representing Sotheby's International Realty, Quebec): "This residence has a condo finishing in a contemporary cottage. It has a beautiful presence, especially at night with all the lighting details and its huge and long windows. But besides its beauty, location, location and location is perhaps its strongest attraction," said the broker. "You are within walking distance to every part of the Plateau."
Girard compares this style of contemporary development with the trendy new area of the Tower Bridge district in London.
"It's super trendy; more European, totally Londonish," he explained.
"The Plateau is really a changing and welcoming neighbourhood."
For more information contact Cyrille Girard of Sotheby's International Realty, Quebec. cgirard 514-582-2810


text:
Dale Tiffany Lamps, the world's foremost designer and manufacturer of fine art glass lighting and home accents, is dedicated to upholding the highest standards and original designs of Louis Comfort Tiffany. From Mission Pendants to Dragonfly Table Lamps, Dale Tiffany handcrafts each stained glass piece using the authentic copper foil, favrile, mosaic, and hand-rolled techniques. The extensive Dale Tiffany line also includes Wall Sconces, Chandeliers, Accent Lamps, and Ceiling Lights.
The Abercrombia collection by Dale Tiffany includes Vases in a variety of finish and glass options. Contact our knowledgable sales team for additional options.
All Dale Tiffany products (including Freight) ship for FREE within the contiguous United States on orders over $50.
All Dale Tiffany products that ship via UPS or FedEx Ground within the contiguous United States are FREE to return.
We do not charge a restocking fee for any returnable Dale Tiffany products.
If you find a Dale Tiffany product on another site for less than us, we will match it PLUS 10% of the difference. Learn more


text:
Is Jodie Kidd Taller Than Emma Stone?
Who is taller?!
Jodie Kidd is taller than Emma Stone by 20cm.
That's roughly 8 inches or 0.2 metres.
Have a look at Jodie Kidd's and Emma Stone's pages to see some more information about their heights and names.
You can also check your height against theirs and see how you compare.


text:
the perils of rebasing
Ahh, but the bliss of rebasing is not without its drawbacks. It can be summed up in a single line:
"do not rebase commits that you have pushed to a public repository"[1] thex (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- 1 The Great Noisebridge Rebase of 2013!
- 2 The Rebase Meeting
- 3 PFA guidance and development
- 4 Projects with PFA documentation
- 4.1 Clean Machine
- 4.2 Dub Rack
- 4.3 Ez Av
- 4.4 Front Desk
- 4.5 Hackable Lighting
- 4.6 Hackershelf Health
- 4.7 Highend Workstation
- 4.8 Intro Info Quilt
- 4.9 Internet Cafe
- 4.10 ISOtank
- 4.11 Kitchen Mission
- 4.12 Lift Uplift
- 4.13 Maker Mover
- 4.14 Quiet Diet
- 4.15 Rebase Working Synthesis
- 4.16 Red Shirt
- 4.17 Shop Swap
- 4.18 Showers
- 4.19 Trash Stash
- 4.20 Tune Up
- 5 PFA Template
- 5.1 Project Name
- 5.2 Proposer
- 5.3 Summary
- 5.4 What Will Be Done
- 5.5 What Areas in the Space Will This Affect
- 5.6 Who Will Be Doing It
- 5.7 Why This Will Be Good
- 5.8 Why This Will Be Bad
- 5.9 How Long Will It Take
- 5.10 In A Fantastic World, What Extra Budget Would You Like
- 5.11 Are There Any Other PFAs This Would Work Well With
- 5.12 Are There Any Other PFAs This Would Contradict
- 6 Weekly Rebase meeting notes
- 7 Suggested projects currently without PFAs
The Great Noisebridge Rebase of 2013!
After many hundreds of earth weeks of 24/7 opening, it is time to clean up, maintain, and hack our built environment!
What kind of things, you ask?
We'd like you to tell us, second-person Noisebridge person!
We are looking into proposals of all sizes. From getting together for a couple hours of cleaning and organization to possibly closing down Noisebridge for a couple of weeks for to do all the things that you can't really do when the space is open. If you are looking for help with a big do-ocratic project, tell us. If you have a grand proposal that will require consensus, we are here to help direct development of it.
Here's our general process:
Ideally, if you have a major Noisebridge structural change or improvement you'd like to conduct, sit write down and write it up as a Proposal For Awesomeness (PFA), similar to an RFC, using the template below. Along with your PFA, list who you're working on the project with (ask them first!). However, there is no rule that you have to follow this format to make a proposal.
At the Rebase meetings present your proposal. If it is do-ocratic you may end up with some help. If it requires consensus then we will work to further its development into a strong proposal that can we can bring to the Noisebridge Weekly Meeting (NBWM). Then the folks that are included in the PFA get to spend a delightful few days working like ROBOT SLAVES on building up Noisebridge, on a date to also be determined (probably by seeking to maximize the people who volunteered and are available).
See also: Reboot
The Rebase Meeting
Tuesdays 18:00 to 19:30 in the Hackatorium.
But, you don't have to wait for the meeting to develop your proposal! The Rebase meeting is the place to bring your proposal to an audience to evaluate your ideas; gauge interest; get support, assistance, and resources; further development guidance; and receive general feedback.
For most meetings, a topic is planned in advance and is sent as part of the meeting announcement. While most of the discussion tends to be related to the topic, proposals brought to the meeting DO NOT need to follow it and can still be discussed.
Whether proposals are do-ocratic, or require consensus, we will discuss them, help to develop them, and bring the people and resources together to get them done.
Meeting Instructions
Roles currently necessary for the meeting
The Moderator exists to keep the discussion focused on improving proposals and encourage Excellence.
The Recorder does their best to keep a summary of the proposals and note any ideas and suggestions that come up so that we all don't forget them when we develop proposals between meetings.
The typical agenda
- Welcome and Introductions
- Thank attendees for coming and encourage excellent behavior
- Have everyone say their name. So that we may address each other.
- Announcements regarding the status of any completed or under construction projects related to Rebase.
- New Proposals
- Everyone who has a new proposal, gets a few minutes to present their new proposals WITHOUT interruption (Moderator). Proposers should be allowed to complete their proposal. While clarifying questions may be asked AFTER a proposal, this is not time for discussion. Right now it is enough that we listen to each other's ideas; proposals can always continue to be developed outside the meeting by attendees if there isn't time to discuss them during it.
- Topic Discussion
- Proposals related to the topic are discussed and developed.
- (Old Business) Proposals regarding the topic that have been developed further since a previous meeting should be discussed first. To start discussion, the proposer should specifically address how the proposal been adjusted and improved since the last time it was discussed, and what they have done to remedy the concerns, if any, that prevented acceptance of the proposal the last time it was presented. If the attendees now favor the proposal then go to "what to do with an awesome proposal" if not then further discussion to develop the proposal ensues.
- (New Business) New proposals regarding the topic are discussed. If the attendees favor the proposal the go to "what to do with an awesome proposal" if not then further discussion to develop the proposal ensues. The heart of the discussion should be convincing attendees of the awesomeness of the proposal and/or showing the proposer how their proposal can be developed to become awesome.
- Proposals related to the topic are discussed and developed.
- General Discussion
- Proposals regarding any topic are discussed and developed.
- (Old Business) Similar flow to above.
- (New Business) Similar flow to above.
- Proposals regarding any topic are discussed and developed.
- Adjournment (the following as applicable)
- Scheduling: work, resources, and additional discussions.
- Topic selection. If a topic of discussion for the next meeting has arisen during the meeting, suggest it.
What to do with an awesome proposal
Well.. it depends, but it is important to determine if the proposal is do-ocratic or will require consensus. Do-ocracy is actually quite powerful at Noisebridge, and much can be done within its framework; just remember the one rule.
If it is do-ocractic, then it can be scheduled and done. If some obstacle (need for volunteers, specific skills, etc) is halting the project, take time in the meeting to work out how to overcome it. Please also consider making an announcement that the Rebase group has accepted the proposal and when it is scheduled at the Noisebridge Weekly Meeting.
If it will require consensus then the next task is to make sure the proposal is ready for its trial by fire in the weekly meeting. This is the primary purpose of the Rebase meeting. It is our task as the attendees of the Rebase meeting to take an ownership of the proposal, and assist the proposer in making a presentation that will successfully achieve consensus at the Noisebridge weekly meeting. The following guidelines may be useful:
- Is the language of the consensus proposal concise and clear. For the record.
- Are benefits of the proposal easy to understand or can they be explained well.
- Does the scheduling and availability of resources seem reasonable.
- What happens during construction? What systems are affected?
- How have the methods for estimating costs documented?
- What aides to understanding can be brought to the meeting? (drawings, data, handouts, etc..)
PFA guidance and development
It terms of developing overall concepts, consider what Noisebridge is:
Noisebridge is a space for sharing, creation, collaboration, research, development, mentoring, and of course, learning. Noisebridge is also more than a physical space, it's a community with roots extending around the world.
What can be physically done to our home at 2169 Mission Street to make more of this happen?
Once you are pretty sure you are working on the above. Recall the pillars that our community works within: Excellence. Consensus. Do-ocracy. What makes the idea behind your proposal excellent? Will it require consensus or is it do-cratic?
Concerning do-ocracy, it has been written that "Doing excellent stuff at Noisebridge does not require permission or an official consensus decision. If you're uncertain about the excellence of something you want to do, you should ask someone else what they think."
The Rebase initiative changes nothing about Do-ocracy. If you have gotten this far, i.e. you have figured out an excellent way to facilitate hacking at Noisebridge and you are sure that you do not need consensus, then congratulations you are now a Rebase of One! Don't worry about the PFA or the Rebase meetings, feel free to make your improvement.
Still, Do-ocracy isn't always so simple or easy. If you are unsure of your project, want to improve it, need help, need additional resources, or simply want a second opinion regarding the do-ocracy versus consensus issue then the Rebase meeting is an option for this. Talking to others in the space or contacting an appropriate mailing list for advice and assistance are also options.
If you know that your project will require consensus then please consider developing and testing it through the Rebase meetings. The Rebase meeting's primary purpose is to investigate and develop large projects for presentation at the Noisebridge Weekly Meeting.
Do-ocratic or not, a good way to start strengthening a proposal is by using the PFA Template. This framework is designed to help you clarify your proposal for yourself and others. Responding to the prompts will address many of the initial questions that you will receive about the proposal, and create a better starting point for any discussions. Please link your PFA wiki page to this one so that anyone can read it.
So far, the strongest proposals have been those that are not requests that someone do something. It is important to identify, before or during the meeting, who is going to execute the proposed project. Will it be the proposer, someone who has offered to help the proposer, a paid contractor, or some combination of these?
To help others understand your proposal more clearly, please also bring any drawings, sketches, examples, data, handouts and additional information that is relevant to it to the meetings. A strong proposal will generate discussion, and may become the topic of a future meeting.
Here are some other things to look at on the wiki. These pages (or pillars) are a good through-line for discussing do-ocracy, the rule of excellence, harassment, and culture. Please read, and consider them, before the Tuesday meeting.
- About
- Vision
- Community Standards
- Bylaws
- Maps_of_2169_Mission - Up to date "As-Built" drawings of the Noisebridge space in PDF and DWG formats to work off of.
Looking at the other PFAs below may also help with development of your own.
Projects with PFA documentation
Clean Machine
- pre-cleaning phase started and ongoing. Community cleaning day TBD.
Dub Rack
Ez Av
Front Desk
- desk has been arranged. This PFA may be complete.
Hackable Lighting
Hackershelf Health
Highend Workstation
Intro Info Quilt
Internet Cafe
Kitchen Mission
- updated for 07/16/2013
Lift Uplift
Maker Mover
Quiet Diet
Rebase Working Synthesis
Red Shirt
- this was a procedural proposal that was announced at the NBWM. It has been started and the proposal process is likely complete.
Shop Swap
Trash Stash
Tune Up
Use the Template section below to create a new project page. thex (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
PFA Template
(Create a page, and cut and paste this text into it, and get to work!)
Project Name
Give your funky project name here.
Give your name or names, and a contact email address.
A pithy description of what you're planning
What Will Be Done
A detailed description, in step-by-step form, of what will be done
What Areas in the Space Will This Affect
You can specify this as either a functional area (electronics area) or physical location (west wall). Bear in mind we might move things around pretty profoundly.
Who Will Be Doing It
A list of you + others who would agree to do this. If you don't have enough people, you might not be able to manage it.
Why This Will Be Good
Give the advantages of what you're proposing
Why This Will Be Bad
List the potential problems of your project, and how you would help mitigate them.
How Long Will It Take
You can take longer than the (proposed) two weeks, but you should describe how you will fit in with Noisebridge's normal activities/
In A Fantastic World, What Extra Budget Would You Like
We might have a little cash to throw the way of projects. Specify your desires, in order of what you'd like first.'
Are There Any Other PFAs This Would Work Well With
Link to anything that nicely complements your proposal
Are There Any Other PFAs This Would Contradict
Link to anything that wouldn't be doable with this PFA'
Weekly Rebase meeting notes
Meeting Notes
Rebase Meeting - Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Rebase Meeting - Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Rebase Meeting - Tuesday, June 26, 2013
Rebase Meeting - Tuesday, July 02, 2013
Rebase Meeting - Tuesday, July 09, 2013
Suggested projects currently without PFAs
- Coat Rack (V)
- Tool Locker (Scott)
- Access Card (Rev Mik)
- Hackable Identifiers (Monad)
- switch over from buzzer to keycode system
- This was consensed and is currently being tested.
- finish off the lights
- actually hang the kitchen properly
- This will be incorporated into Kitchen_Mission
- redo the front space with some clear GUIDANCE for newbies
- take down all the signs, put up clear signs
- more noise mitigation for classrooms
- set up a cafe area
- hold a reset party
- declare the membership list public, and give out medals to all members
- have a once-only honorary membership grant to people helping out
- This does not make sense. -lizzard
- take lots of photographs
- declare any backpacks full of clothes to be objecta-non-grata
- multiple "zones" for multiple concurrent activities
- consider removing the "sleeping area" (aka hacker stacker) and restore space for 3-D printing
- replace all faulty furniture
- remove all graffiti in the stairwell and elevator
- paint murals in the elevator
- proposal from praveen for open hack night, see nb-discuss.
- Weekly mediation meeting.
- As a procedural proposal, this has been taken to the Noisebridge Weekly Meeting.
- Splitting of nb-discuss lists.
- As a procedural proposal, this may be more of a topic for the Noisebridge Weekly Meeting.


text:
Date of Death: February 26, 1966 Age at Death: 69Obituary appeared 03/03/1966 on page 20 in the Proviso Star-SentinelBurial information: Johnston City IL Did information appear in an article? no
Record Number: 33277
Please use our contact form or call us at (708) 649-7400, if you have any questions or suggestions.
Melrose Park Public Library
801 Broadway
Melrose Park, IL 60160


text:
Designers Fountain is a leading manufacturer and distributor of decorative and functional residential lighting and ceiling fans. From a timeless Barcelona chandelier to a modern Montague wall sconce, Designers Fountain has the breadth of style you're looking for. Designers Fountain also offers, ceiling fans, bath lights, pendants, ceiling fixtures, track lighting and outdoor lanterns.
The Abbington collection by Designers Fountain includes Outdoor Pendants/Chandeliers, Outdoor Wall Lights, and Post Lights & Accessories in a variety of finish and glass options. Contact our knowledgable sales team for additional options.
All Designers Fountain products (including Freight) ship for FREE within the contiguous United States on orders over $50.
All Designers Fountain products that ship via UPS or FedEx Ground within the contiguous United States are FREE to return.
We do not charge a restocking fee for any returnable Designers Fountain products.
If you find a Designers Fountain product on another site for less than us, we will match it PLUS 10% of the difference. Learn more


text:
- Prayer and Worship
- Beliefs and Teachings
- Issues and Action
- Media
- Bible
- Catholic Giving
- About USCCB
Praise, you servants of the LORD,
praise the name of the LORD.a
2Blessed be the name of the LORD
both now and forever.
3From the rising of the sun to its settingb
let the name of the LORD be praised.
4High above all nations is the LORD;
above the heavens his glory.c
5Who is like the LORD our God,
enthroned on high,
6dlooking down on heaven and earth?
7He raises the needy from the dust,
lifts the poor from the ash heap,e
8Seats them with princes,
the princes of the people,
9Gives the childless wife a home,
the joyful mother of children.f
* [Psalm 113] A hymn exhorting the congregation to praise God's name, i.e., the way in which God is present in the world; the name is mentioned three times in Ps 113:1–3. The divine name is especially honored in the Temple (Ps 113:1) but its recognition is not limited by time (Ps 113:2) and space (Ps 113:3), for God is everywhere active (Ps 113:4–5) especially in rescuing the lowly faithful (Ps 113:7–9).
e. [113:7] Ps 107:41; 1 Sm 2:7–8.
By accepting this message, you will be leaving the website of the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This link is provided
solely for the user's convenience. By providing this link, the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops assumes no responsibility for,
nor does it necessarily endorse, the website, its content, or
sponsoring organizations.


text:
Discussion about key facts in energy, environment, the economy, and politics. Tired of ideological junk? This is your place.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
UPDATED Statement about today's NYT Front Page Article Suggesting Shale Gas Is Ponzi Scheme: Reader Beware
The piece is already rocketing around facebook sites and the internet.
Reader beware. This reporter puts sensationalism ahead of fairness or truth. Pennsylvania's drinking waters are not poisoned with radionuclides, as substantial testing has verified, and the reading public should drink from this journalistic cup with great caution.
Could anyone imagine more sensationalistic narratives than Radiation, Ponzi, and Enron?
Consistent with this reporter's method, today's article uses often anonymous statements to paint a sensational narrative and leaves out or underplays critical information that is inconvenient to establishing the credibility of the dominant anti-gas narrative.
For example, the reader will not learn the following:
1. That 2010 natural gas production in the United States reached the highest levels since 1973 and neared record levels. Nor will the reader be told that the US produces more natural gas than any nation.
2. The reader will be told that natural gas prices fell by 66% due to the 2008 near depression, but the reader will not be told that US GDP in 2010 returned to 2007 size or that GDP has grown for 7 quarters.
3. The reader will not be told that actual large shale production has been the primary cause of low gas prices in 2010 and 2011, and the 2008 near depression has not been a factor in 2010 and 2011 pricing.
4. The reader will not be told that actual large shale gas production has shattered the historic pricing link between oil and gas and now oil prices have gone up while gas prices have gone down
5. The reader will not be told that, while oil prices have spiked up due to supply straining to meet demand, actual shale gas production has caused gas prices to decline.
6. The reader will be told that the alleged shale ponzi scheme could harm consumers, but the reader will not learn that actual shale gas production so far has saved a consumer heating with natural gas about $5 to $8 per thousand cubic feet or conservatively $500 per year.
7. The reader will again be warned that consumers could be hurt by the alleged ponzi scheme, but the reader will also not be told that actual shale gas production has lowered the wholesale price of electricity about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour and saved a residential electric consumer using 10,000 kilowatt-hours per year another $500 per year.
8. Though Pennsylvania and Marcellus had a starring role in the February 27th piece, the NYT reporter this time has just a couple sentences about the Marcellus. It is an interesting near exclusion.
9. All the reader is told about the Marcellus is that a Penn State professor reports well production is meeting or exceeding expectations in the Marcellus. No charts or bar graphs. No data. Nothing. Why? Very inconvenient facts for the ponzi, enron narrative is the answer.
10. The reader is not told that the well production data for the Marcellus is posted on the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. It is transparent and available to anyone.
11. The reader is told that liquids that can be produced with the natural gas can be valuable but no details. How valuable? Getting into this detail would be inconvenient to the ponzi, enron narrative.
12. The reader is told that improvements in shale gas drilling are lowering costs but no details. The details are impressive and in a separate posting we will discuss them. Again getting into this detail would be inconvenient to the ponzi, enron narrative.
And who are among the victims of the alleged Ponzi scheme? Exxon, Chevron, Shell, Statoil who all have made substantial investments in the Marcellus shale plays. They could be wrong. They could be victims of a crime. But they are incredibly sophisticated companies that engage in massive due diligence before making big investments.
The truth I suspect is something like this:
Substantial real and actual shale gas production has been a boon for consumers by driving down substantially the price of gas, saving them $1,000 or more in gas and electric bills.
Substantial, real actual shale gas production has prevented a broad energy shock by keeping gas and electricity bills stable in the United States when oil prices jumped this spring.
But booming shale gas production has been a mixed blessing for investors in gas because the success of the industry has caused the price of gas to fall sharply.
As the price of gas has fallen from $13 per thousand cubic feet in 2008 to $4.30 today, investors have not fared as well as they had expected, because returns on investment of some shale gas plays are lower than had gas been priced at the predicted $8.
Indeed at today's $4 gas, recent improvements that reduce substantially the cost of shale gas drilling and the revenues from gas liquids are vital to keeping gas wells economic.
If gas prices fall below $4, some shale gas wells will be shut in until prices return to profitable levels.
The Marcellus shale play remains the most attractive gas reserve for investors since its wells are meeting or exceeding production estimates; it has comparatively low-costs; it is located near areas consuming large amounts of gas; and portions of it are producing significant amounts of valuable liquids.
Now that is not a radioactive, ponzi, enron story. It is not sensationalistic. Why bother writing a story with that as the dominant narrative?
37 comments:
- Concerned ScientistJune 26, 2011 at 3:09 PM
Wow - Good takedown John. More writing from a guy who writes with seeming authority about topics that he doesn't really understand. Ponzi schemes are possible in the oil and gas industry, but they are generally pulled off at a small scale by fly by night operators. They hype their prospects and lure investors in with inflated numbers but at some point the thing falls apart.ReplyDelete
If this were a single operator I'd be worried. In fact I was pretty skeptical on shale gas myself in the beginning. But companies that started drilling wells 5 years ago in the Marcellus are still drilling wells in the Marcellus. In fact they drill more wells each year. That tells you something. Perhaps the most obvious reason to dismiss this article is that all of the majors (Shell, Chevron, Exxon) are now involved in shale gas. These companies have been around for a long time and plan to be around for a long time. they have the top people in the business working for them and can smell a scam a mile away. They have not become as rich as they are by getting into plays that don't make money. They have obviously looked at the economics and found something that they truly believe is going to make money.
Say you were making widgets. Your first widget plant was in Texas where it cost $5 to make a widget. As long as you can sell widgets for $7 you still make a profit. then suppose that a new widget plant opens in PA where they can make widgets for $3. They flood the market with widgets and the price drops to $5. It is no longer worth making widgets in Texas at this point so you stop making them there. This is all that is happening with shale gas. The economics are better in the Marcellus so the companies stop drilling in the Haynesville and Barnett.
The price of gas is key to the economics on all oil and gas plays. Most shale gas plays probably can't make money at $4/mcf. I have heard that the Marcellus is still profitable at that price in both northeastern and southwestern PA. This is because the production rates are high and the gas is being produced very close to major markets so transportation costs are low. I have heard that most parts of the Barnett Shale are not economic at $4 but are economic at $6/mcf. When they first started drilling the Barnett, it was profitable because the price of gas was higher. They stopped drilling when the price became so low that they could not make a profit.
When the price goes back up, which it eventually will over time, people will start drilling wells in the Barnett and Haynesville again. That is how it works. It's not a scam, it's just business.
Another embarrassing article from what used to be my newspaper.
- Concerned ScientistJune 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM
And another thing! As you pointed out, this guy's use of anonymous, confidential memos and emails should really raise a red flag with his editors and with readers. Who are these people? Do they have any credibility? They could be disgruntled employees or have unstated agendas. They may know what they are talking about or they may not have a clue. For that matter, they may not even exist! We have no way of knowing...ReplyDelete
You are absolutely correct to hammer the anonymous material that is used consistently by this reporter to reach his highest heights of sensationalism. All the juiciest, spiciest most sensationalistic quotations or references are anonymous. So the reader cannot know whether the anonymous speaker is credible or not. Or whether, as you point out, the anonymous speaker is a disgruntled employee or has some ax to grind. But it is good copy and vital to the narrative so it is news fit to print.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJune 27, 2011 at 1:29 AM
I thought the NYT piece was pretty good. I've been studying shale gas for a quite a while and the hype is over the top. Your takedown is pretty much what I would expect on the ANGA website.ReplyDelete
I think you missed the point of this article. I think that Urbina's hitting on an important story with his analysis of these emails - it's as simple as this: the industry will display a positive picture of their product to the public, despite uncertainty about their ability to deliver that picture.ReplyDelete
Of course they should do this, it's just good business.
But it is a wholly appropriate thing to report about as we struggle with figuring out how to regulate deep fracking. We need to be reminded of the perspective and agenda of the industry.
I think it's a particularly important point to make right now, because in many forums around the state that are writing these regulations, the industry seems to be the most powerful voice in the room.
Is it sensationalism? of course it is, it's the emails from people who didn't know they'd be shared. But it's also what the Freedom Of Information Act was all about.
People generally are distrustful that the industry is telling us the truth when they say "Drilling is safe.", "there has been no contamination of water from deep fracking", "safety is our number one goal" Such absolutes don't fit the sniff-test.
Urbina is just telling us to keep sniffing.
- Daniel PerlongoJune 27, 2011 at 7:07 AM
I quote from Mitch Troutman's article at Pennsylvania From Below, 5/23/2011, which I find quite convincing in considering your criticism of Ian Urbina to be unfair, and, once again, overboard on promoting the natural gas industry at the expense of the environment.ReplyDelete
One of Hanger's main criticisms was that the Times did not interview him before the running the series. But Hanger, who left the DEP in January, left out that the paper requested twice to interview him before the first story ran, according to the reporter who wrote the series. Hanger's staff did not respond to the requests for interview, so the paper submitted questions by email to the department. The Times submitted so many questions to the DEP that officials within the agency complained to the reporters' editors that the newspaper was taking too much staff time. The paper also verified by email with Hanger's department that quoted comments from him were accurately reported. After the first story ran on February 27, the Times interviewed Hanger about matters covered in the series.
Rather than responding to the content of the Times series, natural gas industry PR representatives have focused on Hanger's criticisms [1, 2]. When Pennsylvania from Below asked Ian Urbina, author of the Times series, about Hanger's response to the articles, Urbina replied, "Honestly, I'm trying to just focus on the story and the facts."
Hanger did state that the DEP needed to begin testing for radium or radioactive pollutants to "resolve the issue raised by the NYT." Corroboration for the Times' other revelations can be found from other sources. The E.P.A., for instance, immediately instructed Pennsylvania to step up monitoring. The folks at FracTracker found the Times to be on the mark. When the Philadelphia Inquirer re-crunched the recycling numbers that the Times used, they too found that the state and the industry have significantly overstated how much drilling wastewater is getting recycled.
Before embracing the NYT reporter's latest offering, please read the AP story.ReplyDelete
The NYT reporter had access to this information but he deliberately essentially excluded it from his story because it contradicts his ponzi, enron frame. He has done this to readers before and he will do it again because the NYT won't stop him.
- Concerned ScientistJune 27, 2011 at 8:40 AM
G. Smith, I understand your position and much of what you say is true. Industry should not be trusted. Their main goal is to make money and this should never be forgotten. That is why we need strong, consistently applied regulations. It is also possible that companies might hype a prospect that they know does not have much of a chance of success if they are trying to sell it. That is not the case here. Dozens of companies are involved including the majors and they are spending billions of dollars. This tells the informed person that this is real and not a con job.ReplyDelete
The worst thing about the NY Times article is that it introduces another non-issue to the debate that further confuses an already confusing issue. A thoughtful article on the different economics of each shale would have been much more informative. Basically the real story is something like this (don't quote me on numbers as they are not correct): The average cost to find and produce gas per mcf is $2 in the Marcellus, $3.50 in the Haynesville and $5 in the Barnett. Gas is currently selling for $4.30/mcf. So they stop drilling Barnett wells, curtail drilling of Haynesville wells and go whole hog in the Marcellus. On top of that, there are sweet spots in each shale play that have better economics than other areas so these are drilled preferentially. It's driven by geology and proximity to pipelines and markets. Again these numbers are not exactly accurate but this is roughly the story. A real story on economics would have been much more informative and no less interesting. The NY Times just keeps putting non-issues into the dialog that confuse readers more than inform them.
- Carbon BlackJune 27, 2011 at 9:29 AM
Great post, John!ReplyDelete
G. Smith - FYI FOIA applies only to government, not publicly traded companies. Let's try not to mix topics.
- Carbon BlackJune 27, 2011 at 9:35 AM
Which plays are drilled also depend on the natural gas liquids coming along with the gas, which are priced closer to crude oil. Reliable information from West Texas says that gas from the Sprayberry Formation can be given away and the wells are still profitable due to the liquids that can be sold into markets like propane products. Same for Eagle Ford Formation in South Texas.ReplyDelete
Daniel Perlongo:ReplyDelete
I would ask that you read my discussion of nyt reporter's decision to quote but not interview me. See the February Archive and postings of February 28th. Link at http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2011/02/not-interviewed-but-quoted-errors-and.html.
Amazingly though the nyt reporter could not interview me before February 27th, the date the article was published, he did manage to call me at my home on sunday February 27th as the world read his duplicitous handiwork. Strange that he could not find me and then found me with no problem.
Also see the 4 postings in the May and June archives reporting the radionuclide testing results. All results prove the nyt reporter's piece to be fundamentally false.
- AnonymousJune 27, 2011 at 10:20 AM
I read with interest your comments, Mr. Hanger, and I must point out a few discrepancies which you have overlooked.ReplyDelete
1.) The U.S. has ALWAYS produced virtually all the natural gas it consumes so arguments from industry and it would seem government officials such as yourself about saving us from terrorism, protecting national security, etc. are simply hype.
2.) Gas prices historically are about $6/mcf. We are trading closer today to historic prices than in 2008 when they hit $14/mcf. That was the TRUE aberration. Even a price of $8 which you mention is still an aberration from historic prices and a level we are not likely to see within at least the next 5 years.
3.) Which segues nicely to the next point, which is that had these shale operators been running their businesses in a prudent manner then production would have been choked off and wells shut in quite some time ago. Instead, they chose to keep producing. Why? Because they had to keep up debt service and since they had NO CASH on their books they could not do this without bringing more and more gas online. That is exceedingly poor resource stewardship. Not something to brag about.
4.) Your comments about the Marcellus are misleading, reckless and irresponsible because there is simply not enough data available yet on a large enough quantity of wells to adequately determine whether the play is indeed sound. There is, however, significant data available in older plays like the Barnett and Haynesville which clearly shows that the wells do not meet expectations. By the way, the Penn St. professor you refer to did state that the Haynesville "has not lived up to expectations", a point you failed to mention.
5.) your point about the Majors interesting in that you failed to note that the Majors have been unable to grow reserves for over a decade now. Reserve growth drives share price. Perhaps, just perhaps, they see the "incredible growth" in shale reserve claims as a way to boost their own share prices. These companies, unlike their shale counterparts, actually DO sit on mountains of cash, so why not invest in growing your reserves that way and thereby boost your share price. If you don't think this is a possibility, think again!
6.) And finally, as to liquids production, also called unconventional oil, you failed to note that it is the most carbon intensive, least efficient hydrocarbon to burn. In addition, it requires substantially more water and in general costs far more to produce than traditional sources of oil. The reason these companies are moving into this is because they are geared up to do horizontal production and the monies have dried up for them to some extent in the capital markets. They needed a new vehicle under which to raise monies. And how very convenient that, just like shale gas, these plays are new and we will not be able to verify numbers for quite some time on the individual plays. A bit too convenient if you ask me.
I hope this clarifies some of the confusion about shale gas.
- Concerned ScientistJune 27, 2011 at 10:27 AM
Daniel Perlongo said...ReplyDelete
"I quote from Mitch Troutman's article at Pennsylvania From Below, 5/23/2011, which I find quite convincing in considering your criticism of Ian Urbina to be unfair, and, once again, overboard on promoting the natural gas industry at the expense of the environment."
I don't see John Hanger as promoting the natural gas industry at all. I see him promoting natural gas as a source of energy. There is a big difference! The industry needs to be closely regulated and few have done more to make this happen than John Hanger. If his allegiance was to the gas industry he would not have increased regulations, fees or oversight, all of which cost the industry money. This is a very important distinction.
It highlights an important point. It is very common for people who are concerned about global warming and pollution to be anti-oil industry. For many this is a holy war - anything the industry does must be evil. There are some, like John Hanger, who can get past that sort of holy war mentality and see that natural gas is a whole helluva lot better than coal and oil as a source of energy from an environmental perspective. If you really care about global warming and the environment, then you should be FOR well-regulated shale gas development. There is no single thing that will reduce carbon emissions and pollution more over the next decade than switching from coal to gas.
The industry wants to make money and will do what it takes to turn a profit. Count on that as their primary motivation. But in this case, the thing that they want to do to make money just happens to be in our best interest environmentally.
Now for many, the holy war aspect is more important than what is actually best for the environment here in the real world. For these people, their identity is wrapped up in being against the oil and gas industry or the "evil other." So everything is viewed through that lens. It would help if people were not like this but I am afraid there are more who take sides like fans of a football team or adherents to a religion than who just look at the facts and make a decision.
- R. BeauregardJune 27, 2011 at 10:48 AM
Dear John Hanger,ReplyDelete
Thank you for your fact-based response to the NYT front-page non-factual story. I wonder if the NYT will run your response as a Letter to the Editor. They should given the prominence and controversial nature of Mr. Urbin's story. If they do not, the NYT should be labeled as a flame-throwing tabloid rather than a respected news organization that engenders honest reporting and open debate.
@Concerned Scientist, you're right, the point is that the industry shouldn't be trusted. An article that compared the different shale plays would also be good, but that's not what this article was about. It also wasn't really about MS being a Ponzi scheme (that was a quote from an industry representative, not Urbina). As for the anonymous quotes, the extraction industry (and corporations in general) have a pretty un-favorable view of whistle blowers. Some people in my town won't even talk to me about fracking because they're afraid they'll lose their job. It's not surprising at all that people are nervous to tell a reporter that the Official Story coming from the industry is, in this case, exaggerated.ReplyDelete
@John Hangar, the AP article only quotes the numbers and experiences of the industry. Of course it's great news, but I think Urbina's article would caution readers to take what they have to say with a grain of salt. Of course they're going to say Marcellus Shale drilling is all rainbows and ponies. They want to do more of it.
I also think that you've got to move past Urbina's Feb. article that you felt wronged you. Other major outlets agreed with that article, and it seemed to have lead to more testing, and verification that radiation has not leaked. That's great news. In this article, he's done what an investigative reporter should do, he identified a source of information and wrote about it. If you have reason to disagree with what was in those emails, then that's great, but I'd call it good reporting.
@Carbon Black, you're right, it was an open-records request, not a FOIA. But I believe it is in the same spirit of accountability.
- Concerned ScientistJune 27, 2011 at 11:12 AM
Wow - get this guy a job at the New York Times!ReplyDelete
"Anonymous said...
1.) The U.S. has ALWAYS produced virtually all the natural gas it consumes so arguments from industry and it would seem government officials such as yourself about saving us from terrorism, protecting national security, etc. are simply hype."
UMM, prior to shale gas it looked like production had peaked in 2001 and was declining into 2006. no matter how many wells we drilled production continued to decline. this led to the big price spike. We were importing about 25% of our gas as of 2007 and are still importing about 18%. We were talking about building huge Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) terminals and importing gas from the Middle East and other parts of the world. This may still happen but shale gas is making that much less attractive. See this website for the facts
2.) Gas prices historically are about $6/mcf. We are trading closer today to historic prices than in 2008 when they hit $14/mcf. That was the TRUE aberration. Even a price of $8 which you mention is still an aberration from historic prices and a level we are not likely to see within at least the next 5 years.
Gas prices were next to nothing from 1922 to the late 1970s, $2-3/mcf from 1980-1999. The price spike happened when it looked like production had peaked. The price has come back down now to around $4/mcf. My guess is that it will drift upward over time to around $5 where most LNG works and that will keep the price in the $5-$6 range. See this website for the facts
"3.) Which segues nicely to the next point, which is that had these shale operators been running their businesses in a prudent manner then production would have been choked off and wells shut in quite some time ago. Instead, they chose to keep producing. Why? Because they had to keep up debt service and since they had NO CASH on their books they could not do this without bringing more and more gas online. That is exceedingly poor resource stewardship. Not something to brag about."
They drilled the wells when gas as $8/mcf, then it dropped to $4. What would you do? They don't control the price. The wells are already drilled and they have to pay to maintain and operate them. Also, companies sometimes have to drill wells that don't make sense economically to hold on to their leases. They want to hold on to their leases in hopes that the price will go up again.
It's a risky business and some companies do go broke gambling on the price of gas. It's difficult when it changes as much as it has over the past few years.
- Concerned ScientistJune 27, 2011 at 11:13 AM
Continued from previous postReplyDelete
"4.) Your comments about the Marcellus are misleading, reckless and irresponsible because there is simply not enough data available yet on a large enough quantity of wells to adequately determine whether the play is indeed sound. There is, however, significant data available in older plays like the Barnett and Haynesville which clearly shows that the wells do not meet expectations. By the way, the Penn St. professor you refer to did state that the Haynesville "has not lived up to expectations", a point you failed to mention."
The Barnett, Haynesville and Marcellus have different economics. They are not the same geologically, are different distances from the market and some have associated liquids. Is this message getting through?
Companies that started drilling wells in the Marcellus 5 years ago are still drilling wells today - in fact they are escalating their drilling programs. What does this tell you? The Marcellus is exceeding the expectations of most companies and analysts. That is just a fact.
"5.) your point about the Majors interesting in that you failed to note that the Majors have been unable to grow reserves for over a decade now. Reserve growth drives share price. Perhaps, just perhaps, they see the "incredible growth" in shale reserve claims as a way to boost their own share prices. These companies, unlike their shale counterparts, actually DO sit on mountains of cash, so why not invest in growing your reserves that way and thereby boost your share price. If you don't think this is a possibility, think again!"
These companies are in it for the long haul. They see the future and it is shale. They do want their stock prices to go up but they also want to make money and to be here in 50 years. As upsetting as it may be to you, the Marcellus is a money-maker for most companies involved.
"6.) And finally, as to liquids production, also called unconventional oil, you failed to note that it is the most carbon intensive, least efficient hydrocarbon to burn. In addition, it requires substantially more water and in general costs far more to produce than traditional sources of oil. The reason these companies are moving into this is because they are geared up to do horizontal production and the monies have dried up for them to some extent in the capital markets. They needed a new vehicle under which to raise monies. And how very convenient that, just like shale gas, these plays are new and we will not be able to verify numbers for quite some time on the individual plays. A bit too convenient if you ask me."
I think you are confusing oil/condensate from the Marcellus, Bakken and Eagle Ford with the tar sands of Alberta. The Marcellus, Bakken and Eagle Ford plays are not nearly as energy and water intensive as the tar sands operations. You might want to read up on the difference. The tar sands have to be heated to reduce the viscosity and get the oil to flow - that is why it is so carbon intensive. There is no heating involved with Marcellus, Bakken or Eagle Ford.
- AnonymousJune 27, 2011 at 11:26 AM
Hey John,ReplyDelete
Tell me something. How does someone who was in PennFuture and in charge of the DEP feel about the fragmentation that is certainly going to occur to Pennsylvania's forests as a result of Marcellus (and Utica) shale drilling?
We all hear about water and that is obviously important. But from a broader forest ecosystem perspective, the next decade is going to fundamentally transform rural PA forestland from intact, functioning ecosystems to fragmented industrialized landscapes.
And you are ok with that? Because there is no "lessening" the impact on the ground. You can possibly do everything you can to protect ground and surface water - but you have to cut the trees down for the roads and well pads. And that is going to devastate our forests (state and private).
I supported and continue to support Governor Rendell's Executive Order imposing a 3-year moratorium on further drilling in the state forests. Indeed John Quigley and I recommended to Governor Rendell that he issue the order. He issued the order after the House of Representatives passed a bill imposing a state forest moratorium by a vote of 150 to 50 and after the state senate refused to vote on the bill in October 2010. Governor Corbett said in the campaign that he would immediately rescind the Executive Order. He has not so far done so. Doing so would probably mean the state forests lose their sustainability certification and that in turn would cause thousands of timbering jobs that require the certification to be lost.ReplyDelete
As to private lands, I have consistently said private land owners should be allowed to make decisions about the use of their lands and that any gas drilling that occurs on private lands at the direction of their owners must be strongly regulated. I enacted 4 packages of regulations from September 2008 to January 2011 that all strengthen the regulation of this industry. Regulations include site controls and restoration requirements. I also support a drilling tax with proceeds in part funding Growing Greener to address many of our legacy, continuing habitat, water and other problems. That funding would be an opportunity to do important restoration work.
I have also said that gas drilling is industrial activity that cannot be done without zero impact. It does have impacts.
But its impacts are much less in the production and combustion process than coal and oil. This nation gets 60% of its total energy from coal and oil. You say no to gas you are saying yes to coal and oil. Nobody has done more than me in Pa for renewables and energy conservation. I am thrilled that we have 16 operating wind farms and 4 more under construction and that we have 6,000 operating or under construction solar systems. Renewables and efficiency are vital and should be accelerated. But renewables will have a great decade if they account for 20% of total US energy by 2020. That will leave 80% coming from coal, oil, gas or nuclear. That is the reality.
- Concerned ScientistJune 27, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Anonymous said...ReplyDelete
"Hey John,
Tell me something. How does someone who was in PennFuture and in charge of the DEP feel about the fragmentation that is certainly going to occur to Pennsylvania's forests as a result of Marcellus (and Utica) shale drilling?"
This person is a bit off base but does hit on what I think is the real thing that environmental groups should be fighting for and that is for minimal visual and surface impact.
This person is off base because the landscape will hardly be "industrialized." The plan is to have a well pad every 480-640 acres from which multiple wells are drilled. 640 acres is a square mile. It might even be possible to have one well pad every two square miles. The well pads will require about 3-5 acres of clearing plus a road. So say the road takes up 2 acres of land that is about 5-7 total acres. Let's call it 6.4 acres. 6.4/640 = 1/100. So roughly 1/100 of the land is/will be cleared. The actual tanks and well heads will probably cover about 1/2 to 1 acre of that land. So it is hardly industrialization of the landscape. A house or barn would have a similar impact.
In a wooded area, it will be hard to see the well sites from farther than a hundred yards. In cleared areas, well sites could be an eyesore for some distance. I would be for strong community involvement in the placing of well pads to minimize visual impacts. Perhaps creative things could be done to camouflage the well sites. This is a battle worth fighting though.
I find it unlikely that this will destroy any ecosystems but am open to the idea that it could happen. Everything possible should be done to make sure this does not happen. I would be very interested to see any actual studies by disinterested scientists on this.
Thanks for the post John. Hats off to the Times for their online source material and links to the actual emails & reports in question, but it brings to light a real problem with article in that it relies on a lot of dated material. Many of the quotes and skepticism are from 2009 or 2010 source material. I was a shale gas skeptic in 2009. Today, following the Marcellus closely, it is absurd to think that the industry's 2009 well and potential reserve estimates were overly optimistic. To the contrary, wells have proved to be bigger with flatter initial declines than anticipated. Clearly, how wells will continue to perform overtime is a big question, but the evidence so far is compelling. For reference, in March of 2009 Chesapeake suggested they had 4,100 risked net undrilled wells and expected avg. reserves per well of 3.75 BCF over their 1.3 million net acre position. By October 2010 their actual well results indicated average EUR over 5 BCF. PA production data at year end 2010 suggested that 5 BCF might be low for their Pennsylvania wells. At a minimum, Chesapeake publicly underestimated the potential in Bradford and Susquehanna counties by a significant factor.ReplyDelete
Today there is a strong case to be made that shale gas has been the opposite of a Ponzi scheme. The operators that may have gotten into trouble are the ones that have underestimated the scope of the shale gas impact on gas price. The Barnett and Haynesville have not disappointed, they just have to compete with the Marcellus and the Eagle Ford. Again with Chesapeake, on March 2009 they predicted per well EUR to average 6.5 in the Haynesville and by October 2010, their wells were averaging production consistent with 6.5 BCF EUR production. The disappointing part was that the price of gas in fall of 2010 was closer to $4.00 than the $6.00 + price that Chesapeake and nearly everyone else anticipated. Arguably the abundance of shale gas reserves is a major factor in the historically low price of gas.
- AnonymousJune 27, 2011 at 1:09 PM
NYT has zero credibilityReplyDelete
- AnonymousJune 27, 2011 at 1:43 PM
Concerned Scientist:ReplyDelete
I encourage you to take a look at north-central Pennsylania in Google Earth. Zoom in and appreciate how unfragmented much of that landscape is because it isn't going to last long.
The well pads are anywhere from 3-7 acres. Then you have the holding ponds which can be another couple acres. And I've seen wells much closer together than the figures you're using.
Regardless, even if your figures are accurate, imagine that kind of development superimposed over the forests of north-central Pennsylvania. It is going to have a profoundly significant impact on those forests. And it isn't just a concern about viewsheds...it is about species decline. Pennsylvania is blessed to have such intact forests in the central part of the state. Marcellus and Utica shale gas drilling is going to fundamentally and, perhaps, irreparably alter that.
- Concerned ScientistJune 27, 2011 at 2:11 PM
That is not Marcellus drilling in that part of PA = Those are much older wells.
I would be opposed to anything that will cause a significant change in the ecosystem. Show me evidence that this is true and I will join your fight to protect those species. Do you think building a house with a driveway every square mile would cause a similar problem? In the end, that is pretty much what the footprint will be like after they complete the wells.
That said, I think this is a good fight. Fight for the smallest possible surface footprint. The technology exists for one well pad per square mile or even one well pad per two square miles.
- AnonymousJune 27, 2011 at 4:02 PM
Someone turned me onto this blog this morning and I rather hoped that the content would be of a higher caliber. There seems to be a lot of misinformation that sounds like it came directly from industry press releases. I was hoping for more. One of the most sensible comments I see is the one from anonymous "clarifying" the confusion on nat gas. That guy knows his stuff. To make the assumption as Concerned Scientist did, that just because companies are drilling in the Marcellus is a good indication that they are making money is ludicrous. They had a drilling frenzy in Barnett and then when the production history started looking nasty, they cleared out as fast as possible. Ches has sold off most Barnett assets, Range completely sold out in spite of telling analysts on their call only 6 weeks earlier that the Barnett was one of their core holdings and the list goes on. Quicksilver out....Anonymous is right, we can't verify the numbers in the Marcellus so I am not putting any more eggs in this basket.ReplyDelete
As for the criticism of the NYT for dated material. Huh? To my mind, the fact that the material was spread over several years and was found at so many levels of these companies showed a much more comprehensive and pervasive problem. I was impressed with the Times work. Sorry guys. The same old rebuttals are starting to sound tired.
- AnonymousJune 27, 2011 at 4:21 PM
I am a mineral owner in the Eagle Ford... The play runs from the Country of Mexico to East Texas. I would like to see you find a significant number of trees to cut for pads and roads in about 3/4th to the South of the play. It is mostly scrub brush. You tree huggers come on down to Texas and take a look...........ReplyDelete
This thread provides a perfect example of why developing energy policy for the U.S. is such a challenge. Too many folks seem to focus on the faults of a single energy source, without addressing the alternatives or demand. We see it with arguments against coal, wind, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, and natural gas. But yet, we Americans expect our stoves to heat up when we turn the knob, lights to turn on when we flip the switch, cold rooms to warm up when we crank up the thermostat, and hot water to pour from the faucet when we turn the handle.ReplyDelete
When will we stop pretending that all of those demands come without any cost?
- Daniel PerlongoJune 28, 2011 at 6:28 AM
Concerned Scientist,ReplyDelete
I should have said overboard on promoting natural gas as a source of energy at the expense of the environment, rather than "overboard on promoting the natural gas industry at the expense of the environment."
I don't feel that I am in a holy war. I do understand that natural gas can be an improvement over coal if done in a highly regulated way, and I am grateful to John for making that clear. I think though that if we can build the political will, we can speed up the development of renewables for our energy. And I don't accept that the choice is between energy or the environment. I see the gas industry using John's blog work as a promotional tool with which to push back against people with reasonable environmental concerns. And only in that sense does his promotion of natural gas as an energy source seem to me to be at the expense of the environment.
- Concerned ScientistJune 28, 2011 at 7:04 AM
Anonymous said...ReplyDelete
"Someone turned me onto this blog this morning and I rather hoped that the content would be of a higher caliber. There seems to be a lot of misinformation that sounds like it came directly from industry press releases. I was hoping for more. One of the most sensible comments I see is the one from anonymous "clarifying" the confusion on nat gas. That guy knows his stuff."
Let's see, that wouldn't have been YOU who wrote that could it? That was the most confused thing written in these comments. If you read John Hanger you will hear him criticize the industry when warranted. It could always be done better.
"To make the assumption as Concerned Scientist did, that just because companies are drilling in the Marcellus is a good indication that they are making money is ludicrous. They had a drilling frenzy in Barnett and then when the production history started looking nasty, they cleared out as fast as possible."
You actually make my point for me here. They are not clearing out of the Marcellus - they are drilling even more. And the majors are moving in. And apparently everyone hasn't cleared out of the Barnett as the production is at a record high.
To clarify the problem with skeptical remarks from 2009 - In 2009 the production / drilling results were primarily from the Barnett with a couple of years of Fayetteville results. There really wasn't much proof to a non geologist that shale gas was for real and that it would have dramatic impact on the industry. Since then, thousands of wells in 3 or 4 more plays have provided a mountain of new evidence. In early 2009 a new well in PA that could produce 3 MMcf/d at peak was real news that an operator would be pleased to share. Yesterday we read about Cabot wells in PA that hit 30 MMcf/d. Literally, the best wells are 10 times better than when the questionable quotes were made.ReplyDelete
Whether in error or by design it is invalid to use anonymous expert quotes from 2009 to assert that in 2011 we should be skeptical of shale gas production. The NYT really should be better than that.
- Daniel PerlongoJune 28, 2011 at 9:31 AM
After reading John's response to Stanley (included below) under another heading this morning, I take back my earlier criticism, and, in fact, applaud John's positive work for the environment.ReplyDelete
Stanley: I think I do know better. That is why I led Pennsylvania's successful efforts to build 16 operating wind farms, with another 4 wind farms under construction now, operate or have under construction 6,000 solar facilities, 50 biodigesters on farms, 43 landfills capturing methane and converting to electricity, and passing in 2008 Act 129, one of the five biggest electricity conservation programs in the USA. But even if one counts corn ethanol and large hydro, renewable energy will be doing well to provide 20% of total US energy in 2020. So where do you want to get the other 80% in 2020 or 89% of energy from now. Coal, oil, gas or nuclear? As we accelerate deployment of renewables to get to 20%, where is the other energy going to come from? If you don't like gas, that means you are choosing coal, oil, nuclear. But new nuclear takes at least 10 years to build and will only get built if the national government completely pays for it, as a result of the high up front capital costs, to say nothing about the waste issue. I also live in the Three Mile Island evacuation area. I can bet you the people at Fukushima wish now the power plants in their neighborhood had been gas right when the earthquake hit. So what is going to supply the other 80% from now until 2020 and then what will provide the 70% or 60%? Gas and arguably nuclear will do less damage to the environment than coal or oil. The reality is not always perfect.
June 27, 2011 8:44 PM
I appreciate the posting and the dialogue. I personally buy 100% wind energy electricity product for my home from wind farms in Pennsylvania. I would urge all readers who want to accelerate renewables to do the same and to support policies that will do so. I also drive a Prius and my wife and I have bought my children each one too. I am now in the market for a Volt, made in the USA. But most of our energy for a long time is going to come from something other than renewables. Gas has many advantages over the other non-renewable options. We must work to regulate it strongly and tax it reasonably and have it displace coal and oil as much as possible.
- Concerned ScientistJune 28, 2011 at 10:46 AM
John, your post at 9:42 above is why I read this blog. You get it.ReplyDelete
I also buy wind energy, moved close enough to walk to work and have a hybrid for when I do drive. I too am a big supporter of moving toward wind and solar as fast as possible.
Daniel - I am all for addressing reasonable environmental concerns and strong regulation. What gets under my skin are people who are making up problems that don't exist and forcing everyone to spend time addressing these fake issues. This distracts from the real issues. The NYT, Propublica and Gasland are forcing people to spend time on non-issues when they could be fighting for:
Close regulation and frequent inspections
Minimizing surface impact with fewer well pads,
Minimized air pollution from drilling
Green completion technology
100% waste water recycling
Minimizing truck trips
Minimizing noise from compressors
Minimizing greenhouse gas emissions during drilling
Getting coal plants shut down
I will state up front that I worked in the oil and gas service industry for 30+ years and I still have friendas in the industry. I've ridden the booms and the busts all the way. I'll also state we wouldn't be in this mess if alternative energy was more important than cheap energy at any cost.ReplyDelete
The Barnett is still going strong. Just because CHK has moved on doesn't mean it's over. Too many people don't understand the industry as a whole. When the majors and large independents (CHK) move on, the small independents move in. For a large company the Barnett is uneconomical under $5.00 gas, for others not necessarily.
I haven't read the article and, honestly, won't give it the time of day. I've read the same arguments for 30+ years.
Concerned Scientist quoted John and Daniel.
I agree wholeheartedly towards moving away from fossil fuels.
The distractions actually help the oil and gas industry.
Your list of issues to fight for are admirable.
Minimizing surface impact is great for forested areas, but as someone said earlier find some trees to cut down in South Texas or West Texas for that matter. The regulations need to be case by case, not a blanket deal.
Most companies are doing all they can to minimize the truck trips. Especially at today's transportation costs.
If you want to move away from fossil fuels I'll give you a quote from a Master's Degree student from Germany in 1988. There is one caveat, your gasoline prices will go to $10.00 per gallon quickly and natural gas will skyrocket.
"If the US companies had to follow the regualtions we have in Germany, they couldn't afford to drill. All our locations have to covered completely in concrete with ditches to catch any water the touches the rig. Then it has to be hauled off and treated. None of it can touch the ground." He's talking about rain water also. If you get this one regulation in place a mass exodus to alternative enery will occur. This is a real conversation, not imagined.
But let's be real. This isn't going to happen over night. It takes a coordinated effort, not a lot of one side bashing the other. When that happens it sounds like our two main political parties, the ones who day they care about us. Mainstream America has to become the driving force and quit listening to the far left and far right tell us how to live. Use your own grey matter to sort things out. The distractions provide by such articles do give the industry a reason to push back.
I know I ramble anymore, sorry for that. Just my 2 cents
I appreciate you providing this comment. Very interesting.
I read the article and comments as a non-expert with the knowledge that the "experts" on both sides have a vested interest in slanting their responses to best support their own interests. In truth, I believe that the accurate facts fall somewhere in the middle. More than anything else, I refuse to accept any news story that does not offer verifiable facts and instead cites anon sources. I trust news reporters only slightly more than politicians.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 11, 2012 at 6:26 AM
I like the helpful information you provide in your articles. I will bookmark your blog and check again here regularly. I'm quite certain I will learn lots of new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next!ReplyDelete
Samco Scientific 273 3in General Purpose Transfer Pipette Overall Capacity 1.7mL With Bulb Draw Of 0.9mL Individually Wrapped Sterile (Pack Of 500)