Using global warming is a sad example.:lol:
Maybe you should stop taking medication when you get sick...since its produced by a corporation
Except ..you prolly feel more strongly about Co2 emissions than I do...so stop breathing .
We plant more trees...that produce more oxygen
Taxes don't reduce co2 emmisions.

Think about it..

Edited by Socawho: 24/5/2016 07:00:55 PM

Edited by Socawho: 24/5/2016 08:59:25 PM

I've been whinging about anti-mining sentiment since you and AfromanGT used to go off at each other mate.

I do a bit of work with mining but a hell of a lot more with Dams.

Geotechnical engineering crosses mining/commercial. We just drill holes and crack rocks ;)

Edited by bethfc: 24/5/2016 06:15:11 PM

Oh, do you work in mining BETHFC? First time I'm hearing it.

His mistake in this thread was bringing up things that directly relate to my job.

If you want to sprout propaganda, make sure you know more than everyone else right? :lol:

This! On every subject that Murdoch has an opinion on but no actual knowledge, which is just about everything.

Crikey, hard to argue with such logic.....

Shouldn't you have added "if you are serious about global warming, you should also stop breathing as you are expelling carbon dioxide"































FFS

No it's an assessment of something you don't understand and yet continually try and attack.

I've called you out before for your misunderstanding when it comes to mining practice and you continually either ignore me or deflect.

Unless you want to have a discussion where you engage in the points made rather than ignoring or deflecting I'm done with this propaganda thread.

I ignored it because your detailed post is a stonewall red herring to the key issue.

What are you using to communicate on here?...a computer carved from rock😌
Do you grow your own vegetables and hunt your own meat everyday?
Do you pedal a bike everywhere you go?
How do you travel overseas?...do you use a home made canoe ?
And finally if you use money as a means of getting by on any level then you are absolute hypocrite on the grandest scale
Your contempt for anything capitalist reduces your moral vanity to rubble considering any commodity requires money or investment to get it started.
You might do well to go on crowdfunding /kick starter to realise even those renewable projects require money to facilitate it.

But you're too naive since you think an egg can be grown without a hen, so that makes you a complete waste of space

Edited by Socawho: 24/5/2016 03:00:13 PM

Edited by Socawho: 24/5/2016 03:01:26 PM

Would you like to make comments on my above post or are you just going to ignore things you can't blame on right wingers?

Yep, the externalities of environmental death & destruction 'are all part of doing business'........

I find it funny how Rags is so anti - capitalist that the clothes he wears, the food he eats, the car/bike he drives or ride, would not be possible without some form of capitalist intervention / investment .

A dam is a complex structure. Too much clay and it softens when saturated and cracks when it's dry. If a dam softens it can move and eventually fail. Too much granular material and it's permeable and you get downstream sloughing, tunnel erosion and long term 'creep'. In this instance at first sight it appears as though they raised capacity which was then filled. The dam also had cracks in previous years which could have been a result of many things. Shear failure of the embankment, drying out of the clay shell of the dam. The technical notes mention a report by others who suggested the construction of a buttress acting as a gravity wall against the 'creep' movement of the dam embankment.

Brazil also has inadequate mining regulations, look them up. Compare theirs to ours. In Australia companies pay companies like mine to provide them geotechnical data to prevent dam failures. We do a lot of Cone Penetrometer tests and Dutch Cone tests to assess the density of the slurry within the dam. It's incredibly difficult to predict settlement of the tailings suspension in a dam in order to be able to calculate with any degree of confidence the density of the material retained in the dam.

The technical notes suggest the mine operator ignored reports about structural defects associated with raising the height of the embankment. However to insinuate this sort of stuff would be allowed to happen on such a large scale in Australia is clutching at straws.

Remember Ricey MKII, these structures are designed by best practice which involves assumptions and human error. How are we to predict the 10 year evaporation rate of a slurry? Remember your scientific method hat. Humans and their assumptions are not ironclad. Be reasonable.

Because the Left-wing have done such a fantastic job building successful economies and not oppressing peoples rights. Fantastic job Afghanistan, Russia, North Korea, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Albania Bulgaria, Angola, Benin, Cambodia, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, East Germany, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Somalia, Yemen, Venezuela, Myanmar, Libya. Such success

Yep, let's treat the populace as mushrooms. Libs have already been doing it on 'border security'
It's not unrealistic expectations, it's just you're just too self centred to care. Your response on the Brazilian mining disaster in this thread is Prima facie evidence.
As per sig, right wingers couldn't give a flying fuck about long term consequences, as long as a buck can be made....

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 23/5/2016 06:37:39 PM

You're naive because you expect things to be different to how they are. We have some of the most stringent mining legislation in the world.

Companies go out of business all the time and staff get screwed. Where is their slush fund?

This thread is about you copying and pasting ABC articles about an industry you clearly do not understand or have unrealistic expectations of.

Strange that you label me naive when this thread shoves reality in people's faces
Additionally, the title of the thread gets to the heart of the issue

:lol: Oh sweetie you're so naive. What do you expect to happen?

The aim of the game is to get it out of the ground as cheaply and efficiently as possible so people can actually afford to buy the things resources make.

Companies are already made to put up a bond to cover some of the reinstatement costs. Google the Adani Carmichael mine and the associated approval conditions :lol:

A bit like those wind farms that produce fuck all energy

I can only come to the conclusion you wilfully ignore the profit incentive of mining companies that, unconscionably, look to screw as much profit as they can out of the ground and put aside little, if any, for reparations. Then, surprise surprise, they go bankrupt and the environment (& workers) are left fucked.
The outcome of unrestrained & unchecked capitalism.

Your conclusion is bizarre. There are a lot of companies against the wall at present with low demand for coal.

Would be good if companies had to have a slush fund to rehabilitate their operations in the event that the company goes into administration.

Screw the pooch and then walk away.
One example of why neoliberalism is an ugly ideology. And simplistic to boot.

I guess that's where 'Peak Oil' theory gains traction. Accessing tight oil is on the enviro-warrior radar with the mis-understood techniques used to fracture the sandstone formations to access the oil.

Public perception is important. Look at the slog the Coal industry is having. 10 years ago the Adani mine wouldn't have come under any form of public pressure. It would be up and running by now.



Even Hubbert (Spelling?) the bloke who predicted Peak Oil in 1970 agrees now that the definition is not concrete. He made his predictions years before new super oil fields were found.

I don't think we'll ever have the same level of confidence in the oil industry given that Climate Change is such a hot topic and will remain so for some time.

Perhaps I'm wrong in linking public perception in coal to public perception in oil and basing it on Australian perception only.



Going back to my conspiracy theory, I think that they could manufacture a 'supply shock' simply to raise demand and increase profits. Their margins must be scarily low with the price of crude well under $100.



That's an ideal situation. It would be nice if our government started slowly building towards a renewable grid. Lets say an arbitrary number of $2 billion a year for 20 years instead of reaching an emergency and having to spend $40bn in 1 year.

this is no peak oil

...and also the fact that we have a glut of cheap oil, as well as the development of natural gas. Investment and exploration will ramp up if/when it is economic to do so.

I slightly disagree with your definition of peak oil, as I think it is somewhat arbitrary and can change if the economic situation changes (eg nothing to stop increased investment and exploration if the economics dictates).

If you had a supply shock occur again like occurred in the 1970s, that would trigger investment and exploration.

It's an interesting question though. I tend to think we won't ever reach a "peak oil" scenario in terms of decreasing supply, ballooning production costs etc.

I think the technology of renewables will become economic long before an oil supply crunch occurs.

Some time between 1970-1984 is the magic period before 'tight' oil, sand tars and what not technology allowed further extraction. Pure crude production started going downhill in 72 (Texas Crude).

I don't see peak oil as completely production related. You nearly endlessly ramp up production for decades. From my uni days, peak exploration, investment and production was somewhere in the late 70's early 80's. These days production may be higher than ever but investment and exploration is much lower, especially given well documented disasters (Deep Water Horizon) and poor public perception.

Just to clarify, how have you come to the conclusion that peak oil was 22 years ago? And how do you define what peak oil means?

Just asking because oil production is currently as high as it has ever been - hence why the price is now so low...

name of the game of oil today is : don't leave any oil in the ground , because oil that still in the ground in 10 years time, will stay there for ever

candle industry declined rapidly upon the introduction of superior methods of lighting, including kerosene and lamps and the 1879 invention of the incandescent light bulb.

Edited by adrtho: 4/3/2016 12:56:20 PM

I don't want to get into a nitty-gritty argument but the above is fundamentally flawed and you had me at "the good thing about coal is...".

I'm not an environmentalist, so my issue doesn't come from a Greens perspective.

Your assumption is that coal is "base load" or that we require a base-load power generated at the plant. Which as I said, is fundamentally flawed and a myth of coal advocacy groups.

Edited by socceroo_06: 4/3/2016 12:54:11 PM

Yeh I see what you're saying.

The minor conspiracy theorist in me says that although peak oil his 22 years ago that the oil industry is too big just to fade away.