Up to 550 million cubic feet daily, and this pales compared to Russia's 20 billion cubic meters annually! It's almost as if these idiots are defying the planet to die...
Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership (GGFR)
Wow. Last year I sold some mineral rights, gas in Pennsylvania. Of course t here could be oil under it but who cares anymore. Really, in about seven ye ars the CONSUMER demand will probably go down to half what it is. Still the military uses the most, as well as air travel.
That little thing, I signed the agreement and got it notarized, sent it bac k. Then I get an email that they forgot about the W-9. Well this is not wor k, for that you need it at $600 or more, but this was the sale of an inheri ted asset ion the ground and I am pretty sure that the standard deduction f or that is in the millions.
I replied that there was no mention of this in the "contract" so if they do n't send me the check for the agreed amount I will consider them in breach of contract. Next day "Check went out in today's mail. So this is last year and in like March I get a letter from them saying I need to fill out a W-9 . I used it to light a hooter. }:-)>
Everybody wants to try shit. That company probably wanted to look good to t he IRS. Well I ain't putting up with any deduction and I am not giving you my SSN. If you want your check back too bad.
If I get audited, which I won't, all I need is some of the tax code to get me outta there. Plus the IRS doesn't scare me anyway. I can handle them fuc ks easy.
there could be oil under it but who cares anymore. Really, in about seven years the CONSUMER demand will probably go down to half what it is. Still t he military uses the most, as well as air travel.
ack. Then I get an email that they forgot about the W-9. Well this is not w ork, for that you need it at $600 or more, but this was the sale of an inhe rited asset ion the ground and I am pretty sure that the standard deduction for that is in the millions.
don't send me the check for the agreed amount I will consider them in breac h of contract. Next day "Check went out in today's mail. So this is last ye ar and in like March I get a letter from them saying I need to fill out a W
-9. I used it to light a hooter. }:-)>
the IRS. Well I ain't putting up with any deduction and I am not giving yo u my SSN. If you want your check back too bad.
t me outta there. Plus the IRS doesn't scare me anyway. I can handle them f ucks easy.
They can't legally complete the transaction, which they're required to repo rt to the IRS, without the W-9. It doesn't need to be specified in the cont ract. They're not looking to tax you anything. If you've already taken thei r money, they will come after you, you should send them the W-9.
there could be oil under it but who cares anymore. Really, in about seven years the CONSUMER demand will probably go down to half what it is. Still t he military uses the most, as well as air travel.
ack. Then I get an email that they forgot about the W-9. Well this is not w ork, for that you need it at $600 or more, but this was the sale of an inhe rited asset ion the ground and I am pretty sure that the standard deduction for that is in the millions.
don't send me the check for the agreed amount I will consider them in breac h of contract. Next day "Check went out in today's mail. So this is last ye ar and in like March I get a letter from them saying I need to fill out a W
-9. I used it to light a hooter. }:-)>
the IRS. Well I ain't putting up with any deduction and I am not giving yo u my SSN. If you want your check back too bad.
t me outta there. Plus the IRS doesn't scare me anyway. I can handle them f ucks easy.
Failure to furnish TIN. If you fail to furnish your correct TIN to a requester, you are subject to a penalty of $50 for each such failure unless your failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.
See the form Penalties section:
Well, now you have a gas-producing well far away from homes, etc that could use it on a more-or less continuous basis. Watcha yius can do?
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I suspect that if you look into this, while they are burning enough gas to supply TX, that gas is from many wells scattered over a huge area with no gas pipelines and it's not economically feasible, or worth it, to build the necessary infrastructure. I suppose you could convert it to electrical energy and get it to the grid a lot easier, but you'd think if that was technologically possible and economically feasible, the well owners would be doing it, instead of throwing the gas away.
There are lots of regulations that raise the cost of stuff for the greater good. Why is this any different?
Who said that it was any different and what are you even talking about? I didn't see anything about "regulations" in the two links. If you want regulations, I'd suggest starting with Russia, Iraq, and Iran, they are all way larger emitters than the US. See how that works out.
On the other hand, if you want to provide some tax incentives to oil producers to make it economically feasible to use some of that natural gas, I would support that.
You got the reply on you but it is not directed at you...
When they get oil from a well it is alot higher in work v profit than gas. They look at gas like a byproduct. Of course there is oil under much of it but what they doing like Pennsylvania is to make the wells and put tanks on them. Then a truck comes around and pumps it out into the truck. The meter determines what the owner of the rights is to be paid, if they retain them . We were offered that years ago on the same property but that would REALLY require giving up tax info, which we do not do.
That would have been income officially and no way out. An outright sale, no problem. But the fact is like the oil is the shit and the gas is the fart. All worth money but some more than other.
Now there are socialist countries, say Norway. The government owns 40% of t he oil wells and whatever else. That money goes for the infrastructure and whatever, not into the pockets of a half dozen people. It is very different and from what I read, that form of, perhaps mild socialism does not stifle everything like it did with the Soviets or our democrats.
the oil wells and whatever else. That money goes for the infrastructure an d whatever, not into the pockets of a half dozen people. It is very differe nt and from what I read, that form of, perhaps mild socialism does not stif le everything like it did with the Soviets or our democrats.
The fallacy is giving things a label and then thinking that describes the t hing. Socialism is just a label. We are socialistic in some ways. Rather than dealing with labels, why not just deal with the things directly?
-- Rick C. + Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
the oil wells and whatever else. That money goes for the infrastructure an d whatever, not into the pockets of a half dozen people. It is very differe nt and from what I read, that form of, perhaps mild socialism does not stif le everything like it did with the Soviets or our democrats.
USSR socialism, if it even was socialism, removed the incentive to profit b y delivering something of value. The outcome was very predictable, and not too good. UK socialism is the welfare system. The minority that can't make ends meet get to eat & mostly not be homeless or get sucked into crime. Crime is very inefficient, so we don't really lose anything by paying them.
NT
I won't argue against that.
Directly ? Well that deserves definition. Yeah I know.
There is some socialism necessary for a society such as ours to work. I do not deny that.
The interstate highway system could be described as socialistic. Many other public projects having to do with infrastructure - the same. There are pipelines of water between states, the feds are the boss of what crosses state lines for better or worse.
What if one state wanted to keep another from getting water ? Rivers are long. There has to be something. I agree with that, just not the level of socialism some want.
They get the product of the well to market. They already have a conduit. Regulate emissions, just like they regulate emissions from my car. It will raise prices and the market will take care of it.
It's the difference between paying them directly (tax incentives) for doing nothing and requiring emission reductions that incentivizes them to maximize the efficiency of reclamation, AKA profits. They are already skilled at maximizing profits.
of the oil wells and whatever else. That money goes for the infrastructure and whatever, not into the pockets of a half dozen people. It is very diffe rent and from what I read, that form of, perhaps mild socialism does not st ifle everything like it did with the Soviets or our democrats.
by delivering something of value. The outcome was very predictable, and no t too good.
t get to eat & mostly not be homeless or get sucked into crime. Crime is ve ry inefficient, so we don't really lose anything by paying them.
Scandinavia shows that if you spend a bit more supporting the indigent mino rity, their kids can be insulated from their parent's inadequacies.
Up there, kids from single parent households do just as well as kids from t wo-parent households.
does make the point that economic inequality has all sorts of unfortunate s ide effects. The UK is less unequal that the US and has less of the accompa nying social problems, but it is still a lot more unequal than place like A ustralia, while Scandinavia leads the pack when it comes to be more nearly economically equal, not that a Gini coefficient of 0.25 corresponds to any kind of classless society.
There are plenty of rich people in Scandinavia, but the social distinctions aren't quite as obvious or debilitating as they are in the USA or the UK.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
he thing. Socialism is just a label."
not just deal with the things directly? "
o not deny that.
er public projects having to do with infrastructure - the same. There are p ipelines of water between states, the feds are the boss of what crosses sta te lines for better or worse.
long. There has to be something. I agree with that, just not the level of s ocialism some want.
My point is using the word socialism doesn't add anything to the conversati on. If you want to discuss an issue, discuss the issue. Why worry with gi ving it a label? Not much different from people labeling others or ideas a s liberal or conservative. Each label carries a lot of implications which may or may not relate to the person or idea being discussed. As soon as so meone uses a label like this too casually I realize they have an agenda.
-- Rick C. -- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
the thing. Socialism is just a label."
y not just deal with the things directly? "
do not deny that.
ther public projects having to do with infrastructure - the same. There are pipelines of water between states, the feds are the boss of what crosses s tate lines for better or worse.
e long. There has to be something. I agree with that, just not the level of socialism some want.
tion. If you want to discuss an issue, discuss the issue. Why worry with giving it a label? Not much different from people labeling others or ideas as liberal or conservative. Each label carries a lot of implications whic h may or may not relate to the person or idea being discussed. As soon as someone uses a label like this too casually I realize they have an agenda.
With Americans, the situation is complicated by the fact that the American main stream media spent nearly a century trying to inculcate the idea that socialism and communism are the same thing.
Communism is a totalitarian system that tries to impose the communist party 's notion of socialism on the rest of the population - which is decidedly u ndemocratic and unsocialist.
Karl Marx and the proto-communist part got thrown out of the internationali st socialist movement in 1871 on this basis. The discussion prompted Mikhai l Bakunin to make one of the more prophetic remarks on record
?If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.?
Not something that US mainstream media has latched onto. Donald Trump is ex hibiting the same problem - he hasn't got absolute power, but seems to thin k he has something close to it, and is trying to do all sorts of foolish an d counter-productive stuff that happens to appeal to him.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Check.
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Then your point indictaes that you do not actually know what it is, much less ANY of the implications of it.
IOW, your history education went right the f*ck over your head.
Free society, free enterprize, free elections... those are the things that work.socialism and communism... total fails throughout history, especially on the human rights end.
Robert Baer wrote in news:zrUuE.237311$ snipped-for-privacy@fx17.iad:
basin-
I see not heat exchangers mounted anywhere near those burn heads, and those burn heads are at every refinery, burning 24/7/365.
There are a lot of places where we could capture the heat from something we decided to burn.
A house that looks cool like a castle, built with stone all around, yet it has 6 tall spires of ugly chimneys sticking up past the roof peaks all over it, making the entire house look ugly. No excess heat capture devices of exchangers anuwhere.
We waste in so many places and so many trivialize it.
One word response... 'check'?
I've got one for you... LAME.
. They look at gas like a byproduct. Of course there is oil under much of i t but what they doing like Pennsylvania is to make the wells and put tanks on them. Then a truck comes around and pumps it out into the truck. The met er determines what the owner of the rights is to be paid, if they retain th em. We were offered that years ago on the same property but that would REAL LY require giving up tax info, which we do not do.
no problem. But the fact is like the oil is the shit and the gas is the far t. All worth money but some more than other.
the oil wells and whatever else. That money goes for the infrastructure an d whatever, not into the pockets of a half dozen people. It is very differe nt and from what I read, that form of, perhaps mild socialism does not stif le >everything like it did with the Soviets or our democrats.
ROFL
The govt owning 40% of oil wells and "whatever else", is mild socialism and doesn't stifle everything like it did with Democrats? And to top it off you spout the classic socialist platitude, "the money goes for infrastructu re and "whatever", not into the pockets of a half dozen people. Sounds like Bernie.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.