RE: Long term memory is extra-corporeal

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 7:46 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Long term memory is extra-corporeal

 

 

 


On 26 Dec 2014, at 1:43 pm, meekerdb  wrote:

On 12/25/2014 1:17 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

In paper 

Forsdyke, D.R. (2009). Samuel Butler and human long term memory: is the 
cupboard bare? Journal of Theoretical Biology 258(1), 156-164. (see 
http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/mind01.htm 
 ) 

the author considers a possibility that the long term memory is outside the 
brain. I guess that Bruno should like it. 


That seems backwards for Bruno's idea.  If memories are outside the brain then 
they should survive destruction of the brain.  But as I understand Bruno's idea 
one's "soul" survives destruction of the brain as in reincarnation, but 
memories don't.

Brent 

 

Don't forget this is about long-term memory. How long is long-term? I would say 
beyond the life of the individual. Seen like that, there has to be some kind of 
library or lookup table which in no way correlates to anything to do with human 
brain size, the authors conclude. Certain of these very-long-term memories do 
get encoded somehow to survive destruction of the brain, as in Jung's 'racial 
memory' or "collective unconscious' - the original engrams or patterns of 
recognition (archetypes) some of them terrifyingly inexplicable and probably 
arising in dreams and recorded as revelations. Folklore is the racial memory of 
homo sapiens. We still churn it out. What we cannot remember exactly we plaster 
over with something else anyway, because HS are natural-born story tellers who 
cannot pass up a good story. If the shoe fits, we tend to wear it. It's 
literally in our DNA these authors conclude. This suggests to me that the 
notion of "Junk DNA" is perhaps itself junk as the very purpose of DNA is to 
record ie encode experience at something for the purpose of passing it on. DNA 
cannot fail at that purpose. Whenever scientists declare something "Junk" or 
"Dark" this just means "we are clueless over this" so it's time to find the 
macro-molecular link that allows this almost-Lamarckian effect of racial memory 
to come about. 

 

The term “junk DNA”, itself has been junked a while ago, when it was discovered 
that a portion of this DNA acts like a kind of OS that switches encoding 
sections on and off. It is a mistake I believe to look at DNA as a static 
repository of hereditary information alone. It is this of course, but it turns 
out to be more complex, dynamic and layered than the simple static model. A lot 
of the so called “junk DNA” (but not all of it by any means) seems to be 
involved in this dynamic process. Especially, during the process of 
embryogenesis, DNA expression is undergoing dynamic highly sequenced and 
seemingly (somehow) choreographed changes (through methylation and other means).

Other parts of this junk DNA, seem to be parasitical in nature; e.g. the 
selfish DNA hypothesis, and this also seems very likely – IMO. If such DNA 
“parasite entities” exist, perhaps using viruses as vehicles during their 
“life-cycle” in order to ride with them on into a hosts DNA and insert 
themselves into a new happy home, passing copies down for as long as the 
lineage continues. Perhaps a parasite is “junk” for the host, but from the 
parasites perspective I am sure the view is different… so even here in this 
case is it really junk.

-Chris

 

Kim

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Long term memory is extra-corporeal

[Kim Jones]

 

> On 26 Dec 2014, at 1:43 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
> 
>> On 12/25/2014 1:17 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>> In paper 
>> 
>> Forsdyke, D.R. (2009). Samuel Butler and human long term memory: is the 
>> cupboard bare? Journal of Theoretical Biology 258(1), 156-164. (see 
>> http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/mind01.htm) 
>> 
>> the author considers a possibility that the long term memory is outside the 
>> brain. I guess that Bruno should like it.
> 
> That seems backwards for Bruno's idea.  If memories are outside the brain 
> then they should survive destruction of the brain.  But as I understand 
> Bruno's idea one's "soul" survives destruction of the brain as in 
> reincarnation, but memories don't.
> 
> Brent 

Don't forget this is about long-term memory. How long is long-term? I would say 
beyond the life of the individual. Seen like that, there has to be some kind of 
library or lookup table which in no way correlates to anything to do with human 
brain size, the authors conclude. Certain of these very-long-term memories do 
get encoded somehow to survive destruction of the brain, as in Jung's 'racial 
memory' or "collective unconscious' - the original engrams or patterns of 
recognition (archetypes) some of them terrifyingly inexplicable and probably 
arising in dreams and recorded as revelations. Folklore is the racial memory of 
homo sapiens. We still churn it out. What we cannot remember exactly we plaster 
over with something else anyway, because HS are natural-born story tellers who 
cannot pass up a good story. If the shoe fits, we tend to wear it. It's 
literally in our DNA these authors conclude. This suggests to me that the 
notion of "Junk DNA" is perhaps itself junk as the very purpose of DNA is to 
record ie encode experience at something for the purpose of passing it on. DNA 
cannot fail at that purpose. Whenever scientists declare something "Junk" or 
"Dark" this just means "we are clueless over this" so it's time to find the 
macro-molecular link that allows this almost-Lamarckian effect of racial memory 
to come about. 

Kim

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Long term memory is extra-corporeal

[meekerdb]

On 12/25/2014 1:17 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

In paper

Forsdyke, D.R. (2009). Samuel Butler and human long term memory: is the cupboard bare? 
Journal of Theoretical Biology 258(1), 156-164. (see 
http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/mind01.htm)


the author considers a possibility that the long term memory is outside the brain. I 
guess that Bruno should like it. 


That seems backwards for Bruno's idea.  If memories are outside the brain then they should 
survive destruction of the brain.  But as I understand Bruno's idea one's "soul" survives 
destruction of the brain as in reincarnation, but memories don't.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Long term memory is extra-corporeal

[Kim Jones]

Good one. Haven't read it yet but just wanted to say that I have never had 
trouble with this idea - clearly Platonic in nature but beyond that, possibly 
the most clearly intuitive and ancient notion known to Man. Bruno's idea still 
strikes me as the best formulation of it, but most are yet to embrace the full 
implications of comp.

Kim

> On 25 Dec 2014, at 8:17 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
> 
> In paper
> 
> Forsdyke, D.R. (2009). Samuel Butler and human long term memory: is the 
> cupboard bare? Journal of Theoretical Biology 258(1), 156-164. (see 
> http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/mind01.htm)
> 
> the author considers a possibility that the long term memory is outside the 
> brain. I guess that Bruno should like it.
> 
> "The suggestion of the medieval physician Avicenna that the brain ‘cupboard’ 
> is bare, – i.e. the brain is a perceptual, not storage, organ – is consistent 
> with a mysterious ‘universe as holograph’ model."
> 
> "Charles Darwin spent much time setting out various combinations of 26 units 
> in linear order on paper. Yet, that each cell of an organism might contain 
> similar digital information, now known as DNA, was beyond his conceptual 
> horizon. Likewise, many today compute using remote information storage yet 
> are unlikely to countenance the possibility that their own brains might 
> functioning similarly."
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Evgenii
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Long term memory is extra-corporeal

[Kim Jones]

Haven't read it yet but just wanted to say that I have never had trouble wih 
his idea

> On 25 Dec 2014, at 8:17 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
> 
> In paper
> 
> Forsdyke, D.R. (2009). Samuel Butler and human long term memory: is the 
> cupboard bare? Journal of Theoretical Biology 258(1), 156-164. (see 
> http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/mind01.htm)
> 
> the author considers a possibility that the long term memory is outside the 
> brain. I guess that Bruno should like it.
> 
> "The suggestion of the medieval physician Avicenna that the brain ‘cupboard’ 
> is bare, – i.e. the brain is a perceptual, not storage, organ – is consistent 
> with a mysterious ‘universe as holograph’ model."
> 
> "Charles Darwin spent much time setting out various combinations of 26 units 
> in linear order on paper. Yet, that each cell of an organism might contain 
> similar digital information, now known as DNA, was beyond his conceptual 
> horizon. Likewise, many today compute using remote information storage yet 
> are unlikely to countenance the possibility that their own brains might 
> functioning similarly."
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Evgenii
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 8:59 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

 

On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 1:33 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:

 

>> I'm sorry Chris but that simply isn't true. Yes the Monterey shale reserve 
>> was vastly overestimated, at one time they thought it contained 15.4 billion 
>> barrels of oil but the true figure is less than a billion. However just one 
>> oil shale deposit in the USA, the Green River Formation, contains 1466 
>> billion barrels of oil, nearly 100 times what Monterey was thought to 
>> contain even at it's peak. So although embarrassing the overestimate doesn't 
>> substantially change anything. 


> Yeah… and if you believe those figures I have a bridge to sell you in 
> Brooklyn. In fact those very numbers you site are controversial and disputed 
> by many petroleum geologists.

 

What the hell are you talking about? There may be controversy over what should 
be done with shale oil but there is scientific consensus over approximately how 
much shale oil is on the planet and that most of it is in the USA. 

 

Incorrect there is not scientific consensus.. whatever this phrase actually 
means in this context, on this matter. I have clued you in to the core of the 
on-going debate about the planets shale resources. There is no informed 
consensus – outside of shale oil boosterism circles – about the fact that by 
far most of these resources ARE NOT reserves.

They cannot be exploited in a manner that yields a positive EROI let alone a 
decent return on capital expenditures.

As I said already there is a lot of gold dissolved in the world’s oceans… much 
more than all the gold in all the reserves. It is a resource, but that 
dissolved gold is not a reserve. A similar argument exists for the vast 
majority of kerogen bearing shale. It may be a resource, but it is not a 
reserve.

Yet you keep counting it as a reserve and making noises about some “scientific 
consensus” existing. Just because the EIA and IEA (both captive organizations 
staffed by a revolving door system with insider vested fossil and nuclear 
interests) say something does not make it the word of God! In fact as I have 
pointed out they have got it terribly wrong in the past and in a big way.


 

> Just because it is shale does not mean that the hydrocarbons trapped in it 
> are recoverable. 

 

And that is why geologists say that there are 4.8 trillion barrels of shale oil 
in the world with 3.7 trillion barrels of it being in the USA but only 1 
trillion can be economically recovered with existing technology. 

 

Keep reiterating discredited numbers – repating them over an dover when I have 
in a detailed fashion given you the reasons why those kerogen bearing shale 
resources ARE not reserves; in the sense they are not recoverable in a manner 
that gives a net energy return. The kerogen needs to be cooked in order to 
yield oil; cooking such a vast mass of shale – either mined and crushed or by 
trying to frack it and cook it by pumping heat into the kerogen bearing 
formation – it takes a huge amount of energy. More energy than one can get by 
burning the marginal volumes of extracted kerogen. If it is so easy to extract 
it with existing technology  then pray tell me why has everyone who has 
seriously tried, including Shell Oils many decades long attempts in the Green 
River shale formation you keep siting. Why have they all failed? Why has Shell 
Oil abandoned its efforts after dumping so many millions in attempts to squeee 
a profit out of that rock?

Unless you can answer these questions your 1 Trillion recoverable number is 
pure unadulterated bullshit! It stinks like the spun PR it is.

 

 

 > This oil is properly called "tight oil", 

 

And until about 5 years ago almost 100% of shale oil was tight oil, but 
technology marches on and today only about 75% is tight oil, and just that 25% 
is enough to cause a historic drop in oil prices that will dramatically change 
geopolitics.  

You are not making any fucking sense at all. What the hell are you speaking 
about? DO you even know what the term “tight oil” means technically? It has a 
very specific meaning, which seems to have slipped right past you. Tight oil is 
actual oil that is in tight deposits in shale formations for example. But it IS 
oil and it will flow like oil. 

Kerogen IS NOT OIL!

Kerogen bearing shale is a very different kind of resource that has proven 
uneconomical and has resisted every effort to try to produce a return on. Shell 
Oil has just recently abandoned its kerogen extraction attempts. Try to 
understand the implications of this. A major oil company, after decades of 
trying and millions and millions of dollars spent has recently thrown in the 
towl and essentially abandoned its efforts.

Can you tell me what this implies;

RE: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

I don’t look to the Weekly Standard for energy news or opinion  – or any news 
or opinion for that matter. Each to his or her taste I guess.

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 10:28 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

 



Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

 

In addition to not being the energy future we all wanted, here, to my mind, is 
the next likely step, by price, by technology, in energy. I don't completely 
trust the author, but his summary is thorough. The author links this source 
even, to co2 remmediation. In a way, its like having George Jetsons' flying 
fliver, powered by gasoline, rather then atoms or photons. The article also 
presages the shale gas revolution, to being something very long in the process 
(decades), to this source. Seeing how 98% of us were paying attention other 
things, it came as a surprise to the vast majority. This will as well.

 

http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/next-shale-revolution_821866.html?page=3

 

From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Dec 25, 2014 01:37 AM
Subject: RE: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy



 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 ] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 9:10 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

 



Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

 

It could be just as you suggest, a chemical, toxic, nightmare, to be footed by 
the tax payers. But I am thinking not so much, as the chemicals used have been 
around for decades, with no great problem detected. Notice how cheaper the 
gasoline is now? Notice how russia, iran, and the saudi economy has been 
upended? The idea is a civilization completely powered by the sun. The real is 
fracking. But we can always hope.

In energy matters I prefer to look at five year moving averages for 
understanding price trends; doing so helps eliminate the noise of volatility in 
the market. 

Most of the independent drilling companies that dominate US shale production 
sell futures contracts to show lenders they have locked in an oil price that is 
higher than their cost of production. This is especially true for the many 
independent smaller operators; if they can’t hedge above their cost of 
production, they are dead in the water. The US shale play needs a sustained 
minimum of above $90 on the world oil futures markets in order to be able to 
sell these hedges and use them as the basis on which they can get new capital 
to continue drilling.

There are trillions of dollars of future hedge contracts most of which were 
underwritten by big money center banks whose models did not account for this 
global market plunge. Big money center banks are feeling quite exposed now and 
if this price slump lasts longer than a year they could be in very serious 
trouble again, in a repeat of 2007-2008 when the housing derivatives market 
collapsed. Estimates put the six largest “too big to fail” banks commodity 
derivatives contracts holdings around $3.9 trillion, a majority of which is 
comprised of various flavors of oil future hedges. Most of the drillers in the 
tight oil sector in the US have already locked in future prices for next year 
and up into 2016 at around $90 per barrel. For example, Noble Energy and Devon 
Energy have both hedged over three-quarters of their output for 2015, and 
Pioneer Natural Resources has options covering 67% of its likely production 
through 2016. 

These drillers have locked in price volatility protection for themselves (as 
long as the banks honor their losses), but what about the big banks themselves? 
If global oil spot price stagnates for much longer and these contracts start 
coming due the losses are going to be astronomical. Who will endup covering 
these losses? 

Interesting side note: Harold Hamm, the Oklahoma oil billionaire (heavily 
invested in the Bakken) has bet a big chunk of his fortune that oil prices will 
rise soon; cashing in on almost 40 million barrels worth of future hedges, 
reaping a current profit of over $433 million for this quarter, but exposing 
his firm to price volatility if oil spot prices should stagnate or even decline 
further. 

-Chris

 




-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Dec 24, 2014 03:31 PM
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

 

  _  

From: spudboy100 via Everything List 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

 

>>It could be a bubble but its not. Nothing has paid off like shale gas. 
>>Nothing else in the world has paid off like this.  

 

Wait till the taxpayer gets dumped on with all those underwater derivatives the 
big money center banks have just made

Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

In addition to not being the energy future we all wanted, here, to my mind, is 
the next likely step, by price, by technology, in energy. I don't completely 
trust the author, but his summary is thorough. The author links this source 
even, to co2 remmediation. In a way, its like having George Jetsons' flying 
fliver, powered by gasoline, rather then atoms or photons. The article also 
presages the shale gas revolution, to being something very long in the process 
(decades), to this source. Seeing how 98% of us were paying attention other 
things, it came as a surprise to the vast majority. This will as well.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/next-shale-revolution_821866.html?page=3


From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Dec 25, 2014 01:37 AM
Subject: RE: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy




#AOLMsgPart_2_e09e1d06-08e7-47de-8de3-6b1829c217ec td{color: 
black;} @font-face {font-family:Helvetica; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} 
@font-face {font-family:Helvetica; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} @font-face 
{font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} @font-face 
{font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} .aolReplacedBody 
p.aolmail_MsoNormal,.aolReplacedBody li.aolmail_MsoNormal,.aolReplacedBody 
div.aolmail_MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; 
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} .aolReplacedBody 
a:link,.aolReplacedBody span.aolmail_MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; 
color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} .aolReplacedBody 
a:visited,.aolReplacedBody span.aolmail_MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} 
.aolReplacedBody p {mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; 
margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; 
font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} .aolReplacedBody 
p.aolmail_MsoAcetate,.aolReplacedBody li.aolmail_MsoAcetate,.aolReplacedBody 
div.aolmail_MsoAcetate {mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Balloon Text 
Char"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:8.0pt; 
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";} .aolReplacedBody 
span.aolmail_aolmailyiv3673053915 {mso-style-name:aolmail_yiv3673053915;} 
.aolReplacedBody span.aolmail_EmailStyle19 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; 
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} .aolReplacedBody 
span.aolmail_BalloonTextChar {mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char"; 
mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Balloon Text"; 
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";} .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_MsoChpDefault 
{mso-style-type:export-only; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";} @page 
WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} 
.aolReplacedBody div.aolmail_WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}

 
   

   

  From: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com";>everything-list@googlegroups.com
 [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com?";>mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]
 
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 9:10 PM
To: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com";>everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
   
  

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
  

  
  

   It could be just 
as you suggest, a chemical, toxic, nightmare, to be footed by the tax payers. 
But I am thinking not so much, as the chemicals used have been around for 
decades, with no great problem detected. Notice how cheaper the gasoline is 
now? Notice how russia, iran, and the saudi economy has been upended? The idea 
is a civilization completely powered by the sun. The real is fracking. But we 
can always hope.
   In 
energy matters I prefer to look at five year moving averages for understanding 
price trends; doing so helps eliminate the noise of volatility in the market. 

   Most 
of the independent drilling companies that dominate US shale production sell 
futures contracts to show lenders they have locked in an oil price that is 
higher than their cost of production. This is especially true for the many 
independent smaller operators; if they can’t hedge above their cost of 
production, they are dead in the water. The US shale play needs a sustained 
minimum of above $90 on the world oil futures markets in order to be able to 
sell these hedges and use them as the basis on which they can get new capital 
to continue drilling.
   There 
are trillions of dollars of future hedge contracts most of which were 
underwritten by big money center banks whose models did not account for this 
global market plunge. Big money center banks are feeling quite exposed now and 
if this price slump lasts longer than a year they could be in very serious 
trouble again, in a repeat of 2007-2008 when the housing derivatives market 
collapsed. Estimates put the six largest “too big to fail” banks commodity 
derivatives contracts holdings around $3.9 trillion, a majority of which is 
comprised of various flavors of oil future hedges. Most of the drillers in the 
tig

Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

[John Clark]

On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 1:33 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>> >> I'm sorry Chris but that simply isn't true. Yes the Monterey shale
>> reserve was vastly overestimated, at one time they thought it contained
>> 15.4 billion barrels of oil but the true figure is less than a billion.
>> However just one oil shale deposit in the USA, the Green River Formation,
>> contains 1466 billion barrels of oil, nearly 100 times what Monterey was
>> thought to contain even at it's peak. So although embarrassing the
>> overestimate doesn't substantially change anything.
>>
>
> > Yeah… and if you believe those figures I have a bridge to sell you in
> Brooklyn. In fact those very numbers you site are controversial and
> disputed by many petroleum geologists.
>

What the hell are you talking about? There may be controversy over what
should be done with shale oil but there is scientific consensus over
approximately how much shale oil is on the planet and that most of it is in
the USA.


> > Just because it is shale does not mean that the hydrocarbons trapped in
> it are recoverable.
>

And that is why geologists say that there are 4.8 trillion barrels of shale
oil in the world with 3.7 trillion barrels of it being in the USA but only
1 trillion can be economically recovered with existing technology.

 > This oil is properly called "tight oil",


And until about 5 years ago almost 100% of shale oil was tight oil, but
technology marches on and today only about 75% is tight oil, and just that
25% is enough to cause a historic drop in oil prices that will dramatically
change geopolitics.

> As I said before all of that shale you speak about – the vast majority of
> shale deposits in the world are kerogen deposits – HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLOITED!
>

And as I've said existing technology can only exploit about 25% of it, but
that's more than enough to change the economy of the world.

> Why not?
>

Because 25% is the best technology can do. So far.

> Do you actually believe that all we need is better technology?
>

Yes.

> But today is not not 5 years from now and you have zero monetary, human,
>> legal and political resources and yet you claim to know exactly how much
>> gas and oil is in the ground in the USA that can be extracted economically;
>> all I want to know is how you acquired that information.
>>
>
> > How about you tell me where you get your facts first John.
>

I get my facts by reading science journals like Science and Nature. What do
you read, conspiracy theories political rants and blogs by empty headed
tree huggers?

> Bullshit on your bullshit John. When you sum up all the river of capital
> it has sucked up and the mountain of derivatives built up around this
> bubble, it is trillions.
>

Trillions? Maybe in some new form of mathematics but not in the type of
arithmetic I am familiar with.

> What I think has happened is that the price of oil has dropped from $147
>> to $60, and that is not a estimate or a opinion or a prediction, that my
>> friend is a fact. And you can wave your hands around all you want but it
>> won't change that monumentally important facet of reality.
>>
>
> > And what gives you the peculiar notion that I am disputing what are well
> known market price points. John, what you are doing in fact is itself empty
> hand waiving. You have said nothing here. Do you have nothing of substance
> to say?
>

It's a FACT that the price of oil has dropped from $147 to $60 and you say
that FACT has no substance! This conversation is getting surreal. No that's
the wrong word, it implies far too much gravitas, this conversation is
getting silly.  And by the way, this silly shale oil and the silly oil
price collapse that it caused resulted in the lead article on the front
page of today's (December 25 2014) New York Times:


Oil’s Swift Fall Raises Fortunes of U.S. Abroad

By ANDREW HIGGINS DEC. 24, 2014


BRUSSELS — A plunge in oil prices has sent tremors through the global
political and economic order, setting off an abrupt shift in fortunes that
has bolstered the interests of the United States and pushed several big
oil-exporting nations — particularly those hostile to the West, like
Russia, Iran and Venezuela — to the brink of financial crisis.

The nearly 50 percent decline in oil prices since June has had the most
conspicuous impact on the Russian economy and President Vladimir V. Putin.
The former finance minister Aleksei L. Kudrin, a longtime friend of Mr.
Putin’s, warned this week of a “full-blown economic crisis” and called for
better relations with Europe and the United States.

But the ripple effects are spreading much more broadly than that. The price
plunge may also influence Iran’s deliberations over whether to agree to a
deal on its nuclear program with the West; force the oil-rich nations of
the Middle East to reassess their role in managing global supply; and give
a boost to the  economies of the biggest oil-consuming nations, notably t

Long term memory is extra-corporeal

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

In paper

Forsdyke, D.R. (2009). Samuel Butler and human long term memory: is the 
cupboard bare? Journal of Theoretical Biology 258(1), 156-164. (see 
http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/mind01.htm)


the author considers a possibility that the long term memory is outside 
the brain. I guess that Bruno should like it.


"The suggestion of the medieval physician Avicenna that the brain 
‘cupboard’ is bare, – i.e. the brain is a perceptual, not storage, organ 
– is consistent with a mysterious ‘universe as holograph’ model."


"Charles Darwin spent much time setting out various combinations of 26 
units in linear order on paper. Yet, that each cell of an organism might 
contain similar digital information, now known as DNA, was beyond his 
conceptual horizon. Likewise, many today compute using remote 
information storage yet are unlikely to countenance the possibility that 
their own brains might functioning similarly."


Best wishes,

Evgenii

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.