----- Original Message ----- From: "thomas malloy" > I would think that the life span of such a well would be quite > limited. Since this is a chemical reaction, it would seem to me that > the water would have to migrate further and further outward in search > of reactive material.
As mentioned, following Robin's similar thought, probably the only way to keep ahead of the oxidation of metal silicides (just guessing), and the sealing-up of the fractures in the deposit, following an initial explosion, would be to keep underground explosions going, ever so often, in order to refracture the deposit and expose more active material. There are literally trillions of tons of primordial silicides under the proper drilling locations, and potentially far more hydrogen (FAR MORE) could be released from this kind of geology that from any similar sized natural gas deposit, just due to the mass of silicides most of the earths mantle below a certain depth is iron and othe metal silicides - IF that is, they could be fractured in place to expose enough surface area for the water-spltting. You would have to ask the Russians, or Halliburton, about other kind of details, such as how often and how large an explosion is necessary. <<G>> On a lighter note, does writing about silicides mean that one has a silly-side, and/or does a silicide-joke cause one to laugh to death? > Given what it costs to drill such a well, $5 gas equivalent seems > about right. I fail to see what economics has to do with religion. Besides tithing, you mean? I suppose it has to do with using the Church as a silent partner, just as the Fascists and Nazis used the Catholic church, in order to rally voters into re-electing your candidate - which is what has happened here recently due to the neo-cons, who have somehow conveniently forgotten that the main part of conservatism is economic conservatism. ....which means that Bill Clinton is really the only true economic conservative in post-war America, being the only President to deliver large budget surpluses and lower the nation debt. And BTW, as mentioned before, I am not a Democrat; and furthermore, if you are a voting conservative and under 40 years of age, there is absolutely no doubt that I have voted for more Republicans than you have, although very few since Reagan, which is about the time that the neo-con anti-fiscal-conservatives hi-jacked the party under the sickening guise of moral duty, and handed it over completely to oil interests and fundamnetalist-ass-kissing spin-doctors. > When your car's tank is empty, you're just glad that you can fill it > up again. ...until the glaciers start to melt in a "runaway" mode, costal cities start to flood, artic species literally choke to death from methane poisoning, all in about 2026 or before, and by then there is little prospect of reversing the trend. > Given inflation, $2 gasoline is the equivalent of 20¢ gasoline in 1960. It is a little disingenuous to state things like this when any real economist not on the administration payroll, will tell you that the only thing that has pushed inflation IS oil prices. Thast is, since the late sixties when the petro-mafia helped found OPEC, because they knew they would benefit even more than the Arabs. IOW everything else in the US economy, because of productivity increase, would cost the same or less now as it did in '67-68 had not it been for the single item: oil prices (and the money supply, of course, but that increase itself can be traced directly to oil prices) http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/OilPrices.gif
