Remember me
▼ Content

Oilfield Greenhouse Gas Emissions


Oilfield Greenhouse Gas Emissions22-03-2021 02:38
T4ES
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
As a 20 year professional in the oil and gas business, I deal first hand with the production equipment that release the greenhouse gasses. Five years ago I started a company based on some ideas that I had to reduce the emissions in this sector. With regulations set in 2016, the oil and gas industry must lower gas emissions by 75-80% over the coming 4 years.

Through crowdfunding, T4 Environmental Solutions, LLC is raising money for expanded research & development and implementation costs associated with its patented technology that will reduce oil and gas emissions by roughly 17%. This will make a big impact on the number of greenhouse gasses (GHG's) that are emitted to the atmosphere consistently throughout the oilfield globally. Whether you believe in global warming or not, there is no doubt that these GHG's are bad for the environment. They contain cancer-causing carcinogens and other properties that are hazardous to people, wildlife, and much more. Your support would be greatly appreciated. Please share and help spread the word about this crowdfunding opportunity so we can make a difference and help make Earth a clean/safe place for generations to come.

[url] https://www.gofundme.com/f/patented-solution-to-help-battle-green-house-gases[/url]
22-03-2021 04:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
T4ES wrote: As a 20 year professional in the oil and gas business, I deal first hand with the production equipment that release the greenhouse gasses.

Take a guess as to whether or not I believe you.

Take a guess as to whether or not I consider this email to be spam.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-03-2021 04:21
T4ES
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Well, first of all, this is most definitely not spam. Secondly, I have definitely been in the oilfield since January '01. Everything I say is verifiable.
22-03-2021 04:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
T4ES wrote:
As a 20 year professional in the oil and gas business, I deal first hand with the production equipment that release the greenhouse gasses. Five years ago I started a company based on some ideas that I had to reduce the emissions in this sector. With regulations set in 2016, the oil and gas industry must lower gas emissions by 75-80% over the coming 4 years.

Through crowdfunding, T4 Environmental Solutions, LLC is raising money for expanded research & development and implementation costs associated with its patented technology that will reduce oil and gas emissions by roughly 17%. This will make a big impact on the number of greenhouse gasses (GHG's) that are emitted to the atmosphere consistently throughout the oilfield globally. Whether you believe in global warming or not, there is no doubt that these GHG's are bad for the environment. They contain cancer-causing carcinogens and other properties that are hazardous to people, wildlife, and much more. Your support would be greatly appreciated. Please share and help spread the word about this crowdfunding opportunity so we can make a difference and help make Earth a clean/safe place for generations to come.

[url] https://www.gofundme.com/f/patented-solution-to-help-battle-green-house-gases[/url]

Spam.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
22-03-2021 04:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
T4ES wrote:Well, first of all, this is most definitely not spam. Secondly, I have definitely been in the oilfield since January '01. Everything I say is verifiable.

Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-03-2021 04:49
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
IBdaMann wrote:
T4ES wrote:Well, first of all, this is most definitely not spam. Secondly, I have definitely been in the oilfield since January '01. Everything I say is verifiable.

Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

.



And if GasGuzzler takes his morning US Constitution and there's no ventilation?

You won't get this will you? CH4 + 2O2 > CO2 + 2H2O. We need both.
Edited on 22-03-2021 04:50
22-03-2021 04:58
T4ES
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
If you're asking if I believe in global warming, my answer is not a yes or no. I think there are many conflicting and compelling studies and I am not a scientist. But if you are asking if I believe that greenhouse gases are toxic to the environment, absolutely.
22-03-2021 06:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
T4ES wrote: If you're asking if I believe in global warming,

I did not ask that. I am asking if you believe in Greenhouse Effect.


T4ES wrote: But if you are asking if I believe that greenhouse gases are toxic to the environment, absolutely.

Is CO2 a "greenhouse gas"?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-03-2021 07:20
T4ES
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
IBdaMann wrote:
T4ES wrote: If you're asking if I believe in global warming,

I did not ask that. I am asking if you believe in Greenhouse Effect.


T4ES wrote: But if you are asking if I believe that greenhouse gases are toxic to the environment, absolutely.

Is CO2 a "greenhouse gas"?

.


That's a debatable subject I know. I know that some CO2 is necessary, but according to the EPA, the level of CO2 being emitted is a problem. In the oil and gas industry CO2 is regarded as a greenhouse gas because there are steep fees and fines for it. My personal beliefs are not what drive my goal to create a better way of dealing with it. I'm not a scientist. I find solutions to problems that are identified, causing stringent regulations to be imposed upon the industry that I make a living from, while also trying to do my part in hopefully creating a better future for all of us.


Mark Crawford
T4 Environmental Solutions, LLC
mark.crawford@t4environmentalsolutions.org
Edited on 22-03-2021 07:25
22-03-2021 07:24
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3369)
Joe 'Green' Biden is about to start passing out fistfuls of taxpayer dollars, to fund these sorts of projects. Getting these sort of projects 'filed, is sort of like getting a tax refund, well at America's expense. James should get a GoFUNDMe for his projects too, like winning the lottery.
22-03-2021 09:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
T4ES wrote:I'm not a scientist.

That much is obvious. You are a political activist who is adept at EVASION.

Let's try again and yes, let's focus on your personal beliefs just for a moment. After all, you aren't fooling me by pretending that you are somehow dispassionately seeking some sort of scientific "solution.". You are a scientifically illiterate worshiper of Climate Change and you are here to preach, not to learn.

Please notice how you have failed to define any sort of problem set. Please notice how you characterize a life-essential compound required for all life to continue existing on earth as " toxic" and "a problem.". Please notice how you have EVADED all of my questions deliberately.

I'll give you another shot.

1. For the record, state just how toxic YOU BELIEVE carbon dioxide to be.
2. Define the problem YOU BELIEVE you are trying to solve or address..

Please be clear. Please define your terms.

T4ES wrote: I find solutions to problems

To what kind of problems? You aren't an engineer. Do you organize rallies or something like that?

T4ES wrote: ...that are identified,

... by whom? I always become suspicious whenever the passive voice is employed.


T4ES wrote: ... causing stringent regulations to be imposed upon the industry that I make a living from, while also trying to do my part in hopefully creating a better future for all of us.

Basically you protect humanity and save the planet, right?

Clearly your target audience is any Marxist that orgasms over shutting down capitalism. Ask me how I know. Also, ask me how I know that you don't make your living in the petroleum business.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-03-2021 11:22
T4ES
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
IBdaMann wrote:
T4ES wrote:I'm not a scientist.

That much is obvious. You are a political activist who is adept at EVASION.

Let's try again and yes, let's focus on your personal beliefs just for a moment. After all, you aren't fooling me by pretending that you are somehow dispassionately seeking some sort of scientific "solution.". You are a scientifically illiterate worshiper of Climate Change and you are here to preach, not to learn.

Please notice how you have failed to define any sort of problem set. Please notice how you characterize a life-essential compound required for all life to continue existing on earth as " toxic" and "a problem.". Please notice how you have EVADED all of my questions deliberately.

I'll give you another shot.

1. For the record, state just how toxic YOU BELIEVE carbon dioxide to be.
2. Define the problem YOU BELIEVE you are trying to solve or address..

Please be clear. Please define your terms.

T4ES wrote: I find solutions to problems

To what kind of problems? You aren't an engineer. Do you organize rallies or something like that?

T4ES wrote: ...that are identified,

... by whom? I always become suspicious whenever the passive voice is employed.


T4ES wrote: ... causing stringent regulations to be imposed upon the industry that I make a living from, while also trying to do my part in hopefully creating a better future for all of us.

Basically you protect humanity and save the planet, right?

Clearly your target audience is any Marxist that orgasms over shutting down capitalism. Ask me how I know. Also, ask me how I know that you don't make your living in the petroleum business.

.


Political Activist? Really? You think you know me? Adept at evasion huh? How about you don't pretend to know what you're talking about. I'm an entrepreneur that, YES, makes my living in the petroleum business. Please enlighten me as to why you think you know that I don't!

The problems I try to solve are based on what the EPA regulates in the oilfield. They say that greenhouse gasses in the expended natural gas has to be taken care of, so I figure out a way to do that. I'm most certainly not a political activist. And no, I don't organize rally's lol

Here, read my resume. Maybe you'll figure something out.


Mark Crawford
T4 Environmental Solutions, LLC
mark.crawford@t4environmentalsolutions.org
Edited on 22-03-2021 12:18
22-03-2021 12:27
T4ES
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Also, ask me how I know that you don't make your living in the petroleum business.

.



Mark Crawford
T4 Environmental Solutions, LLC
mark.crawford@t4environmentalsolutions.org
22-03-2021 12:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
T4ES wrote:Political Activist? Really?

You make it so totally obvious ... and you are a terrible liar, although you earn high marks for trying.

T4ES wrote:You think you know me?

You're an open book.

T4ES wrote:Adept at evasion huh?

Now the tally is THREE consecutive posts in which you have EVADED all my perfectly valid and straightforward questions. So the answer is yes, you are a natural Darth Evader, you feel the schitt FLOW through you.

I won't repeat my questions again. You can go back and read them. Until you satisfactorily answer them, you are a full-fledged sheister and you will be treated as such.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-03-2021 20:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
T4ES wrote:
Also, ask me how I know that you don't make your living in the petroleum business.

.


No such server. As far as I can tell this is a hole in a strip mall wall that's been around since 2016. You are not in the petroleum business. You are in the scam business. Such is your 'resume'.

Unlike you, I actually have a business. We make instrumentation for industrial, aerospace, and medical uses, including the petroleum industry.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
22-03-2021 21:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
T4ES wrote:

Today's world is infested with Marxists who seek to destroy capitalism and to impose global tyranny on humanity. In that pursuit there is no lie that is off limits. One of the preferred angles of attack for today's Marxists is hyping fear of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect as a terrifying existential threat that only governments can solve, and only then if all of humanity is sufficiently taxed until every penny of personal wealth has been confiscated and the bloated unified global oligarchy becomes drunk on absolute power.

The grand prize of Marxism's war on humanity and individual liberty is the energy sector in general and Big Oil in particular. If those can be destroyed, the rest of the war will be an easy stroll in the park.

T4ES, you have had many opportunities to distinguish yourself from the above described Marxists and yet you will only endeavor in their exact same pursuits.
You ask this board to believe that, despite you being scientifically illiterate and incapable of engineering anything, that you are simply targetting Big Oil to save the environment. You want the support of the members of this board ... which entails belief that CO2 and totally undefined "greenhouse gases" are some sort of problem that we need you to address.

Is it possible that you can start over by explaining to this board why you want us to believe as you believe? Don't tell us that you are a capitalistic entrepreneur ... explain how exactly you are looking to help the energy industry and not to kill it. Every time you are dishonest you are announcing to the board that yes, you are just another dishonest Marxist (I know, redundant). This is your opportunity to show us that you are not a dishonest Marxist ... because that is the current assumption. It is unlikely that you are simply going to be believed until you offer some solid rationale for why you should be believed. Too many liars have come to this site preaching exactly what you are preaching and all of them have tried to get their claims and assertions to simply be accepted as true without even extending to this board the courtesy of defining any problem and without defining any of their terms and buzzwords. Now you are here doing the exact same thing.

The choice is yours. Would you like to clarify a few points? I assure you, although I speak only for myself, I am by no means the only one who has interpreted what you have written in this way.

The floor is yours.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-03-2021 01:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
IBdaMann wrote:
T4ES wrote:

Today's world is infested with Marxists who seek to destroy capitalism and to impose global tyranny on humanity. In that pursuit there is no lie that is off limits. One of the preferred angles of attack for today's Marxists is hyping fear of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect as a terrifying existential threat that only governments can solve, and only then if all of humanity is sufficiently taxed until every penny of personal wealth has been confiscated and the bloated unified global oligarchy becomes drunk on absolute power.

The grand prize of Marxism's war on humanity and individual liberty is the energy sector in general and Big Oil in particular. If those can be destroyed, the rest of the war will be an easy stroll in the park.

T4ES, you have had many opportunities to distinguish yourself from the above described Marxists and yet you will only endeavor in their exact same pursuits.
You ask this board to believe that, despite you being scientifically illiterate and incapable of engineering anything, that you are simply targetting Big Oil to save the environment. You want the support of the members of this board ... which entails belief that CO2 and totally undefined "greenhouse gases" are some sort of problem that we need you to address.

Is it possible that you can start over by explaining to this board why you want us to believe as you believe? Don't tell us that you are a capitalistic entrepreneur ... explain how exactly you are looking to help the energy industry and not to kill it. Every time you are dishonest you are announcing to the board that yes, you are just another dishonest Marxist (I know, redundant). This is your opportunity to show us that you are not a dishonest Marxist ... because that is the current assumption. It is unlikely that you are simply going to be believed until you offer some solid rationale for why you should be believed. Too many liars have come to this site preaching exactly what you are preaching and all of them have tried to get their claims and assertions to simply be accepted as true without even extending to this board the courtesy of defining any problem and without defining any of their terms and buzzwords. Now you are here doing the exact same thing.

The choice is yours. Would you like to clarify a few points? I assure you, although I speak only for myself, I am by no means the only one who has interpreted what you have written in this way.

The floor is yours.

.

I too would like to hear an actual explanation of his 'solution'. I do not tolerate buzzwords.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
23-03-2021 12:29
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
Not what you expected T4ES.In Perth today we had protesters holding up traffic in the name of climate change.Have you noticed how its not global warming now as It has not warmed for the last couple of decades and is now directly climate change.Hows Texas at the moment nice and warm.
Do you know the Global average of the entire planet at this moment in time because I do not??
23-03-2021 18:15
T4ES
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Listen everyone, I am not a global warming activist, nor a proponent for it. I am an entrepreneur that finds needs in the Oil and Gas Market. The EPA has imposed strong regulations on the allotted expenditure of natural gas into the atmosphere. The GRB I talk about in this post is just a way to help the O&G industry be in compliance. I am not a supporter/believer in global warming, but it doesn't matter what I believe, these regulations are happening regardless. Those of you that talk about protests and activism as if somehow I'm connected to it are barking up the wrong tree.

And yes, I have definitely been in the O&G business for 20 years. I started in Jan. '01 and work in it now. I have been a field hand, operations manager, consultant and I was even the Founder/CEO of Kelford Energy, LLC (Verifiable, look it up). As I stated, I am an entrepreneur that is trying to keep the sector that I love in compliance. The harsh fees and fines that the EPA is forcing on the O&G sector is very substantial. They affect every one of us. These fees and fines are set to increase substantially over the coming few years and will affect work, jobs and oil prices. So yes, I am very passionate about helping my oilfield.
23-03-2021 19:17
T4ES
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
T4ES wrote:

Today's world is infested with Marxists who seek to destroy capitalism and to impose global tyranny on humanity. In that pursuit there is no lie that is off limits. One of the preferred angles of attack for today's Marxists is hyping fear of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect as a terrifying existential threat that only governments can solve, and only then if all of humanity is sufficiently taxed until every penny of personal wealth has been confiscated and the bloated unified global oligarchy becomes drunk on absolute power.

The grand prize of Marxism's war on humanity and individual liberty is the energy sector in general and Big Oil in particular. If those can be destroyed, the rest of the war will be an easy stroll in the park.

T4ES, you have had many opportunities to distinguish yourself from the above described Marxists and yet you will only endeavor in their exact same pursuits.
You ask this board to believe that, despite you being scientifically illiterate and incapable of engineering anything, that you are simply targetting Big Oil to save the environment. You want the support of the members of this board ... which entails belief that CO2 and totally undefined "greenhouse gases" are some sort of problem that we need you to address.

Is it possible that you can start over by explaining to this board why you want us to believe as you believe? Don't tell us that you are a capitalistic entrepreneur ... explain how exactly you are looking to help the energy industry and not to kill it. Every time you are dishonest you are announcing to the board that yes, you are just another dishonest Marxist (I know, redundant). This is your opportunity to show us that you are not a dishonest Marxist ... because that is the current assumption. It is unlikely that you are simply going to be believed until you offer some solid rationale for why you should be believed. Too many liars have come to this site preaching exactly what you are preaching and all of them have tried to get their claims and assertions to simply be accepted as true without even extending to this board the courtesy of defining any problem and without defining any of their terms and buzzwords. Now you are here doing the exact same thing.

The choice is yours. Would you like to clarify a few points? I assure you, although I speak only for myself, I am by no means the only one who has interpreted what you have written in this way.

The floor is yours.

.

I too would like to hear an actual explanation of his 'solution'. I do not tolerate buzzwords.


Let me see if I can explain it a little better. In 2016, the EPA issued strict guidelines as to how the oilfield is to create solutions for GHG's/VOC's. In this, it describes, in detail, the different areas of focus. It includes what are called "Liquid Level Controllers", which account for approximately 17% of the released gasses in the oilfield. In 2020, under the direction of President Trump, a few of the harshest regulations were eased up. This does not affect the solution I propose. Now that the Democrats have control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, these regulations are reinstated and more are set to hit in July of this year.

https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry/epa-issues-final-policy-and-technical

Greenhouse Gas Fees and Citations are the costs associated with emissions. In the O&G sector. Fees are based on a per annum base, from Sept. 1st to Aug. 31st every year. Each year, O&G producers submit their projected amount of GHG's to the associated authorities (EPA, Bureau Of Land Management, State Government, etc.) and pay the appropriate fees. Organizations, such as the Bureau Of Land Management, perform routine field tests throughout the year to make sure that companies are remaining in compliance and not emitting more than their projected output. These are done by various means, such as in-person site testing or, as in the case of New Mexico, taking pictures/videos using FLIR cameras on helicopters and planes. When companies are found to not be in compliance, citations (fines) are issued for each occurrence. A culmination of these citations are often in the 10's of millions of dollars range per company per year.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/subpart-w_tsd.pdf

Here's a link to Exon/Mobile for an example
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Sustainability/Emissions-and-climate#

I hope this helps clear up any questions as to why I'm doing what I'm doing. I wish there was a better way for me to explain it so you could understand all the details and things we deal with out here in the oilfield. There is much more information that can be acquired, but there's no way I could possibly relay all of that on here.

I assure you that I am in no way trying to hurt the industry that I make a living from. I am trying to help keep it from being hindered. These costs directly impact the price of oil. Not as much as import/export rates, but they do affect it.


Mark Crawford
T4 Environmental Solutions, LLC
mark.crawford@t4environmentalsolutions.org
Edited on 23-03-2021 19:37
23-03-2021 19:53
T4ES
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Into the Night wrote:
T4ES wrote:
Also, ask me how I know that you don't make your living in the petroleum business.

.


No such server. As far as I can tell this is a hole in a strip mall wall that's been around since 2016. You are not in the petroleum business. You are in the scam business. Such is your 'resume'.

Unlike you, I actually have a business. We make instrumentation for industrial, aerospace, and medical uses, including the petroleum industry.


You were saying?


Mark Crawford
T4 Environmental Solutions, LLC
mark.crawford@t4environmentalsolutions.org
Attached file:
t4environmentalsolutionsllc.pdf
23-03-2021 20:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
T4ES wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
T4ES wrote:

Today's world is infested with Marxists who seek to destroy capitalism and to impose global tyranny on humanity. In that pursuit there is no lie that is off limits. One of the preferred angles of attack for today's Marxists is hyping fear of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect as a terrifying existential threat that only governments can solve, and only then if all of humanity is sufficiently taxed until every penny of personal wealth has been confiscated and the bloated unified global oligarchy becomes drunk on absolute power.

The grand prize of Marxism's war on humanity and individual liberty is the energy sector in general and Big Oil in particular. If those can be destroyed, the rest of the war will be an easy stroll in the park.

T4ES, you have had many opportunities to distinguish yourself from the above described Marxists and yet you will only endeavor in their exact same pursuits.
You ask this board to believe that, despite you being scientifically illiterate and incapable of engineering anything, that you are simply targetting Big Oil to save the environment. You want the support of the members of this board ... which entails belief that CO2 and totally undefined "greenhouse gases" are some sort of problem that we need you to address.

Is it possible that you can start over by explaining to this board why you want us to believe as you believe? Don't tell us that you are a capitalistic entrepreneur ... explain how exactly you are looking to help the energy industry and not to kill it. Every time you are dishonest you are announcing to the board that yes, you are just another dishonest Marxist (I know, redundant). This is your opportunity to show us that you are not a dishonest Marxist ... because that is the current assumption. It is unlikely that you are simply going to be believed until you offer some solid rationale for why you should be believed. Too many liars have come to this site preaching exactly what you are preaching and all of them have tried to get their claims and assertions to simply be accepted as true without even extending to this board the courtesy of defining any problem and without defining any of their terms and buzzwords. Now you are here doing the exact same thing.

The choice is yours. Would you like to clarify a few points? I assure you, although I speak only for myself, I am by no means the only one who has interpreted what you have written in this way.

The floor is yours.

.

I too would like to hear an actual explanation of his 'solution'. I do not tolerate buzzwords.


Let me see if I can explain it a little better. In 2016, the EPA issued strict guidelines as to how the oilfield is to create solutions for GHG's/VOC's. In this, it describes, in detail, the different areas of focus. It includes what are called "Liquid Level Controllers", which account for approximately 17% of the released gasses in the oilfield. In 2020, under the direction of President Trump, a few of the harshest regulations were eased up. This does not affect the solution I propose. Now that the Democrats have control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, these regulations are reinstated and more are set to hit in July of this year.

https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry/epa-issues-final-policy-and-technical

Greenhouse Gas Fees and Citations are the costs associated with emissions. In the O&G sector. Fees are based on a per annum base, from Sept. 1st to Aug. 31st every year. Each year, O&G producers submit their projected amount of GHG's to the associated authorities (EPA, Bureau Of Land Management, State Government, etc.) and pay the appropriate fees. Organizations, such as the Bureau Of Land Management, perform routine field tests throughout the year to make sure that companies are remaining in compliance and not emitting more than their projected output. These are done by various means, such as in-person site testing or, as in the case of New Mexico, taking pictures/videos using FLIR cameras on helicopters and planes. When companies are found to not be in compliance, citations (fines) are issued for each occurrence. A culmination of these citations are often in the 10's of millions of dollars range per company per year.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/subpart-w_tsd.pdf

Here's a link to Exon/Mobile for an example
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Sustainability/Emissions-and-climate#

I hope this helps clear up any questions as to why I'm doing what I'm doing. I wish there was a better way for me to explain it so you could understand all the details and things we deal with out here in the oilfield. There is much more information that can be acquired, but there's no way I could possibly relay all of that on here.

I assure you that I am in no way trying to hurt the industry that I make a living from. I am trying to help keep it from being hindered. These costs directly impact the price of oil. Not as much as import/export rates, but they do affect it.


No solution or plan was described. Guess you don't have one. The EPA is unconstitutional. There is no need to 'conform' to anything with them. There is NO compromising with Democrats.

Your 'costs' that you describe aren't there, other than illegal taxes and regulations. It's time for the oil companies to stand up and fight this.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
23-03-2021 20:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
T4ES wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
T4ES wrote:
Also, ask me how I know that you don't make your living in the petroleum business.

.


No such server. As far as I can tell this is a hole in a strip mall wall that's been around since 2016. You are not in the petroleum business. You are in the scam business. Such is your 'resume'.

Unlike you, I actually have a business. We make instrumentation for industrial, aerospace, and medical uses, including the petroleum industry.


You were saying?


One shell company after another, eh? You're a scammer.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
23-03-2021 20:36
T4ES
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Into the Night wrote:
T4ES wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
T4ES wrote:

Today's world is infested with Marxists who seek to destroy capitalism and to impose global tyranny on humanity. In that pursuit there is no lie that is off limits. One of the preferred angles of attack for today's Marxists is hyping fear of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect as a terrifying existential threat that only governments can solve, and only then if all of humanity is sufficiently taxed until every penny of personal wealth has been confiscated and the bloated unified global oligarchy becomes drunk on absolute power.

The grand prize of Marxism's war on humanity and individual liberty is the energy sector in general and Big Oil in particular. If those can be destroyed, the rest of the war will be an easy stroll in the park.

T4ES, you have had many opportunities to distinguish yourself from the above described Marxists and yet you will only endeavor in their exact same pursuits.
You ask this board to believe that, despite you being scientifically illiterate and incapable of engineering anything, that you are simply targetting Big Oil to save the environment. You want the support of the members of this board ... which entails belief that CO2 and totally undefined "greenhouse gases" are some sort of problem that we need you to address.

Is it possible that you can start over by explaining to this board why you want us to believe as you believe? Don't tell us that you are a capitalistic entrepreneur ... explain how exactly you are looking to help the energy industry and not to kill it. Every time you are dishonest you are announcing to the board that yes, you are just another dishonest Marxist (I know, redundant). This is your opportunity to show us that you are not a dishonest Marxist ... because that is the current assumption. It is unlikely that you are simply going to be believed until you offer some solid rationale for why you should be believed. Too many liars have come to this site preaching exactly what you are preaching and all of them have tried to get their claims and assertions to simply be accepted as true without even extending to this board the courtesy of defining any problem and without defining any of their terms and buzzwords. Now you are here doing the exact same thing.

The choice is yours. Would you like to clarify a few points? I assure you, although I speak only for myself, I am by no means the only one who has interpreted what you have written in this way.

The floor is yours.

.

I too would like to hear an actual explanation of his 'solution'. I do not tolerate buzzwords.


Let me see if I can explain it a little better. In 2016, the EPA issued strict guidelines as to how the oilfield is to create solutions for GHG's/VOC's. In this, it describes, in detail, the different areas of focus. It includes what are called "Liquid Level Controllers", which account for approximately 17% of the released gasses in the oilfield. In 2020, under the direction of President Trump, a few of the harshest regulations were eased up. This does not affect the solution I propose. Now that the Democrats have control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, these regulations are reinstated and more are set to hit in July of this year.

https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry/epa-issues-final-policy-and-technical

Greenhouse Gas Fees and Citations are the costs associated with emissions. In the O&G sector. Fees are based on a per annum base, from Sept. 1st to Aug. 31st every year. Each year, O&G producers submit their projected amount of GHG's to the associated authorities (EPA, Bureau Of Land Management, State Government, etc.) and pay the appropriate fees. Organizations, such as the Bureau Of Land Management, perform routine field tests throughout the year to make sure that companies are remaining in compliance and not emitting more than their projected output. These are done by various means, such as in-person site testing or, as in the case of New Mexico, taking pictures/videos using FLIR cameras on helicopters and planes. When companies are found to not be in compliance, citations (fines) are issued for each occurrence. A culmination of these citations are often in the 10's of millions of dollars range per company per year.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/subpart-w_tsd.pdf

Here's a link to Exon/Mobile for an example
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Sustainability/Emissions-and-climate#

I hope this helps clear up any questions as to why I'm doing what I'm doing. I wish there was a better way for me to explain it so you could understand all the details and things we deal with out here in the oilfield. There is much more information that can be acquired, but there's no way I could possibly relay all of that on here.

I assure you that I am in no way trying to hurt the industry that I make a living from. I am trying to help keep it from being hindered. These costs directly impact the price of oil. Not as much as import/export rates, but they do affect it.


No solution or plan was described. Guess you don't have one. The EPA is unconstitutional. There is no need to 'conform' to anything with them. There is NO compromising with Democrats.

Your 'costs' that you describe aren't there, other than illegal taxes and regulations. It's time for the oil companies to stand up and fight this.


Your political beliefs, even though I have the same beliefs, are inconsequential. You can say that all day long, but that isn't what's happening. I'm not gonna spend all my time trying to explain something that is apparently beyond your scope of understanding. Have a good day.


Mark Crawford
T4 Environmental Solutions, LLC
mark.crawford@t4environmentalsolutions.org
Attached file:
grb.pdf
Edited on 23-03-2021 20:48
24-03-2021 03:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
T4ES wrote: I'm not gonna spend all my time trying to explain something that is apparently beyond your scope of understanding. Have a good day.

Let's change gears for a moment.

Why is it so difficult, if not completely impossible, for you to define the physical problem set you are addressing and elaborating on your general solution idea?

I took the trouble to explain to you how your approach of hyping an undefined problem without offering any solution is exactly what all Marxists do, i.e. preach fear and panic to help the government more easily control the population. Despite the courtesy I extended to you, you still REFUSE to answer ANY of my questions and instead pretend to get angry at those who are asking questions. Your behavior is identical to that of a religious preacher who DEMANDS unquestioning OBEDIENCE and who is quick to direct rage at doubters and questioners.

So why is that?

Besides, what entrepreneur isn't absolutely eager to present and to demonstrate his specific goods and services? ... especially if that's how he makes a living?
You resent even being asked. It appears that you were lying when you claimed to be an entrepreneur that provides solutions, exactly as if you were in fact a lying Marxist (I know, redundant).

So we don't lose context, allow me to reiterate my question.

Why is it so difficult, if not completely impossible, for you to define the physical problem set you are addressing and elaborating on your general solution idea?


.
Attached image:

24-03-2021 05:20
T4ES
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
IBdaMann wrote:
T4ES wrote: I'm not gonna spend all my time trying to explain something that is apparently beyond your scope of understanding. Have a good day.

Let's change gears for a moment.

Why is it so difficult, if not completely impossible, for you to define the physical problem set you are addressing and elaborating on your general solution idea?

I took the trouble to explain to you how your approach of hyping an undefined problem without offering any solution is exactly what all Marxists do, i.e. preach fear and panic to help the government more easily control the population. Despite the courtesy I extended to you, you still REFUSE to answer ANY of my questions and instead pretend to get angry at those who are asking questions. Your behavior is identical to that of a religious preacher who DEMANDS unquestioning OBEDIENCE and who is quick to direct rage at doubters and questioners.

So why is that?

Besides, what entrepreneur isn't absolutely eager to present and to demonstrate his specific goods and services? ... especially if that's how he makes a living?
You resent even being asked. It appears that you were lying when you claimed to be an entrepreneur that provides solutions, exactly as if you were in fact a lying Marxist (I know, redundant).

So we don't lose context, allow me to reiterate my question.

Why is it so difficult, if not completely impossible, for you to define the physical problem set you are addressing and elaborating on your general solution idea?


.


I didn't put a long description in my original post because my gofundme page has a lengthy description. I assumed that if anyone was interested in learning about it then they would follow the link. But instead, I am bombarded by a series of attacks on my validity and even my career, which happens to be true by the way. I understand asking, but that's not how it happened. It was instantly "scam" or "ask me how I know your not in the oilfield". Not questions about what I offer.

I'm on your side when it comes to the personal beliefs on the subject, but instantly attacking someone is not how a debate happens. When someone instantly goes on the attack, they instantly lose the battle. Pretty hard to get someone to see your point of view when that happens.

So here's the description of it:

The most prolific single sources of GHG's within the Oil & Natural Gas sector are Liquid Level Controllers, which are used on most production equipment at almost all stages of oilfield operations following fracking, from well site production all the way to the refinery. These Liquid level controllers account for approximately 17% of all GHG's in this sector. To date, there has been no real solution to completely eliminate the gasses emitted from these level controllers. There have been devices, called "Low Bleed" that claim to lower the output of GHG's, but they come at a substantial cost increase to end-users and have shown to have a negative impact on the economy due to downtime and repairs and simply do not eliminate the GHG emissions.

Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to present a green solution from one of our patented products, the GRB (Gas Recovery Box). We are not offering a new device that only serves to hinder production and create profit loss due to emitted gas and greenhouse fees & citations (fines). The GRB is a self-contained emissions recovery system that corrects and improves the current effective technology by simply capturing 100% of the expended gas emitting from these controllers, allowing that gas to be sold or burned off. This will make a big impact on the number of greenhouse gasses (GHG's) that are consistently emitted to the atmosphere throughout the oilfield globally.


Mark Crawford
T4 Environmental Solutions, LLC
mark.crawford@t4environmentalsolutions.org
24-03-2021 06:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
T4ES wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
T4ES wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
T4ES wrote:

Today's world is infested with Marxists who seek to destroy capitalism and to impose global tyranny on humanity. In that pursuit there is no lie that is off limits. One of the preferred angles of attack for today's Marxists is hyping fear of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect as a terrifying existential threat that only governments can solve, and only then if all of humanity is sufficiently taxed until every penny of personal wealth has been confiscated and the bloated unified global oligarchy becomes drunk on absolute power.

The grand prize of Marxism's war on humanity and individual liberty is the energy sector in general and Big Oil in particular. If those can be destroyed, the rest of the war will be an easy stroll in the park.

T4ES, you have had many opportunities to distinguish yourself from the above described Marxists and yet you will only endeavor in their exact same pursuits.
You ask this board to believe that, despite you being scientifically illiterate and incapable of engineering anything, that you are simply targetting Big Oil to save the environment. You want the support of the members of this board ... which entails belief that CO2 and totally undefined "greenhouse gases" are some sort of problem that we need you to address.

Is it possible that you can start over by explaining to this board why you want us to believe as you believe? Don't tell us that you are a capitalistic entrepreneur ... explain how exactly you are looking to help the energy industry and not to kill it. Every time you are dishonest you are announcing to the board that yes, you are just another dishonest Marxist (I know, redundant). This is your opportunity to show us that you are not a dishonest Marxist ... because that is the current assumption. It is unlikely that you are simply going to be believed until you offer some solid rationale for why you should be believed. Too many liars have come to this site preaching exactly what you are preaching and all of them have tried to get their claims and assertions to simply be accepted as true without even extending to this board the courtesy of defining any problem and without defining any of their terms and buzzwords. Now you are here doing the exact same thing.

The choice is yours. Would you like to clarify a few points? I assure you, although I speak only for myself, I am by no means the only one who has interpreted what you have written in this way.

The floor is yours.

.

I too would like to hear an actual explanation of his 'solution'. I do not tolerate buzzwords.


Let me see if I can explain it a little better. In 2016, the EPA issued strict guidelines as to how the oilfield is to create solutions for GHG's/VOC's. In this, it describes, in detail, the different areas of focus. It includes what are called "Liquid Level Controllers", which account for approximately 17% of the released gasses in the oilfield. In 2020, under the direction of President Trump, a few of the harshest regulations were eased up. This does not affect the solution I propose. Now that the Democrats have control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, these regulations are reinstated and more are set to hit in July of this year.

https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry/epa-issues-final-policy-and-technical

Greenhouse Gas Fees and Citations are the costs associated with emissions. In the O&G sector. Fees are based on a per annum base, from Sept. 1st to Aug. 31st every year. Each year, O&G producers submit their projected amount of GHG's to the associated authorities (EPA, Bureau Of Land Management, State Government, etc.) and pay the appropriate fees. Organizations, such as the Bureau Of Land Management, perform routine field tests throughout the year to make sure that companies are remaining in compliance and not emitting more than their projected output. These are done by various means, such as in-person site testing or, as in the case of New Mexico, taking pictures/videos using FLIR cameras on helicopters and planes. When companies are found to not be in compliance, citations (fines) are issued for each occurrence. A culmination of these citations are often in the 10's of millions of dollars range per company per year.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/subpart-w_tsd.pdf

Here's a link to Exon/Mobile for an example
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Sustainability/Emissions-and-climate#

I hope this helps clear up any questions as to why I'm doing what I'm doing. I wish there was a better way for me to explain it so you could understand all the details and things we deal with out here in the oilfield. There is much more information that can be acquired, but there's no way I could possibly relay all of that on here.

I assure you that I am in no way trying to hurt the industry that I make a living from. I am trying to help keep it from being hindered. These costs directly impact the price of oil. Not as much as import/export rates, but they do affect it.


No solution or plan was described. Guess you don't have one. The EPA is unconstitutional. There is no need to 'conform' to anything with them. There is NO compromising with Democrats.

Your 'costs' that you describe aren't there, other than illegal taxes and regulations. It's time for the oil companies to stand up and fight this.


Your political beliefs, even though I have the same beliefs, are inconsequential. You can say that all day long, but that isn't what's happening. I'm not gonna spend all my time trying to explain something that is apparently beyond your scope of understanding. Have a good day.

So again you deny explaining anything.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
24-03-2021 06:13
T4ES
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
[/quote]
So again you deny explaining anything.[/quote]

Try reading the post right above your last one.


Mark Crawford
T4 Environmental Solutions, LLC
mark.crawford@t4environmentalsolutions.org
24-03-2021 06:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
T4ES wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
T4ES wrote: I'm not gonna spend all my time trying to explain something that is apparently beyond your scope of understanding. Have a good day.

Let's change gears for a moment.

Why is it so difficult, if not completely impossible, for you to define the physical problem set you are addressing and elaborating on your general solution idea?

I took the trouble to explain to you how your approach of hyping an undefined problem without offering any solution is exactly what all Marxists do, i.e. preach fear and panic to help the government more easily control the population. Despite the courtesy I extended to you, you still REFUSE to answer ANY of my questions and instead pretend to get angry at those who are asking questions. Your behavior is identical to that of a religious preacher who DEMANDS unquestioning OBEDIENCE and who is quick to direct rage at doubters and questioners.

So why is that?

Besides, what entrepreneur isn't absolutely eager to present and to demonstrate his specific goods and services? ... especially if that's how he makes a living?
You resent even being asked. It appears that you were lying when you claimed to be an entrepreneur that provides solutions, exactly as if you were in fact a lying Marxist (I know, redundant).

So we don't lose context, allow me to reiterate my question.

Why is it so difficult, if not completely impossible, for you to define the physical problem set you are addressing and elaborating on your general solution idea?


.


I didn't put a long description in my original post because my gofundme page has a lengthy description.

Spamming.
T4ES wrote:
I assumed that if anyone was interested in learning about it then they would follow the link.

Spamming.
T4ES wrote:
But instead, I am bombarded by a series of attacks on my validity and even my career, which happens to be true by the way.

You have shown nothing of your career. You have consistently evaded questions put to you. You have come into this forum by spamming. You continue to spam. You have shown that all you care about is your gofundme page.
T4ES wrote:
I understand asking, but that's not how it happened. It was instantly "scam" or "ask me how I know your not in the oilfield". Not questions about what I offer.

You don't offer anything. You are spamming.
T4ES wrote:
I'm on your side when it comes to the personal beliefs on the subject, but instantly attacking someone is not how a debate happens.

There are no debates. Only conversations (despite the title of the forum). I am attacking you for spamming and scamming. You have shown NOTHING. You have evaded questions put to you. You have only vague references to some so-called device that you are selling. You are spamming.
T4ES wrote:
When someone instantly goes on the attack, they instantly lose the battle.

WRONG. Modal fallacy.
T4ES wrote:
Pretty hard to get someone to see your point of view when that happens.

Whining.
T4ES wrote:
So here's the description of it:

The most prolific single sources of GHG's within the Oil & Natural Gas sector are Liquid Level Controllers, which are used on most production equipment at almost all stages of oilfield operations following fracking, from well site production all the way to the refinery. These Liquid level controllers account for approximately 17% of all GHG's in this sector. To date, there has been no real solution to completely eliminate the gasses emitted from these level controllers. There have been devices, called "Low Bleed" that claim to lower the output of GHG's, but they come at a substantial cost increase to end-users and have shown to have a negative impact on the economy due to downtime and repairs and simply do not eliminate the GHG emissions.

Guess what? There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability of increasing the temperature of the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
T4ES wrote:
Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to present a green solution from one of our patented products, the GRB (Gas Recovery Box).

The Church of Global is not the Church of Green, though it stems from there.
T4ES wrote:
We are not offering a new device that only serves to hinder production and create profit loss due to emitted gas and greenhouse fees & citations (fines).

'Greenhouse fees' are illegal.
T4ES wrote:
The GRB is a self-contained emissions recovery system that corrects and improves the current effective technology by simply capturing 100% of the expended gas emitting from these controllers, allowing that gas to be sold or burned off. This will make a big impact on the number of greenhouse gasses (GHG's) that are consistently emitted to the atmosphere throughout the oilfield globally.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Methane is a useful fuel that naturally accompanies oil pumped out of wells. The oil well owners already collect this gas and sell it. It's money.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
24-03-2021 06:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
T4ES wrote:

So again you deny explaining anything.[/quote]

Try reading the post right above your last one.[/quote]
So again you deny explaining anything.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
24-03-2021 06:33
T4ES
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
The oil well owners already collect this gas and sell it. It's money.


Now you're just lost. Go away, you have no idea what you're talking about.


Mark Crawford
T4 Environmental Solutions, LLC
mark.crawford@t4environmentalsolutions.org
24-03-2021 06:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
T4ES wrote:I didn't put a long description in my original post because my gofundme page has a lengthy description. I assumed that if anyone was interested in learning about it then they would follow the link.

That's silly reasoning. The whole point of posting here is to spark interest in your "solution" and to motivate people to visit your gofundme page. If you aren't interested in motivating people to visit your gofundme page then you shouldn't be surprised when no one is interested in visiting your gofundme page. When no one is interested in visiting your gofundme page then no one will have any idea what your solution is.

... and then I have to ask why you couldn't be troubled to even cut&paste something that would have answered direct questions asked of you.

T4ES wrote:But instead, I am bombarded by a series of attacks on my validity and even my career,

EVASION on your part will earn you that every time. Try pitching your product to a team of investors while not answering their questions. How long do you think they'll continue listening to you before they simply walk away for good?

T4ES wrote: I understand asking, but that's not how it happened. It was instantly "scam" or "ask me how I know your not in the oilfield".

Nope. What came first was your EVASION of all of my questions over multiple posts. When that happens you can rest assured that I will question your validity every time.

Every time.

T4ES wrote: Not questions about what I offer.

Because you didn't talk about that. You were merely hyping fear of Greenhouse Gas ... just as any Marxist would do. You clearly expressed that you didn't have any "solution" but that you wanted cash to perform "research." Let's take a look:

T4ES opened his thread with this:T4 Environmental Solutions, LLC is raising money for expanded research & development and implementation costs associated with its patented technology that will reduce oil and gas emissions by roughly 17%. This will make a big impact on the number of greenhouse gasses (GHG's) that are emitted to the atmosphere consistently throughout the oilfield globally. Whether you believe in global warming or not, there is no doubt that these GHG's are bad for the environment. They contain cancer-causing carcinogens and other properties that are hazardous to people, wildlife, and much more. Your support would be greatly appreciated.


Reading this again convinces me to ask you what you were thinking. You are clearly not appealing to an audience that wants to advance technological solutions. You are intentionally targetting scientifically illiterate morons who will believe that CO2 is somehow a dangerous poison.

Convince me that you somehow meant something entirely different with that quote.

T4ES wrote:I'm on your side when it comes to the personal beliefs on the subject,

I don't believe you. You characterize CO2 as a poison. I recognize it as a life-essential compound. I have the science perspective. You have the Marxist hype perspective. What am I misunderstanding?

T4ES wrote: ... but instantly attacking someone is not how a debate happens.

Wait a minute. This is an absolutely stupid thing to say. I was debating you, you decided to characterize it as an "attack" and then you go on to claim that debating is no way for a debate to happen.

So at this point I will attack your character. You are a moron who clearly does not understand how internet forums work and who really should not be trying to post on the big, bad internet. You just aren't ready. You obviously aren't able to handle questions that aren't pre-arranged softball questions. Forget about actually trying to debate anyone on anything technical because you are simply not prepared.


T4ES wrote: So here's the description of it:

Good ... but I really would have preferred a preliminary overview of the problem domain. All I've gotten from you is that oil companies are out there with oil fields. You haven't provided any sort of clues as to why anyone should be interested in what you are about to describe.

T4ES wrote: The most prolific single sources of GHG's within the Oil & Natural Gas sector are Liquid Level Controllers, which are used on most production equipment at almost all stages of oilfield operations following fracking, from well site production all the way to the refinery. These Liquid level controllers account for approximately 17% of all GHG's in this sector.

So at the moment you would have me understand that liquid level controllers provide the most plant food of all the processing equipment, yes?

T4ES wrote: To date, there has been no real solution to completely eliminate the gasses emitted from these level controllers.

... because you haven't stated any problem yet. You have to have a problem before you can have a solution to that problem. Naturally there cannot have been any real solution to a completely non-problem. What am I missing?

T4ES wrote: There have been devices, called "Low Bleed" that claim to lower the output of GHG's, but they come at a substantial cost increase to end-users and have shown to have a negative impact on the economy due to downtime and repairs and simply do not eliminate the GHG emissions.

OK, so now we have eliminated one non-solution that doesn't have any problem to solve.

T4ES wrote: Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to present a green solution from one of our patented products, the GRB (Gas Recovery Box).

So you want to capture all the emissions. Do you believe this has been tried before? How did that work out? Why? What are you planning on doing differently?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Attached image:

24-03-2021 08:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
T4ES wrote:
The oil well owners already collect this gas and sell it. It's money.


Now you're just lost. Go away, you have no idea what you're talking about.


I work with the oil industry, idiot. I sell instrumentation to them.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
24-03-2021 13:23
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
Why do LLC leak methane gas and what percentage of oil fields cover the planet for this to be a problem.If your device works why is the oil company not retro fitting it and why the F do you need a gofundme.I am suspecting you saw the title and thought there would be warmazombies willing to give you loot for your stirling work saving the planet
24-03-2021 16:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
duncan61 wrote:
Why do LLC leak methane gas and what percentage of oil fields cover the planet for this to be a problem.If your device works why is the oil company not retro fitting it and why the F do you need a gofundme.I am suspecting you saw the title and thought there would be warmazombies willing to give you loot for your stirling work saving the planet


Bingo.

Oil wells normally contain methane (it's a hydrocarbon too). Depending on whether there is a marketable amount, it is burned off or tapped and sold to heat homes.

Big deal.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 24-03-2021 16:24




Join the debate Oilfield Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Emission free natural gas225-03-2021 16:48
gas cooker1304-02-2021 17:00
Sea Levels to rise by 1m by 2100 if global emissions target missed!!228-06-2020 16:57
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist12812-03-2020 02:10
Greenhouse Gas and Warming11011-02-2020 17:48
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact