Heard on the radio today a guy being interviewed said that, in compiling government statistics, the revenue from drilling for oil is classified as "mining." Sounds odd to me.
Heard on the radio today a guy being interviewed said that, in compiling government statistics, the revenue from drilling for oil is classified as "mining." Sounds odd to me.
There are two definitions of "mining":
1. Extract (valuable) minerals from a mine.
2. Extract (valuable) minerals from the earth.
The US Department of Labor sees oil as a liquid mineral but distinguishes between mining, quarrying, and Oil and Gas extraction: Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
Notice the "Oil and Gas Extraction", not drilling.
ETA: typo
Notice the "Oil and Gas Extraction", not drilling.
That's because by the time a well is ready for extraction, the drilling is done.
There are two definitions of "mining":
Nope
You left out mining sea lanes and various land areas where mines have been placed, doing so is mining. A third definition
Certain military types will grab unattended alcoholic containers and consume them, justifying their actions as, "it's mine and I'm sweeping it away"
A fourth definition???
Sounds odd to me.
Here's something that will really blow your mind, then: astronomers refers to all elements heavier than Hydrogen and Helium as metals, even though this includes many things which we don't normally consider metals like Oxygen and Carbon.
This is because of how elements form in stars. The immense pressure and heat of stars causes the hydrogen and helium to slowly be converted into heavier elements. When a star goes nova those "metals" are flung away to scatter throughout the universe. Most of the matter in the universe comes from this process.
Most of the matter in the universe comes from this process.
That is why we are Star material.
Here's something that will really blow your mind, then
I don't know how it is for you guys, but where I live, beekeeping is animal husbandry. Bees are bugs... but really where else to lump it in, then. Still always felt a bit strange to me.
Insects are animals.
Taxonomy for bees:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Hymenoptera
(unranked): Unicalcarida
Suborder: Apocrita
Superfamily: Apoidea
Insects are animals.
I didn't say they aren't. I even admitted it's the only category that makes sense, to call beekeeping animal husbandry. However, although parallels in beekeeping and say, dairy farming are obvious upon in-depth analysis, it is not an easy association.
It did seem to me as a good example where categorizing is about as unintuitive as mining is for oil drilling & pumping.
felt a bit strange
Please feel well. And people who give us a well often drill them. If the well were mine, I wouldn't mind if it were a minor cost to get it dug. Or drilled. Go to ROTC to learn to drill. Left, Right, Left Right. But not by a miner or a minor. Well diggers or drillers should be over 18 years old.
Vegans don't allow themselves to eat honey because it contains bee-spit, an animal product.
AJ
Vegans don't allow themselves to eat honey because it contains bee-spit, an animal product.
Being a proud predator and definitely a carnivore, I can understand the etic aspirations of vegetarians, but always found principal vegans mildly insane.
Sure, honey is honey and not just plain sugar exactly because it is eaten and spit back by bees multiple times, and can be easily defined as "fat" of the hive meta-organism, but it can be collected with zero harm done to the host organism, however you define it.
(In fact, since warroa mite pandemic in mid twenty century honey bees can't survive in the wild anymore, so are fully dependent from human care now. Well, it's of course just another situation created by human neglect in the first place.)
Being a proud predator and definitely a carnivore, I can understand the etic aspirations of vegetarians, but always found principal vegans mildly insane.
I wonder whether vegans understand evolution. For example, certain insects contain many times the concentration of iron that red meat contains. But humans have evolved to process the iron in red meat - researchers found the uptake of iron from eating the insects was negligible compared to red meat.
I also wonder whether vegans will stop eating fungi, following the discovery that plants and animals diverged before animals and fungi, therefore fungi are more animal than plant.
AJ
Being a proud predator and definitely a carnivore, I can understand the etic aspirations of vegetarians, but always found principal vegans mildly insane.
Proud member of PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals
I tend to go omnivore, simply because my wife makes great grilled vegetables. Cooktop griddle, one tablespoon of EVOO on it, grills zucchini, squash, onions, peppers, all thin sliced, VERY good.
When we go to Golden Corral (it's a buffet, for those of you who don't have this food trough available in your country), we get it to go, because we get two meals out of it for about $8 each, instead of spending $12 each just to eat there. They charge by the pound. I end up with Bourbon Street chicken, meatloaf, popcorn shrimp, fried catfish, a pork steak, and corn in my container, just about every time.
IIRC, some categorisations of the FTSE 100 companies used to lump oil companies in the 'mining' category. But nowadays they're listed separately because their markets are so different.
AJ
Drilling for oil is a boring occupation.
Hissssssssssssssssssssssssssss!
I understand that is a common enough sound when you bore into something that is under pressure.
I understand that is a common enough sound when you bore into something that is under pressure.
Also possible when it's over pressure.
Also possible when it's over pressure.
Which is often associated with loud sounds of kaboom.
Which is often associated with loud sounds of kaboom.
Actually, since you are talking about catastrophic failure of an over pressurized vessel containing a pressurized gas, that should be KA-BLEW-IE
Actually, since you are talking about catastrophic failure of an over pressurized vessel containing a pressurized gas, that should be KA-BLEW-IE
I've witnessed more than one catastrophic failure of pneumatic test in piping and vessels. There is no way to describe the sound of a large failure.
One in particular stands out. It was a feed line at an LNG liquification facility. Two hundred feet of schedule 80 12" line ripped out of a depth of eight feet. They were fortunate it only killed three. Had that line been on the surface, it would have been much uglier.
I don't think many people understand the danger pneumatic failures represent.
I've witnessed more than one catastrophic failure of pneumatic test in piping and vessels. There is no way to describe the sound of a large failure.
If a joke falls in the forest and no one gets it, was it funny? :)
If a joke falls in the forest and no one gets it, was it funny? :)
Erwin Schrödinger's cat might not find it very amusing. Then again, maybe it would.
@Dominions Son
If a joke falls in the forest and no one gets it, was it funny? :)
Erwin Schrödinger's cat might not find it very amusing. Then again, maybe it would.
Schrödinger's cat would find it both funny and not funny at the same time - until someone checked to see if it was laughing.
Schrödinger's cat would find it both funny and not funny at the same time
Actually the cat could find two separate jokes both funny and not funny at the same time.
Actually the cat could find two separate jokes both funny and not funny at the same time.
One left it dying of laughter, and the other imitating grumpy cat after Erwin dropped the box on it.
If a joke falls in the forest and no one gets it, was it funny? :)
Yes.
Casting pearls before swine does not devalue the pearls.
Heard on the radio today a guy being interviewed said that, in compiling government statistics, the revenue from drilling for oil is classified as "mining." Sounds odd to me.
It's a convoluted story at best. However, the closest answer is that the first drill wells were not drilling for oil. They were brine wells.
Brine wells are drilled for salt, i.e. a mineral. Drill a hole, pump in water, extract the now salt laden water (brine), extract the salt from the water.
Then there was the seep oil wells. These were used to produce bitumen, pitch, asphalt, tar etc dependent upon the time frame in question. Historically, the first seep well recorded was in China circa AD 347.
The first recorded drilling efforts in America were of the brine variety in 1802. The first use of crude for anything fuel related was in 1850; specifically the refinement of kerosene to replace whale oil. That was in Canada. The first oil well in North America was also Canadian (1858 Ontario). The first American oil well was in the following year (1859) Titusville, PA. Though the first actual well that produced oil was in 1815 also in PA. But it was meant as a brine well with the associated oil considered an undesirable byproduct.
For U.S. law, it's that first brine well in 1802 that set some of the definitions. As such it was considered mining when drilling for a mineral. By the time oil drilling came to prominence, it was either tear down the previous laws and regulations or fold them together. The latter was obviously the choice taken.
Europe and Asia took different paths. France convoluted the history when they mined oil sands in 1735. Seep oil was used in the 1500s in Poland to light street lamps. England, specifically London, were the first to utilize town gas; a byproduct of the coal coking process which was first recognized via royal decree in 1812. That, and the French oil sand mining, set the stage for the conflation of mineral based laws and regulations in Europe.
That should give you an idea why it looks convoluted. It's because it is.
I saw a sign in a window saying they served vegan fried chicken.
I saw a sign in a window saying they served vegan fried chicken.
I assume that means that their cook is vegan.
I saw a sign in a window saying they served vegan fried chicken.
Many vegan foods are informally named after the meat they imitate eg vegan bacon, vegan beef wellington. In the EU they have to be very careful because the name 'vegan fried chicken' wouldn't be allowed unless it contained real chicken, but laxer regimes might permit it.
AJ
Mississippi is being sued over a law that makes it illegal for a company who makes plant based food to use meat based names like hamburger saying it confuses the buyer. One argument is that the name hamburger doesn't have any ham.
Burger King is being sued for cooking their plant based Impossable burger on the same grill with their hamburgers.
Mississippi is being sued over a law that makes it illegal for a company who makes plant based food to use meat based names like hamburger saying it confuses the buyer. One argument is that the name hamburger doesn't have any ham.
I wonder what they'll call 'eggplant' and 'beefsteak tomatoes' ;)
AJ
the name hamburger doesn't have any ham.
AFIK, it comes from the place name Hamburg, but hamburgers weren't invented in Germany either.
https://www.infoplease.com/askeds/how-hamburger-was-named
The common belief is that the American hamburger borrowed its name from a dish called "Hamburg Style Beef" or "Hamburg Steak" which arrived in the United States from the German city of Hamburg in the 19th century. The dish was nothing more than chopped meat eaten raw.
Here are more claims on the origin of hamburgers that conflict with each other and the above, but by all accounts, the term hamburger derives from the name of the city of Hamburg, Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger
I came across an article (while doing research on the 1904 world's fair in St Louis) that claimed it was a German immigrant in the U.S. that created hamburgers. The article was debunked, as I recall, when some references were found of ground steak being served on a bun in Hamburg Germany. At a much later date, I was shown what was reported to be a menu from a restaurant in Hamburg which I was visiting on business. The menu listed a ground steak served on a bun/roll.
Any and all of that could be bullshit, but I'm inclined to believe the origin was that ground steak on a bun in Hamburg.
I came across an article (while doing research on the 1904 world's fair in St Louis) that claimed it was a German immigrant in the U.S. that created hamburgers.
I believe that that is the version that White Castle (the oldest burger chain in the US: 1921) pushes.
The article was debunked, as I recall, when some references were found of ground steak being served on a bun in Hamburg Germany.
I've seen a few of those references. They don't necessarily debunk the US origins of what we call a hamburger today. Several references refer to it as "Hamburg steak" and describe it as being served open-face, rather than as a closed sandwich.
Whatever the actual origins, the history between the 1904 Worlds Fair and White Castle is clear. The chopped/ground beef industry took a bloody nose when conditions of packing houses and adulteration of the product came out.
The white in the White Castle motif was a result of that history. White tiles and stainless steel were meant to show they were clean. They succeeded in taking a very obscure niche market and turning it into a worldwide multi-billion dollar industry. McDonald's, In and Out, and the rest of them that came after White Castle, have them to thank for that.
Origins aside, it became an American food icon as a result.
As an aside, the focus of that research was related to electricity in 1904. At the time, doctors, scientist, and other susposedly learned people were pushing the idea of electricity as a panacea.
Given the frequency of such people being proven wrong time and again, it simply amazes me that any thinking person still goes full sheep mode when such people declare one fact or another.
Any and all of that could be bullshit, but I'm inclined to believe the origin was that ground steak on a bun in Hamburg.
Just to stir the pot, or perhaps 'flip the patty' in this case, here is an alternative origin for you;
The 1,500-year-old recipe that shows how Romans invented the beef burger
Just to stir the pot, or perhaps 'flip the patty' in this case, here is an alternative origin for you;
I've read that before. Short of a time machine trip, it like many other hypothesized origins, cannot be proven.
I'm still going with the Hamburg Germany hypothesis as it meets the requirements of Occam's razor.
I've read that before. Short of a time machine trip, it like many other hypothesized origins, cannot be proven.
Because of course written evidence just isn't enough proof...
Because of course written evidence just isn't enough proof...
No, it is because of numerous inconsistencies with the article you posted and others like them. If anything, what is written about it is proof that it was not what you claim.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apicius
First there is the date of the book in question. There is a few hundred years disparity in the dates from the articles verses the actual dating. Next is the language of the book.
Then we get to the recipe itself which is not ground beef, rather it is chipped beef. Along with that are the ingredients that are also inconsistent.
Next we get to the bread in question.
http://www.roman-reenactor.com/roman%20military%20bread%20making.html
https://www.romae-vitam.com/roman-bread.html
De Agri Cultura, look it up and read it.
Then we get to how the Romans ate the bread. That is also inconsistent.
There are numerous articles and historical documents that contradict the idea of the Romans eating bread in the fashion of a hamburger.
If that recipe is a predecessor to anything, it is to a minced meat pie rather than a hamburger.
ETA; As you once told someone here recently, "I am not your research assistant." You claim written proof, show me.
as it meets the requirements of Occam's razor.
Heh, in my primary field of expertise, Occam's Razor is almost always wrong.
It seems to fail quite regularly in physics too. Physicists produce nice, neat theories about how something works, then a hundred or so years down the line other physicists show that it's not nice and neat at all and the previous theory was too simplistic.
AJ
Heh, in my primary field of expertise, Occam's Razor is almost always wrong.
It seems to fail quite regularly in physics too. Physicists produce nice, neat theories about how something works, then a hundred or so years down the line other physicists show that it's not nice and neat at all and the previous theory was too simplistic.
False equivalence. This is not relativity, it's a hamburger.
False equivalence.
Who claimed 'equivalence'? I merely pointed out that in some fields, Occam's Razor is untrustworthy.
AJ
Who claimed 'equivalence'?
Umm... you did when you compared the application of Occam's razor between the origins of hamburgers and physics. I'll agree it doesn't often work out in the world of physics, but in simpler concepts, such as the origins of any given food, it's far more right than wrong.
We have different interpretations of what I meant.
I have no expertise in the origins of food so I'll bow to your superior experience.
AJ
I have no expertise in the origins of food so I'll bow to your superior experience.
I have no such "superior experience" as it's not a subject I regularly research in the primary. I do have specific experiences brought about by references in the secondary to something that I was researching. This particular subject came up in the secondary as it usually does for me.
The idea of shaped ground beef cooked and eaten between two chunks of bread is so simple that it almost certainly predated the Romans. All modern day investigators can hope to show is the first written record.
AJ
The idea of shaped ground beef cooked and eaten between two chunks of bread is so simple that it almost certainly predated the Romans.
Yes, it's a simple idea. That doesn't mean it's simple to do.
Grinding meat is not that easy. Show me a functional meat grinder that dates to the bronze age.
I think the salient point is that the beef has been separated from the bone and is in tiny pieces. Chipped or finely chopped beef would count IMO, and some definitions allow that (although others don't). Couldn't that be achieved by a sharp flint?
AJ
I think the salient point is that the beef has been separated from the bone and is in tiny pieces. Chipped or finely chopped beef would count IMO
I disagree. Chipped/chopped is not the same as ground.
Would a chopped beef patty hold together through cooking the way a ground beef patty does.
The texture produced by grinding, which is not the same as chipping or chopping(no matter how finely), is important to making the hamburger what it is.
The texture produced by grinding, which is not the same as chipping or chopping(no matter how finely), is important to making the hamburger what it is.
We'll have to disagree on that.
AJ
The idea of shaped ground beef cooked and eaten between two chunks of bread is so simple that it almost certainly predated the Romans. All modern day investigators can hope to show is the first written record.
Everything is simple in hindsight. The initial spark of invention, not so much.
hamburger doesn't have any ham
There is an old cartoon I remember, of a burger place that had a lot of different burgers like steak buger, chicken buger, lamb burger, pork buger, etc. The burgers were on signs posted in the burger premises you could read looking at the cartoon. The chef is telling a customer, "we have one with ham, but we don't know what to call it."
There is an old cartoon I remember, of a burger place that had a lot of different burgers like steak buger, chicken buger, lamb burger, pork buger, etc. The burgers were on signs posted in the burger premises you could read looking at the cartoon. The chef is telling a customer, "we have one with ham, but we don't know what to call it."
Somehow, I don't think Spanish Islands or Iran have any history of hamburgers.
steak buger, chicken buger, lamb burger, pork buger, etc
So presumably when selling out they had buger all...?
I don't think Spanish Islands or Iran have any history of hamburgers.
Hotels and certain restaurants in many middle east countries have 'turkey bacon' as part of their 'full english breakfast' some extend upon this theme and have 'turkey hamburgers', perhaps not as attractive as a buger, but when in Rome...
Hotels and certain restaurants in many middle east countries have 'turkey bacon' as part of their 'full english breakfast' some extend upon this theme and have 'turkey hamburgers', perhaps not as attractive as a buger, but when in Rome...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BAger
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buger
Since the context was a geographic location (Hamburg Germany) as the originating location for a hamburger, I listed two locations for Buger, also geographic locations.
As for turkey hamburgers or bacon in the middle east, I was aware of them already. As stated in another thread, I usually avoid eating meat when traveling. I did find the idea of turkey bacon in Turkey amusing the last I visited.
No, it is because of numerous inconsistencies with the article you posted and others like them. If anything, what is written about it is proof that it was not what you claim.
Interesting.
Using more recently written documents as evidence that a much older document is 'hypothetical'.
You are in error in stating I 'claimed' anything, in fact all I did was post a link to an alternative source, whilst clearly stating that doing so was 'stirring the pot' or 'flipping the patty'. I really don't care what you think is correct, nor why you reject some sources whilst accepting others.
You claim written proof, show me.
Not claimed, simply posted a link. Since I linked to the source, I did show you. Now IF I had made a claim and NOT posted a link to a source, THEN you could demand 'proof'. See the difference?
ETA
As noted by others, a humorous or tongue-in-cheek post often seems to be taken way to seriously.
What I see is that you very often drop such verbiage and use any means or argument to wear down the subject. It would be much easier if you simply admit to being wrong now and then. Everyone gets it wrong from time to time, you, me, everyone. Especially when they don't bother to research beyond the surface scratch.
I always wonder how food get their names.
Did a fat man step on a plant and points at it and says Squash?
Did a pervert name Cumquat?
Why is a orange called Orange but a limon not called yellow?
Why is a orange called Orange but a limon not called yellow?
The color "orange" is named after the fruit, not the other way around. Until very recently, linguistically, English did not have a separate word for orange; it was just "yellow-red".
Yellow, on the other hand, is one of the first colors languages develop names for. English has had a word for it far longer than English-speakers have been familiar with lemons.
Why is a orange called Orange but a limon not called yellow?
What's a limon, is that some weird cross between a lemon and a lime?
What's a limon
That would be the Spanish spelling of lemon.
Unless you're talking about an old Sprite commercial. Although they spelled it lymon then, since it was half lemon, half lime.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/squash#etymonline_v_21933
squash (n.1)
gourd fruit, 1640s, shortened borrowing from Narraganset (Algonquian) askutasquash, literally "the things that may be eaten raw," from askut "green, raw, uncooked" + asquash "eaten," in which the -ash is a plural affix (compare succotash).
I have this problem when it comes to words I spell. When I see a word misspelled by someone else I can spot it most of the time. But when it comes to seeing words I misspell I have a hard time spotting it unless spellcheck catches it for me.
spellcheck catches it
I think that was something Samantha and Endora had, but Aunt Clara never used.
Back to the original question.
Why should drilling for oil extraction be separated from mining of oil sands or oil shale?
IMHO it's secondary how the substances are extracted.
HM.
Back to the original question.
Why should drilling for oil extraction be separated from mining of oil sands or oil shale?
IMHO it's secondary how the substances are extracted.
HM.
The why of it is an exercise in mental masterbation, with no hope of a money shot if the person wants it changed.
Why should drilling for oil extraction be separated from mining of oil sands or oil shale?
IMHO it's secondary how the substances are extracted.
These classifications are typically set by the government and the government regulates by extraction method not by what substances are being extracted.
These classifications are typically set by the government and the government regulates by extraction method not by what substances are being extracted.
Care to give a citation for that??
Care to give a citation for that??
https://www.epa.gov/regulatory-information-sector/oil-and-gas-extraction-sector-naics-211
Yes, there are some higher level regulations common across the entire mineral extraction sector, but there are also specific regulations for specific extraction methods. The different extraction methods have different safety requirements and different environmental impacts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAICS_21
Those higher regulations you speak of, put all the above under mining. Your link was to the Environmental Protection Agency regulations which does not answer to this:
and the government regulates by extraction method not by what substances are being extracted.
The EPA doesn't regulate extraction or substances, only the potential harm to the environment as per their charter. So do you have a citation stating the government regulates by extraction method or not?
ETA from my link;
NAICS 21 uses the term "mining" to include quarrying, well operations, beneficiating and other mineral preparation customarily performed at the mine sites, or as a part of mining activity and distinguishes two basic activities:
Mine operation
Mine operation includes companies that operate mines, quarries, or oil and gas wells for themselves, and companies which operate them on a contract or fee basis.[1]
Mining support activities
Mining support activities include companies that perform exploration (except geophysical surveying) and other mining services, on a contract or fee basis, with the exception of mine site preparation and construction of oil/gas pipelines.[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Industry_Classification_System
NAICS is a collaborative effort by Mexico's Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI), Statistics Canada, and the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB), through its Economic Classification Policy Committee (ECPC), staffed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and the Census Bureau. The system is designed to be largely compatible with the United Nations Statistical Office's International Standard Industrial Classification system (ISIC). NAICS versions are released every five years.
With the first version, released in 1997, NAICS offered enhanced coverage of the service sector, relative to SIC. The 2002 revision accommodated significant changes in the Information Sector. The 2012 revision slightly reduced the number of industries and modified six sectors
https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/faqs/faqs.html#q14
Nowhere in that do you see the EPA.