Williston, ND Active Issues

rwaitman · Senior Member

RE: Not Proud of the current President.

Steve Powell · Guru

Maximum production? That's a difficult concept to understand.

Honestly I haven't given it much thought. Anyone else care to help me out?

Sigma · Veteran Member

Steve Powell wrote:
rwaitman wrote:
Steve Powell wrote:
Two words....flux capacitor.
Spoken like a true Emmet Brown fan.....and boy, did you just date yourself....
;o)

lol...and much like fossil fuels, those movies will never go away.

Steve,

So you don't believe in peak oil? I've always took the concept of peak oil to be a generally accepted idea, though I don't have any specific facts or sources to support this. It probably comes from being told, as a child, that we will someday run out of oil.

Is there any science behind the claim that there is no peak oil?

Steve Powell · Guru

rwaitman wrote:
Steve Powell wrote:
Two words....flux capacitor.
Spoken like a true Emmet Brown fan.....and boy, did you just date yourself....
;o)

lol...and much like fossil fuels, those movies will never go away.

Steve Powell · Guru

See? I told ya so.

Sigma · Veteran Member

Steve Powell wrote:
Fossil fuels renew themselves. They will never go away.

Yeah, it only took about 145,000,000 years for those Jurassic funa and flora to turn into the oil we use today. Give or take a few tens of millions of years. So we'll get a new batch in what, maybe another 100,000,000? Give or take?

rwaitman · Senior Member

Steve Powell wrote:
Two words....flux capacitor.

Spoken like a true Emmet Brown fan.....and boy, did you just date yourself....

;o)

Steve Powell · Guru

Fossil fuels renew themselves. They will never go away.

Steve Powell · Guru

Two words....flux capacitor.

vko · Senior Member

A couple of windmill's by minot had everything so bent, it could not have helped if it wanted to. Flaw's in all solution's. If we stopped oil production in the United States and other countries continue on, where does that leave the US? Now, living in a old farm house has made me realize what I can do without. What I know is farmers need diesel for their equipment and I do not care where you live. We need the farmers and we are losing them. I can store - can my food - and do a garden. I do not have a dishwasher and a 80's ( i don't know what year but it is old) microwave. Some times I have electricty somestime not. I do have plenty of meat walking in my front yard. Do I want to do that, not in this lifetime. Jib, your solution will not make us better and only help the rest of the oil grabber's in other countries. It just make's us weak. As this President is doing. My personal opinion.

-- Edited by vko on Thursday 9th of June 2011 07:18:37 PM

-- Edited by vko on Thursday 9th of June 2011 07:54:20 PM

R Hill · Veteran Member

@Jibslider--You posted--My my, I didn't realize that basketball humor is something you take offense to.-- I don't take offense,( your humor wasn't funny to me) but it does speak volumes on how you answer some others view of The President. Like I posted I guess I should just keep it more simple for others like you.I would really like to ask you if you really believe that a oil less country here would stay free. I'm sure you'll come up with a smart**s answer and not really come up with how things will be made without using oil.I challenge you to live with out products made with oil,there is not much you would have without oil.

rwaitman · Senior Member

I am all for eco-friendly, green powered alternative energy....but the math simply does not add up. If it floats your boat, Jib...buy some of it. If every greenie, made it a point to do the very things you suggest, then by golly, it might make a difference, and the rest of us could fill the void you leave, and together we will not be using as much fuel, thereby saving the environment, and maybe bringing the prices down.

But I am not going to get into the semantics...cripes...it would be a book. If you had an electric car, it would still have to run on paved roads. Do you think that we could build paved roads to run it on if we had to have electric caterpillars, and tractors and excavating equipment, and dump trucks that could haul even 10 yards of dirt for construction. Yeah and if pigs had wings, they'd fly, too.

Where are we going to get the energy to create the electricity that the car will run on? Coal (no, wait that is a fossil fuel)? Maybe water, since hydro-electric power does not create the magnitude of pollution that gasoline does. But what about the drought years, since even without global warming or climate change there is a history of natural changes in temperatures. If there is no water floating down the river to the dam to create the electricity...we gotta problem.... and then we have the good, wet, years, and lotsa hydroelectric juice, and all the people driving the electric cars multiply; need more dams to create more juice...how we gonna build em...an electric excavator and concrete truck (see earlier paragraph)?

Maybe Rube Goldberg left some plans someplace for a perpetual motion machine that will solve all the energy problems, somebody will find em, and our discussion will become moot.

The world today, not just here, but everywhere, is bound and connected to fossil fuels...there is not no way, not no how, that wind turbines and electric cars are gonna do what needs to be done to fulfill the energy needs of the world. The closest thing to cheap, clean, (so to speak) fuel is nukular, but look what happened to Japan, not to mention Chernobyl, and Three Mile. If the US is forced into that mode as it appears we are heading if the President has his way...we will not be able to keep pace with anyone...much less lead. Other countries around the world will go pedal to the metal to grab it (oil, coal, etc) all up. The next thing after that is that we will become even less than a third world country, and after that...

...and pretty much insofar as the final outcome, as goes the US, there goes Canada.

..but this is just me thinking out loud. There is no Utopia, and there ain't no Shangri-la, except insomuch as we create them our ownselves, and I just don't think wind turbines and such is gonna cut the mustard.

Sorry, had a long day...

Always fun to go back and forth with you though....

R

Jibslider · Senior Member

rwaitman wrote:

As for the off shore drilling ban, which I believe is a five year morotoriam on areas without active leases, I simply have a difficult time following R Hill's train of thought. What I see in Obama is a pragmatist. He understands that the U.S. needs oil, but he wants to make sure it's done safely.
At what point, does "understanding" the need for US oil, outweigh the President's view of "safety". Any venture of great magnitude such as offshore drilling, is a calculated risk. This liberal President, in his infinite wisdom, by choosing to help keep us at the mercy of OPEC and their ilk, is taking a path for this country, and each of us, that is much more risky, in my esteemed opinion...but that is the difference between your perspective and mine; just a disagreement with no rancor, right? ;o)

At what point does society, including you and I and the president decide it is time to stop not just relying on foreign oil, but all of oil? Everybody since Jimmy Carter has realized that the situation is just going to get worse with oil. The supplies will run out on this planet. Sorry Williston, but it is time to really drive innovation away from an oil dependent society.

Everybody has to look beyond the surface of oil exploration. Safety is not the only reason to stop offshore/onshore drilling. It boils down to driving alternative methods of energy (solar, wind, lithium based). Environmental impacts are included in all of that, but seriously the answer is to drive alternative methods.

Lithium ion battery powered vehicles are starting to emerge in the commercial market. Battery charging stations are being built all around the country, I even saw a solar powered battery charging station in town the other day. The supply of lithium on this planet is robust (for the time being), but these stores have to be mined... so the environmentalist in me does not like that fact. Atleast that fracking garbage isn't needed to extract lithium.

I'm all for slowing down oil exploration and driving the cost of oil into the stratosphere. When that all trickles down to the consumer at the gas pump paying $7.00 a gallon, maybe Joe-15-gallon will take notice and demand an alternative energy source.

Look below the surface, safety is probably not the driving factor. How many complex societies have collapsed due to dwindling energy supplies without the means to adapt to new alternative methods?

Jibslider · Senior Member

R Hill wrote:
I guess I should have made the question simple for the mindless who didn't know,or are ashamed to face the fact that "He" The current President is an embaressment. Oh and by the way, using your attempt at humor, you failed to mention what president you speak of. The trailblazers?(the suv?) or the founding fathers who were trailblazers?. the trailblazers. really sucked,What does portland have to due with it? also Why did Obama give money and clearance so Brazil could drill for oil?, and then stop U.S. of A oil companies from drilling?Hmmmmm I thought because of your picture using the oil rig being put up by our Brave men in harms way was needed to ask that question.I think I know your answer "it's Bush's fault"

My my, I didn't realize that basketball humor is something you take offense to.

Sigma · Veteran Member

Sigma replies to what Randy wrote:
Randy Replies to what
Sigma wrote:
which I believe is a five year morotoriam on areas without active leases, I simply have a difficult time following R Hill's train of thought. What I see in Obama is a pragmatist. He understands that the U.S. needs oil, but he wants to make sure it's done safely.
At what point, does "understanding" the need for US oil, outweigh the President's view of "safety". Any venture of great magnitude such as offshore drilling, is a calculated risk. This liberal President, in his infinite wisdom, by choosing to help keep us at the mercy of OPEC and their ilk, is taking a path for this country, and each of us, that is much more risky, in my esteemed opinion...but that is the difference between your perspective and mine; just a disagreement with no rancor, right? ;o)
Good points, Randy, and I actually agree with what you're saying. I'm not a liberal, though I have no problem with those who are, so please do not interpret my statements as support of the Presidents actions. I just like to keep the debate in the correct frame of reference. His rational may be noble, in his mind, but it does not match the reality in which we find ourselves.
He imposes a morotoirum in the States because he has the authoritiy to do so and comes out in support of Brazillian development because he knows he'd rather buy from an friend than a (potential enemy.
Mind you, I don't agree with off shore drilling bans in the U.S., but that is the tactic he's chosen to help promote what he believes is safe drilling practices to prevent another accident. Right or wrong, that is what is happening.
In a nutshell....that is what we are talking about...and we don't see eye to eye on parts of it, or at least one of us chooses to look at it from left field, and the other from the pitcher's mound...
Nah, I'm not in left field. I'm more like that guy in the bleachers behind the benches that heckles the teams manager mercilessly the entire game. :)
To argue that the President is actively working against America's economic interests simply doesn't make sense. His actions may result in a negative impact, but the statement that he is "deliberately hindering...economic growth of the American economy," is ludicrious. He has his own reasons for doing things, and they may not make economic sense, but we don't have a President who's out to destroy America.
I, too, do not think he is trying to destroy the US. I think in his liberalism, ingrained as it is, he is trying to remake the US into his vision of reality, totally overshadowing any amount of common sense, that he might have.
See, I can understand that. Heck, I can even get behind that. There is a difference between demonizing the President and recognizing that he may not "see the forest for the trees," to use an old saying. I think it's very possible that how he sees the situation is different than the reality of the situation (in regard to his position on oil drilling.) The end result is bad, and I am not in support of his actions, but I'd rather frame the argument in the context that we are dealing with a good man making poor decisions as opposed to some Bond villian who dreams of the downfall of America. Unfortunatly, some rhetoric often times veers in that direction, making rational conversation difficult.
And R. Hill, I don't begrude you the swipes at me, as I took a small one at you in my earlier post. But I don't think you have standing to declare victory just yet. There are nuances in the debate that I feel you are overlooking, but I can't see an extended debate over the issue being productive, so I'll end my input here.
Yep...but if you continue to use the power of the written word, supported by logic, you might well persuade RHill...and possibly me, to your way of thinking.. of course that road runs both ways....
...watching for your next good post...
It seems that apparently I lied when i said I'd end my input here. Umm, yeah...sorry about that.

-- Edited by Sigma on Tuesday 7th of June 2011 07:25:55 PM

rwaitman · Senior Member

Randy Replies to what
Sigma wrote:
I don't know, Randy. One of the comments talks about how Obama's deal with Petrobas was payback to George Soros for campaign contributions. This is (I think) in reference to Soros's hedge fund owning something in excess of $811MM in Petrobas, which was purchased in 2009. However, I believe the hedge fund before any loan was made by the Ex-Im Bank.
I see where you are going with that one. I was only referencing the general statements, and the gist of both of them appear to support the broad view that R.Hill is pushing. I tend to agree with him (or her). George Soros...is a very partisan, and not nice person. If I was a drunken sailor I could rationalize with a more colorful vernacular in describing what I think about him, but guess since I'm not, I can't...
As for the off shore drilling ban, which I believe is a five year morotoriam on areas without active leases, I simply have a difficult time following R Hill's train of thought. What I see in Obama is a pragmatist. He understands that the U.S. needs oil, but he wants to make sure it's done safely.
At what point, does "understanding" the need for US oil, outweigh the President's view of "safety". Any venture of great magnitude such as offshore drilling, is a calculated risk. This liberal President, in his infinite wisdom, by choosing to help keep us at the mercy of OPEC and their ilk, is taking a path for this country, and each of us, that is much more risky, in my esteemed opinion...but that is the difference between your perspective and mine; just a disagreement with no rancor, right? ;o)
He imposes a morotoirum in the States because he has the authoritiy to do so and comes out in support of Brazillian development because he knows he'd rather buy from an friend than a (potential enemy.
Mind you, I don't agree with off shore drilling bans in the U.S., but that is the tactic he's chosen to help promote what he believes is safe drilling practices to prevent another accident. Right or wrong, that is what is happening.
In a nutshell....that is what we are talking about...and we don't see eye to eye on parts of it, or at least one of us chooses to look at it from left field, and the other from the pitcher's mound...
To argue that the President is actively working against America's economic interests simply doesn't make sense. His actions may result in a negative impact, but the statement that he is "deliberately hindering...economic growth of the American economy," is ludicrious. He has his own reasons for doing things, and they may not make economic sense, but we don't have a President who's out to destroy America.
I, too, do not think he is trying to destroy the US. I think in his liberalism, ingrained as it is, he is trying to remake the US into his vision of reality, totally overshadowing any amount of common sense, that he might have. He and the crew that surrounds him with bad advice, are simply hiding their heads in the sand hoping for a miracle that will vindicate their positions, and barring that, demonizing those who disagree...
And R. Hill, I don't begrude you the swipes at me, as I took a small one at you in my earlier post. But I don't think you have standing to declare victory just yet. There are nuances in the debate that I feel you are overlooking, but I can't see an extended debate over the issue being productive, so I'll end my input here.
Yep...but if you continue to use the power of the written word, supported by logic, you might well persuade RHill...and possibly me, to your way of thinking.. of course that road runs both ways....
...watching for your next good post...

Sigma · Veteran Member

I don't know, Randy. One of the comments talks about how Obama's deal with Petrobas was payback to George Soros for campaign contributions. This is (I think) in reference to Soros's hedge fund owning something in excess of $811MM in Petrobas, which was purchased in 2009. However, I believe the hedge fund divested from Petrobas in 2009 before any loan was made by the Ex-Im Bank.

That's about as far as I have the energy or inclination to check in regard to Soros's involvement.

As for the off shore drilling ban, which I believe is a five year morotoriam on areas without active leases, I simply have a difficult time following R Hill's train of thought. What I see in Obama is a pragmatist. He understands that the U.S. needs oil, but he wants to make sure it's done safely. He imposes a morotoirum in the States because he has the authoritiy to do so and comes out in support of Brazillian development because he knows he'd rather buy from an friend than a (potential enemy.

Mind you, I don't agree with off shore drilling bans in the U.S., but that is the tactic he's chosen to help promote what he believes is safe drilling practices to prevent another accident. Right or wrong, that is what is happening.

To argue that the President is actively working against America's economic interests simply doesn't make sense. His actions may result in a negative impact, but the statement that he is "deliberately hindering...economic growth of the American economy," is ludicrious. He has his own reasons for doing things, and they may not make economic sense, but we don't have a President who's out to destroy America.

And R. Hill, I don't begrude you the swipes at me, as I took a small one at you in my earlier post. But I don't think you have standing to declare victory just yet. There are nuances in the debate that I feel you are overlooking, but I can't see an extended debate over the issue being productive, so I'll end my input here.

Thanks for the kind words, Randy. I've always enjoyed your prespective on things. Your humility and tact are examples I will try to emulate.

R Hill · Veteran Member

Sigma as I googled this info that you seem to think I didn't (to as you say get the facts before Argueing ) This is just one of many article concerning Obamas oil drilling choice. Did any of the Banks get "stimlus "money? Just so you might know Bush is not President anymore, Obama keeping these people on make them his now. Just put on your Big boy pants and read the following. I hope it opens your Eyes.This is from

MARITIME LAWYER NEWS

Maritime Law Blog and The Jones Act Dated December 3rd 2010

"The Interior Department said it is reversing the plan laid out last March to drill for oil off the East Coast and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The Obama administration unveiled the plan before the BP oil spill. The new plan means no new drilling proposals off of the East Coast for at least seven years."Also you are right, checking fact when posting is important.And you did say it was Bush's fault. I guess I'm right twice!Yaaah for my side!--also

REAL CLEAR CONSERVATIVES

A website dedicated to conservative and freedom oriented articles, with an emphasis on Republican political ideas, personalities, elections and strategies.

Incredibly Obama promised that the USA would underwrite a $2 Billion loan to Brazil’s government owned Petrobras for a massive underwater drilling project. Sometime after that, using the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as an excuse, Obama imposed a 7 year offshore drilling ban of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, as well as much of the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Forget about drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), that’s out of the question.

On this trip, while in Brazil giving a speech to a group of Brazilian businessmen at a CEO Summit, he said “We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.” These words represent an incredible level of hypocrisy from someone who obviously is strongly opposed to drilling for oil. At least, he is totally opposed to drilling in the United States, evidently preferring to have the USA purchase its oil abroad.

Obama still refuses to lift the ban on offshore drilling here in the United States, and continues to demonize the oil and gas industries, as energy prices continue to rise. He isblatantly supporting the economic growth of another country while purposely hindering the economic growth of the American economy.---------Sigma---Facts are tough to swallow when you are on the wrong side. I Love Google!

-- Edited by R Hill on Friday 3rd of June 2011 04:39:08 PM

-- Edited by R Hill on Friday 3rd of June 2011 04:41:06 PM

-- Edited by R Hill on Friday 3rd of June 2011 04:45:52 PM

rwaitman · Senior Member

Sigma wrote:

I think you're referring to the $2 billion dollar loan made by the Export-Import Bank (Ex Im) to Brazil for oil exploration. The decision to make the loan was made on 4/19/11 by officials of Ex Im, not President Obama. It's interesting to note that the majority of the officials on the Ex Im that made the loan were appointed by President George W. Bush, not President Obama. It's also interesting to note that the vast majority of the funds used to make loans from the Ex Im comes from commercial banks, not tax payer dollars.
The Ex Im loan to Petrobas is designed to be mutually beneficial. The Ex Im helps Petrobas with oil field development and Petrobas must in turn spend its money with US companies and thus, support US jobs.
So this occurred 1) before the gulf oil spill and the moratoriumon off shore drilling, and 2) in support of US workers. Just be careful when arguing from a fallicy. Fact checking before making a statement is always good.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574360731208423244.html
Just sayin'.

-- Edited by Sigma on Friday 3rd of June 2011 11:35:51 AM

-- Edited by Sigma on Friday 3rd of June 2011 11:36:27 AM

Ahhh....Sigma my friend...you are good. However, if you will go back and follow the link to the Wall Street Journal Article which you reference, and then read the two comments which were posted by gentlemen much smarter than I....you will see a more literate perspective of the impact of the Obama kissy kissy meeting in Brazil, than anything I could write. They much more eloquently said what I think R. Hill was trying to say....

...on the other hand, unless you had stirred the pot and shaken the bush (not George), I probably would not have gone back to that article and actually read the darn thing. I do read the WSJ from time to time, but only sporadically, usually when travelling; and I read the National Enquirer from time to time too...but only when no one is looking.

Sigma · Veteran Member

R Hill wrote:
I guess I should have made the question simple for the mindless who didn't know,or are ashamed to face the fact that "He" The current President is an embaressment. Oh and by the way, using your attempt at humor, you failed to mention what president you speak of. The trailblazers?(the suv?) or the founding fathers who were trailblazers?. the trailblazers. really sucked,What does portland have to due with it? also Why did Obama give money and clearance so Brazil could drill for oil?, and then stop U.S. of A oil companies from drilling?Hmmmmm I thought because of your picture using the oil rig being put up by our Brave men in harms way was needed to ask that question.I think I know your answer "it's Bush's fault"

I think you're referring to the $2 billion dollar loan made by the Export-Import Bank (Ex Im) to Brazil for oil exploration. The decision to make the loan was made on 4/19/11 by officials of Ex Im, not President Obama. It's interesting to note that the majority of the officials on the Ex Im that made the loan were appointed by President George W. Bush, not President Obama. It's also interesting to note that the vast majority of the funds used to make loans from the Ex Im comes from commercial banks, not tax payer dollars.

The Ex Im loan to Petrobas is designed to be mutually beneficial. The Ex Im helps Petrobas with oil field development and Petrobas must in turn spend its money with US companies and thus, support US jobs.

So this occurred 1) before the gulf oil spill and the moratoriumon off shore drilling, and 2) in support of US workers. Just be careful when arguing from a fallicy. Fact checking before making a statement is always good.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574360731208423244.html

Just sayin'.

-- Edited by Sigma on Friday 3rd of June 2011 11:35:51 AM

-- Edited by Sigma on Friday 3rd of June 2011 11:36:27 AM

R Hill · Veteran Member

I could be mistaken ,but Isreal's top person is a Prime minister.Just sayin

R Hill · Veteran Member

I guess I should have made the question simple for the mindless who didn't know,or are ashamed to face the fact that "He" The current President is an embaressment. Oh and by the way, using your attempt at humor, you failed to mention what president you speak of. The trailblazers?(the suv?) or the founding fathers who were trailblazers?. the trailblazers. really sucked,What does portland have to due with it? also Why did Obama give money and clearance so Brazil could drill for oil?, and then stop U.S. of A oil companies from drilling?Hmmmmm I thought because of your picture using the oil rig being put up by our Brave men in harms way was needed to ask that question.I think I know your answer "it's Bush's fault"

Jibslider · Senior Member

R Hill wrote:
I would like to see who are not proud of the current President.

-- Edited by R Hill on Thursday 12th of May 2011 07:14:28 PM

I am not proud of the current president either. I really have no idea why he and the owner decided to fire Rich Cho. Maybe Rich wasn't a yes man, but he brought in Gerald Wallace and easily made the best NBA trade of the year and argueably the best deal the Blazers have ever made. I'm pretty sure the president and the owner didn't agree with Rich wanting to trade Roy, but really we shouldn't be paying Roy that amount of $$$ to be coming off the bench. We'll see what the president decides to do with Oden, but right now I am not proud of the current president.

vko · Senior Member

Current President - Jeruslem - Israel? Policies. I will stick with my belief. Does President Obama fit into that belief? What does it matter?

R Hill · Veteran Member

wink I guess I should reply to my own question. I'm not proud of his white half. If I were not proud of him in whole I would be a target for racisim. lol

Steve Powell · Guru

There are certainly things I'm not to happy about with the current President. But I would also include the rest of the group as well...Senators, Congresspeople, Republican and Democrats alike.

I don't believe our current system is right anymore. There's too much hate between parties. Nothing gets accomplished unless there is a majority.

Party politics has ruined this system...along with subjective journalism.

So I guess my answer is that I'm starting to lose faith in the system as a whole.

Steve Powell · Guru

I'm not proud of the President because I'm Republican and I'm not supposed to be proud of Democrats. biggrin biggrin biggrin

SIDE NOTE -- This post is in jest and if anyone responds with a serious post arguing against me...I'll hunt you down. biggrin biggrin biggrin

R Hill · Veteran Member

I would like to see who are not proud of the current President.

-- Edited by R Hill on Thursday 12th of May 2011 07:14:28 PM