If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   All you conspiracy nuts raving about a huge night time light source in North Dakota that wasn't there six years ago can just relax. It's only oil frackers burning off massive amounts of natural gas   (npr.org) divider line 215
    More: Scary, North Dakota, Water pumping, Great Plains, gasfields, Bakken, conspiracy, gas wells, natural gas  
•       •       •

6588 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2013 at 7:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



215 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-19 04:07:12 PM
Yeah, subby, that's what they WANT you to believe.

I won't be drinking your Kool Aid today, sir. Good day.
 
2013-01-19 04:43:26 PM
Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas? You know, instead of just burning it? Maybe use it to power the local community?

/fracking's bad enough
//now they're just being wasteful
 
2013-01-19 04:46:19 PM
It's in the frakkin' oil fields!
 
2013-01-19 04:53:36 PM
But it makes money, so it must be okay, right?
 
2013-01-19 04:57:54 PM
Streetlight.

/Oblig
 
2013-01-19 05:09:16 PM

Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas?


Sometimes. It's cheap as shiat right now and they are drilling primarily for oil. It's not worth the effort or investment to build the infrastructure to pipe it out. Now, if there was say an overseas market that would be willing to pay a metric farkton more than it's bringing domestically...Oh wait!

That being said, flaring gas at the well site is nothing new. My Dad told me that back in the 50s you could drive through the fields south of Electra Texas at midnight at it was almost  as bright as day.
 
2013-01-19 05:11:44 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas?

Sometimes. It's cheap as shiat right now and they are drilling primarily for oil. It's not worth the effort or investment to build the infrastructure to pipe it out. Now, if there was say an overseas market that would be willing to pay a metric farkton more than it's bringing domestically...Oh wait!

That being said, flaring gas at the well site is nothing new. My Dad told me that back in the 50s you could drive through the fields south of Electra Texas at midnight at it was almost  as bright as day.


Still, it feels like they're leaving money on the table, even with the cost of infrastructure in comparison to the massive desire for natural gas. It's a limited resource, why not just gather and store?
 
2013-01-19 05:13:48 PM
Has anyone seen Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney lately? I'd say this is their doing.
 
2013-01-19 05:22:16 PM
Some people just like watching the world burn.
 
2013-01-19 05:37:02 PM

Solon Isonomia: Still, it feels like they're leaving money on the table, even with the cost of infrastructure in comparison to the massive desire for natural gas. It's a limited resource, why not just gather and store?


No storage left. Really. It's insane and there are countries all but sucking our wang for the stuff. There is a concerted effort on the part of a few manufacturers to keep the DoE from authorizing mass exports. Combine that with the desire of the government to convert 'dirty' power generators to NG and you have a over supply issue. There are a couple of projects on the Texas coast to liquefy the product and ship overseas but until the greenlight is given to readily export it, it's just another waste byproduct of the oil extraction process good for little more than flaring.
 
2013-01-19 05:40:48 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Still, it feels like they're leaving money on the table, even with the cost of infrastructure in comparison to the massive desire for natural gas. It's a limited resource, why not just gather and store?

No storage left. Really. It's insane and there are countries all but sucking our wang for the stuff. There is a concerted effort on the part of a few manufacturers to keep the DoE from authorizing mass exports. Combine that with the desire of the government to convert 'dirty' power generators to NG and you have a over supply issue. There are a couple of projects on the Texas coast to liquefy the product and ship overseas but until the greenlight is given to readily export it, it's just another waste byproduct of the oil extraction process good for little more than flaring.


Ugh... that just makes me sick. That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful. Hmmm... I wonder if an activist shareholder could run with that, sort of a corporate waste suit...
 
2013-01-19 05:45:35 PM

Solon Isonomia: That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful


Just standard business practice.  Why bother think for tomorrow when profit today is all that matters?
 
2013-01-19 05:47:29 PM

Solon Isonomia: Ugh... that just makes me sick. That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful. Hmmm... I wonder if an activist shareholder could run with that, sort of a corporate waste suit..


Easy, Tiger. The oil companies are foaming at the mouth to sell it. My figures aren't exact, but LNG is on the US market at ~$4.00/ thousand Cu Ft and the overseas market is closer to $15. The block is at the regulatory level.
 
2013-01-19 05:47:35 PM

GAT_00: Solon Isonomia: That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful

Just standard business practice.  Why bother think for tomorrow when profit today is all that matters?


Because some of your shareholders might want to look at the long game and know how to use their position to redirect the company in the direction they want. At least, that's the idea behind certain shareholder rights.
 
2013-01-19 05:49:01 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Ugh... that just makes me sick. That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful. Hmmm... I wonder if an activist shareholder could run with that, sort of a corporate waste suit..

Easy, Tiger. The oil companies are foaming at the mouth to sell it. My figures aren't exact, but LNG is on the US market at ~$4.00/ thousand Cu Ft and the overseas market is closer to $15. The block is at the regulatory level.


Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE? Are they just trying to stall for time so they have the infrastructure to corner the export market?
 
2013-01-19 05:49:38 PM

NewportBarGuy: Has anyone seen Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney lately? I'd say this is their doing.


I scrolled by this really quickly and thought I saw "Don Rickles."

I'd like to see him weigh in on these events.
 
2013-01-19 05:52:04 PM

Solon Isonomia: Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE?


i580.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-19 05:53:05 PM

GAT_00: Just standard business practice. Why bother think for tomorrow when profit today is all that matters?


You might want to stay away from this one, my boy.
 
2013-01-19 05:55:10 PM

Shostie: Solon Isonomia: Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE?

[i580.photobucket.com image 197x151]


Working off of  DiA's prior comment:

Dancin_In_Anson: There is a concerted effort on the part of a few manufacturers to keep the DoE from authorizing mass exports.

 
2013-01-19 05:56:04 PM

Solon Isonomia: Shostie: Solon Isonomia: Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE?

[i580.photobucket.com image 197x151]

Working off of  DiA's prior comment:

Dancin_In_Anson: There is a concerted effort on the part of a few manufacturers to keep the DoE from authorizing mass exports.


Ah, that makes more sense.
 
2013-01-19 06:00:30 PM

Solon Isonomia: Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE?


Here is am article regarding this issue.

And another.
 
2013-01-19 06:02:54 PM
Tempers are rising. Gas is burning. Drillers are drilling.

Dealers keep dealin'
Thieves keep thievin'
Whores keep whorin'
Junkies keep scorin'
Trade is on the meat rack
Strip joints full of hunchbacks
biatches keep biatchin'
Clap keeps itchin'
 
2013-01-19 06:06:13 PM

Solon Isonomia: GAT_00: Solon Isonomia: That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful

Just standard business practice.  Why bother think for tomorrow when profit today is all that matters?

Because some of your shareholders might want to look at the long game and know how to use their position to redirect the company in the direction they want. At least, that's the idea behind certain shareholder rights.


And at the cost of what long term damage?  They don't give a fark about that.  The bottom line trumps all.  So what about waste?  So what about environmental damage?  As long as you make money, people like DIA will think it's somehow the greatest thing ever.  He doesn't care that this is the kind of shiat that's going to leave his grandchildren a ruined world.  He's can't think in long term.  Profit now is all he can see.
 
2013-01-19 06:06:25 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE?

Here is am article regarding this issue.

And another.


Ahhhh, so the fight is over the amount of exports. Hmm... one would think an improved infrastructure combined with the heaps of newly available natural gas would be an effective way to keep domestic prices stable while reaping a profit on the export market. Of course, that would assume infrastructure could be created in a timely manner and the brokers on the futures market don't create too many wild price spikes.
 
2013-01-19 06:15:48 PM

GAT_00: DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR R RRRRRRP!


You really need to sit this one out, son.


Solon Isonomia: Ahhhh, so the fight is over the amount of exports. Hmm... one would think an improved infrastructure combined with the heaps of newly available natural gas would be an effective way to keep domestic prices stable while reaping a profit on the export market.


One might think. The supply is strong enough to keep the price level domestically and achieving the goal of keeping prices of electricity from converted coal fired plants at or below current levels while reaping solid benefits on the national level from exports. Will prices go up for some manufactured goods that are produced using NG? Of course but not to a detriment IMO.
 
2013-01-19 06:18:29 PM

Solon Isonomia: Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE?

Here is am article regarding this issue.

And another.

Ahhhh, so the fight is over the amount of exports. Hmm... one would think an improved infrastructure combined with the heaps of newly available natural gas would be an effective way to keep domestic prices stable while reaping a profit on the export market. Of course, that would assume infrastructure could be created in a timely manner and the brokers on the futures market don't create too many wild price spikes.


Or you intentionally don't overshoot the demand so you don't have to burn off your product.  How hard is it to actually build for demand?
 
2013-01-19 06:19:12 PM

Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas? You know, instead of just burning it? Maybe use it to power the local community?

/fracking's bad enough
//now they're just being wastefui


 Its called "flaring" and is a common practice in exploration. After a pipeline is built from the refinery or compressor station to the well, flaring is what has to happen.

If only the government would allow pipelines to be build in keystone areas.

 
2013-01-19 06:20:21 PM

Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas? You know, instead of just burning it? Maybe use it to power the local community?

/fracking's bad enough
//now they're just being wasteful


a) There is no local community. This is extra
b) Nobody will let them build pipelines. Something about how it might hurt the environment to build a pipeline. So instead they burn it. Works out well that way.
 
2013-01-19 06:24:40 PM

brandent: Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas? You know, instead of just burning it? Maybe use it to power the local community?

/fracking's bad enough
//now they're just being wasteful

a) There is no local community. This is extra
b) Nobody will let them build pipelines. Something about how it might hurt the environment to build a pipeline. So instead they burn it. Works out well that way.


You can build relatively safe pipelines.  The safety equipment exists that would prevent all the blowouts that are so common.  But the holy bottom line is better, and that costs a little more, so fark the future.
 
2013-01-19 06:25:03 PM

GAT_00: Or you intentionally don't overshoot the demand so you don't have to burn off your product.


Read again, Einstein....it is a by product of oil extraction. It's coming out of the ground whether or not you want it to.
 
2013-01-19 06:27:47 PM

GAT_00: But the holy bottom line is better, and that costs a little more, so fark the future.


Jesus farking God boy. Do you realize that if exports were allowed, the price would go up enough to afford to build these "relatively safe' pipelines and use the product in industry and power generation thereby preserving the 'future' via the desired green path?!
 
2013-01-19 06:40:12 PM

GAT_00: brandent: Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas? You know, instead of just burning it? Maybe use it to power the local community?

/fracking's bad enough
//now they're just being wasteful

a) There is no local community. This is extra
b) Nobody will let them build pipelines. Something about how it might hurt the environment to build a pipeline. So instead they burn it. Works out well that way.

You can build relatively safe pipelines.  The safety equipment exists that would prevent all the blowouts that are so common.  But the holy bottom line is better, and that costs a little more, so fark the future.


No what I'm saying is way more explicit. The Obama administration is putting blocks on the plans for pipelines. They'd rather the stuff burn off into the atmosphere I guess.
 
2013-01-19 06:49:09 PM

brandent: GAT_00: brandent: Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas? You know, instead of just burning it? Maybe use it to power the local community?

/fracking's bad enough
//now they're just being wasteful

a) There is no local community. This is extra
b) Nobody will let them build pipelines. Something about how it might hurt the environment to build a pipeline. So instead they burn it. Works out well that way.

You can build relatively safe pipelines.  The safety equipment exists that would prevent all the blowouts that are so common.  But the holy bottom line is better, and that costs a little more, so fark the future.

No what I'm saying is way more explicit. The Obama administration is putting blocks on the plans for pipelines. They'd rather the stuff burn off into the atmosphere I guess.


Those pipelines get blocked because the companies don't bother trying to prevent environmental damage. Keystone was blocked, for example, yes I know that's oil and not NG, because they didn't scout a route across Nebraska, leaving a very serious potential of an oil leak into the Ogallala aquifer. They don't use advanced safety techniques, because they know they won't have to pay for the decades of damage.

And even then, the pipeline was going to be confirmed as soon as they specified the route. These are being blocked because these lazy farks refuse to do basic work to prevent decades of damage for a few dollars.
 
2013-01-19 07:08:01 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: You really need to sit this one out, son.


Just a tip: no matter how cogent your argument might be, calling people "Son" makes you sound like a tool.
 
2013-01-19 07:19:18 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Still, it feels like they're leaving money on the table, even with the cost of infrastructure in comparison to the massive desire for natural gas. It's a limited resource, why not just gather and store?

No storage left. Really. It's insane and there are countries all but sucking our wang for the stuff. There is a concerted effort on the part of a few manufacturers to keep the DoE from authorizing mass exports. Combine that with the desire of the government to convert 'dirty' power generators to NG and you have a over supply issue. There are a couple of projects on the Texas coast to liquefy the product and ship overseas but until the greenlight is given to readily export it, it's just another waste byproduct of the oil extraction process good for little more than flaring.


Because there's no chance we'd ever need this stuff in the future, right? Assuming your first three words are even correct, build some more f*cking storage. And converting power generators from coal and oil to NG would create excess demand, not excess supply.

Not mention the insanity of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for absolutely zero benefit.
 
2013-01-19 07:22:01 PM

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: NewportBarGuy: Has anyone seen Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney lately? I'd say this is their doing.

I scrolled by this really quickly and thought I saw "Don Rickles."

I'd like to see him weigh in on these events.


Lucky bastard. I thought it said "dong".
 
2013-01-19 07:32:53 PM

GAT_00: Solon Isonomia: That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful

Just standard business practice.  Why bother think for tomorrow when profit today is all that matters?


Blasphemy. The Free Market solves all problems and don't you forget it!
 
2013-01-19 07:35:14 PM
1) Burn off gas now.

2) Cry about a "natural gas shortage" in ten years and triple the price.

3) Profit!
 
2013-01-19 07:38:14 PM

fusillade762: Dancin_In_Anson: You really need to sit this one out, son.

Just a tip: no matter how cogent your argument might be, calling people "Son" makes you sound like a tool.


Funny thing, fracking is a tool. Like a hammer. You can choose to build your house with a hammer, or brain your wife. The tool is the same no matter.
 
2013-01-19 07:40:57 PM
Yah, it's not like we couldn't make a car that can go 250 miles on a tank of CNG, that would make smog and the need to import foreign oil a thing of the past..
Link
 
2013-01-19 07:41:01 PM

Old enough to know better: 1) Burn off gas now.


2) Get approval to sell the bulk of it overseas, stop burning and start exporting

3) Cry about a "natural gas shortage" in ten years and triple the price.

3) Profit!


Just added an extra step in there so we can cover the export angle.
The only people that would benefit from exporting natural gas are the gas companies. Meanwhile, everybody that heats a home with gas is going to see a price increase, because no gas company is going to want to sell it to you for $4 per thousand cubic feet when they can sell it for $15. They might cut Joe Homeowner a break though, and let him have it for $12.

/I'm a somewhat cynical person
 
2013-01-19 07:43:50 PM

Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas? You know, instead of just burning it? Maybe use it to power the local community?

/fracking's bad enough
//now they're just being wasteful


It costs them more to store, process and deliver the stuff than they can sell it for. Releasing huge volumes of it into the air creates a rather serious explosion hazard. So they just burn it.
 
2013-01-19 07:44:14 PM

Old enough to know better: 1) Burn off gas now.

2) Cry about a "natural gas shortage" in ten years and triple the price.

3) Profit!


That's about the size of it
 
2013-01-19 07:45:43 PM
Somehow, I knew this was somehow Obama's fault, and not greed and short-sightedness on the part of business. Glad to have this thread to show me exactly how.
 
2013-01-19 07:47:08 PM

fusillade762: Tempers are rising. Gas is burning. Drillers are drilling.

Dealers keep dealin'
Thieves keep thievin'
Whores keep whorin'
Junkies keep scorin'
Trade is on the meat rack
Strip joints full of hunchbacks
biatches keep biatchin'
Clap keeps itchin'


"can't fight against the youth,
'cause we're strong
them are rude, rude people"
 
2013-01-19 07:48:48 PM

Solon Isonomia: Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Ugh... that just makes me sick. That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful. Hmmm... I wonder if an activist shareholder could run with that, sort of a corporate waste suit..

Easy, Tiger. The oil companies are foaming at the mouth to sell it. My figures aren't exact, but LNG is on the US market at ~$4.00/ thousand Cu Ft and the overseas market is closer to $15. The block is at the regulatory level.

Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE? Are they just trying to stall for time so they have the infrastructure to corner the export market?


Probably it would cost more at the outset to also build facilities to capture and store extra natural gas at the surface than to just flare it off while they're fracking deeper down. That would be my guess--they don't want the extra capital outlay.
 
2013-01-19 07:48:52 PM

Speaker2Animals: Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Still, it feels like they're leaving money on the table, even with the cost of infrastructure in comparison to the massive desire for natural gas. It's a limited resource, why not just gather and store?

No storage left. Really. It's insane and there are countries all but sucking our wang for the stuff. There is a concerted effort on the part of a few manufacturers to keep the DoE from authorizing mass exports. Combine that with the desire of the government to convert 'dirty' power generators to NG and you have a over supply issue. There are a couple of projects on the Texas coast to liquefy the product and ship overseas but until the greenlight is given to readily export it, it's just another waste byproduct of the oil extraction process good for little more than flaring.

Because there's no chance we'd ever need this stuff in the future, right? Assuming your first three words are even correct, build some more f*cking storage. And converting power generators from coal and oil to NG would create excess demand, not excess supply.

Not mention the insanity of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for absolutely zero benefit.


Aside from the natural salt domes that we use to "store natural gas" the only other ways of safely storing them are in Natural Gas Spheres which are safe 99.9% of the time, but that other 0.01%? Yea, shiat goes to hell after that.

The other option is specialized tanks that I know, that at least Exxon has 3 or 4 of them currently, that hold liquefied natural gas. These tanks, however, are extremely expensive, take a shiat ton of time to build and require a liquefaction facility.

You're talking billions in infrastructure for a demand that may not be there in the future. Add on to that, it's the middle of freaking no where, the NIMBY types, the government delays in permitting, and ever changing environmental regulations (not a bad thing) leads to operators going "fark it, light a match"

Also, not directed at you specifically, fracking has been used since the 1940s on liquid oil wells to stimulate reserves and improve yield.
 
2013-01-19 07:49:19 PM

Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas? You know, instead of just burning it?


Everyone else seems to have regulation and short-term thinking and all the other stuff covered, but there's one other factor:

From what I understand, this gas is more of a safety hazard than anything else. First off (and sorry I can't cite because I read this years ago), methane near crude tends to be "sour", by which I mean it has a lot of sulfur (HS, SO2, SO3) that needs to be extracted from it first. This is difficult and costly to do, to the point that it's a money-burning proposition to sell it as fuel. In other words, there isn't a whole lot you can do with the stuff. These flares are basically venting the well to prevent build-up of flammable, corrosive AND toxic gases; it's costly to store and dispose of some other way. Pump it back underground, which defeats the purpose of the vent, and it'll just seep out. Methane is a VERY potent greenhouse gas; much worse than carbon dioxide. The sulfur-based gases are highly toxic and MUST be deal with. Finally, it's not a huge amount of methane; it's what's precipitating out of an oil well. The stuff burns bright because it's explosive and there's no effort made to hide the flame, as the whole point is to disperse the exhaust.

TL;DR: The most environmentally safe and considerate thing to do with the gas is to flare it off. It will result in more carbon dioxide and acid rain (which happens when you burn sulfur), but it's not the process that's harmful so much as our fark-the-consequences obsession with the materialistic and shortsighted waste of fossil fuels. Drilling for oil has ALWAYS been environmentally costly; you think that suddenly changed a few years ago?? Welcome back to reality. If you don't like it, ditch the goddamn Canyonero.
 
2013-01-19 07:52:07 PM

dragonchild: Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas? You know, instead of just burning it?

Everyone else seems to have regulation and short-term thinking and all the other stuff covered, but there's one other factor:

From what I understand, this gas is more of a safety hazard than anything else. First off (and sorry I can't cite because I read this years ago), methane near crude tends to be "sour", by which I mean it has a lot of sulfur (HS, SO2, SO3) that needs to be extracted from it first. This is difficult and costly to do, to the point that it's a money-burning proposition to sell it as fuel. In other words, there isn't a whole lot you can do with the stuff. These flares are basically venting the well to prevent build-up of flammable, corrosive AND toxic gases; it's costly to store and dispose of some other way. Pump it back underground, which defeats the purpose of the vent, and it'll just seep out. Methane is a VERY potent greenhouse gas; much worse than carbon dioxide. The sulfur-based gases are highly toxic and MUST be deal with. Finally, it's not a huge amount of methane; it's what's precipitating out of an oil well. The stuff burns bright because it's explosive and there's no effort made to hide the flame, as the whole point is to disperse the exhaust.

TL;DR: The most environmentally safe and considerate thing to do with the gas is to flare it off. It will result in more carbon dioxide and acid rain (which happens when you burn sulfur), but it's not the process that's harmful so much as our fark-the-consequences obsession with the materialistic and shortsighted waste of fossil fuels. Drilling for oil has ALWAYS been environmentally costly; you think that suddenly changed a few years ago?? Welcome back to reality. If you don't like it, ditch the goddamn Canyonero.


Also this.
 
2013-01-19 07:55:08 PM

Gyrfalcon: Solon Isonomia: Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Ugh... that just makes me sick. That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful. Hmmm... I wonder if an activist shareholder could run with that, sort of a corporate waste suit..

Easy, Tiger. The oil companies are foaming at the mouth to sell it. My figures aren't exact, but LNG is on the US market at ~$4.00/ thousand Cu Ft and the overseas market is closer to $15. The block is at the regulatory level.

Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE? Are they just trying to stall for time so they have the infrastructure to corner the export market?

Probably it would cost more at the outset to also build facilities to capture and store extra natural gas at the surface than to just flare it off while they're fracking deeper down. That would be my guess--they don't want the extra capital outlay.


Uh, but you don't have to capture and transport the natural gas. Funny thing, you can convert it to electricity which is easy to transport.

Then again, what would I know, there's only 3 waste gas generators on the family farm in the middle of the Bakken. They paid for themselves 3 years ago. Pure profit on top of the oil rights at this point.

Now, if we had just invested in high power DC transmission lines rather than sure to fail solar "technology" firms this wouldn't be happening...
 
Displayed 50 of 215 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report