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  
•       •       •

6581 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 09:39:53 PM

rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?


Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?
 
2013-01-19 09:42:07 PM

illannoyin: So, you're saying I should buy stock in the natural gas companies now?


Bear with me now. Some kind of transport tube, maybe a series of tubes like the internet. We build those tubes and pipe the natural gas through those tubes from places like Texas to places like North Dakota.

We could call it a pipeline like my local gas company does when they run natural gas across town.

Maybe we could call this larger, longer distance version a pipeline. 'Series of natural gas tubes' doesn't have the same ring to it.
 
2013-01-19 09:43:50 PM
I am in West Texas, on business. I build oil and natural gas pipelines.

The people in this thread who sound like they know what they are talking about -- they are right. The leftist know-it-alls chanting nonsense about waste, corporate greed, etc. have zero idea how this industry works. Leave it to us, please. Go regulate a soda or something.
 
2013-01-19 09:43:58 PM

rohar: So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?


I recommend rail along with CNG/LNG tank containers. A pipeline would be better but infrastructure intense, while rail lines already exist.
 
2013-01-19 09:44:29 PM

pedrop357: illannoyin: So, you're saying I should buy stock in the natural gas companies now?

Bear with me now. Some kind of transport tube, maybe a series of tubes like the internet. We build those tubes and pipe the natural gas through those tubes from places like Texas to places like North Dakota.

We could call it a pipeline like my local gas company does when they run natural gas across town.

Maybe we could call this larger, longer distance version a pipeline. 'Series of natural gas tubes' doesn't have the same ring to it.


GOD F***ING DAMMIT!


I was responding to rohar who said:
So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?
 
2013-01-19 09:45:13 PM
www.bloomberg.com

GO TO BED
 
2013-01-19 09:45:28 PM

Yoyo: I recommend rail along with CNG/LNG tank containers. A pipeline would be better but infrastructure intense, while rail lines already exist.


I'll lean towards that and not the series of natural gas tubes.
 
2013-01-19 09:46:04 PM

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?


That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?
 
2013-01-19 09:46:56 PM

Tatterdemalian: Gotta love the environmentalists.

"You can't sell that gas, it's a fossil fuel and you'll contribute to global warming!"

"Okay, we'll just let it seep into the water table."

"NOOOOOOO! That makes it toxic waste!"

"Okay, we'll flare it off at the wells."

"NOOOOOOOOWHAARGARBL"

"What should we do with it then?"

"Stop using the magic machine that converts fossils into gas! That's all you have to do! Turn it off, and then there will never be any gas anywhere ever!"


Yeah, I also hate it when the voices in my head who I assign the names of people I dislike start arguing.

I also love how so many people don't seem to give a shiat about the only planet that we can live on at the moment, think everything lasts forever, and have so much contempt for the ecosystem that keeps humanity alive.
 
2013-01-19 09:47:02 PM

Yoyo: rohar: So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?

I recommend rail along with CNG/LNG tank containers. A pipeline would be better but infrastructure intense, while rail lines already exist.


And rail, yes, thank you. I can't believe I forgot about rail!
 
2013-01-19 09:48:09 PM

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?


Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.
 
2013-01-19 09:48:10 PM

Yoyo: rohar: So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?

I recommend rail along with CNG/LNG tank containers. A pipeline would be better but infrastructure intense, while rail lines already exist.


Electrical lines are much less expensive AND have virtually no environmental impact. Even when they fail.
 
2013-01-19 09:48:12 PM
Would it be viable to run that flare gas thru a fuel cell and sell the electricity?
 
2013-01-19 09:49:02 PM

rohar: Yoyo: rohar: So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?

I recommend rail along with CNG/LNG tank containers. A pipeline would be better but infrastructure intense, while rail lines already exist.

Electrical lines are much less expensive AND have virtually no environmental impact. Even when they fail.


We can have everything. Why the hyper-focus on electricity?
 
2013-01-19 09:49:55 PM
Why does NPR look like FB?
 
2013-01-19 09:50:26 PM

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.


We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?
 
2013-01-19 09:52:20 PM

Maul555: rohar: Yoyo: rohar: So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?

I recommend rail along with CNG/LNG tank containers. A pipeline would be better but infrastructure intense, while rail lines already exist.

Electrical lines are much less expensive AND have virtually no environmental impact. Even when they fail.

We can have everything. Why the hyper-focus on electricity?


Efficiency.
 
2013-01-19 09:52:47 PM
GAT_00
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.


Did you know that environmental inspection is so strict on FERC jobs that you can't put up a foot of silt fence without 5 of your government buddies staring at it? Do you know what a FERC job is? Do you understand what a water table is? Do you know how a pipeline is trenched? Do you understand that every weld on a pipeline is x-rayed, and then the entire line is hydrostatically tested at well above operating pressure, with any leaks (almost always above ground) identified and repaired before commissioning? Do you understand that you probably drive over any number of 50+ year old pipelines every single day on the way to work? I'm gonna go with DIA - stay out of this one, you're in way over your head.
 
2013-01-19 09:53:18 PM

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?


Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.
 
2013-01-19 09:55:35 PM

LavenderWolf: 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.

Whether or not you have a point is overshadowed by your overzealous idealism.

Make your point without all of the hyperbole, and it will be taken more seriously. DIA would probably take you more seriously if you didn't just start off by accusing him of sucking corporate wang (paraphrased).


Why should I take DIA seriously? Or pretend that he's not a corporate shill?
 
2013-01-19 09:56:16 PM

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Yoyo: rohar: So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?

I recommend rail along with CNG/LNG tank containers. A pipeline would be better but infrastructure intense, while rail lines already exist.

Electrical lines are much less expensive AND have virtually no environmental impact. Even when they fail.

We can have everything. Why the hyper-focus on electricity?

Efficiency.


And you would be willing to hand out corporate welfare checks on the tax payers dime right now to subsidize the current under-performing electric car technology we have now? and you would be willing to have the government limit the free market to force your electric only pathway? You are OK with screwing over free choice and individual concerns for this?
 
2013-01-19 09:58:00 PM

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.


And another one knocked out. At this rate you'll be out of straw men before you know it.
 
GBB
2013-01-19 09:58:25 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?


That's a Rule of Acquisition, isn't it?
 
2013-01-19 09:58:54 PM

DisposableSavior: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

And another one knocked out. At this rate you'll be out of straw men before you know it.


would you like to get your troll award right now, or later?
 
2013-01-19 10:03:17 PM

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.


I'm not quite sure how to respond other that repeat what both you and I already know. The geological center of the continent is on fire to the point where you can see it from outer space better than you can see New York City. This is important to me, as I own a whole pile of land there. There are very few cars within 1000 miles of the fires that can be converted to CNG. Since people won't stop consuming petroleum, this will continue up and until the point we find something to do with the waste gas.

What do you suggest we do about the issue raised in TFA?
 
2013-01-19 10:03:19 PM

Maul555: Yoyo: rohar: So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?

I recommend rail along with CNG/LNG tank containers. A pipeline would be better but infrastructure intense, while rail lines already exist.

And rail, yes, thank you. I can't believe I forgot about rail!


You probably don't live two blocks from an international rail line, so it's easy to forget about rail. I would have gone with barge, but I don't think the Missouri is very navigable in that area. Containerizing the NG would allow for rapid crossloading on to barges on the Mississippi at Minneapolis or on to ships on the Great Lakes at Duluth without the need for additional specialized vehicles.
 
2013-01-19 10:05:04 PM
It's not oil, it's Frak.com!
 
2013-01-19 10:05:52 PM

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

I'm not quite sure how to respond other that repeat what both you and I already know. The geological center of the continent is on fire to the point where you can see it from outer space better than you can see New York City. This is important to me, as I own a whole pile of land there. There are very few cars within 1000 miles of the fires that can be converted to CNG. Since people won't stop consuming petroleum, this will continue up and until the point we find something to do with the waste gas.

What do you suggest we do about the issue raised in TFA?


I have layed out a plan to do something with the waste gas and proven every one of your arguments to be false... Seriously... just stop you troll...
 
2013-01-19 10:05:57 PM

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Yoyo: rohar: So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?

I recommend rail along with CNG/LNG tank containers. A pipeline would be better but infrastructure intense, while rail lines already exist.

Electrical lines are much less expensive AND have virtually no environmental impact. Even when they fail.

We can have everything. Why the hyper-focus on electricity?

Efficiency.

And you would be willing to hand out corporate welfare checks on the tax payers dime right now to subsidize the current under-performing electric car technology we have now? and you would be willing to have the government limit the free market to force your electric only pathway? You are OK with screwing over free choice and individual concerns for this?


Nope, but less environmentally invasive electricity from waste gas in ND is better than the coal plants we're using to energize Minneapolis. You see, that's why we're going ahead with the high power DC power links from the Bakken to Minneapolis.

You drunk?
 
2013-01-19 10:07:24 PM

Yoyo: Maul555: Yoyo: rohar: So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?

I recommend rail along with CNG/LNG tank containers. A pipeline would be better but infrastructure intense, while rail lines already exist.

And rail, yes, thank you. I can't believe I forgot about rail!

You probably don't live two blocks from an international rail line, so it's easy to forget about rail. I would have gone with barge, but I don't think the Missouri is very navigable in that area. Containerizing the NG would allow for rapid crossloading on to barges on the Mississippi at Minneapolis or on to ships on the Great Lakes at Duluth without the need for additional specialized vehicles.


I have to stop an wait for trains all the time. Stop trying to turn me into a strawman. Rail is everywhere down here.
 
2013-01-19 10:07:30 PM

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

I'm not quite sure how to respond other that repeat what both you and I already know. The geological center of the continent is on fire to the point where you can see it from outer space better than you can see New York City. This is important to me, as I own a whole pile of land there. There are very few cars within 1000 miles of the fires that can be converted to CNG. Since people won't stop consuming petroleum, this will continue up and until the point we find something to do with the waste gas.

What do you suggest we do about the issue raised in TFA?

I have layed out a plan to do something with the waste gas and proven every one of your arguments to be false... Seriously... just stop you troll...


So, per pound, what does it cost to transport natural gas 1000 miles?
 
2013-01-19 10:07:55 PM
Hey guys, I don't know if anybody's interested, but I used to work completions while fracking was going on in Wyoming on natural gas wells. I controlled the output of the well while guys from Schlumberger controlled the input of fracking solution.

I'll start by saying I DNRTFA, but I know a little bit about this.

You ALWAYS have a flare stack when you're doing completions on a well. That gas comes out of the well at whatever farking pressure it has, and it's often more than you can handle. There's always a line going to a flare and when you get a big hit of pressure you send it up the flare stack. Natural gas and oil well completions have never been a 100% efficient process. There's going to be some waste. There's always a least a pilot light going on the flare stack because it's a biatch to relight. You shouldn't be flaring thousands of cubic feet of gas on a completed well of course, but if they're fracking the well isn't completed and producing yet.

My brother's in North Dakota completing wells right now and if they were doing something truly weird now compared to what he and I used to do in Wyoming I think he would have told me.

Seriously, read a bit about this. It's not like they just drill a hole down to the big puddle of oil under the ground and suck it out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completion_%28oil_and_gas_wells%29
 
2013-01-19 10:08:20 PM

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Yoyo: rohar: So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?

I recommend rail along with CNG/LNG tank containers. A pipeline would be better but infrastructure intense, while rail lines already exist.

Electrical lines are much less expensive AND have virtually no environmental impact. Even when they fail.

We can have everything. Why the hyper-focus on electricity?

Efficiency.

And you would be willing to hand out corporate welfare checks on the tax payers dime right now to subsidize the current under-performing electric car technology we have now? and you would be willing to have the government limit the free market to force your electric only pathway? You are OK with screwing over free choice and individual concerns for this?

Nope, but less environmentally invasive electricity from waste gas in ND is better than the coal plants we're using to energize Minneapolis. You see, that's why we're going ahead with the high power DC power links from the Bakken to Minneapolis.

You drunk?


You want to move the goal posts any more? I would just like to know where you want them to be put in the end so we can just skip to the conclusion...
 
2013-01-19 10:09:12 PM

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

I'm not quite sure how to respond other that repeat what both you and I already know. The geological center of the continent is on fire to the point where you can see it from outer space better than you can see New York City. This is important to me, as I own a whole pile of land there. There are very few cars within 1000 miles of the fires that can be converted to CNG. Since people won't stop consuming petroleum, this will continue up and until the point we find something to do with the waste gas.

What do you suggest we do about the issue raised in TFA?

I have layed out a plan to do something with the waste gas and proven every one of your arguments to be false... Seriously... just stop you troll...

So, per pound, what does it cost to transport natural gas 1000 miles?


And what is the air speed velocity of a coconut laden swallow?
 
2013-01-19 10:12:38 PM

Maul555: You want to move the goal posts any more? I would just like to know where you want them to be put in the end so we can just skip to the conclusion...


Maul, unlike you, this isn't a scholastic exercise for me. I own two active wells in the field TFA is discussing. I've spent thousands of hours trying to figure out how to best move these resources around. If you've got something better than converting the waste gas to electricity, I'd love to hear it. Dollars/mile cost would help. I've gone through virtually every transportation option, and it turns out electric, even after the initial investment in the waste gas generators, is the most financially responsible option. Again, I'd love to see another option. I could always make more money. Any ideas?
 
2013-01-19 10:12:44 PM

Maul555: DisposableSavior: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

And another one knocked out. At this rate you'll be out of straw men before you know it.

would you like to get your troll award right now, or later?


How was he trolling? You're the one who's convinced of environmental conspiracy theories, even though you just said we have an excess of energy in America. You should also realize that the oil and gas are going to be gone forever at some point, which is why they're pushing so hard for renewable (as in, won't go away forever) energy sources. Why are people like you so angry and hateful towards renewable energy?
 
2013-01-19 10:13:38 PM
The part I don't understand is why they wastefully burn off the natural gas instead of capturing and selling it.
 
2013-01-19 10:13:38 PM

rohar: Maul555: You want to move the goal posts any more? I would just like to know where you want them to be put in the end so we can just skip to the conclusion...

Maul, unlike you, this isn't a scholastic exercise for me. I own two active wells in the field TFA is discussing. I've spent thousands of hours trying to figure out how to best move these resources around. If you've got something better than converting the waste gas to electricity, I'd love to hear it. Dollars/mile cost would help. I've gone through virtually every transportation option, and it turns out electric, even after the initial investment in the waste gas generators, is the most financially responsible option. Again, I'd love to see another option. I could always make more money. Any ideas?


I think you are a liar.
 
2013-01-19 10:14:48 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: DisposableSavior: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

And another one knocked out. At this rate you'll be out of straw men before you know it.

would you like to get your troll award right now, or later?

How was he trolling? You're the one who's convinced of environmental conspiracy theories, even though you just said we have an excess of energy in America. You should also realize that the oil and gas are going to be gone forever at some point, which is why they're pushing so hard for renewable (as in, won't go away forever) energy sources. Why are people like you so angry and hateful towards renewable energy?


I have already covered this... I have posted links... I am not going to run around in circles for you.
 
2013-01-19 10:16:01 PM

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: You want to move the goal posts any more? I would just like to know where you want them to be put in the end so we can just skip to the conclusion...

Maul, unlike you, this isn't a scholastic exercise for me. I own two active wells in the field TFA is discussing. I've spent thousands of hours trying to figure out how to best move these resources around. If you've got something better than converting the waste gas to electricity, I'd love to hear it. Dollars/mile cost would help. I've gone through virtually every transportation option, and it turns out electric, even after the initial investment in the waste gas generators, is the most financially responsible option. Again, I'd love to see another option. I could always make more money. Any ideas?

I think you are a liar.


You also seem to thing there's some financially efficient method of moving natural gas thousands of miles without converting it to LNG. I think you've received far to many hits to the head.
 
2013-01-19 10:17:03 PM

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: You want to move the goal posts any more? I would just like to know where you want them to be put in the end so we can just skip to the conclusion...

Maul, unlike you, this isn't a scholastic exercise for me. I own two active wells in the field TFA is discussing. I've spent thousands of hours trying to figure out how to best move these resources around. If you've got something better than converting the waste gas to electricity, I'd love to hear it. Dollars/mile cost would help. I've gone through virtually every transportation option, and it turns out electric, even after the initial investment in the waste gas generators, is the most financially responsible option. Again, I'd love to see another option. I could always make more money. Any ideas?

I think you are a liar.

You also seem to thing there's some financially efficient method of moving natural gas thousands of miles without converting it to LNG. I think you've received far to many hits to the head.


You are "this" close to going on my ignore list...
 
2013-01-19 10:18:49 PM

rohar: Electrical lines are much less expensive [than rail] AND have virtually no environmental impact. Even when they fail.


Except for fires started when the powerlines over load. The electric grid in the region wasn't designed for long distance transmission and doesn't have much spare capacity, so there would be the capital cost of not only erecting new lines but also possibly acquiring the real estate. Then there would be the need for generation stations to supply the electrical transmission lines, and those don't come cheap, plus the permits needed for new construction take months if not years.

Rail lines already exist in the region and have spare capacity. No new construction or permits needed. You could bring in the needed compressors in 20' containers on rail and distribute them via truck to all the sites, then those same trucks could collect the full tanks of NG and store them at a rail yard until a full train load is assembled and haul it all off to where ever you please.

I'm still not sure even with free gas input that this would be a profitable venture. Want to invest in my new start-up company YoyoCo to design and build the necessary specialized equipment for this scheme? You can send the $250k to my Paypal account.
 
2013-01-19 10:23:26 PM

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: You want to move the goal posts any more? I would just like to know where you want them to be put in the end so we can just skip to the conclusion...

Maul, unlike you, this isn't a scholastic exercise for me. I own two active wells in the field TFA is discussing. I've spent thousands of hours trying to figure out how to best move these resources around. If you've got something better than converting the waste gas to electricity, I'd love to hear it. Dollars/mile cost would help. I've gone through virtually every transportation option, and it turns out electric, even after the initial investment in the waste gas generators, is the most financially responsible option. Again, I'd love to see another option. I could always make more money. Any ideas?

I think you are a liar.

You also seem to thing there's some financially efficient method of moving natural gas thousands of miles without converting it to LNG. I think you've received far to many hits to the head.

You are "this" close to going on my ignore list...


I can't be any closer to your ignore list than you are to a 60 IQ. Give it up dude, you've walked in to an entire system you cannot understand in an evening.
 
2013-01-19 10:24:38 PM

Maul555: And rail, yes, thank you. I can't believe I forgot about rail!
[Yoyo says stuff.]
I have to stop an wait for trains all the time. Stop trying to turn me into a strawman. Rail is everywhere down here.


You're the one who stated he "forgot about rail!" I was just hypothesizing how you might not have considered rail as a means of transporting natural gas. I had no intent of turning you into a strawman.
 
2013-01-19 10:25:29 PM

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: You want to move the goal posts any more? I would just like to know where you want them to be put in the end so we can just skip to the conclusion...

Maul, unlike you, this isn't a scholastic exercise for me. I own two active wells in the field TFA is discussing. I've spent thousands of hours trying to figure out how to best move these resources around. If you've got something better than converting the waste gas to electricity, I'd love to hear it. Dollars/mile cost would help. I've gone through virtually every transportation option, and it turns out electric, even after the initial investment in the waste gas generators, is the most financially responsible option. Again, I'd love to see another option. I could always make more money. Any ideas?

I think you are a liar.

You also seem to thing there's some financially efficient method of moving natural gas thousands of miles without converting it to LNG. I think you've received far to many hits to the head.

You are "this" close to going on my ignore list...

I can't be any closer to your ignore list than you are to a 60 IQ. Give it up dude, you've walked in to an entire system you cannot understand in an evening.


Ignored... it was "interesting" talking to you... for the last time
 
2013-01-19 10:26:00 PM

Maul555: Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: DisposableSavior: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

And another one knocked out. At this rate you'll be out of straw men before you know it.

would you like to get your troll award right now, or later?

How was he trolling? You're the one who's convinced of environmental conspiracy theories, even though you just said we have an excess of energy in America. You should also realize that the oil and gas are going to be gone forever at some point, which is why they're pushing so hard for renewable (as in, won't go away forever) energy sources. Why are people like you so angry and hateful towards renewable energy?

I have already covered this... I have posted links... I am not going to run around in circles for you.


I'm not asking you to run around in circles for me. I'm asking you to tell me why YOU have it out for perfecting alternate renewable energy sources.
 
2013-01-19 10:26:36 PM

Yoyo: Maul555: And rail, yes, thank you. I can't believe I forgot about rail!
[Yoyo says stuff.]
I have to stop an wait for trains all the time. Stop trying to turn me into a strawman. Rail is everywhere down here.

You're the one who stated he "forgot about rail!" I was just hypothesizing how you might not have considered rail as a means of transporting natural gas. I had no intent of turning you into a strawman.


Fare enough... And with that added consideration, natural gas is even more appealing than before.
 
2013-01-19 10:27:11 PM
fare fair
 
2013-01-19 10:28:30 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: DisposableSavior: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

And another one knocked out. At this rate you'll be out of straw men before you know it.

would you like to get your troll award right now, or later?

How was he trolling? You're the one who's convinced of environmental conspiracy theories, even though you just said we have an excess of energy in America. You should also realize that the oil and gas are going to be gone forever at some point, which is why they're pushing so hard for renewable (as in, won't go away forever) energy sources. Why are people like you so angry and hateful towards renewable energy?

I have already covered this... I have posted links... I am not going to run around in circles for you.

I'm not asking you to run around in circles for me. I'm asking you to tell me why YOU have it out for perfecting alternate rene ...


I do not have a grudge against perfecting clean renewable energy...
 
2013-01-19 10:28:57 PM

Yoyo: rohar: Electrical lines are much less expensive [than rail] AND have virtually no environmental impact. Even when they fail.

Except for fires started when the powerlines over load. The electric grid in the region wasn't designed for long distance transmission and doesn't have much spare capacity, so there would be the capital cost of not only erecting new lines but also possibly acquiring the real estate. Then there would be the need for generation stations to supply the electrical transmission lines, and those don't come cheap, plus the permits needed for new construction take months if not years.

Rail lines already exist in the region and have spare capacity. No new construction or permits needed. You could bring in the needed compressors in 20' containers on rail and distribute them via truck to all the sites, then those same trucks could collect the full tanks of NG and store them at a rail yard until a full train load is assembled and haul it all off to where ever you please.

I'm still not sure even with free gas input that this would be a profitable venture. Want to invest in my new start-up company YoyoCo to design and build the necessary specialized equipment for this scheme? You can send the $250k to my Paypal account.


That's why we're building high power DC transmission from the Bakken to Minneapolis where it then links up with the high voltage DC infrastructure going on to Duluth, Chicago etc. Believe it or not, it's the cheapest (both financially and environmentally) of all of the available options.

Once the initial well is drilled, a year later the infrastructure comes along to manage the NG in LNG form, at that point, transportation is much less expensive. LNG makes sense to transport via rail. CNG doesn't. The prices just aren't there to support it. What would you suggest we do with it other than just burn it off?
 
Displayed 50 of 215 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report