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.

(Minot Daily News)   You remember how North Dakota was supposed to have 3.6 billion barrels of recoverable oil? About that   (minotdailynews.com) divider line 159
    More: Cool, North Dakota, oil resources, U.S. Geological Survey, paid survey, Bakken formation, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar  
•       •       •

26719 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2013 at 2:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-01 10:35:22 AM
News flash: oil shale and other forms of heavy crude can never lead to cheap oil, no matter how much of it there is.  These fields will not be a sufficient replacement for the light crude fields in Saudi Arabia which are beginning to go into decline. When those dry up, prices will skyrocket.
 
2013-05-01 10:37:13 AM
Yay! more spills, explosions, and air pollution!
 
2013-05-01 10:43:14 AM

Hollie Maea: News flash: oil shale and other forms of heavy crude can never lead to cheap oil, no matter how much of it there is.  These fields will not be a sufficient replacement for the light crude fields in Saudi Arabia which are beginning to go into decline. When those dry up, prices will skyrocket.


News flash:  The Bakken formation is mostly light sweet crude.
 
2013-05-01 10:47:53 AM

Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.


It's not a price issue. They literally can't get the pipelines built fast enough. Mostly because landowners think they deserve millions of dollars to allow a pipeline easement thus dragging out the negotiations.
 
2013-05-01 10:47:59 AM

rohar: RanDomino: Neat. Now let's leave it there.

Why on earth would I do that?  There's a pile of value under my land.  It'll pay for both my kids' education and most likely my retirement.

Why would I walk away?


this is why the problem can't be solved. The global long term environmental and  economic effects are much too complicated for most people to understand, but the immediate benefits for the people who make the decisions are easy to understand. Naturally, they do what is in their immediate best interest, even though long-term effects are negative.

Maybe you could at least invest some of that money in solar technologies. FSLR and SPWR are both up more than 50% over last year.
 
2013-05-01 10:52:38 AM

sporkme: Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

No citation... told by customers in the industry that the main problem until recently was technology--they were unable to contain it, package it, and make it into something they could sell.  Now, the main problem is catching up.  They have the problem of storage--to keep up production of liquid petroleum they have to let the gas blow by, because you can't exactly let it puddle on the ground or flow it into an above-ground pool. It is either burn it or vent it (venting not allowed for obvious reasons) for want of storage or transport, and they are busting ass to get the gas into production everywhere.  Liquid is easy to store and transport, compared to vapor.

Not that they haven't had this problem from the very start and should have foreseen the polite request that they knock it off with all the burning.  Surely it is a contributor to global [INSERT CAUSE].  They are stupid for not being on the ball.  The development of recovery technology has been too slow.  They missed out, we missed out--but it *is* happening.

My company sells starters, alternators and automotive electronics to industrial and municipal fleets as well as to the general public and businesses.  We have seen a large increase in customers running vapor fuel, especially on the last 2-5 years.  One of our oldest customers now specializes in conversions.  My unscientific appraisal of fleets and equipment that have converted to natural gas is that their under-hood components have longer service lives.  The only factor that has changed is the removal of gasoline or diesel from the system--run it on literal gas and the fiddly bits last significantly longer.  Starter and alternator cores from vapor based systems tend to be less greas ...


too long but i did read - and can sum up as "follow the $$ and you will find your answers"

we are in a catch 22 - nobody, from individuals to fleets will want to invest in alternative fuels until the infrastructure exists to support it (ie- refueling stations) and nobody wants to invest in the infrastructure until the customers exist to support it.

and to make any dent in the co2 emissions i feel we need to focus on the largest contributors: freight - be it by truck or by ship, puke out massive amounts of filthy exhaust.  they sit at idle for long periods and often use the cheapest and dirtiest fuel available.

we could make a big dent in this simply by manufacturing more in the states rather than shipping raw material across the ocean to china / india then having it shipped ALL THE WAY BACK.

/ideas, i got em
 
2013-05-01 11:05:15 AM

kriegsgeist: rohar: RanDomino: Neat. Now let's leave it there.

Why on earth would I do that?  There's a pile of value under my land.  It'll pay for both my kids' education and most likely my retirement.

Why would I walk away?

this is why the problem can't be solved. The global long term environmental and  economic effects are much too complicated for most people to understand, but the immediate benefits for the people who make the decisions are easy to understand. Naturally, they do what is in their immediate best interest, even though long-term effects are negative.

Maybe you could at least invest some of that money in solar technologies. FSLR and SPWR are both up more than 50% over last year.


Are you suggesting the producers (rights holders) are the root of the problem and not the consumers?

Seriously, if we shut production down tomorrow, it'll have absolutely 0 effect on pollutants.  None, nada, 0.  Meanwhile, those monies would not be available to my family and a number of jobs would be lost.

Here's the kicker, and it even confuses me sometimes when I don't think too hard about impact.  All of the energy my home consumes is carbon free.  I work at home so I don't drive much.  Better still, all of my garbage is consumed by a high efficiency, almost 0 output waste to energy plant.

Now, tell me again how I'm not thinking long term.
 
2013-05-01 11:05:30 AM

rohar: News flash:  The Bakken formation is mostly light sweet crude.


No it's not.  It is low porosity oil shale.  If it makes you feel better to call it "tight oil" rather than "heavy oil" that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it cannot be a price replacement for the middle east fields.  Yes, it is higher quality than some oil shale.  No, it cannot be cheaply extracted.
 
2013-05-01 11:08:28 AM

Hollie Maea: rohar: News flash:  The Bakken formation is mostly light sweet crude.

No it's not.  It is low porosity oil shale.  If it makes you feel better to call it "tight oil" rather than "heavy oil" that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it cannot be a price replacement for the middle east fields.  Yes, it is higher quality than some oil shale.  No, it cannot be cheaply extracted.


The diesel and kerosene yields are south of 5%.  That's pretty damned light.  Seriously, WTF do you want?
 
2013-05-01 11:11:23 AM

rohar: Seriously, WTF do you want?


Oil that's not tied up in shale pores?  Look, if you think that the Bakken Field deposits are as easy to extract and refine as the Saudi fields, just say so.  It will save me a long and pointless argument.
 
2013-05-01 11:13:40 AM

Hollie Maea: rohar: Seriously, WTF do you want?

Oil that's not tied up in shale pores?  Look, if you think that the Bakken Field deposits are as easy to extract and refine as the Saudi fields, just say so.  It will save me a long and pointless argument.


I didn't say that, I said the bakken is light sweet crude.  All metrics prove that out.  Difficulty of extraction is a secondary issue I have yet to address.
 
2013-05-01 11:17:44 AM
cool!  let's just keep right on pumping carbon into the atmosphere and perpetuating the economic / social / cultural memes attached to deliberate inefficiency-for-profit.  seriously, who gives a flying shiat about what's prudent from a efficiency, technological, or public health standpoint?  all that matters is that a portion of financially fluid americans get to play out their Dream for a few more years before the system collapses under the weight of its own unequal distribution.  can't wait for that pity party: "oh, we never saw this coming!  those evil corporations!"  right, it has nothing to do with a constituency utterly addicted to and complacent with the unsustainable conveniences affordable by the ecocidal, homocidal, classist, criminally negligent "free-market" economy.  give me a break.  none of this is necessary, just the cost of the hubris of a small number of people with a large amount of power, who have, over time, convinced the public by example that their lack of empathy and insane narcissism are sound american values.  after all, it's easier to compete when you have no regard for the consequences of your actions.  anyway, that's enough to put out there for now.

pro-tip: pour money into technology, education, health, and infrastructure (before ultimately getting rid of money).  so much wasted resources and energy on literally useless crap that people "want."  at the end of the day, i hope a dollar burrito or cheap plastic fan is worth the cost of a habitable environment and life-improving technology.  or that your Mercedes Benz was worth the resources that could've been spent saving someone's life or doing something else not completely farking self-indulgent.  the irony is that maximizing technological efficiency will afford us more leeway in available materials -- but our smart use of them will ensure they last much, much longer than they would now.  in short, if we actually assign the economy a series of these type of goals, we can raise the standard of living equitably to a level unimaginable today.  "HOW" that gets done is a different debate, but that it must is not even a question to anyone half-paying attention.
 
2013-05-01 11:19:39 AM

rohar: Difficulty of extraction is a secondary issue I have yet to address


Go for it.
 
2013-05-01 11:21:58 AM

UsikFark: Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

That's so sad. I hope they are at least collecting the helium, if the concentrations are high enough.


not a chance
same problem
not enough money in it

that new oil reserve figure? about a year supply for the US
 
2013-05-01 11:23:31 AM

Hollie Maea: rohar: Difficulty of extraction is a secondary issue I have yet to address

Go for it.


Why would I for a person who seems to have no handle on reality.  So, you suggest it's heavy crude.  You'll find a cite for that right?

Seriously, it's so light that we don't have the refinery infrastructure we need to handle it.  Most American refineries are geared up for substantial diesel refining.  There isn't much diesel in the light crude coming from the Bakken.

So how 'bout we get through this issue before we wander in to others you have no knowledge of.
 
2013-05-01 11:25:00 AM
Guess it's time to invade North Dakota!
 
2013-05-01 11:25:39 AM

LemSkroob: Yay! more spills, explosions, and air pollution!


you are still alive?
why havent you dont your part is reducing your pollution by 100%?

/no really, people with kids, people who are alive "pollute". so unless you cut your emissions to zero, you are part of the "problem".
/NEWS FLASH: spills, explosions and pollution are DOWN versus all periods in the past.
 
2013-05-01 11:27:23 AM

inner ted: sporkme: Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

No citation... told by customers in the industry that the main problem until recently was technology--they were unable to contain it, package it, and make it into something they could sell.  Now, the main problem is catching up.  They have the problem of storage--to keep up production of liquid petroleum they have to let the gas blow by, because you can't exactly let it puddle on the ground or flow it into an above-ground pool. It is either burn it or vent it (venting not allowed for obvious reasons) for want of storage or transport, and they are busting ass to get the gas into production everywhere.  Liquid is easy to store and transport, compared to vapor.

Not that they haven't had this problem from the very start and should have foreseen the polite request that they knock it off with all the burning.  Surely it is a contributor to global [INSERT CAUSE].  They are stupid for not being on the ball.  The development of recovery technology has been too slow.  They missed out, we missed out--but it *is* happening.

My company sells starters, alternators and automotive electronics to industrial and municipal fleets as well as to the general public and businesses.  We have seen a large increase in customers running vapor fuel, especially on the last 2-5 years.  One of our oldest customers now specializes in conversions.  My unscientific appraisal of fleets and equipment that have converted to natural gas is that their under-hood components have longer service lives.  The only factor that has changed is the removal of gasoline or diesel from the system--run it on literal gas and the fiddly bits last significantly longer.  Starter and alternator cores from vapor based systems tend to be less greas ...

too long but i did read - and can sum up as "follow the $$ and you will find your answers"

we are in a catch 22 - nobody, from individuals to fleets will want to invest in alternative fuels until the infrastructure exists to support it (ie- refueling stations) and nobody wants to invest in the infrastructure until the customers exist to support it.

and to make any dent in the co2 emissions i feel we need to focus on the largest contributors: freight - be it by truck or by ship, puke out massive amounts of filthy exhaust.  they sit at idle for long periods and often use the cheapest and dirtiest fuel available.

we could make a big dent in this simply by manufacturing more in the states rather than shipping raw material across the ocean to china / india then having it shipped ALL THE WAY BACK.

/ideas, i got em


Over the road trucks can no longer idle while the driver rests. They carry auxiliary power units to run the amenities. Some truck stops provide everything including air conditioning, television, internet and more through window units, eliminating the need for APU use.

Rail freight is much more efficient than truck.

International import and export is vital to the world economy-- economics 101. International shipping maximizes efficiency... that is their job.

Companies will adopt a new technology when it will help their bottom line. Spending by the government to try to force a new tech to be adopted is folly because: a) it is difficult to predict what will actually be adopted or what new tech may eclipse your pet project, and b) if the subsidy vanishes, you run the risk of pushing the tech right back out of the realm of economic rationality.
 
2013-05-01 11:29:41 AM

rohar: Why would I for a person who seems to have no handle on reality.


So...got nothing?
 
2013-05-01 11:30:30 AM

namatad: you are still alive?
why havent you dont your part is reducing your pollution by 100%?


We all need to dont our parts
 
2013-05-01 11:31:39 AM
You remember how North Dakota was supposed to have 3.6 billion barrels of recoverable oil?

Nope.
 
2013-05-01 11:36:36 AM

Lukeonia1: Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.


*sigh*

When are people going to stop using this line?
 
2013-05-01 11:38:09 AM
ND's crime rate is booming as well. The Rig Rats are presenting a helluva lot of issues for the dwindling local population. Prices are through the roof and locals are streaming south because they cannot afford to live in their town any more.

When the oil runs out we will see a modern day ghost town. Many of my Petro Engineering students have been actively warned away from taking jobs up in Williston and Minot by both Oil company employees and industry professionals. One student did a short, three day thing up there and was armed the entire time because his sponsors essentially told him not to come up without a firearm.

Also, the female to male ratio is insane. My female Engineering students will not touch that area with a 400000000 foot pole. Rape is off the scales. It's bad, so bad the bigger oil companies are constructing closed compounds and only letting employees off for certain tasks.

North Dakota was bad enough before all of this. Now it's way, way worse.
 
2013-05-01 11:54:42 AM

Hollie Maea: rohar: Why would I for a person who seems to have no handle on reality.

So...got nothing?


Quite to the contrary.  You stated it's heavy shale crude.  But diesel and kerosene content is below 5%.  This is, by definition, light crude.

Can we agree on this before we proceed to other stupid assertions?
 
2013-05-01 11:55:21 AM

BigNumber12: Lukeonia1: Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

*sigh*

When are people going to stop using this line?


Why would they stop using it when it's true?
 
2013-05-01 12:09:51 PM

BigNumber12: Lukeonia1: Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

*sigh*

When are people going to stop using this line?


Ur anus is visible from space.
 
2013-05-01 12:20:45 PM

Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.


If what the people wearing the tin foil hats say is true, everything is visible from space.
 
2013-05-01 12:24:21 PM

namatad: LemSkroob: Yay! more spills, explosions, and air pollution!

you are still alive?
why havent you dont your part is reducing your pollution by 100%?

/no really, people with kids, people who are alive "pollute". so unless you cut your emissions to zero, you are part of the "problem".
/NEWS FLASH: spills, explosions and pollution are DOWN versus all periods in the past.


Just because you arent at 0% doesn't mean saying 'fark it, lets do what we want' is acceptable. I live an a major urban city, rely on public transit, keep our house at 60f max during the winter, and my wife and I refuse to have children. My footprint is far smaller than most in the US.
 
2013-05-01 12:27:01 PM

LemSkroob: Just because you arent at 0% doesn't mean saying 'fark it, lets do what we want' is acceptable. I live an a major urban city, rely on public transit, keep our house at 60f max during the winter, and my wife and I refuse to have children.


If only your parents had been this wise.

/i kid
 
2013-05-01 12:28:35 PM

rohar: kriegsgeist: rohar: RanDomino: Neat. Now let's leave it there.

Why on earth would I do that?  There's a pile of value under my land.  It'll pay for both my kids' education and most likely my retirement.

Why would I walk away?

this is why the problem can't be solved. The global long term environmental and  economic effects are much too complicated for most people to understand, but the immediate benefits for the people who make the decisions are easy to understand. Naturally, they do what is in their immediate best interest, even though long-term effects are negative.

Maybe you could at least invest some of that money in solar technologies. FSLR and SPWR are both up more than 50% over last year.

Are you suggesting the producers (rights holders) are the root of the problem and not the consumers?

Seriously, if we shut production down tomorrow, it'll have absolutely 0 effect on pollutants.  None, nada, 0.  Meanwhile, those monies would not be available to my family and a number of jobs would be lost.

Here's the kicker, and it even confuses me sometimes when I don't think too hard about impact.  All of the energy my home consumes is carbon free.  I work at home so I don't drive much.  Better still, all of my garbage is consumed by a high efficiency, almost 0 output waste to energy plant.

Now, tell me again how I'm not thinking long term.


I don't think you got the point of my statement. It's that big global long-term problems that are difficult to understand can't be solved by individual decision makers acting in self-interest. Consumers are just as much a part of that as producers.

I'm curious about your clam to use 100% carbon-free power in your home, in ND. How are you doing that? And not to nitpick, but waste-to-energy is not carbon free unless you only produce plant and animal waste.

Also, why do you think shutting down production would have zero effect on pollutants? Not that I am advocating doing that - it's just that shutting down production would remove those pollution sources from the system, so of course it would reduce pollution. Do you mean it wouldn't immediately reduce pollution? Or that it would just be produced somewhere else instead?
 
2013-05-01 12:35:29 PM

mbillips: So, with our current 19 million barrels/day consumption, and a 3 percent rate of growth in consumption, the North Dakota reserves will last just under eight years instead of 4? Either way, they'll outlast the Ogallala Aquifer, which when exhausted in the next 20-30 years (that's prehistoric fossil water from the post-ice-age melt, folks; it doesn't replenish), will ensure that no one will be able to live on the Great Plains. So might as well get that oil out while you can.

/No, seriously, we're farked.


What if somebody figured out a way to move water? Nah, that's wishful thinking.
 
2013-05-01 12:47:42 PM

rohar: Hollie Maea: rohar: Why would I for a person who seems to have no handle on reality.

So...got nothing?

Quite to the contrary.  You stated it's heavy shale crude.  But diesel and kerosene content is below 5%.  This is, by definition, light crude.

Can we agree on this before we proceed to other stupid assertions?


Sure why not.  I should have called it "tight crude" rather than "heavy crude" although it's splitting hairs...no one calls shale oil "sweet light crude" no matter how little refining it takes once you get it out of the rock pores.  But if we are going to bicker about terms I'm happy to switch my characterization to "unconventional crude".  My original point remains---these fields are not going to be able to replace the big middle eastern fields that are beginning to decline, in terms of output per day or in terms of price.
 
2013-05-01 12:56:25 PM

bmihura: mbillips: So, with our current 19 million barrels/day consumption, and a 3 percent rate of growth in consumption, the North Dakota reserves will last just under eight years instead of 4? Either way, they'll outlast the Ogallala Aquifer, which when exhausted in the next 20-30 years (that's prehistoric fossil water from the post-ice-age melt, folks; it doesn't replenish), will ensure that no one will be able to live on the Great Plains. So might as well get that oil out while you can.

/No, seriously, we're farked.

What if somebody figured out a way to move water? Nah, that's wishful thinking.


moving it is one thing. finding somewhere to get it from is another. i'm in Michigan, and local politicians are already making noise about people piping water from the Lakes to elsewhere in the country.

/although the congressman who claimed he'd call out the militia has since retired
//the Canadians get antsy about it too
///slashies!
 
2013-05-01 01:29:53 PM

kriegsgeist: rohar: kriegsgeist: rohar: RanDomino: Neat. Now let's leave it there.

Why on earth would I do that?  There's a pile of value under my land.  It'll pay for both my kids' education and most likely my retirement.

Why would I walk away?

this is why the problem can't be solved. The global long term environmental and  economic effects are much too complicated for most people to understand, but the immediate benefits for the people who make the decisions are easy to understand. Naturally, they do what is in their immediate best interest, even though long-term effects are negative.

Maybe you could at least invest some of that money in solar technologies. FSLR and SPWR are both up more than 50% over last year.

Are you suggesting the producers (rights holders) are the root of the problem and not the consumers?

Seriously, if we shut production down tomorrow, it'll have absolutely 0 effect on pollutants.  None, nada, 0.  Meanwhile, those monies would not be available to my family and a number of jobs would be lost.

Here's the kicker, and it even confuses me sometimes when I don't think too hard about impact.  All of the energy my home consumes is carbon free.  I work at home so I don't drive much.  Better still, all of my garbage is consumed by a high efficiency, almost 0 output waste to energy plant.

Now, tell me again how I'm not thinking long term.

I don't think you got the point of my statement. It's that big global long-term problems that are difficult to understand can't be solved by individual decision makers acting in self-interest. Consumers are just as much a part of that as producers.


Producers produce because the product has value.  Value exists because consumers demand the product.  The economy in America (and possibly the world) is consumption driven.  As long as consumers demand the product and it exists, it will be produced.  The issue must be resolved on the demand side.

I'm curious about your clam to use 100% carbon-free power in your home, in ND. How are you doing that? And not to nitpick, but waste-to-energy is not carbon free unless you only produce plant and animal waste.

I own land in ND, I don't live there.  I'd agree waste-to-energy isn't completely carbon free, where does your garbage go?

Also, why do you think shutting down production would have zero effect on pollutants? Not that I am advocating doing that - it's just that shutting down production woul ...

As long as demand exists, someone else will produce, see my previous comment.
 
2013-05-01 01:32:05 PM

Hollie Maea: rohar: Hollie Maea: rohar: Why would I for a person who seems to have no handle on reality.

So...got nothing?

Quite to the contrary.  You stated it's heavy shale crude.  But diesel and kerosene content is below 5%.  This is, by definition, light crude.

Can we agree on this before we proceed to other stupid assertions?

Sure why not.  I should have called it "tight crude" rather than "heavy crude" although it's splitting hairs...no one calls shale oil "sweet light crude" no matter how little refining it takes once you get it out of the rock pores.  But if we are going to bicker about terms I'm happy to switch my characterization to "unconventional crude".  My original point remains---these fields are not going to be able to replace the big middle eastern fields that are beginning to decline, in terms of output per day or in terms of price.


You know how I know you have no idea the terms you're using?

You are right though, production globally is in a period of flux.  What would you have producers do?  The value of these products is going to rise.  Consumers are telling us to explore and produce more not less.
 
2013-05-01 01:58:29 PM

trotsky: ND's crime rate is booming as well. The Rig Rats are presenting a helluva lot of issues for the dwindling local population. Prices are through the roof and locals are streaming south because they cannot afford to live in their town any more.

When the oil runs out we will see a modern day ghost town. Many of my Petro Engineering students have been actively warned away from taking jobs up in Williston and Minot by both Oil company employees and industry professionals. One student did a short, three day thing up there and was armed the entire time because his sponsors essentially told him not to come up without a firearm.

Also, the female to male ratio is insane. My female Engineering students will not touch that area with a 400000000 foot pole. Rape is off the scales. It's bad, so bad the bigger oil companies are constructing closed compounds and only letting employees off for certain tasks.

North Dakota was bad enough before all of this. Now it's way, way worse.


Define 'bad'...  To those of use who live up here, it was heaven before the republicans put the oil in the ground!   We had low cost of living, good wages, almost no unemployment, no crime.  Now our cost of living has shot up, but salaries for jobs outside the oil field have not changed to accomodate that.

As far as being armed all the time, no...  If you are working in the field, there are strict firearms policies.  No firearms on the rigs or in mancamps.   Yes, female to male ratio is pretty much non-existent, but rape isn't the issue you make it out to be.  Turns out that most of the guys here are here to work hard, make lots of money, and then go back to their families in their home state in their off weeks.  (oil companies run 7 days on/7 daysoff, 10/10, or sometimes 14/7 shifts.)  When the guys are on their shifts, they are working as many hours as humanly possible and pretty much just collapse at the end of it for a couple hours.

Yes, there are people who have heard ND has money and have come to try and make trouble without any intention of being part of the solution.  Problems like that have a way of solving themselves when you are living in what is essentially the wild west.
 
2013-05-01 02:07:15 PM

Elegy: BigNumber12: Lukeonia1: Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

*sigh*

When are people going to stop using this line?

Why would they stop using it when it's true?


Except the lights are not only flares, they're also ordinary work lights.
And that natural gas is not "all being flared off" -- from the "true" link above: "29 percent of the natural gas now extracted in North Dakota is flared off."
 
2013-05-01 02:07:53 PM
For a little perspective, 7.4 billion barrels of oil isn't even 3 months world production.
 
2013-05-01 02:25:30 PM

WelldeadLink: Elegy: BigNumber12: Lukeonia1: Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

*sigh*

When are people going to stop using this line?

Why would they stop using it when it's true?

Except the lights are not only flares, they're also ordinary work lights.
And that natural gas is not "all being flared off" -- from the "true" link above: "29 percent of the natural gas now extracted in North Dakota is flared off."


So not all the lights we see in ND are flares. OK. But that would still mean that some of the lights that we see ARE flares.

Ergo, you can see the flares from space.

I understand your objection to the panic-inducing wording of "we can see these flare offs from space" but your objection to the wording has little to do with the fact that yes, in fact, we can see them from space.

A better argument is that we can see lots of things from space - the current crop of commercial satellites have a resolution of less than a meter on the ground. I can see your car parked in your driveway from space if I know where to look. Thus, natural gas flares aren't somehow special because we can see them from space.

/work with satellite remote sensing data on a daily basis
 
2013-05-01 02:29:38 PM
Whoops, should have used the indefinite article there.

"I understand the objection" not "I understand your objection"
 
2013-05-01 02:29:49 PM

Hollie Maea: rohar: News flash:  The Bakken formation is mostly light sweet crude.

No it's not.  It is low porosity permeability oil shale.

 
2013-05-01 02:36:34 PM
I think there should be a town called West in North Dakota. For added confusion, in should be in the southeast corner of the state.
 
2013-05-01 03:07:03 PM

Snarfangel: I think there should be a town called West in North Dakota. For added confusion, in should be in the southeast corner of the state.


while you're at it, there should also be a movie about West, North Dakota starring Hugh Jackman as Gene Hackman.
 
2013-05-01 04:07:26 PM

rohar: kriegsgeist: rohar: kriegsgeist: rohar: RanDomino:


You still haven't gotten my point.

I know how capitalist economics works. My point is it can't solve this problem. Capitalist economics is great at finding optimal solutions to efficiency problems where a single decision maker (or a small group of decision makers) can try radically different solutions on their own, producers and consumers have roughly equal access to information, and the results are visible on short time scales relevant to those decision makers. In the energy economy, small groups can invest in new technologies, but the payoff timescale is on the order of decades, not years, and that doesn't work well in today's stock market, or for anyone who doesn't have money to burn. Producers and consumers do not have equal access to information - not even close. That's true just because of the technical nature of the production, distribution, and consumption of electricity. Maybe 0.1% of people worldwide understand even the basics. The result is lots of people independently making small, short-term good decisions that collectively add up to big bad decisions.

Capitalist economics will hopefully eventually get us there (lately it's looking a lot more likely), but it will be a lot more painful and disruptive then it needs to be. Your statements are essentially proving my point. I suppose you are focusing on demand over supply because you know that what I am saying is true, but you feel defensive about the role you play in the problem. After all, if you don't do it someone else will, right? And you might as well take care of your family and make money while you can, right? And solar is risky, even if there have been big gains in the last year. Why, it might take 10 years to really pay off. So you had better put that cash into conventional energy, like oil and natural gas. Makes financial sense.

This is my point. Lots of small good decisions can add up to a big bad decision. If you are good with math, it's like finding a minimum using Newton's method. If you only look a short distance ahead and go in the best direction, you will get stuck in a local minimum. If oil wasn't an exhaustible resource that the entire world depended on, this wouldn't matter too much.
 
2013-05-01 04:27:00 PM

shootsright: Snarfangel: I think there should be a town called West in North Dakota. For added confusion, in should be in the southeast corner of the state.

while you're at it, there should also be a movie about West, North Dakota starring Hugh Jackman as Gene Hackman.


head asplode.jpg
 
2013-05-01 04:31:01 PM

Elegy: A better argument is that we can see lots of things from space - the current crop of commercial satellites have a resolution of less than a meter on the ground.


That was the point I was making - not that the flares are somehow not visible from space. I thought that you'd understood that.
 
2013-05-01 04:51:20 PM
This thread was super-exciting... so many NEWS FLASHES:
 
2013-05-01 04:53:32 PM

kriegsgeist: I suppose you are focusing on demand over supply because you know that what I am saying is true, but you feel defensive about the role you play in the problem. After all, if you don't do it someone else will, right? And you might as well take care of your family and make money while you can, right? And solar is risky, even if there have been big gains in the last year. Why, it might take 10 years to really pay off. So you had better put that cash into conventional energy, like oil and natural gas. Makes financial sense.


Almost, but not quite.

You see, I find myself in the position of being on the production end and barely on the consumption end at all.  As I stated, my home is powered by 0 waste systems.  No fossil fuels, no nuke waste.  I drive less than 150 miles per month in a high efficiency diesel.  I feel no guilt.  If the rest of you did similar, oil would be going for $20/barrel and I'd be out of business.

So no, I don't feel much for guilt as I'm not burning much of these products.  Standard drug dealer rules, you don't get high on your own supply.

How's your energy consumption doing?
 
2013-05-01 05:10:18 PM

BigNumber12: Elegy: A better argument is that we can see lots of things from space - the current crop of commercial satellites have a resolution of less than a meter on the ground.

That was the point I was making - not that the flares are somehow not visible from space. I thought that you'd understood that.


No, I hadn't understood that.

If that was your point, it was pretty poorly stated.
 
2013-05-01 05:24:31 PM

Elegy: BigNumber12: Elegy: A better argument is that we can see lots of things from space - the current crop of commercial satellites have a resolution of less than a meter on the ground.

That was the point I was making - not that the flares are somehow not visible from space. I thought that you'd understood that.

No, I hadn't understood that.

If that was your point, it was pretty poorly stated.



I've never been a great communicator.

A more 'shocking' statement would have been that the flares look like a [city name]-sized city at night when viewed from space. Maybe they could measure the footprint in Rhode Islands.
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report