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  
•       •       •

26718 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 06:14:07 PM

rohar: 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?


I still don't think you get my point. That's ok, it wouldn't make any difference if you did. You would still do exactly what you are doing, and you would be right to do so.
 
2013-05-01 07:08:39 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.


Does West Fargo count?

How about the mall, West Acres?
 
2013-05-01 07:23:46 PM

kriegsgeist: rohar: 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?

I still don't think you get my point. That's ok, it wouldn't make any difference if you did. You would still do exactly what you are doing, and you would be right to do so.


Of course I don't get your point.  As much passion as you're exhibiting, it doesn't work.

Again, how's your home powered, what's your commute?
 
2013-05-01 10:33:20 PM
rohar
Seriously, if we shut production down tomorrow, it'll have absolutely 0 effect on pollutants. None, nada, 0.

People consume what's cheapest. If what's currently being purchased is made more expensive, consumption will decrease.

You are stupid and you should feel bad.
 
2013-05-01 10:40:19 PM
I know how capitalist economics works. My point is it can't solve this problem.

Um.. what is the problem?
 
2013-05-01 10:49:33 PM

RanDomino: rohar
Seriously, if we shut production down tomorrow, it'll have absolutely 0 effect on pollutants. None, nada, 0.

People consume what's cheapest. If what's currently being purchased is made more expensive, consumption will decrease.

You are stupid and you should feel bad.


...and strangely I don't.  Probably a defect on my side.  Meh, I'm ok with it.
 
2013-05-02 12:40:07 AM
 
2013-05-02 10:27:38 AM

SpaceBison: http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/01/16/169511949/a-mysterious-p a tch-of-light-shows-up-in-the-north-dakota-dark
[blog.heartland.org image 600x363]


My God, North Dakota is visible from space!
 
2013-05-02 02:07:39 PM
Hopefully none of it is on any Indian reservations, or the Freedom-Loving conservatives in ND might have to displace a few people and ignore a treaty or two.
*****************************************************
Gee there's a novel idea considering that the government has entered into over 4600 treaties with the native tribes and broken every one of them to date.
 
Displayed 9 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