Airgump 1 #101 May 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteAlso, never forget that Exxon cleaned up the spill. Your profession is showing. Just like British Petroleum professes to have cleaned up, eh. I don't buy their propoganda. Perhaps other peoples' biases incline them to do so. QuoteWasn't a perfect clean up, but it's more than any other company has ever done before or since. Yup -- and they did it for the same reasons as BP. Another energy giant getting big fat and lazy, cutting corners and assuming all is well in this part of the world and that one to maximize its profits that much more...and then look what happens. Now they're "performing heroics" cleaning up a mess that could have easily been prevented in the first place. How many more spills and cleanups shouldn't we forget? actually sir, i beg to differ. if the "anointed one" accepted help from the world's oil spill experts and did not rely on his lacky the coasty (and then retired coasty) and dumped all of those dispersants on the gulf things would have turned out better. maybe those poor shrimps would still have eyes in their heads. you know one thing, the US has been there every time the shit hit the fan. we along with many other nations gave france back to them TWICE. and the one time the world wants to help out in our own back yard the "anointed one" refuses help at the detriment of our environment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airgump 1 #102 May 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteAlso, never forget that Exxon cleaned up the spill. Your profession is showing. Just like British Petroleum professes to have cleaned up, eh. I don't buy their propoganda. Perhaps other peoples' biases incline them to do so. QuoteWasn't a perfect clean up, but it's more than any other company has ever done before or since. Yup -- and they did it for the same reasons as BP. Another energy giant getting big fat and lazy, cutting corners and assuming all is well in this part of the world and that one to maximize its profits that much more...and then look what happens. Now they're "performing heroics" cleaning up a mess that could have easily been prevented in the first place. How many more spills and cleanups shouldn't we forget? so, after the government declared gulf seafood as eatable did you drive down to the gulf and buy a basket of shrimp or other fishy products? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #103 May 9, 2012 >kallend/billvon, where have you gone? Just sleeping. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airgump 1 #104 May 9, 2012 ha, i thought the Mods here never sleep! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #105 May 9, 2012 >I just roll my eyes when people bad mouth Exxon. They simply do not >know what they are talking about. The company is run and populated by >extraordinarily smart, dedicated and disciplined people. Joe Hazelwood - not so much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #106 May 9, 2012 >i buy gas for my generator or lawn mower and still charged road tax on it >though these items are not involved in the transportation system. So get it back if you don't want to pay it. Give these guys a call: =========================== Fuel Excise Tax Recovery Services You Can Count On $$ We only get paid after you get paid $$ Fuel excise tax refund just got easier for you. Transpectrum Services is dedicated to producing substantial tax savings for organizations that buy fuel for non-highway use. Our clients benefit from our years of experience, technical knowledge and relationships with state agencies through the United Transpectrum Services 1-877-231-3631 ============================ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #107 May 9, 2012 Quote>So clearly a lot more birds die from hitting power lines and towers than wind turbines. can you run that as a ratio or proportion - I suspect the power lines and towers are a magnitude more in existance than wind turbines lucky cats.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #108 May 9, 2012 Quote>First they came for Coal . . . >Then they came for Oil and Gas . . . >Then they came for nuclear energy . . . Then they came for wind power because it was killing all the birds . . . Then they came for solar because no one could tax the fuel . . . Then they came for hydro because no one liked the dams . . . I like it - it's pretty much the true basis of the green movement. Don't forget, they don't like wood fires either ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #109 May 9, 2012 +1, and LOL... I worked with Exxon Research for a while. Every project had the following priorities: safety, environment, ROI; in that order, and no compromises. I just roll my eyes when people bad mouth Exxon. They simply do not know what they are talking about. The company is run and populated by extraordinarily smart, dedicated and disciplined people. I'm still waiting for an eco-author to write "How to Live in Trees for Dummies". I'm going to buy it, and read it. Maybe they do have so called smart people working for Exon, but they are still screwing up big time. Last year Exon had an oil pipe line break. It crossed the Yellowstone River. There was around 42,000 gallons of crude dumped into that river before they were able to stop the leak. Some people had to evacuate their homes. This is a beautiful scenic river that is damn free. Like the Exon Valdez disaster all kinds of people were hired to clean up the mess. Everyone knows this was little more than a sham. less than 1 percent of the oil was cleaned up. Some of Exon's exec's did a great job with public relations. Pictures were taken of all these hard working folk trying to clean up the oil. In reality they occomplished little. So, what is Exon up to now. I don't trust them any further than I can throw them. I'm no tree hugger....I worked ten years falling timber in the woods. What I do care about is my children's future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #110 May 9, 2012 >can you run that as a ratio or proportion - I suspect the power lines and >towers are a magnitude more in existance than wind turbines Absolutely - and there are several orders of magnitude more trees than there are wind turbines _or_ power lines. They don't run into power lines because they are particularly dangerous, they run into them because they sometimes don't see things and there are a lot of wires strung across the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #111 May 9, 2012 Quote actually sir, i beg to differ. if the "anointed one" accepted help from the world's oil spill experts and did not rely on his lacky the coasty (and then retired coasty) and dumped all of those dispersants on the gulf things would have turned out better. maybe those poor shrimps would still have eyes in their heads. I see, so Obama is to blame for eye-less shrimp, and not BP. Sounds like the republicans blaming the democrats for the mounting casualties in Iraq when that topic was discussed in 2005...or like BP washing their hands clean of blame for the mounting reports of sea life deformities in the Gulf. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #112 May 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAlso, never forget that Exxon cleaned up the spill. Your profession is showing. Just like British Petroleum professes to have cleaned up, eh. I don't buy their propoganda. Perhaps other peoples' biases incline them to do so. QuoteWasn't a perfect clean up, but it's more than any other company has ever done before or since. Yup -- and they did it for the same reasons as BP. Another energy giant getting big fat and lazy, cutting corners and assuming all is well in this part of the world and that one to maximize its profits that much more...and then look what happens. Now they're "performing heroics" cleaning up a mess that could have easily been prevented in the first place. How many more spills and cleanups shouldn't we forget? so, after the government declared gulf seafood as eatable did you drive down to the gulf and buy a basket of shrimp or other fishy products? I didn't, though I do trust the government to regulate fracking more than I trust the industry to self-regulate. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #113 May 9, 2012 Quotecan we get back to the statement "magnitude more birds are killed flying into trees"? I'd like to see proof of that statement Perhaps if you moved to a state that has trees...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airgump 1 #114 May 9, 2012 instead of accepting help from the international community that had the ships and equipment at the ready, he chose to dump even more chemicals into the gulf cleverly disguised as "dispersants." can only wonder if a different result would have been achieved without dumping the chemicals, resulting in the oil covering poor ole davy jones locker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #115 May 9, 2012 >instead of accepting help from the international community that had the >ships and equipment at the ready, he chose to dump even more >chemicals into the gulf cleverly disguised as "dispersants." It's all a clever plot to destroy America! First chemtrails, now the cleverly disguised poisons! Next thing you know they'll be adding chemicals to our water supplies. Did you know they used chlorine gas during World War II to kill people? And now Obama wants to add it to WATER! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airgump 1 #116 May 9, 2012 yup, the US Army taught me a lot about nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare. How to wage it and how to protect my soldiers when it's waged on me. lucky those ruskies never trekked down the Fulda Gap, thus we never had to test that training. http://www.lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf http://www.rikiott.com/pdf/9527A%20MSDS.pdf MSDS for the chemicals that was/is still being used to combat spills. another interesting portion in addition to the ingredients is section 11 where no toxicity tests have been performed for either product. maybe some of that money that was wasted solyndra could have better been used to buttress existing endeavors (see link below). $535M would go a long way in solving pollution problems in either coal or petroleum. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-28/solyndra-s-733-million-plant-had-whistling-robots-spa-showers.html "it covered 300,000 square feet, the equivalent of five football fields. It had robots that whistled Disney tunes, spa-like showers with liquid-crystal displays of the water temperature, and glass-walled conference rooms." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #117 February 22, 2014 steve1I now live in North East Montana on the Backen oil field. There's an oil boom going on. Some oil workers are making over a $100,000 a year, but are homeless. Some live in man camps. Things are changing fast. We had another oil boom about thirty-five years ago. It became cheaper to buy oil, so the boom quit. New technology created a new way to get oil that was previously too expensive to go after. This process is called "fracking". Chemicals, water, and sand are pumped under high pressure into the ground. This makes it easier to extract the oil. One argument is that this is perfectly safe. Another argument is that this will ruin the groundwater. The oil boom thirty years ago ruined much of the water in my region. Is saying that Fracking is safe, just more double talk? Well Steve..... I think this might answer the question for you. If its so safe.... Exxon CEO Joins Lawsuit to Stop Fracking Near His Home When he is acting as Exxon CEO, not a homeowner, Tillerson has lashed out at fracking critics and proponents of regulation. “This type of dysfunctional regulation is holding back the American economic recovery, growth, and global competitiveness,” he said in 2012. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #118 February 22, 2014 Hehe - Amazon you making up for lost time? These are some good thread dredges Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #120 February 22, 2014 Stumpy Hehe - Amazon you making up for lost time? These are some good thread dredges Just timely. He's all for it in 2012 when it means profit, but he files suit against it in Feb. 2014 when it affects his own home.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
richravizza 25 #121 February 23, 2014 steve1I now live in North East Montana on the Backen oil field. There's an oil boom going on. Some oil workers are making over a $100,000 a year, but are homeless. Some live in man camps. Things are changing fast. We had another oil boom about thirty-five years ago. It became cheaper to buy oil, so the boom quit. New technology created a new way to get oil that was previously too expensive to go after. This process is called "fracking". Chemicals, water, and sand are pumped under high pressure into the ground. This makes it easier to extract the oil. One argument is that this is perfectly safe. Another argument is that this will ruin the groundwater. The oil boom thirty years ago ruined much of the water in my region. Is saying that Fracking is safe, just more double talk? Steve, you can search "TRUTHLAND" a documentary, that counters "FRACKLAND".and get both sides of the Issue. The State of Calf. mandated our childern to watch "Frackland" as a part of the enviro science Brain wash going on,but never "allowed" my child the other side of the Story. I helped inform her,and she enjoyed having both sides to make her own informed Decision on the Subject. Years back they sold us on Ethanol,. I was in Favor,I even thought the Mid west Corn Corp, Would fill my tank and save me Cash and the enviroment. My son Corrected me.His advanced high school science teacher helped inform him of the destruction of reservered prarie lands,water pollution from pest, herb,and fert run off,negitive Co2 absorb rates for the past 5 years. The Fracking process is an advancement in Three Key Technology. 3 D seimic imaging to 20,000ft is the norm now, mapping the largest finds in our nations history. Horizontal Drilling, first the ability to drill to those depths,then turn horiz so additional trips to 17,000 ft are not needed,and one Bore hole can frack eight or more "well" areas. The Fracking process is the most of concern and when the EPA, or other State agencies give us Facts that it IS NOT SAFE then I may change my mind. The next Bakken is the Permian Basin in Texas.It is appox. 225 miles long 50to75 miles wide.Runs from Texas to New Mex. and into Mexico. This may be the Second Largest Oil Field in the WORLD. California Has a Field that runs fron San Jose to Barkerfeild. Some States are Keen on economical matters others are just Political. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
richravizza 25 #122 February 24, 2014 billvon>Is saying that Fracking is safe, just more double talk? Yep. It can be done safely, but so far there is almost no pressure/incentive to do so. There have been several cases of serious groundwater contamination from fracking. Just in, GE is investing 10 Billion into Oil /Gas Exploration and development. Technology being the key to "FRACKING"and our nations energy independence, and leading role as the Worlds energy Leader. GE is in development of CO2 injection for fracking instead of Water. Small LNG terminals so vehicals at the sight can use the LNG as a Fuel.Reducing Co2 emmittions by 30 % and reducing most other Nasties by 99.% The US is the Saudi Arabia of the Worlds Bridge Fuel US NAT GAS. Look at Japan, will they build another Fukashima? Burn Coal ? Depend on the stability of the Middle East,and Their Buy Oil. or Place their Bets on the stability of the US, and the clean, cheap, vast supplies of the US of A small side note: every where around the world Nat gas is an accepted "Bridge Fuel" and they pay more for its use. Japans price ? about $ 15.00 for a Million BTUs Europe about $10-12 per million btu. OUR price $ 4.00 M.BTU. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
