Topic: Thanks USA! (Read 4528 times)

While that is true, pipelines are even cheaper, if the volume is there.  It all has to end up at a refinery first anyway.  This is actually one of the problems with oil in the Dakotas, there are no existing pipelines and no plans for new ones.  If the claims for the volume of oil were believable to the oil companies themselves, they'd be investing in pipelines that could move that volume.  The fact that the only planned pipeline through the area isn't going to have a intake in the Dakotas should be evidence enought that the claims might not be credible.

I would add that the cost of rail transportation of oil is relatively cheap. Moving freight by rail is 3 times more fuel efficient than moving freight on the highway. Trains can move a ton of freight nearly 500 miles on a single gallon of fuel. I thing vast majority of the transportation cost for domestic oil must be in the local delivery (last 50 or 100 miles) where it's in a tank on the back of a truck.

But either way, can largely discount the cost of shipping oil, assuming that the person producing it is also the one transporting it. When you're talking about a 100000 gallons being transported on trucks, and consuming maybe 500 or 1000 gallons of that... it's simply added cost of doing business and really shouldn't affect prices at the pump.

Marijuana is used quite a bit in Iran, especially in cooking.

It's also a hell of a lot cheaper than it is here (the U.S.). I think it's going for $5 a gram on average right now.

As far as smoking goes, last time I checked it is actually illegal to smoke it but it's a law that is never enforced. Opium usage is so heavy in Iran that weed is practically a baby drug.

@firefop and lebing

Exactly gents, I totally agree with everything you two said (except for perhaps the "Germany using 80 - 100% 'renewable' energy by 2050" part.  Remains to be seen.  It also quotes the propaganda that the U.S. is going to be "the leading oil and gas producer by 2020" schtick).  

As for what that link is supposed to represent lebing, you said it yourself.  I know return you to the engineered destruction and neo-Marxist overthrow of the U.S. of A.

It's called "skin," and everyone already has it. Unless you'd rather see humanity melded into one gigantic jell-o mold-like mass?

I agree that the talk of energy independence is in about 15 years is probably over exxagerated, but you should go see the things they are doing in the Bakken and Three Forks formation up in ND and Eastern Montana.  New wells are coming online every single day.  If the geologists are correct ND has larger reserves than Saudi Arabia.  The Three forks formation was just discovered a few years back, so technically the US was "granted more oil".   Further the oil from these formations is as high quality as anything coming out of the middle east and far superior to the tar sands.  Wells in this area typically produce oil for approximately 30 years.  In fact there are wells still in operation from the last oil boom in the early 1980's.  Hydraulic fracturing is not what allowed the expansion of drilling in this area, but a technique know as horizontal drilling.  Fraccing was used in the area during the last boom too.  With the new technique, essentially the well is drilled down two miles and then is drilled two miles horizontally through the formation.  Fraccing is then used to release the oil from the shale.  

You mention that this oil may be uneconomical to recover.  This is only partially true.  While a well is expensive to drill the costs are recovered in the first few months of operation.  The cost of this oil comes from transport.  People I have spoken with peg it around $22 a barrel to ship due to lack of pipeline capacity, meaning most of the oil is shipped by rail.  As long as oil prices are high this isn't a problem.  However should the price fall it could become economical due to shipping concerns.  The proposed Keystone XL pipeline was supposed to have a load station in montana for some of this oil.  However, many people in the area speculate it was nixed due to pressure from Obama's good friend, Warren Buffet.  Berkshire Hathaway owns a 100% stake in Burlington northern Santa Fey railroad that benefits greatly from the increased rail traffic.      

 

If everyone had their own border then that would not eliminate them, it would just multiply them.

The same could be said for shrinking borders.

If you expand a border large enough, then there is no more border.

No need to kill anyone directly. War 101 dictates that they'd simple decimate the production capacity of the rebel state. Without any way to produce anything and no ability to grow food once the oil reserves ran out... you'd have them back into the fold in a few years tops.

What is that link supposed to prove exactly? That they received tax money? Yep, they did. Do many of them fail? Yep, most start ups fail, especially those that are technology oriented and that are heavily vulnerable to political dynamics. The problem isn't the technology, nor funding, its the completely fucked corporatocracy we have which determines policy in this country.

"from 80 percent to 100 percent of Germany’s electricity will come from renewable sources by 2050... Germans are baffled that the United States has not taken the same path. Not only is the U.S. the wealthiest nation in the world, but it’s also credited with jump-starting Germany’s green movement 40 years ago."http://www.livetradingnews.com/100-renewable-energy-in-germany-93980.htm#.UKnL-OOe9gx

I'm a fan of small governments... very small governments. Single person governments. No need to "expand borders" when we should be removing them.

The United States should be expanding its borders, not bickering over how to crack an egg.

That's a second Civil War. After the fiasco the first one was, I don't know if they'd be willing to try a second one. And "bomb the hell out of"... whom? The state legislature?

I'm fairly sure that if a state did try to leave, that the federal government would instantly impose all sorts of sanctions against them and probably bomb the hell out of them... The very best thing we could hope for in that scenario is the national guard on the border to keep the state contained... but that really isn't likely either.

Yes finally, in the 21st century with... Iran? wtf.

No such thing as a closed border. Interstate ones are so ridiculously porous that they would literally need to build a wall to keep anyone from crossing.

Nice link 

I think the thing is... we aren't incapable of doing it.. it's just that the powers that be don't really have it on the agenda at all... 'green' is just another way to sneak in silly legislation and more taxes. Cap and Trade isn't even about green, it's just another excuse to pile even more taxes on the (rapidly shrinking?) segment of the country who actually produces something of value. The saddest part about it, is I don't really think the vast majority of leftists are actually evil... they've just been 'educated' in the misapplication of logic.

Secession movements worry me in general, once that starts happening - it may well become impossible to get into any of the places that leave - Maybe I should move to texas before it happens. Meanwhile, the left is trying to get a 51st state... even more chance for voter fraud.

You sir are underestimating the mainstream medias ability to brainwash the liberal/stupid/young/senile (read general) population. They'll do what they always do, blow smoke until someone they don't like is in a position to take the fall.

So while anyone with a brain will know that's it's happening well before it becomes generally accepted or reports... internationally (for the most part) and domestically it won't "actually happen" until Obama is out of office.

Four years?  I give it less than two.