ranchodeluxe
Member
Anyone who has a 401k probably owns petro stock.it's one of the few paying dividends these days.
Oil Boom in North Dakota destroying wildlife
- Thread starter onpoint
- Start date
- Status
onpoint
Active member
See, when two people are just too far apart to ever agree on a subject. It's just better to move on. Kind of like when the wife is on a screaming rampage for 20 minutes and then you say..Ha, did you say something? Call it 30 years of marital training kicking in. In has a way of finding it's way into numerous exchanges of conversation. That's how our marriage has survived so long and the same approach has kept me out of jail...from opening a can of woop-ass on someone...LOL
morrismike
New member
You could have just said "sure". Your argument was based upon emotion rather than fact and those arguments are best avoided (I'm surprised that isn't in your book on marital bliss). Seriously though, my hunting club on on the TX gulf coast had these guys come in drilling for oil and gas and we ended up with 4 of really big wells (one right next to clubhouse) and apart from the asthetics it was no big deal. An unemotional evaluation of the situation on the ground would conclude that fencerow to fencerow farming and tiling are the real threats to wildlife. I apologize for the blunt approach as I'm an engineer and we try to avoid all the touchy feely stuff and get right to the meat of the problem.
I'm willing to go with no hard feelings on this if you just say "sure".
Last edited:
onpoint
Active member
Well it's obvious you plan to get the last word on this no matter what..No I'm not just willing to roll over on my back and say your opinion is gospel. I will just agree to disagree on the matter. In fact, you have provided no facts what so ever. Just your conservative approach to the problem.
cockrocker
New member
MOM!!!!!!!!!! is that you????? what you doing on this site
25yr smoker here and wouldn't think of touching anything else...not even drink, so your theory is based on emotion and not fact.
life is the stepping stone for us to try to find our own personal escapes.....not a certain drug
Montana Husker
Banned
LOL, so you are dependant on a drug and proud of it.....nice. Their has been study after study that shows marijuana leads to other harder drugs, do yourself a favor, get off your dope smokin ass and do some research.
And no, I ain't in any way, shape or form, your MOMMA. Insert Momma joke here......
cockrocker
New member
nope, not dependant at all. I leave it alone when I want and smoke a bit when I want. I can go months without even thinking about it, then a month with a puff or two...no big deal, but this has nothing to do with habitat destruction so let's not go on with this chat. I just had to laugh out loud at your "simple" approach to weed..."the killer drug"
Montana Husker
Banned
Whats my approach??? You are so wise and knowing......tell me oh great one......ofcourse you know denial is one of the signs of an addiction...LOL. Dope smokers....gotta love you!
ranchodeluxe
Member
A quote from the Presidents hero and motivational guru Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals":
For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes: if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then do what Gideon did: conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.
For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes: if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then do what Gideon did: conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.
I bet your an engineer with an oil company, or some petro-chemical engineer not a farmer. It's natural to blame the problem on somebody who doesn't have solutions closer to home. We can, if we want to eleviate the concerns of corn farming, CRP did a lot of it, drilling for oil leaves a lasting scar, maybe inconsiqeuntly to you, but prairie grouse will not nest 1 mile away. since you are more analytical about this then we are, consider this, I would pay a higher price for fuel, to a half baked country over seas, and leave our country the way it was, just because it's OUR COUNTRY, and we can. We can spend our pennies wisely, conservation of fuel, better mass transit, railroad shipping, merchant marine commerce for goods, efficient appliances, and lastly focus on going away from fossil fuels, heck we are going to do that anyway, because they are dwindling. Bakken field in the U.S. is a piss pot of oil dumped on the flames. It doesn't do squat for "energy independence", but it makes a real good profit center for a oil company and enterprising indiviuals. Use that wonderful engineer creativity to do the world a favor, after all we got by without whale oil. Enjoy our Thanks, at making our lives better with a sustainable resource, and buy the way all this creates jobs too. Let some other unfriendly land use up their resources for eternity, or at least our lifetime, they will be happy tosell it to us, don't need to invade us, harass us, because we are not trying impose our will on people a world away, profit is the goal, you don't kill the customer, or the provider. As a practical arguement when we "recycle computers we send them overseas where the toxic chemicals will leach into the soil, the air rank as smudge pots cook the precious metals out, and of course kill the participants in short order, makes a lot of money, like an oil field or "chat" mines in Pitcher, Okla. I don't want either here in my yard, or at your duck club, but maybe you do?
Last edited:
I'm a farmer. He is on tract with what I see in my area. (Which is some of the best pheasant hunting in the world.) My neighbors will ask what I think on bird numbers this year. I say..... pretty good, way up from last year. Their response....Really, I'm not seeing many at my place!! - My question to them is... How much grass have you got ride of in the last 5 years?!?! Then they get this real puzzled look on their faces. Grass = pheasants!!!! No question about it. It doesn't matter how much grass is left for the winter, it is soooooo important for nesting and hatching. Row crops are the KILLER. Our farm still plants 1/3 of our acres to winter wheat and in 2010 we inrolled 250 acres into CRP. We have pheasants. :cheers:
This topic depresses me to the point I know I should stay out of it, but I can't. It depresses me because 1) we as a culture can't seem to figure out how NOT to create messes like this, and 2) because we as a community of ethical and moral hunters (I think) can't even agree that this is a bad thing! I'm dumbfounded that any conservation-minded hunter could look at what's happening in the Bakken (or the Red Desert, or NW / SW Colorado, W Texas, etc.) and be OK with it. It's even more frustrating because I think there's a large, natural common interest between "serious" environmentalists and ethical hunters, but mistrust, misrepresentation on both sides and paranoia keeps them from coming together. Too many hunters are willing to line up with corporations whose activities have a DIRECT negative impact on the sport.
Spare me the lecture on how 'hypocritical' I am because I drive a fossil-fuel burning vehicle to hunt. (For the record, my cold-weather hunting vehicle gets 24MPG, and my warm-weather is a motorcycle that gets 55MPG - yes, I really do ride the bike to my happy hunting grounds!) The point is, we as a culture and species need to evolve PAST this ridiculous, unsustainable model of consumption, especially of finite resources such as O&G. That it is self-limiting, and obviously heading us for a economic and societal cliff, is completely self-evident - the 'logical' engineer above should at least be able to see that. To me, it's clear that we need to try to get off that cliff as gently as possible, if not for our generation, at least that of our children's, grand-children's, etc. And that CLEARLY means pursuing alternative, sustainable fuels as quickly (and intelligently, which I concede so far often hasn't been the case) as possible. Anyone who says we'll "never" replace O&G (and coal) as our primary energy sources apparently hasn't evolved beyond the flat-earth stage, and believes below that surface is an endless supply of dirty fuels. And of course we need to conserve as much as possible while we're climbing down that cliff. Getting serious about that alone would likely give us another 2-4 decades to figure out better alternatives.
Conservatives love to trot out that "Obama said he wanted to raise the price of gas and now look at it" line. Whether he actually said that (in context) or not, I would totally agree with it. We can either ratchet the price up now, and semi-gently ween people off of it and encourage conservation (and higher MPG), or wait until "Peak Oil" or simple market forces cause it to go from 3.50 to $15, $20 $100 or whatever overnight - the Mad Max scenario. Which would be more disruptive, do you think? And this is where our country's obsession with free-market capitalism causes problems. We seem fine with letting corporations run amok, with minimal regulation, trashing places like PA, the Red Desert, the Bakken, etc. for a very short-term gain, that in the end probably does more harm than good anyway. You KNOW these companies will do as little as possible to clean up and/or reclaim these areas - only what they're forced to by the "evil" government.
Finally - no, I'm not wild about or ignoring the problems caused by wind farms, but given the choice between a bunch of turbines and a bunch of oil rigs, I'll take the former. Even if their direct impact is roughly the same (and I don't believe it is), as least on the consumption end we're not throwing more crap into the air. As for fenceline to fenceline farming, OF COURSE no one on this forum likes it, but acre for acre it's clearly less harmful when considering the full impact - and less difficult to reclaim - than a landscape of drilling rigs and the supporting infrastructure.
I could go on and on, but this is already a bit of a novel. Oh, and don't read much if any of the above as specific to pheasants and pheasant ecology. I'm talking big-picture here.
Spare me the lecture on how 'hypocritical' I am because I drive a fossil-fuel burning vehicle to hunt. (For the record, my cold-weather hunting vehicle gets 24MPG, and my warm-weather is a motorcycle that gets 55MPG - yes, I really do ride the bike to my happy hunting grounds!) The point is, we as a culture and species need to evolve PAST this ridiculous, unsustainable model of consumption, especially of finite resources such as O&G. That it is self-limiting, and obviously heading us for a economic and societal cliff, is completely self-evident - the 'logical' engineer above should at least be able to see that. To me, it's clear that we need to try to get off that cliff as gently as possible, if not for our generation, at least that of our children's, grand-children's, etc. And that CLEARLY means pursuing alternative, sustainable fuels as quickly (and intelligently, which I concede so far often hasn't been the case) as possible. Anyone who says we'll "never" replace O&G (and coal) as our primary energy sources apparently hasn't evolved beyond the flat-earth stage, and believes below that surface is an endless supply of dirty fuels. And of course we need to conserve as much as possible while we're climbing down that cliff. Getting serious about that alone would likely give us another 2-4 decades to figure out better alternatives.
Conservatives love to trot out that "Obama said he wanted to raise the price of gas and now look at it" line. Whether he actually said that (in context) or not, I would totally agree with it. We can either ratchet the price up now, and semi-gently ween people off of it and encourage conservation (and higher MPG), or wait until "Peak Oil" or simple market forces cause it to go from 3.50 to $15, $20 $100 or whatever overnight - the Mad Max scenario. Which would be more disruptive, do you think? And this is where our country's obsession with free-market capitalism causes problems. We seem fine with letting corporations run amok, with minimal regulation, trashing places like PA, the Red Desert, the Bakken, etc. for a very short-term gain, that in the end probably does more harm than good anyway. You KNOW these companies will do as little as possible to clean up and/or reclaim these areas - only what they're forced to by the "evil" government.
Finally - no, I'm not wild about or ignoring the problems caused by wind farms, but given the choice between a bunch of turbines and a bunch of oil rigs, I'll take the former. Even if their direct impact is roughly the same (and I don't believe it is), as least on the consumption end we're not throwing more crap into the air. As for fenceline to fenceline farming, OF COURSE no one on this forum likes it, but acre for acre it's clearly less harmful when considering the full impact - and less difficult to reclaim - than a landscape of drilling rigs and the supporting infrastructure.
I could go on and on, but this is already a bit of a novel. Oh, and don't read much if any of the above as specific to pheasants and pheasant ecology. I'm talking big-picture here.
ranchodeluxe
Member
And when we "ratchet up" this price,where does that money go?I presume you are talking taxes.This,of course,presumes that the Government is going to spend this money wisely.More wisely,in fact than the consumer who is fully capable of driving the market by demanding hi MPG autos and alternative energy,for that matter.
If you check my previous posts,you will see me on the record as being 100% in favor of alt. energy,just not with the Govt. picking the winners and losers(so far only losers).
No I won't give a break on your fossil fuel vehicle, nor your house heated w/coal-fired electricity.This is classic, hypocritical, limosine liberal rhetoric,this thought that conservation begins with the next guy.
Just look around wherever you are sitting,everything,with little exception that you see is made with some form of petroleum product.You want to crash this economy?(many progressives believe this is neccessary in order to bring about "social justice") just hang a few bucks a gallon in taxes on on top of the $3.65/gal I'm paying now. :thumbsup:
If you check my previous posts,you will see me on the record as being 100% in favor of alt. energy,just not with the Govt. picking the winners and losers(so far only losers).
No I won't give a break on your fossil fuel vehicle, nor your house heated w/coal-fired electricity.This is classic, hypocritical, limosine liberal rhetoric,this thought that conservation begins with the next guy.
Just look around wherever you are sitting,everything,with little exception that you see is made with some form of petroleum product.You want to crash this economy?(many progressives believe this is neccessary in order to bring about "social justice") just hang a few bucks a gallon in taxes on on top of the $3.65/gal I'm paying now. :thumbsup:
UGUIDE
Active member
Laughed my ass off on that one. Thanks!!!:10sign:
UGUIDE
Active member
Just came in for lunch here for some light reading while eating bowl of soup. IN middle of planting 150 acres of new CRP. 20 done this morning and 35 to go this afternoon.....what's that? Oh, just heard a rooster cackle as it took flight outside my window here.
I think the key is contentment. But then again I was not content with the CRP I had and wanted 200 more acres. I must be smoking weed or something if I could get $100 more an acre to crop this ground
Time to get back in tractor and listen to Kenny Cheasney all afternoon.:cheers:
I will expect more good posts and bantering so I have more lite reading for the evening meal.......
I think the key is contentment. But then again I was not content with the CRP I had and wanted 200 more acres. I must be smoking weed or something if I could get $100 more an acre to crop this ground
Time to get back in tractor and listen to Kenny Cheasney all afternoon.:cheers:
I will expect more good posts and bantering so I have more lite reading for the evening meal.......
To take this point by point:
At this point, yes, probably taxes, but executed with an iron-clad guarantee that 90% (or more - depending on cost to collect and distribute) goes DIRECTLY to alternative energy R&D - private or public, I don't much care, assuming oversight is adequate to guard against never-ending pork-barrel projects. And sorry, we just don't agree on the collective 'wisdom' of consumers. It's a widely understand tenet of social theory that the "masses" will make decisions in direct opposition to the individual's better judgement (i.e., "groupthink"). Appropriately and sparingly applied, government power can indeed be used to correct the most egregious of these situations. Conservatives have so successfully demonized government that most people accept as axiomatic that the private sector will always perform better than the public. In my 50+ years of experience, this is emphatically not the case. I've worked for both public and private sector entities large and small (as well as had my own business for 10 years), and overall, there was more waste and idiotic decision-making present in the large private companies than in government - not by much, but definitely a difference.
I'm glad we can agree on something (your first sentence)! But I disagree partially with the second. Not all have been "losers". I grew up not far from NREL, and they have a fairly impressive list of successes, just not very well-known. And no one should expect the "birthing" phase of alternative energy to be without some spectacular failures. I will admit, I have to shake my head at the folly of the corn-into-ethanol scheme - should never have happened. That said, it is once again corporate greed (agri-business) that has more or less institutionalized it to the point that it is now difficult to reverse. And most environmentalists were sooner or later against corn/ethanol: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/29/9804028-6-billion-a-year-ethanol-subsidy-dies-but-wait-theres-more?lite
I see. So you state you are 100% for alternative energy as well? Then why are you still driving that Toyota? I commend you on driving that instead of an F150 (still only 13MPG!), but if you're really interested in being green, you should feel the same guilt I do. My point in asking not to be lectured is that I already carry around PLENTY of cognitive dissonance on that as well as a couple dozen other behaviors that are not exactly environmentally neutral - nothing you say is going to significantly add to that. But once again, this is another conservative straw-man. It is extremely difficult, given the current structure of our society and economy, to go "off the grid" and achieve a significant reduction in one's carbon footprint, or whatever you want to call it. We should be striving to replace that with a model that makes that much less difficult, and eventually the norm. And for the record, the only part of your response I take offense at is being called a 'limousine liberal'. I am indeed liberal in spots (more liberal than conservative, but with a strong libertarian streak), but my income is solidly middle class (and no, I don't consider $250K middle class). Those "elite" you conservatives love to rail against are in actuality very few in number.
Of course 'everything' is made of petroleum! I've known that since forever. The point is, we need to change that! And your last sentence is flat out disingenuous. I specifically stated I was trying to let us down gently, NOT crash the economy! You want a crash, just keep that gas artificially low (as in, don't pay for the environmental cost), as well as everything else we extract, and see what happens when it all runs out - and it WILL run out, eventually. Maybe not in your lifetime or mine, but not that far down the road, either.
At this point, yes, probably taxes, but executed with an iron-clad guarantee that 90% (or more - depending on cost to collect and distribute) goes DIRECTLY to alternative energy R&D - private or public, I don't much care, assuming oversight is adequate to guard against never-ending pork-barrel projects. And sorry, we just don't agree on the collective 'wisdom' of consumers. It's a widely understand tenet of social theory that the "masses" will make decisions in direct opposition to the individual's better judgement (i.e., "groupthink"). Appropriately and sparingly applied, government power can indeed be used to correct the most egregious of these situations. Conservatives have so successfully demonized government that most people accept as axiomatic that the private sector will always perform better than the public. In my 50+ years of experience, this is emphatically not the case. I've worked for both public and private sector entities large and small (as well as had my own business for 10 years), and overall, there was more waste and idiotic decision-making present in the large private companies than in government - not by much, but definitely a difference.
I'm glad we can agree on something (your first sentence)! But I disagree partially with the second. Not all have been "losers". I grew up not far from NREL, and they have a fairly impressive list of successes, just not very well-known. And no one should expect the "birthing" phase of alternative energy to be without some spectacular failures. I will admit, I have to shake my head at the folly of the corn-into-ethanol scheme - should never have happened. That said, it is once again corporate greed (agri-business) that has more or less institutionalized it to the point that it is now difficult to reverse. And most environmentalists were sooner or later against corn/ethanol: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/29/9804028-6-billion-a-year-ethanol-subsidy-dies-but-wait-theres-more?lite
I see. So you state you are 100% for alternative energy as well? Then why are you still driving that Toyota? I commend you on driving that instead of an F150 (still only 13MPG!), but if you're really interested in being green, you should feel the same guilt I do. My point in asking not to be lectured is that I already carry around PLENTY of cognitive dissonance on that as well as a couple dozen other behaviors that are not exactly environmentally neutral - nothing you say is going to significantly add to that. But once again, this is another conservative straw-man. It is extremely difficult, given the current structure of our society and economy, to go "off the grid" and achieve a significant reduction in one's carbon footprint, or whatever you want to call it. We should be striving to replace that with a model that makes that much less difficult, and eventually the norm. And for the record, the only part of your response I take offense at is being called a 'limousine liberal'. I am indeed liberal in spots (more liberal than conservative, but with a strong libertarian streak), but my income is solidly middle class (and no, I don't consider $250K middle class). Those "elite" you conservatives love to rail against are in actuality very few in number.
Of course 'everything' is made of petroleum! I've known that since forever. The point is, we need to change that! And your last sentence is flat out disingenuous. I specifically stated I was trying to let us down gently, NOT crash the economy! You want a crash, just keep that gas artificially low (as in, don't pay for the environmental cost), as well as everything else we extract, and see what happens when it all runs out - and it WILL run out, eventually. Maybe not in your lifetime or mine, but not that far down the road, either.
I should have included two other items above:
In addition to alternative energy R&D, tax revenue on gas could also go into direct consume subsidies for the best alternative energies. I have no problem with that, though conservatives (and especially traditionally energy companies) will scream "foul" and complain about not being a level playing field - but that's the whole point, we're trying to accelerate the move from one to the other. The O&D companies can either retool or die, as far as I'm concerned.
Last point - I appreciate you (mostly) arguing with logic and without personal and/or ad hominem attacks, etc. Regardless of who wins the next election, I think our biggest problem politically in this country is that people can't discuss issues civilly any more. Honestly, if we can't figure out a way to do that, we're pretty much doomed as a country.
In addition to alternative energy R&D, tax revenue on gas could also go into direct consume subsidies for the best alternative energies. I have no problem with that, though conservatives (and especially traditionally energy companies) will scream "foul" and complain about not being a level playing field - but that's the whole point, we're trying to accelerate the move from one to the other. The O&D companies can either retool or die, as far as I'm concerned.
Last point - I appreciate you (mostly) arguing with logic and without personal and/or ad hominem attacks, etc. Regardless of who wins the next election, I think our biggest problem politically in this country is that people can't discuss issues civilly any more. Honestly, if we can't figure out a way to do that, we're pretty much doomed as a country.
AtTheMurph
Well-known member
Onpoint, you have no idea! You have to see it. Take Highway 85 N to Watford City and on the Williston.You've seen nothing like it.
The land is ruined! Ain't no putting it back, and it's only just begun. There's oil and Gas everywhere, Well, roads, powerlines and pipelines going in everywhere.
Thousands of wells and pre fab housing complexes up and down the hillsides between wells.
Way beyond worrying about the wildlife that's been gone for a while. Might as well get the oil. I'm thinking a world class refinery maybe two. Trouble is of course
Sounds like the same arguments made about the coal mining in Indiana. Strip mining would ruin the land forever, never be the same, etc.
You should see it now. Some of the best wildlife habitat around. Quail, deer, rabbits, turkey, waterfowl out the wazoo.
I am sure there will be some dislocation of some wildlife but nature has a funny way of adapting. One need only look at the urban wildlife "problems" to see that nature adapts far better than man has the ability to envision.
AtTheMurph
Well-known member
Onpoint, you have no idea! You have to see it. Take Highway 85 N to Watford City and on the Williston.You've seen nothing like it.
The land is ruined! Ain't no putting it back, and it's only just begun. There's oil and Gas everywhere, Well, roads, powerlines and pipelines going in everywhere.
Thousands of wells and pre fab housing complexes up and down the hillsides between wells.
Way beyond worrying about the wildlife that's been gone for a while. Might as well get the oil. I'm thinking a world class refinery maybe two. Trouble is of course
Sounds like the same arguments made about the coal mining in Indiana. Strip mining would ruin the land forever, never be the same, etc.
You should see it now. Some of the best wildlife habitat around. Quail, deer, rabbits, turkey, waterfowl out the wazoo.
I am sure there will be some dislocation of some wildlife but nature has a funny way of adapting. One need only look at the urban wildlife "problems" to see that nature adapts far better than man has the ability to envision.
I should mention that in my prime pheasant hunting area much of the land is being overrun with windmills. That means no hunting, that means thousands of acres of prime land being despoiled with noisy, unsightly bird blenders.
Someone mentioned that we need to change from using petroleum products. My question is why? We use petroleum because it is the cheapest most energy dense product we have and it is still cheap.
When it get's too expensive we will move to other forms of energy. That's one of those laws of economics that central planners like to forget about. We don't have an energy problem and never will. The price of that energy will solve the "problem" by itself.
Until then it makes no sense to waste untold billions of dollars of wealth on noncompetitive energy ideas that the market may or may not want. All it does is enrich the political decision makers and those connected to them.
- Status