We just sent Putin a billion $$

11C1P

Yellow Jacket
Messages
1,005
Reaction score
9
Points
153
Location
North Dakota
We're using Ukraine as the go between though. Putin is skyrocketing the price for gas to the Ukraine, so we are sending them a billion dollars to help pay for the gas. At least we aren't selling them any of our own gas, that would just be crazy. Much better to just dump more money we don't have into the pockets of another madman just like we did with Hussein & Noriega in the 80's and so many others.
 

mmerlinn

Ground Beetle
Messages
633
Reaction score
0
Points
136
Location
Here, There, and Everywhere
And Putin is gleefully taking it all. Soon he will give it all back, and when he does, you will be hard pressed to find the bottom of the crash. He is amassing a war chest, courtesy of the babies in power here, that he WILL use to DESTROY us.

We would be better off doing nothing, and even better off using Putin to OUR advantage, like selling OUR oil at the high prices while Putin shoots himself in the foot. Any good businessman will tell you SELL into price increases and to BUY when prices drop. If any of the quarterwits on the Hill even used a few neurons in their brains, that is what would be happening. Putin would then have NO OPPORTUNITY to build a war chest to destroy us.
 

11C1P

Yellow Jacket
Messages
1,005
Reaction score
9
Points
153
Location
North Dakota
The skies in the western 1/2 of our state our currently lit up with them burning off the excess gas that no one wants to allow them to ship overseas and they've run out of room to store. It pisses me off to no end to see all that potential profit literally going up in flames, especially when one of the main things stopping it is the environmentalnuts who don't want pipelines, refineries built or ships to transport it. Much better just to burn it off into the atmosphere 24/7 for years and years.
 

ancona

Praying Mantis
Messages
3,370
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Waaay south
I have been watching he Ukraine theing with great interest. For many hundreds of years, this region has waffled back and forth between Russia and independent region. Why it is suddenly within the providence of the brand new [relatively anyway] EU or even the USA to interfere, I cannot figure out. I do know that if the Russian section of Ukraine goes from this separation to being a powerhouse, and the EU dominated side gets strip mined of assets by the IMF [a guaranteed event IMHO] we'll see some dramatic contrast that will open the eyes of Greeks, Turks, Italians and Spaniards. They will finally see the Euronannycrats for what they are and separate themselves from the Union immediately.

The entire EU project was dreamed up by the very same assholes responsible for the worlds financial mess and revolves around nothing other than money. It has not a single thing to do with freedom, trade, movement within the EU or any other such nonsense. It was all about redistributing the poor of Europe throughout Europe so the weight of social programs was borne more or less equally by all the countries in Europe, rather than entire depressed countries like the Balkans, Romania, et. al., bearing their own weight for their own poor decision making and bad legislation.

One look at the British Roma infestation is pure testament to the complete and utter failure of the EU idea. The Roma do not want jobs. Period. They want to suck the teat and live off the largesse of the richer nations of Europe. I challenge you to name just one Roma individual that has done a single solitary beneficial thing that the rest of the world applauded. Just one.

See what I mean?
 
Last edited:

11C1P

Yellow Jacket
Messages
1,005
Reaction score
9
Points
153
Location
North Dakota
I have been watching he Ukraine theing with great interest. For many hundreds of years, this region has waffled back and forth between Russia and independent region. Why it is suddenly within the providence of the brand new [relatively anyway] EU or even the USA to interfere, I cannot figure out. I do know that if the Russian section of Ukraine goes from this separation to being a powerhouse, and the EU dominated side gets strip mined of assets by the IMF [a guaranteed event IMHO] we'll see some dramatic contrast that will open the eyes of Greeks, Turks, Italians and Spaniards. They will finally see the Euronannycrats for what they are and separate themselves from the Union immediately.

The entire EU project was dreamed up by the very same assholes responsible for the worlds financial mess and revolves around nothing other than money. It has not a single thing to do with freedom, trade, movement within the EU or any other such nonsense. It was all about redistributing the poor of Europe throughout Europe so the weight of social programs was borne more or less equally by all the countries in Europe, rather than entire depressed countries like the Balkans, Romania, et. al., bearing their won weight for their own poor decision making and bad legislation.

One look at the British Roma infestation is pure testament to the complete and utter failure of the EU idea. The Roma do not want jobs. Period. They want to suck the teat and live off the largesse of the richer nations of Europe. I challenge you to name just one Roma individual that has done a single solitary beneficial thing that the rest of the world applauded. Just one.

See what I mean?


So if a previous "owner" of your house barged in and said that this house belonged to him because it had been in his family longer than you've been around you'd be ok with that? I will go out on a limb and guess you'd want someone to throw his ass out on the street in a new york minute. If you think we should just let bullies take over democracies or fledgling democracies that are struggling towards freedom and independence, I don't think you should be inclined to ask for any help when someone comes to take your property. See what I mean?
 

ancona

Praying Mantis
Messages
3,370
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Waaay south
11C1P,
Russia did not barge in, they held a vote in the Crimea and decided they wanted to be part of Russia and not the EU.
 

11C1P

Yellow Jacket
Messages
1,005
Reaction score
9
Points
153
Location
North Dakota
11C1P,
Russia did not barge in, they held a vote in the Crimea and decided they wanted to be part of Russia and not the EU.
If you believe 98% of the people voted for that, then you must also believe all those other elections held at the point of a gun like in N. Korea and Iraq under hussein where they get similar numbers. If someone sent troops into TX then held an "election" that says they are now part of Mexico are you just going to accept that? We didn't even let states that wanted to secede from the U.S. without being invaded do so. When they roll into the Ukraine, I'm sure there will be another "vote" and all these people will vote overwhelmingly to be under Russian rule.
 

ancona

Praying Mantis
Messages
3,370
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Waaay south
Soo........we should g3et involved in yet another war? With Russia? In their own back yard?

I seem to remember that both Napoleon and Hitler made exactly the same, nation bankrupting decisions.

I am not saying this is necessarily right, just that it's none of our damn business. i do however, stand by the statement that Crimea will be far, far better off under Russian rule than Ukraine will be under EU - IMF control. And I believe it will be by a huge margin. Like I said, for the EU-IMF this is all about asset mining and stripping the people of whatever remains of their money. One look at Greece should tell the tale.
 

Jay

Yellow Jacket
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The skies in the western 1/2 of our state our currently lit up with them burning off the excess gas that no one wants to allow them to ship overseas and they've run out of room to store. It pisses me off to no end to see all that potential profit literally going up in flames, especially when one of the main things stopping it is the environmentalnuts who don't want pipelines, refineries built or ships to transport it. Much better just to burn it off into the atmosphere 24/7 for years and years.
I thought this argument was put to rest long, long ago. How exactly do you propose to get the NG there?

edited to add the infrastructure required is incredibly complex, and certainly not profitable
 
Last edited:

11C1P

Yellow Jacket
Messages
1,005
Reaction score
9
Points
153
Location
North Dakota
Soo........we should g3et involved in yet another war? With Russia? In their own back yard?

I seem to remember that both Napoleon and Hitler made exactly the same, nation bankrupting decisions.

I am not saying this is necessarily right, just that it's none of our damn business. i do however, stand by the statement that Crimea will be far, far better off under Russian rule than Ukraine will be under EU - IMF control. And I believe it will be by a huge margin. Like I said, for the EU-IMF this is all about asset mining and stripping the people of whatever remains of their money. One look at Greece should tell the tale.

Yes clearly the only option is all out war. :flail:
 

11C1P

Yellow Jacket
Messages
1,005
Reaction score
9
Points
153
Location
North Dakota
I thought this argument was put to rest long, long ago. How exactly do you propose to get the NG there?

edited to add the infrastructure required is incredibly complex, and certainly not profitable
Sure, it's too hard to build a pipe line and boats. (even though they do it already for a plenty healthy profit) So if you think something would be difficult you say don't bother? Glad you weren't around when they build Hoover dam or started the space program, or signed the Declaration of Independence, or planned the D-day invasion, and on and on.
 

Jay

Yellow Jacket
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sure, it's too hard to build a pipe line and boats. (even though they do it already for a plenty healthy profit) So if you think something would be difficult you say don't bother? Glad you weren't around when they build Hoover dam or started the space program, or signed the Declaration of Independence, or planned the D-day invasion, and on and on.
I am going to give you the same answer DCFuser gave me; you need to get a science book and read it, so you can understand physics. You cannot move liquid NG the same way you move oil by boat.
 

11C1P

Yellow Jacket
Messages
1,005
Reaction score
9
Points
153
Location
North Dakota
I am going to give you the same answer DCFuser gave me; you need to get a science book and read it, so you can understand physics. You cannot move liquid NG the same way you move oil by boat.

You can tell me that the sun revolves around the earth by your "science" but that does not make it so. It would be you that needs a science book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNG_carrier

http://www.coselle.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_gas_pipelines

http://www.enterpriseproducts.com/operations/NglPipelinesServices.shtm
 

11C1P

Yellow Jacket
Messages
1,005
Reaction score
9
Points
153
Location
North Dakota
So some guy spouting off that the technology doesn't exist PROVES that it doesn't. Well then I say Australia doesn't exist either! I guess despite all the evidence that it does, means it doesn't. Then an article that says if because they don't have enough rail or pipeline to move the oil along with the feds & some states not allowing drilling production will go down. What a shocker! Even though that makes my point for me that we need to build more pipelines and increase rail capacity and allow for more drilling to help the economy you point to it as proof it won't help. Oh wait, I forgot you think the technology doesn't exist. Tell all the people at your next flat earth society meeting I said hi. :noevil:
 

ancona

Praying Mantis
Messages
3,370
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Waaay south
This has turned in to a pretty informative thread. The Coselle System is very promising, as it takes NG on board in it's gaseous phase, does a HP phase change on-board, allowing the gas to be transported as a liquid, but then uses the system sort of in reverse to off-load the cargo as a gas.

I am someone that believes we are allowing far, far too much gas to simply flare off at a well head in the interests of a few who want to simply squeeze a few dollars out as fast as possible. America needs to start looking at our natural resources more like a national property, rather than allow them to be stripped off by the highest paying lease holder to do with what they will.

To just flare off billions and billions of dollars worth of gas because we don't have enough pipeline is criminal and should be stopped. Instead of rushing in and raping an entire region as fast as it can be done, we need to consider construction of infrastructure to recover every single BTU of energy before we let a bunch of roust-abouts to drag up in a gaggle of pick-up trucks and go as fast as they can.

That the practice of flaring gas is still permitted makes me furious. Russia no longer permits the practice, and now controls a huge percentage of energy resources across Europe. If we had policy in place requiring that companies invest in the infrastructure to handle the expected quantities of non-renewables, and forbid the flaring of finite resources such as Nat Gas, we would be better as a nation.
 
Last edited:

Jay

Yellow Jacket
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So some guy spouting off that the technology doesn't exist PROVES that it doesn't. Well then I say Australia doesn't exist either! I guess despite all the evidence that it does, means it doesn't. Then an article that says if because they don't have enough rail or pipeline to move the oil along with the feds & some states not allowing drilling production will go down. What a shocker! Even though that makes my point for me that we need to build more pipelines and increase rail capacity and allow for more drilling to help the economy you point to it as proof it won't help. Oh wait, I forgot you think the technology doesn't exist. Tell all the people at your next flat earth society meeting I said hi. :noevil:
so you call people names you don't agree with? Nice! Actually, I was trying to point out that it was too expensive to transport gas across the ocean (for a profit) and the fact that we are destroying our own environment in the pursuit of NG (fracking). But never underestimate the ignorance of the cornicopians, they will always find a way to promote business as usual....until they can't. Which is looking more and more like the very near future....the meme that technology will save us is why we are in overshoot NOW....:wave:
 

11C1P

Yellow Jacket
Messages
1,005
Reaction score
9
Points
153
Location
North Dakota
so you call people names you don't agree with? Nice! Actually, I was trying to point out that it was too expensive to transport gas across the ocean (for a profit) and the fact that we are destroying our own environment in the pursuit of NG (fracking). But never underestimate the ignorance of the cornicopians, they will always find a way to promote business as usual....until they can't. Which is looking more and more like the very near future....the meme that technology will save us is why we are in overshoot NOW....:wave:
Actually you don't seem to know whether you're shot, fucked or snake-bit. First you said it's too difficult to do things with natural gas like pipelines and shipping. Then you said the technology doesn't even exist due to "science" Now you've decided to pronounce it "too expensive" How cost effective is it handing Putin billions just to keep him sending gas to the Ukraine? The cost may currently still be high to transport it, but as demand goes up and the more ships they add, the profit margins will increase. I don't know what names I called you except maybe a flat earther, but when you keep saying something doesn't exist, when it clearly does, it seems about the nicest thing I could call you really. :flushed:
 

rblong2us

Yellow Jacket
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
13
Points
153
Location
off world
You cannot move liquid NG the same way you move oil by boat ?

Im a bit confused ........

http://www.rivieramm.com/publications/lng-world-shipping-3

There seems to have been a fair amount of risk money spent on LNG terminals and boats,
suggesting there has to be ways of liquifying ( at source? ) in order to be able to subsequently ship the stuff.

I cheerfully admit to not knowing anything about LNG (-:
 

11C1P

Yellow Jacket
Messages
1,005
Reaction score
9
Points
153
Location
North Dakota
You cannot move liquid NG the same way you move oil by boat ?

Im a bit confused ........

http://www.rivieramm.com/publications/lng-world-shipping-3

There seems to have been a fair amount of risk money spent on LNG terminals and boats,
suggesting there has to be ways of liquifying ( at source? ) in order to be able to subsequently ship the stuff.

I cheerfully admit to not knowing anything about LNG (-:
Don't cloud "science" with facts. :judge:
 
Top