official 10-22-2012 presidential debate thread

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-23-2012, 18:57
Rucker61

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniper7

I'd rather have the US increase jobs, find a way to counter the corrosion, the abrasiveness of the impurities in the oils...maybe better filtration at the input points to keep out the water and sediments and maybe build a refinery or two along the way for domestic production in the central US.

Why let others do the work and make the money when you can do it yourself right here at home?

Here's what dilbit is:

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

And here's some of the concerns:

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs...wift072312.pdf
10-23-2012, 19:32
bogie

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevDen2005

Dude, I have no idea what you just said.

Bitumen is the stuff they mine from the tar sands. dilbit is the shit they want to ship through keystone, it's bitumen diluted so that it flows through the pipe. It's been transported for many years through pipelines, mostly in a safe manner. But there is some debate on the safety of transporting it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

All I got out of it was that he likes laying pipe.

I tried to avoid all 'sextual' connotations...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniper7

I'd rather have the US increase jobs, find a way to counter the corrosion, the abrasiveness of the impurities in the oils...maybe better filtration at the input points to keep out the water and sediments and maybe build a refinery or two along the way for domestic production in the central US.

Why let others do the work and make the money when you can do it yourself right here at home?

People are working on this and I agree to the extent of your comment that we need the jobs. A little research will solve the problems of transporting it.
10-23-2012, 19:59
Rucker61

Quote:

Originally Posted by bogie

People are working on this and I agree to the extent of your comment that we need the jobs. A little research will solve the problems of transporting it.

Let's hope so, as the industry hasn't done too well so far with all of the dilbit currently piped. Google "dilbit enbridge" and see why folks^W tin-hat liberals aren't too keen about trusting pipelines full of dilbit running across aquifers.
10-23-2012, 21:03
Rucker61

Then again, we may not need Canuckistanian oil:

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/...S.US.Oil.Boom/
10-23-2012, 21:16
ChunkyMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rucker61

Then again, we may not need Canuckistanian oil:

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/...S.US.Oil.Boom/

Yeah, the US will produce 19 million barrel per day. [Stooge] We will be a net importer for long time, and as long as we are importing, who would be a better business partner than Canada or Mexico? You are supposed to be good at math, mr. accountant [Beer]
10-23-2012, 21:24
MrPrena

^
Is he an accountant? I tought he was a securities/ financial analyst.
:)
10-23-2012, 21:26
ChunkyMonkey

That was my speculation... he talks like my lil bro who is a partner CPA for a major firm but has his head up his butt. [ROFL1]
10-23-2012, 21:39
MrPrena

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey

That was my speculation... he talks like my lil bro who is a partner CPA for a major firm but has his head up his butt. [ROFL1]

Well, we can always ask.

He said he work for a financial firm, so I assume he was an analyst. Hehe

Rucker, which area of speciality do you work at ( if we may ask).
Thanks in advance.
10-23-2012, 21:42
Rucker61

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey

Yeah, the US will produce 19 million barrel per day. [Stooge] We will be a net importer for long time, and as long as we are importing, who would be a better business partner than Canada or Mexico? You are supposed to be good at math, mr. accountant [Beer]

Good point, and it's all based on the price of oil. It has to stay above $75 a barrel, apparently, to make US oil drilling economically feasible. Once it falls below that, cheap Mideast oil is our best bet. What's better for America, producing more of the imports we need at $75+ with the resulting higher gas prices but higher employment, or importing cheap oil with cheaper gas but producing less ourselves with loss of oil industry jobs?

Also, is anyone still willing to have a dilbit pipeline run across their back yard now?
10-23-2012, 21:44
Rucker61

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPrena

Well, we can always ask.

He said he work for a financial firm, so I assume he was an analyst. Hehe

Rucker, which area of speciality do you work at ( if we may ask).
Thanks in advance.

I never said I worked for a financial firm, or in that industry. My education is in math, accounting, operations management and combat engineering. I work in high tech supply chain.

Still, interesting that we could be the world's largest oil producer, neh? Whodathunk?
10-23-2012, 21:48
ChunkyMonkey

Very good news indeed.
10-23-2012, 21:50
MrPrena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rucker61

I never said I worked for a financial firm, or in that industry. My education is in math, accounting, operations management and combat engineering. I work in high tech supply chain.

Still, interesting that we could be the world's largest oil producer, neh? Whodathunk?

I must have confused with other forum member.
Give you a prop for studying math-math.

So many people out there in the financial firm thiking they studies math, but they actually studied business math. Business math almost never even uses highschool calc.
10-23-2012, 21:52
Great-Kazoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rucker61

Good point, and it's all based on the price of oil. It has to stay above $75 a barrel, apparently, to make US oil drilling economically feasible. Once it falls below that, cheap Mideast oil is our best bet. What's better for America, producing more of the imports we need at $75+ with the resulting higher gas prices but higher employment, or importing cheap oil with cheaper gas but producing less ourselves with loss of oil industry jobs?

Also, is anyone still willing to have a dilbit pipeline run across their back yard now?

If the jobs guarantee and lower fuel cost at the pump were there, then yes.
Environmentally we have been hosed for years, why not recoup it economically?

O's policies would increase regulation to the point that US companies would not shut, but slow down to the point they were just covering their nut.

One thing we seem to forget in the back & forth regarding O & R is this. No matter who is in office, with out congressional backing, their ideas / policies will never see the light of day.
O has bitched about his in ability to get anything down, when those of use who can remember (sometimes) more than the last week, know he had full democratic backing the 1st two years in office.

My biggest concern, as i have read others here, is O's ability, If re-elected, to nominate 1 possibly 2 SCOTUS judges.
Combine that with his distaste for America and blatant ass kissing of Islamist etc have us treading water in the shitter.
10-23-2012, 21:57
Fmedges

I am concerned with the possibility of the military budget getting smaller. I joined during the Clinton cuts area and got out in the 3rd year of the war. I can tell you that a military that has no money is a dangerous place. The Marines have the smallest budget of all the services and my unit just like many could not afford much. Before the war when we trained in MOUNT town we had to yell bang because we couldn't afford blanks. Our training Ops were cut short because we would always run out of fuel. Our rag top humvees would break down constantly. My gas mask was broken and my NBC suit had holes in it (I deployed with this BTW). My Unit was not issued SAPI plates for our deployment. Our NVG's were very scarce. Most of the time we did our night blackout driving without them. I can tell you from all these experiences that a military that does not have adequate funding is a dangerous place for the war fighter and it should be avoided at all cost.
10-23-2012, 23:16
Rucker61

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPrena

I must have confused with other forum member.
Give you a prop for studying math-math.

So many people out there in the financial firm thiking they studies math, but they actually studied business math. Business math almost never even uses highschool calc.

Actually, the financial firms are heavily recruiting the hard sciences, especially math and CS. It's kind of sad.
10-23-2012, 23:18
Rucker61

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fmedges

I am concerned with the possibility of the military budget getting smaller. I joined during the Clinton cuts area and got out in the 3rd year of the war. I can tell you that a military that has no money is a dangerous place. The Marines have the smallest budget of all the services and my unit just like many could not afford much. Before the war when we trained in MOUNT town we had to yell bang because we couldn't afford blanks. Our training Ops were cut short because we would always run out of fuel. Our rag top humvees would break down constantly. My gas mask was broken and my NBC suit had holes in it (I deployed with this BTW). My Unit was not issued SAPI plates for our deployment. Our NVG's were very scarce. Most of the time we did our night blackout driving without them. I can tell you from all these experiences that a military that does not have adequate funding is a dangerous place for the war fighter and it should be avoided at all cost.

The problem with the Marines is that they are funded by the Navy. The Corps is way down their list of funding priorities, and always have been. It's too bad. You guys would get more stuff under the auspices of the Army.
10-23-2012, 23:22
Rucker61

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim

If the jobs guarantee and lower fuel cost at the pump were there, then yes.
Environmentally we have been hosed for years, why not recoup it economically?

O's policies would increase regulation to the point that US companies would not shut, but slow down to the point they were just covering their nut.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

Quote:

One thing we seem to forget in the back & forth regarding O & R is this. No matter who is in office, with out congressional backing, their ideas / policies will never see the light of day.
O has bitched about his in ability to get anything down, when those of use who can remember (sometimes) more than the last week, know he had full democratic backing the 1st two years in office.

The Democrats enjoyed a filibuster free Senate for just over 5 months in Obama's current term, in two different time periods.
10-23-2012, 23:29
MrPrena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rucker61

Actually, the financial firms are heavily recruiting the hard sciences, especially math and CS. It's kind of sad.

Very true, because even a phd econ or cfa guys have hard time solving basic equations like basic second order ode, linear alg problem.
If they ran multiple random samples to calculate lapasche or other index, they would have hard time.

This is why even a good fund managers can't even beat s&p500 and other ETFs listed in the market. Not to mention huge ass loads funds have on top of it.

Also they are looking to recruit econ and finance heavy guys who had a career inside the sector that they will cover.
10-24-2012, 07:52
mevshooter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rucker61

The problem with the Marines is that they are funded by the Navy. The Corps is way down their list of funding priorities, and always have been. It's too bad. You guys would get more stuff under the auspices of the Army.

My dad has been in the Army basically since he was out of high school and said something similar to me. When weighing the goals and responsibilities of what the army does vs. the navy it seems to make more sense that the Marines should be under the Army's network rather than the Navy's.
10-24-2012, 08:35
Fmedges

Quote:

Originally Posted by mevshooter

My dad has been in the Army basically since he was out of high school and said something similar to me. When weighing the goals and responsibilities of what the army does vs. the navy it seems to make more sense that the Marines should be under the Army's network rather than the Navy's.

Never

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page