Posted on 09/20/2008 9:19:30 AM PDT by Polarik
To protect Hillary at the time, factcheck did a hit piece on HILLARY! UNCENSORED -— and they didn’t even watch the whole film. They watched the trailer. I answered with a 12-page reply. They deliberately misled readers by making false assumptions, leaving out important information, and lying. They are not to be trusted.
Wrong audience. Right.
Yeah! That's why you're spending so much time on this thread. /s LOLOL
If everyone has already grabbed the high-res images, then they have no reason to reduce the file sizes since the transmission rates (amount of bytes transmitted per session) has already declined. What's the big deal with carrying 15.6 MB of storage space?
FactCheck cannot continue to claim that they "have not altered the files in any way," even if you're going to argue now that a 200K file looks every bit as clear as a 1.7MB one. They altered the file, and they need to add a caveat to their story.
Why did they even bother posting the big ones in the first place? Bigger is better?
what's next? Are you now going to tell me that Obama's "Fight The Smears" website also reduced their file to 585 x 575 px from 2427 x 2369 px just to save bandwidth?
I don't know what that might be...but I have no interest in your life.
Thanks, but no thanks........
This is old news....now.
“If everyone has already grabbed the high-res images, then they have no reason to reduce the file sizes since the transmission rates (amount of bytes transmitted per session) has already declined. What’s the big deal with carrying 15.6 MB of storage space?”
They are probably still getting hundreds of thousands of hits a day on those pictures. The hot links alone would probably bankrupt some people. Trying to turn this into tinfoil hat stuff is just plain silly.
“I don’t know what that might be...but I have no interest in your life.”
Then why are you bothering me?
Hard to believe that "the smartest guy on FR"....can't figure that out.
ROFLOL!!!
“Hard to believe that “the smartest guy on FR”....can’t figure that out.”
I have difficultly coming down to the level required to understand some people.
I see that........
ROFLOL!!!
TheNewPundit has purposely misquoted me in Post #107. He deliberately edited out my statement regarding Obama’s background – as shown in brackets below.
“His supporters are blatant Marxists and terrorists. He’s funded by dirty dollars and willing socialists - soros, hayden - and self serving pawns - pelosi, reid, dean et al. His core beliefs are tainted - wright, alinsky, frank. [And his background is virtually unknown - schooling, friends/associates, annenberg, chicago politics, rezko, Freddie & Fannie, and BIRTH RECORDS.] He has been responsible for NO substantial legislation at either the state or federal level. His only defining votes are megapro abortion, ademantly anti-gun, and comprehensive socialist indoctrination via community organization, bribed youth corps, and unfunded universal health care.”
My full statement is post #48.
So Mr. TheNewPundit, you are a dishonest fraud. Guess ya didn’t think I would come back to this thread and check Huh?
Not old news but an update on the previous news how new technology is increasing the amount of oil available.
A couple of drillers working on this VAST reserve is emptying a lake with a teaspoon, so not that relevant.
Wow, what fun. I was actually pasting that so that I didn’t have to retype it. It was originally done so that I could tell you that I agreed with much of what you had to say.
I reposted it in that particular post to make a point of the things we should be discussing.
But due to the fact that you like many in here are hell bent on lying about Obama you paid no attention to what was so very obvious.
When you plagiarize and perform an unauthorized edit, you misrepresented my position to benefit your exclusionary argument. You purposely ignored the Obama vacuum that is the very subject of this blog topic and one that I happen to put on par with his other failures and questionable traits. Since you are all knowing, it is clear you did this on purpose. Your honor is tainted my friend
Well, there are some misconceptions and misstatements in that commentary on the Bakken to set straight. Here goes...
We have been drilling the Bakken for roughly 50 years, usually on the way to another producing formation (a layer of rock which can be mapped) deeper within the Williston Basin (a geological basin which covers parts of North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan, and smaller parts of Alberta, South Dakota, and Manitoba).
There are over a dozen different rock formations (mappable layers) which may produce oil in the Williston Basin, among dozens more formations which do not produce oil, forming a stratagraphic stack (think pancakes in a bowl) some 15,000 feet thick at the deepest part of the Basin.
The Bakken Formation is one of the layers about two thirds of the way down from the top of that stack, and it is a smaller 'pancake', in that it is only found in the subsurface, it does not outcrop along the edges.
The oil which formed from the organics trapped in the crust of that pancake, the shales, is now mostly in the porous layer in the middle, or has escaped along faults or fractures to other rock layers.
Since the 1980s, the ability to drill horizontal wells has become refined to the point where the Middle portion of the Bakken Formation (the porous layer) can be more widely economically produced using this technology. An increase in prices makes this economically feasible while the technology makes it technically possible.
In a few areas the Bakken already had produced oil from vertical wellbores, but it is a formation which is difficult to test in open hole (before running casing), and few would gamble on the expense to run pipe through it in a vertical well unless they were anticipating producing enough oil from a deeper formation to make a profit on the well. Often, the Bakken would not be produced as the deeper zones took precedence and the oils from formations of different geological ages are not comingled during production as a matter of practice (and by law).
With horizontal drilling, though, instead of producing from a few feet of wellbore running vertically through the formation, you can put a few thousand feet of wellbore through the zone horizontally, which allows for far more rapid and efficient recovery of the oil there, often the deciding factor in whether a well will pay for itself (not just how much oil you can get out of the well, but how fast you can get it).
No oil company ever gives up on finding a big play, not unless the auction was yesterday...
'Big oil', (the major companies whose reach is international in scope), commonly looks for very large plays where very large investments have very large returns.
If they can find fields which will produce on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil per day, it is much more cost-effective than hundreds of small fields which produce a few hundred to a few thousand barrels of oil per day, and that also justifies the sort of infrastructure investments which convert that crude, ultimately, to fuel and so much more.
Enter an alien concept to the American press: 'Small' oil. The 'little' oil companies out there looking for wells and fields which will make the sort of R.O.I. which will give them an opportunity to grow, and whose size makes such smaller plays a winner.
These are the companies often on the cutting edge, quietly investigating new ideas and rolling profits back into investment in acreage (leases) and more drilling to capture a larger share of their new finds as they grow before the word gets out, and they are always looking for new finds.
In the meantime, new technologies are often developed by service companies working with the 'Big' oil companies on major projects (often offshore) where the expense can be justified because of the scale of the returns if the effort is successful.
However, the real Bakken development (ongoing) did not take place at 16 dollars a barrel, it really did not get rolling until after oil hit $30-40, and then took off when oil got past $80. Keep in mind, too, that rig costs have gone up, as have fuel prices, and prices for services as well, so I'd say the sixteen dollar figure is off by a factor of 4 or more.
Keep in mind the Bakken oil is not 'shale oil', even though there is at least one shale layer associated with (probably the source of) the oil, but oil found in a tight conventional porus rock reservoir layer in the Bakken Formation.
Oil Shale, like the Mahogany Beds of the Green River Formation (CO, UT, WY) is another thing, and the extraction of that oil is more subject to environmentalists' objections because it is not so readily extracted from the relatively impermeable shale as is oil in conventional porous reservoirs, and most of the area is under Federal Land.
Work was done on the oil shales back in the last 'oil boom' in the late '70s and early '80s, and it is fairly safe to say that even with a green light from all concerned it would cost more than $16/bbl to extract as well, otherwise the Unocal project at Parachute, CO might have remained viable.
No arguments from me with the concept that we need to develop our own resources, but short of a deflationaly cycle, it will not be as cheap as it was, though changes in policy can help make it cheaper.
Even at a few dollars more, we are not funding our enemies while shelling out the expense in money, personnel, and materiel to maintain some semblance of order in a region halfway around the globe. Which is not to say we should not seek to stop terrorism, but that our dependence on foreign energy sources means we also pay an additional hidden premium on 'cheaper' foreign oil in tax dollars for their national security as part of our own.
My honor is never tainted. I replied with those words back to you, and you know exactly why I did so. I then explained that I had was doing a cut and paste for the purpose of explaining the point I was trying to make.
If you can’t deal with that, you have a serious self esteem issue.
SIDEBAR: Mind Boggling look at islamic iran’s official State Dinner for visiting Bolivian Prez. Pass this around.
http://farsiposts.blogspot.com/2008/09/official-islamic-iran-state-dinner-for.html
Poor guy. He could have been invited to a State dinner at the White House instead...maybe he will reconsider the company he keeps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.