% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Linn Energy, LLC Message Board

feets_dont_failme_now 2822 posts  |  Last Activity: Oct 15, 2015 6:33 AM Member since: Sep 3, 2002
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Bar jokes

    by blueflamedave Oct 14, 2015 4:45 AM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Oct 15, 2015 6:33 AM Flag

    A guy walks into a bar
    and says Ouch!

  • feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Oct 6, 2015 3:01 PM Flag

    I am not so sure that down 26 is as large as you think. Certainly drilling is down huge, but there has been a revolution in the design of rigs resulting in large efficiency gains. Think multiwell pads vs single well pads, walking rigs, fully automated rigs, etc. So when the industry was booming, pretty much every rig was working. The old and the new. As demand tailed off, the older less efficient rigs were the first to go. I don't have any hard numbers on this, and would appreciate any insights that others have, but somewhere in the mix raw rig count numbers need to be adjusted for the newer technology.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Obama's Arctic Trip

    by jj27713 Sep 2, 2015 11:47 AM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Sep 3, 2015 12:52 PM Flag

    Project Much?

  • Reply to

    CA cap and trade

    by jaketen2001 Mar 3, 2015 11:01 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Mar 4, 2015 12:35 AM Flag

    Seriously Jake:

    You are condoning paying the government money to control the weather?

  • Reply to

    CA cap and trade

    by jaketen2001 Mar 3, 2015 11:01 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Mar 4, 2015 12:34 AM Flag

    and in completely unrelated news:

    "...Average retail gas prices in the state have surged 25 cents a gallon in less than a week, from $2.98 per gallon for regular on Monday to $3.23 per gallon on Friday. That caps a run that saw the price of regular unleaded go up 60 cents per gallon since Jan. 30 as refineries prepare to shift to a summer blend of fuels.

    In some areas of Southern California, gas station owners were forced to pass price hikes of 24 cents per gallon along to consumers on Thursday after seeing wholesale prices shoot up. Prices in Northern California lagged a day, but by Friday were also rising; an independent operator with a chain of gas stations around the San Francisco Bay area boosted prices 20 cents a gallon for regular on Friday, to $3.19.

    The situation underscores the frustrating complexity of the gasoline market in California, where state environmental regulations mandate a specialized blend of fuel that isn't used anywhere else in the U.S.

    Because of that, California is economically isolated and can't easily or quickly purchase fuel from outside the state in a crisis..."

  • feets_dont_failme_now by feets_dont_failme_now Mar 2, 2015 9:39 AM Flag

    From Nature World News:
    “It’s no secret that solar power is hot right now, with innovators and big name companies alike putting a great deal of time, money, and effort into improving these amazing sources of renewable energy. Still, the last thing you’d likely expect is for a new experimental array to literally light nearly 130 birds in mid-flight on fire.

    And yet, that’s exactly what happened near Tonopah, Nevada last month during tests of the 110-megawatt Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project.”

    “According to Rudy Evenson, Deputy Chief of Communications for Nevada Bureau of Land Management (NBLM) in Reno, as reported by Re Wire, a third of the newly constructed plant was put into action on the morning of Jan. 14, redirecting concentrated solar energy to a point 1,200 feet above the ground.”

    “Unfortunately, about two hours into the test, engineers and biologists on site started noticing “streamers” – trails of smoke and steam caused by birds flying directly into the field of solar radiation. What moisture was on them instantly vaporized, and some instantly burst into flames – at least, until they began to frantically flap away. An estimated 130 birds were injured or killed during the test.”

    “Officials behind the project have refuted that claim, saying that most of the streamers are floating trash or wayward insects, but federal wildlife officials have begun calling these ‘eco-friendly’ power towers “mega traps” for wildlife.”

  • Reply to

    Klimate science pt1

    by feets_dont_failme_now Feb 26, 2015 1:51 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Feb 26, 2015 1:56 PM Flag

    The climatologists quickly called another conference to assure the public that all was well in hand. “The team’s suggestion of why the weatherman’s model is broken can’t possibly be right. Therefore the weatherman’s model must be a good one. Only science deniers can deny this.”

    The weatherman continued predicting hot air, but only cold air was to be seen. Some in the public grumbled louder. So the climatologists contacted the state authorities. The governor and state legislature were brought in, as were educational, union, and business leaders. All begin promoting the climatologists’ message that the weatherman was right and the weather wrong. The president of the United States eventually came to the rescue with an official list of Science Deniers. He said that those who love Science should “go after” the deniers.

    Which they did. And then everybody died of pneumonia.

  • feets_dont_failme_now by feets_dont_failme_now Feb 26, 2015 1:51 PM Flag

    Wm Briggs on his Blog:
    A very odd thing happened in Science. Turns out a famous weatherman has been forecasting highs in the 60s then 70s for New York City all winter long. But the temperature never rose above the single digits, teens, twenties, and thirties.

    One day a writer at the New York Post wrote an article telling people not to trust the weatherman, who, it turned out, had issued a prediction for the following day for a “High of 80!”

    Climatologists stationed at NASA on the Upper West Side were incensed that a non-scientist would interfere with Science. So the climatologists spoke with the weatherman, who said he was basing his predictions on a sophisticated computer model. The weatherman admitted his difficulties, but said his model would have performed great if only he had better measures of surface snow cover.

    This reasoning wholly convinced the climatologists who held a press conference at which they insisted, “Whoever disagrees with this weatherman is a science denier. The weatherman is using a sophisticated computer model, which can only get better since we have provided the weatherman with New & Improved! measures of surface snow cover.”

    Cowed, the press skittered away, went home and put on their shorts to await the promised warmth. But the next day the high was only 16oF. And for the next week it was bitterly cold, yet the weatherman went on predicting a heatwave. This raised eyebrows, but since nobody wanted to be called a denier, they didn’t insist the weatherman was wrong.

    The climatologists suspected, however, that something wasn’t quite right. So they called another meeting with the weatherman. He admitted he had incorporated the New & Improved! surface snow cover measurements, but that hadn’t helped much. And besides, there wasn’t anything wrong after all. The model was still great—better than great—but it was natural variability that was to blame for the wayward observations. “Nobody,” he said, “Can anticipate natural variability.”

  • Reply to

    sold should

    by jaketen2001 Feb 21, 2015 9:23 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Feb 22, 2015 6:01 PM Flag

    What about the doctoral degree in aerospace engineering?
    As opposed to a degree in mathmatics (Schmit) or Psychology (Lewandowsky) or being a self employed cartoonist (Cook)?

  • Reply to

    sold should

    by jaketen2001 Feb 21, 2015 9:23 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Feb 22, 2015 5:50 PM Flag

    Why is that a conflict of interest?

    Is it a conflict when Greenpeace takes money from the Koch brothers?
    Is it a conflict when CRU takes money from BP and Shell?

  • Reply to

    sold should

    by jaketen2001 Feb 21, 2015 9:23 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Feb 22, 2015 5:11 PM Flag

    You sound desperate stevo. Can't attack the science so attack the person? In the mean time sun activity is at a low and we are going on close to 19 years without a statistically relevant temperature trend increase. Hmmm maybe you ought to go actually read that paper. Or Svenmark's or Kravchinsky's or Miyahara's or...

  • Reply to

    sold should

    by jaketen2001 Feb 21, 2015 9:23 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Feb 22, 2015 4:57 PM Flag

    14. Green Energy Futures
    About Us
    Green Energy Futures is a multi-media storytelling project that is documenting the clean energy revolution that’s already underway. It tells the stories of green energy pioneers who are moving forward in their homes, businesses and communities.
    Gold Sponsor: Shell”

    15. World Resources Institute
    WRI engages businesses, policymakers, and civil society at the local, national, and international levels to advance transformative solutions that mitigate climate change and help communities adapt to its impacts.
    ACKNOWLEDGING OUR DONORS (January 1, 2011 – August 1, 2012 PDF 5MB
    …Shell and Shell Foundation…ConocoPhillips Company…”

    16. Purdue Solar
    Navitas Takes 1st at SEMA 2013
    Last week, Purdue Solar Racing took home first place in the Battery Electric division at the 2013 Shell Eco-marathon. The winning run reached an efficiency of 78.1 m/kWh (a miles per gallon equivalency of approximate 2,630MPGe)…”

    17. AGU Fall Meeting
    9-13 December 2013
    Thank You to Our Sponsors
    The AGU would like to take the time to thank all of our generous sponsors who support the
    2013 Fall Meeting and the events at the meeting.
    ExxonMobil…….BP, Chevron…..Mineralogical Society of America…”

    18. Science Museum – Atmosphere
    About our funders
    …exploring climate science gallery and the three-year Climate Changing… programme. Through these ground-breaking projects we invite all our visitors to deepen their understanding of the science behind our changing climate.
    We believe that working together with such a wide range of sectors is something that we’ll all need to be able to do in our climate-changing world….
    Principal Sponsors: Shell…Siemens…”

  • Reply to

    sold should

    by jaketen2001 Feb 21, 2015 9:23 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Feb 22, 2015 4:54 PM Flag

    1. Climate Research Unit (CRU)
    From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice concerning their exploration operations in the Arctic marginal seas. Working closely with BP’s Cold Regions Group, CRU staff developed a set of detailed sea-ice atlases,

    This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
    …British Petroleum…Greenpeace International…Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates…Sultanate of Oman…Shell……

    2. Sierra Club
    TIME – 2 February 2012
    Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry
    TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…”

    3. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
    [Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC]
    2011: Star Partner – Rockefeller Foundation
    2007: Partners – BP
    2006: Co-Associates – NTPC [coal and gas power generation] | Function Hosts – BP
    2005: Associate – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell

    4. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
    Berkeley Earth team members include: Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director……Steven Mosher, Scientist…
    Financial Support First Phase (2010)
    …Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
    Second Phase (2011)
    …The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
    Third Phase (2012)
    …The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…Anonymous Foundation ($250,000)…
    Fourth Phase (2013)
    …The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($100,000)…

  • Reply to

    sold should

    by jaketen2001 Feb 21, 2015 9:23 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Feb 22, 2015 4:42 PM Flag

    $400,000 you say?

    Here is what Big oil funds:

    200 Climate Campaign Groups All Funded by a Single Source: The Rockefeller Brothers
    July 9, 2013

    RBF has funded a wide range of organizations, including the Body Shop Foundation to …..

    Some of the grant descriptions are telling. For example,

    RBF funded the League of Conservation Voters for its work “with unions in the building trades to educate and engage them on global warming issues.”
    Breakthrough Technologies for its work with the insurance industry

    Here are links to organizations that the Rockefeller Brothers has funded as part of its campaign against Canadian energy and pipelines:

    Sustainable Markets Foundation
    1Sky Education Fund
    Corporate Ethics International
    Ceres Inc.

    Below, here are links to Rockefeller grantees that, over the past decade, have received more than $500,000 that was specifically ear-marked for climate change-related projects:

    American Council on Renewable Energy
    Architecture 2030 Inc.
    Better World Fund
    Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    Center for American Progress
    Center for Climate Strategies
    Clean Energy Group
    Climate Change Organization
    Earth Island Institute
    Georgetown Climate Center (Georgetown University)
    Local Governments for Sustainability
    National Environmental Trust
    National Wildlife Federation
    Natural Capitalism Solutions
    Public Interest Projects
    Resource Media
    Seventh Generation Advisors
    Smart Power Connecticut Inc.
    Stichting Triodos Renewable Energy for Development Fund – Netherlands
    World Resources Institute
    National Religious Partnership for the Environment

  • Reply to

    Even oil companies getting worried AGW

    by redshoe77 Feb 17, 2015 12:22 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Feb 19, 2015 6:22 PM Flag

    Just keep in mind redetermination that reality eventually rules the day. Even for folks such as yourself that are so obviously disconnected from it.

  • Reply to

    Even oil companies getting worried AGW

    by redshoe77 Feb 17, 2015 12:22 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Feb 17, 2015 3:47 PM Flag

    When placing a bet, the best horse to back is the one called ‘Self-interest’ – at least you know he is trying”.

    For example, Shell, with its massive gas interests, was caught campaigning against coal fired power, the main competitor of gas in electricity generation.

    Arab Oil interests were caught funding a film attacking their competitors – shale oil fracking in America.

    And a Russian oil company was exposed funding US anti-carbon green groups.

    The Chinese of course are great supporters of green energy as long as it is installed elsewhere – ie they supply the machines and solar panels and then welcome the factories forced from the host country by soaring electricity prices.

    Gas, nuclear and hydro power will be the greatest long term beneficiaries of the war on coal. Initially they will be needed to provide base load and back up for intermittent green power like wind and solar. Then as green subsidies are withdrawn to appease angry tax payers, the green play-toys will fail and grown-up generators will step easily into full time electricity production.

    Finally, the government bureaucracy and the research grants industry justify their existence by “solving community crises”. They love “The Climate Crisis” because it can be blamed for any weather event anytime, anywhere. It is unlikely to be solved, no matter how many dollars are thrown at it – a problem that does not exist can never be “solved”. And the sinister “Greenhouse Effect”, like any good ghost, is invisible, mysterious in operation, debatable, and allows anyone to produce their own scare story.

  • Reply to

    Global warming is a lie

    by redshoe77 Feb 11, 2015 7:12 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Feb 15, 2015 10:32 AM Flag

    On the other hand, everyone calls you an ignorant fool all of the time Redster.
    Now we have proof (as if we needed it).

  • Reply to

    Global warming is a lie

    by redshoe77 Feb 11, 2015 7:12 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Feb 14, 2015 1:06 PM Flag

    In other Yale news:

    It’s Too Cold To Protest Global Warming At Yale
    11:10 AM 02/13/2015

    Yale anti-fossil fuel campaigners have indefinitely postponed a protest that was set for this weekend due to “unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues.”

    Fossil Free Yale, a group pushing the university to divest itself from fossil fuels, told the Yale Daily News that frigid, snowy weather set for this weekend will mean their global warming protest will have to be postponed.

    FFY’s Mitch Barrow said that “unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues, including some cancellations from speakers and performance groups” would mean they would not be able to rally on Global Divestment Day — a day where environmental groups urge institutions like Yale to divest from fossil fuels, like coal, natural gas and oil...

  • Reply to

    Global warming is a lie

    by redshoe77 Feb 11, 2015 7:12 PM
    feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Feb 14, 2015 12:08 PM Flag

    Are global warming skeptics simply ignorant about climate science?

    Not so, says a forthcoming paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychology by Yale Professor Dan Kahan. He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions.

    The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.

    On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.

    One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.

    Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land.

  • feets_dont_failme_now feets_dont_failme_now Feb 11, 2015 7:04 PM Flag

    Today you just saw a company in the process of liquidation.

0.180.00(0.00%)May 23 3:59 PMEDT