Biden suspends oil and gas drilling on Federal Lands for 60 days for review.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

37 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

No. My point was straigth forward - @Roch googles someone he disagrees with. Yet, he hides behind a screen name so he cannot be googled. No opinion on different views just sayin walk the talk. 

Just because you may agree with him doesn't mean that he has rigth to infringe on peoples privacy. 

Oh, hogwash.  Googling someone is not infringing on someone's privacy.  If anyone thinks they have privacy while doing just about anything online, they are nuts.

I'm with you, as are many others, that we like to know who we're talking to.  But that is an individual choice; it is not yours or mine to demand.  In this case, if Vivian doesn't want others to easily know who she(?) is, she(?) can use any username she(?) wants.  Again, personal choice.

Did you take offense or did Vivian?  Did Vivian send you a PM and ask you to go defend her(?).  I seriously doubt it.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

1 minute ago, Dan Warnick said:

Did you take offense or did Vivian?  Did Vivian send you a PM and ask you to go defend her(?).  I seriously doubt it.

I guess I took it upon myself to comment on something that I felt was unfair. But my grander point was that you walk the talk - if you research people you should submit yourself to similar... if not you are a hypocrite. I guess I am old fashioned in that way.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Just now, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I guess I took it upon myself to comment on something that I felt was unfair. But my grander point was that you walk the talk - if you research people you should submit yourself to similar... if not you are a hypocrite. I guess I am old fashioned in that way.

Well, it is a problem in our society right now that people only need to feel something is unfair to other people, and they pick up their cause without consultation with those people first.  That can actually damage someone's cause more than help.

If someone comes to you and asks for assistance, by all means do what you can.  Most people would.  And most people would respond well if a person says something like "Hey guys, so and so sent me a message and told me they felt uncomfortable/bullied/discriminated against/pick-your-malady.  Please respect their feelings/wishes, and back off a bit, okay?"   No problem.

Otherwise it is called projection and you are displaying yourself as nothing more than a meddler in other people's business.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

46 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Well, it is a problem in our society right now that people only need to feel something is unfair to other people, and they pick up their cause without consultation with those people first.  That can actually damage someone's cause more than help.

If someone comes to you and asks for assistance, by all means do what you can.  Most people would.  And most people would respond well if a person says something like "Hey guys, so and so sent me a message and told me they felt uncomfortable/bullied/discriminated against/pick-your-malady.  Please respect their feelings/wishes, and back off a bit, okay?"   No problem.

Otherwise it is called projection and you are displaying yourself as nothing more than a meddler in other people's business.

Fair point. Really. And to an extent I stand corrected. 

I do also feel that it needs to be said that communication on the internet is tricky. And certainly googling somebody and joking about it is not the most civil of behaviour. And whilst it may not be a violation of anything other than my sensitivities then I still think that you should subject others to what you do want to be subjected to yourself. Very simple. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Why don't you declare you who you are so people can google you? Hiding behind a screen name and then googling others. Coward!!!

@Selva - I don't know if this is a personal attack, but if it is I stand by it. 

@Jan van Eck

@Gerry Maddoux

@Rob Plant

@Dan Warnick

and all other reasonable people here - pls speak up against this kind of cowardnes

Nah, bet you a box of doughnuts that that is Vivian Fulk's next-door neighbor,  just borrowing her identity to hide in plain sight on the Forum. Considering just how violent American politics has been getting, probably not such a dumb idea, either! 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I do also feel that it needs to be said that communication on the internet is tricky. And certainly googling somebody and joking about it is not the most civil of behaviour. And whilst it may not be a violation of anything other than my sensitivities then I still think that you should subject others to what you do want to be subjected to yourself. Very simple. 

There are at least 187 people named Jan van Eck in the United States, and apparently some 60 of them live in Michigan.  Disclaimer: I have never lived in Michigan!    There are apparently another hundred or 200 in Canada.  Plus twelve pages of the Amsterdam telephone directory,  Either my ancestors eschewed birth control, or someone was cloned back in 855 A.D. by the Viking invaders, or they all got dropped down from some alien spaceship.  Or, as Inspector Louis Renault said in Casablanca:  "Colonel Strasser has been shot!  Round up the usual suspects!"

[The point is that "Googling" people is stupid; far  too many loose ends out there.]

[Roch + 537]

14 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

No. My point was straigth forward - @Roch googles someone he disagrees with. Yet, he hides behind a screen name so he cannot be googled. No opinion on different views just sayin walk the talk. 

Biden just signed his 48th Executive Order yesterday.

It bans calling the Chinese Virus .  .  .  the Chinese Virus.

It also bans using the term dementia when describing him , Joe Biden.

Joe Biden's 49th Executive Order is rumored to be a 60 day PAUSE of the U.S. Constitution First Amendment , which includes Free Speech , and name a panel headed by Brennan, Comey and Schiff to recommend changes.  Any man or women in Congress that objects will be banned by Google, YouTube, Twitter, Amazon, Facebook and PornHub.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Roch

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

14 minutes ago, Roch said:

Biden just signed his 48th Executive Order yesterday.

It bans calling the Chinese Virus .  .  .  the Chinese Virus.

It also bans using the term dementia when describing him , Joe Biden.

what do you mean to say with that? 

[Selva + 252]

Gentlemen, 

This is completely unnecessary. Googling people is unnecessary as well as presenting information about other people that are very possibly wrong. Can we now leave Vivian alone and continue the discussion on topic. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

21 hours ago, ronwagn said:

All the more reason it is stupid to stop or discourage pipelines. 

Not really.  It all depends on the type of pipeline, the terrain it will lie in, the diameter, the anticipated temperature of the product, and the type of product being moved. 

Let's confine ourselves to crude oil for the moment, and exclude refined product and gas.

The oil will flow in what engineers call "laminar flow."  That is as contrasted with "turbulent flow."  In "Laminar," the oil immediately attached to the pipe wall does not even move; it remains in place forever.  The next layers will move in shear to each other, with the fastest flow at the pipe center.  The speed of flow will depend on the diameter of the pipe (larger pipe will have a faster flowing core), the pressure placed on the entry point to the pipe, the temperature of the oil (and thus also its viscosity), and the outside temperature. 

So the flow rate through that pipe is not going to be the cross section of the pipe times the speed of flow at the core; it will be less, a lot less.  If the oil is "heavy," or viscous, then it has to be quite hot going in or it will not flow at all (hence, diluents are added, at some expense).  That pipe is going to be expensive to lay; you have to dig a deep trench, lay a support bed down there for the pipe; get expert welders on site; install pump stations, probably install heaters, lots of problems. 

If you build a simple railroad track, it goes on the surface, put down the gravel ballast, lay the ties and rail, and bingo, instant train.  Your railcars can take the product raw, and move it in a virtual pipe some ten feet in diameter at 60 miles per hour, and most importantly, the entire cross section of the virtual pipe is moving at that same quite high speed!   So you can move a lot of oil, move it fast, no digging, and you can move it cold, so if the train derails and a tanker splits, the oil will be thick as molasses and not make a big contaminated mess. 

And then if you don't need it for crude oil any more, that railroad track can be used to move something else, including passenger trains.  Try putting people inside an oil pipeline to send them to Louisiana - how much can you charge for that ticket?

Now let's take a look at the situation in Canada, with their oilsands heavy crude.  Yes, you could move it by pipe, by adding diluent (lots of it) and adding big pump stations, and keeping the product hot. But you can also ship it by rail, either in cold tankcars, or even in open hopper or gondola cars as solidified product, even in cardboard gaylords put inside boxcars (as a solid material).  The Canadian National RR has already developed that technology.  The reason this is important is that if you want to go ship crude from Alberta to the Irving refinery in New Brunswick, you either ship by pipe via the USA (and that line is getting shut down for safety concerns), or you dig a new pipeline through two thousand miles of pre-Cambrian rock, at gigantic expense, or you use railway track.   Now, if you are Justin Trudeau you can vote for the pipe and tangle with the Indigenous tribes, or you can ship vial rail track, as a sensible businessman.  Just watch: nobody is going to spend ten years blasting away at all that rock for some pipeline; ain't gonna happen.  Building a twin rail line is vastly faster and cheaper. 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Jan van Eck
typing error

[Rob Kramer + 696]

In other news oil is green in the AM lol. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

44 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

59 minutes ago, Roch said:

Biden just signed his 48th Executive Order yesterday.

It bans calling the Chinese Virus .  .  .  the Chinese Virus.

It also bans using the term dementia when describing him , Joe Biden.

what do you mean to say with that? 

He is being sarcastic, Rasmus.  It loses something in the translation to Danish!  [Don't take that literally; he is saying that what Biden is doing is absurd and nerve-wracking.  That is a statement of political opinion, not of Fact.]

[Roch + 537]

8 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really.  It all depends on the type of pipeline, the terrain it will lie in, the diameter, the anticipated temperature of the product, and the type of product being moved. 

Let's confine ourselves to crude oil for the moment, and exclude refined product and gas.

The oil will flow in what engineers call "laminar flow."  That is as contrasted with "turbulent flow."  In "Laminar," the oil immediately attached to the pipe wall does not even move; it remains in place forever.  The next layers will move in shear to each other, with the fastest flow at the pipe center.  The speed of flow will depend on the diameter of the pipe (larger pipe will have a faster flowing core), the pressure placed on the entry point to the pipe, the temperature of the oil (and thus also its viscosity), and the outside temperature. 

So the flow rate through that pipe is not going to be the cross section of the pipe times the speed of flow at the core; it will be less, a lot less.  If the oil is "heavy," or viscous, then it has to be quite hot going in or it will not flow at all (hence, diluents are added, at some expense).  That pipe is going to be expensive to lay; you have to dig a deep trench, lay a support bed down there for the pipe; get expert wenders on site; install pump stations, probably install heaters, lots of problems. 

If you build a simply railroad track, it goes on the surface, put down the gravel ballast, lay the ties and rail, and bingo, instant train.  Your railcars can take the product raw, and move it in a virtual pipe some ten feet in diameter at 60 miles per hour, and most importantly, the entire cross section of the virtual pipe is moving at that same quite high speed!   So you can move a lot of oil, move it fast, no digging, and you can move it cold, so if the train derails and a tanker splits, the oil will be thick as molasses and not make a big contaminated mess. 

And then if you don't need it for crude oil any more, that railroad track can be used to move something else, including passenger trains.  Try putting people inside an oil pipeline to send them to Louisiana - how lmuch can you charge for that ticket?

Now let's take a look at the situation in Canada, with their oilsands heavy crude.  Yes, you could move it by pipe, by adding diluent (lots of it) and adding big pump stations, and keeping the product hot. But you can also ship it by rail, either in cold tankcars, or even in open hopper or gondola cars as solidified product, even in cardboard gaylords put inside boxcars (as a solid material).  The Canadian National RR has already developed that technology.  The reason this is important is that if you want to go ship crude from Alberta to the Irving refinery in New Brunswick, you either ship by pipe via the USA (and that line is getting shut down for safety concerns), or you dig a new pipeline through two thousand miles of pre-Cambrian rock, at gigantic expense, or you use railway track.   Now, if you are Justin Trudeau you can vote for the pipe and tangle with the Indigenous tribes, or you can ship vial rail track, as a sensible businessman.  Just watch: nobody is going to spend ten years blasting away at all that rock for some pipeline; ain't gonna happen.  Building a twin rail line is vastly faster and cheaper. 

New Brunswick receives it's oil by sea. 

Canada has oil with different APIs.  Their problem has to do with shipping bitumen a thick tar like substance.  This accounts for the vast majority of what they claim as reserves and their export to the U.S. 

Yes, they have developed a process to clean and pelletize bitumen.  Prohibitively expensive.

You can ship via rail by adding extra diluent, building railcars with steam coil heaters and stir wheels.  Very very very expensive . Plus it doesn't work very well. It's an operational nightmare.  System failures are frequent and you end up with a 550 bbl hockey puck and a worthless railcar.

Pipeline works best.  The avg Dilbit has around 30% diluent.  It depends .  All bitumen is not the same.  Depends on where in Alberta you mine it from.  The key to shipment is constant movement and more importantly the high pressure. The higher the pressure the higher the temperature.  Basic physics.  

There are problems with pipeline shipping.  When the Dilbit gets over 150° F the oil becomes very corrosive.  Also, in the past a pipeline leak can fool operators.  The Kalamazoo River, MI and the Arkansas spills were caused as a result. Small leaks caused a drop in pressure. So the operator in the pump station increased the pressure which dropped the pressure more, so on , so on. The Kalamazoo spill occurred on a farms remote field.  It wasn't discovered for days.  The farmer made the rounds and discovered an oil geyser shooting 100 feet into the air.  The Dilbit  flowed into the river the diluent evaporated (respiratory problems) and the bitumen sank to the bottom of the river.  Cost over $100 million to clean up.  

Also, diluent and bitumen has a tendency to separate creating gas bubbles.  Some of these gases are toxic.  The gas bubbles can also decrease pressure which causes operational issues.  

Trying to ship Dilbit by rail to the U.S. or by tanker to China is a non-starter.  Doesn't work.  

Getting approval for Keystone XL at this point will never happen.  Its a shame.

The Trans-mountain pipeline will help a little , but not nearly enough. 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Roch

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Roch, you seem to have good knowledge of the bitumen, so maybe you could answer a question that I've harbored for years. 

First, here is what little I know about it. The Bakken Basin (in which I am very interested) extends into Alberta, where they used to call it the Exshaw, after the predominant source rock. As far as I know, it contains mainly the same light sweet oil that is found in the Bakken. If so, there is no better diluent than a light oil that would mix well enough with the long-chain asphaltenes in the bitumen to result in low shear-stress flow (using the same LaPlace formula that was worked out for flow in a human capillary). That would eliminate the air-bubble/toxicity problem that you alluded to. The light sweet could have been (at one time) readily piped to the origination of bitumen. Additionally, the high sulfur of the bitumen could have been reduced to fit the refinery.  

That ship has sailed, obviously, but this whole thing seems like a sad chapter in Canadian-U.S. energy cooperation. I am a fierce opponent of Saudi Arabia because of their repeated betrayal, and an equally fierce proponent of using neighboring Canada's bitumen in our refineries. As it stands, because of Mr. Biden's and Trudeau's stance, western Canadian oil is basically doomed. Instead, the U.S. will continue to import heavy sour from a country that is not only vulnerable but also given to sudden fits of betrayal and malice.

Why on earth wasn't this worked out when there was a chance to cooperate? I presume that it was because fracking would be involved. 

[Roch + 537]

7 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Roch, you seem to have good knowledge of the bitumen, so maybe you could answer a question that I've harbored for years. 

First, here is what little I know about it. The Bakken Basin (in which I am very interested) extends into Alberta, where they used to call it the Exshaw, after the predominant source rock. As far as I know, it contains mainly the same light sweet oil that is found in the Bakken. If so, there is no better diluent than a light oil that would mix well enough with the long-chain asphaltenes in the bitumen to result in low shear-stress flow (using the same LaPlace formula that was worked out for flow in a human capillary). That would eliminate the air-bubble/toxicity problem that you alluded to. The light sweet could have been (at one time) readily piped to the origination of bitumen. Additionally, the high sulfur of the bitumen could have been reduced to fit the refinery.  

That ship has sailed, obviously, but this whole thing seems like a sad chapter in Canadian-U.S. energy cooperation. I am a fierce opponent of Saudi Arabia because of their repeated betrayal, and an equally fierce proponent of using neighboring Canada's bitumen in our refineries. As it stands, because of Mr. Biden's and Trudeau's stance, western Canadian oil is basically doomed. Instead, the U.S. will continue to import heavy sour from a country that is not only vulnerable but also given to sudden fits of betrayal and malice.

Why on earth wasn't this worked out when there was a chance to cooperate? I presume that it was because fracking would be involved.

The Environment Organizations stopped the XL thru the courts and through Obama.

The XL was approved three times 1. Original (no opposition)  2.  Hillary Clinton. 3. Trump 

OPEC (aka Saudi Arabia ) squeezed U.S. producers and refiners 4X between 1970s - 1990s and the nationalized Venezuelan oil companies became more difficult to deal with.  

The International Oil COs flocked to Canada Tar Sands in the 2000s. They invested hundreds of $Billions . If you can believe it the Canadian government limited non-Canadian ownership to minority position (49%).  That eventually changed. 

Originally, the plan was to produce Syncrude and pipe to U.S.  They cleaned, diluted and refined the bitumen .  They were actually refining twice.  Refining the bitumen into syncrude to transport to U.S. , then the U.S. refineries processed again into product. It cost between $60- $70 to just make the syncrude  . Even with transport costs, at the time it was better than buying from OPEC.  

Then they discovered they could ship the diluted bitumen directly to Gulf and save big bucks.  Why refine twice ?  They started building the Keystone .  Because the pipeline traveled between two countries it was the State Department responsibility to approve. The original Keystone had little opposition from the Environmentalist and was approved during Bush Administration.

Condensate and Light crude was used as diluent.  At the beginning it came from the U.S.  There was a pipeline that took the condensate to Alberta.  I think it was called the Pony Express pipeline.  As the Bakken developed (both U.S. and  Canadian ) and the Oil Sands increased  production the Bakken shipped the condensate by rail to the oil sands. 

The first leg of the Keystone , (Canada to Cushing) and Enbridge's pipelines to the U.S. Midwest/Cd Ontario worked fine.  The leg from Cushing to the Gulf Coast started construction during Obama's first term. Obama actually attended the ceremony  to start the construction.  Midstream companies  then reversed  a Gulf to Cushing pipeline providing more capacity for dilbit going south.

The Oil Sands needed more capacity out of Canada to grow exports to a planned 5mm to 6 mm bbls/day. There had been several pipeline spill accidents most notably the Kalamazoo River spill in Michigan. Keystone XL was challenged by the Environmentalist, held up in court  and now had to be reviewed again by Hillary's State Dept.   A consulting firm that did work for Big Oil hired some of Hillary's former employees. Then Hillary's State Dept  awarded that same consulting firm a contract to evaluate the safety of the XL pipeline.  Surprise, the consultant report determined the pipeline was safe.   Hillary approved the XL. However, Obama received pressure from some very large donors (Tom Steyer , etc) and reversed the decision. 

It's been back and forth like a pickle ball every since.  

Even with Trump's approval those opposing the XL with a little money and some good lawyers can delay it forever.  

They won.  I think it's safe to say it's dead. 

Chevron wants to get back into Venezuela and Mexico is supposedly going to bring their oil industry back. Hopefully we won't be as dependent on Saudis .

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Roch

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, Roch said:

New Brunswick receives it's oil by sea. 

All true (your post details), but not historically totally. The big refinery in NB is in St. John, and is owned by the Irving family conglomerate (along with pretty much the rest of the Province!).  Historically the refinery bought ME oil and brought that in by large tanker.  Then at one point it switched to Bakken oil from North Dakota and brought that in by unit train.  The CP then sub-contracted the shipments past the transfer in the Cote-Ste-Luc railyard in Montreal, to the Montreal Maine and Atlantic.  The MMA then had that disaster at Lac Megantic where 47 died and the fires of the wrecked train burned down half the town.  After that the Bakken was shipped by rail unit train via the CSX mainline to the Port of Albany, NY, where it was trans-loaded onto 60,000-ton tankers, then by sea via the Port of New York and the Atlantic up to the Gulf of Maine. 

All that has apparently now stopped and Irving is buying its oil from Nigeria, last I heard. 

Syncrude is not spending the cash to build an upgrader plant, for billions, to upgrade the bitumen oilsands oil to an API point where it can flow through a pipe or be transported via rail without all those heating coils.  They don't see the viability of return, and they may well be right.  Demand destruction is collapsing the ability of oilsands crude to be a competitive crude product anywhere, outside of Canada.  Thus, "if" Canada were to impose an import tariff or quota on finished oils and also a quota or total ban on crude import, "then" there would be an internal market for Syncrude oils to the East (and West) internally and the incentive would be there to build an Upgrader.  Without that political structure I see no hope for a new pipeline. 

Oilsands tar oil can be converted into a solid, the "hockey puck" form, and shipped as a bulk commodity in gondola cars without consideration of temperature issues.  The idea is to use a plastic pellet as the carrier.  At the destination end the idea is to separate the oil from the carrier pellets and return the pellets for another use cycle.  It seems sound enough; how that works out financially is another matter, although if the producer (Syncrude) is prepared to take a haircut on their product pricing then I should think it is viable. 

Can Syncrude build its own refinery platforms in Edmonton / Ft. McMurray and ship distillate to internal markets?  Only if those markets are protected from the Americans.  Will that happen?  It might. hard to tell. It is a volatile political atmosphere inside Canada, lots of different pressures on various governments. 

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Jan van Eck
corrected "quote" to "quota"

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Why on earth wasn't this worked out when there was a chance to cooperate? I presume that it was because fracking would be involved.

Price. The numbers did not work; the crude would have to take a haircut.  Expensive to operate a Syncrude plant up there in the (very cold) Winter. 

[JoMack + 549]

3 hours ago, Roch said:

Getting approval for Keystone XL at this point will never happen.  Its a shame.

 

The State Department said 48,000 jobs will be lost just from killing Keystone XL. John (I own my own private jet) Kerry, said "workers are feeding on a false narrative about jobs in oil and gas industry".  You know, all those millions of people need to "wake up"!!  Damnit!

Ted Cruz (Senator from Texas) was on last night with Maria Baritiromo on Fox News explaining how many blue collar jobs will be lost in the country if the Biden policies are implemented.  I called his office and said he needed to also include all the geologists, engineers, biologists, geophysicists, and other extraordinarily high paying jobs in the business.  Colorado School of Mines, Texas Tech, OU, UT, etc., educate and graduate thousands of these people who will do exactly what?   Put up a windmill, a solar panel, plus the billions the Fed are going to lose in royalties and taxes from federal wells.  Biden and his climate change cultists, which seems to include all the Democrats in Congress,  will destroy this country telling the oh so ill-informed, that "you are being fed a false narrative about energy".  So, when the wells deplete, the Paris Climate Accord emissions crush the refineries and the states revolt, I guess we won't have to worry about a hot war with China.

When the public realizes it can't travel or keep the lightson, perhaps they'll wake up, but like California, they'll blame PG&E and the oil and gas companies.  The unfortunate part of having almost 50% of the public approving of Biden's job says a lot and when they open their eyeballs it will be too late.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

45 minutes ago, JoMack said:

When the public realizes it can't travel or keep the lights on, perhaps they'll wake up, but like California, they'll blame PG&E and the oil and gas companies.  The unfortunate part of having almost 50% of the public approving of Biden's job says a lot and when they open their eyeballs it will be too late.

I think at that point the areas of the country that burn #2 heating oil for winter heat will be going back to coal. 

You would be surprised how much anthracite is still available in small mines (bandit mines, under the radar) in Appalachian coal country!  I predict coal will be the new outlaw, thus bootlegged, product of this century.   Probably disguised in bags labelled "salt," or "Potatoes," something like that. 

Another growth industry, brought to you by the bureaucrats in D.C. 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Jan van Eck
typing error

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 hours ago, Selva said:

Gentlemen, 

This is completely unnecessary. Googling people is unnecessary as well as presenting information about other people that are very possibly wrong. Can we now leave Vivian alone and continue the discussion on topic. 

While doxxing is bad, the screen name Vivian popped in, made a comment and was never heard from again even though multiple people including me replied. The joke was that it might well have been a bot. One "tell" for a bot is the time it takes to reply, if ever. The CPU intensity needed to parse the response and deliver a coherent reply is too great. This site doesn't need more bots. 

[surrept33 + 609]

18 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

ArmyAviator3 DAYS AGO

Texas is a unique state in that it was never a US Territory with a territorial government. Texas joined the Union in 1845, by TREATY. I have read that Treaty and see nothing there that states that Texas is bound to the Union in perpetuity! Yes, the Civil War pinned Texas back to the Union by BAYONETS, but that too has never been litigated and decided by the Courts. Texas v. White is simply a SCOTUS ruling in the 19th century and can be rendered invalid in future proceedings.

So, the "might makes right" crowd would tell us that the Civil War proves that a state cannot leave the Union is bogus, although convenient. The Bottom Line is that YES we can choose to leave the Union and pursue our rightful place among nations of the world. We have a RIGHT to self-determination, more so than any other state in the current Union.

Texas doesn't have any special rights. Keep in mind you are assuming:

Judiciary Act of 1789

The Marbury v. Madison case in 1803

There is a lot of things in the constitution that are very vague and were left ill-defined. Which is fine since for hundreds of years, it's given us the flexibility needed for the changing times. The Civil War rejected the "succession hypothesis" of any state.. It was would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Philippines or Cuba had become states, but the World War (s) put the stop to that. 

[El Nikko + 2,145]

8 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Oh, hogwash.  Googling someone is not infringing on someone's privacy.  If anyone thinks they have privacy while doing just about anything online, they are nuts.

I'm with you, as are many others, that we like to know who we're talking to.  But that is an individual choice; it is not yours or mine to demand.  In this case, if Vivian doesn't want others to easily know who she(?) is, she(?) can use any username she(?) wants.  Again, personal choice.

Did you take offense or did Vivian?  Did Vivian send you a PM and ask you to go defend her(?).  I seriously doubt it.

Sorry guys I am Vivian 

p.s Just kidding

p.p.s Or am I

p.p.p.s But I am just kidding 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

26 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

Texas doesn't have any special rights. Keep in mind you are assuming:

Actually, Texas does have special rights.  The place contains millions of people that are heavily armed and extremely dangerous.  Nobody, and I mean Nobody, has any appetite for going up against an infuriated collection of  gun-toting Texans yelling about the Alamo. If they want to secede, they will and not a peep out of anybody  [OK, maybe someone in Massachusetts, but that's about it....].  

I am perfectly serious about this post, not being ironic....

[JoMack + 549]

9 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Actually, Texas does have special rights.  The place contains millions of people that are heavily armed and extremely dangerous.  Nobody, and I mean Nobody, has any appetite for going up against an infuriated collection of  gun-toting Texans yelling about the Alamo. If they want to secede, they will and not a peep out of anybody  [OK, maybe someone in Massachusetts, but that's about it....].  

I am perfectly serious about this post, not being ironic....

This is priceless!  Plus, Texas is the No. 1 state in oil and gas production.  Put up borders around the state, no liberals allowed since they're getting way too many (ie Elon) and charge the rest of the states $200 bbl since almost all the refineries are in Texas. Can you imagine if Texas gets  hurricane winds from Biden into its sails and moves its ass out of the U.S?  YAHOO!

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

^

I think you're right. The way things are going in this country, there would be a mass migration to Texas if it pulled off a "Texit." 

There are some obvious problems: while not given to earthquakes, there have been some devastating hurricanes in Texas, requiring billions of aid. The good news is that Texas has billions at its disposal. No "federal taxes" would build up that emergency fund pretty fast. 

As to defense, well, it would be no time at all before Texas had its own military, nukes, and all the bells and whistles. Don't mess with Texas!

Additionally, it has the largest wind & solar network in the U.S., enough oil & gas to sell to the rest of the world, and now Tesla and Elon Musk saying just take the Red Pill. 😊

By far the longest stretch bordering Mexico is along the southern border of Texas, and they would complete the wall. The phrase good fences make good neighbors originated in Texas. 

And Texans probably own as many firearms as all the rest of the United States put together. They dearly love to shoot them off, too. When I was a kid, I was driving our old International truck through Texola. If you took your foot off the gas too suddenly, that giant old truck would backfire like crazy--sounded like a Gatling gun run by a dope addict. My father, a dry wit, said son for god's sake don't let the truck backfire, we'll be dead before we can make the city limits.  😂

Edited January 28, 2021 by Gerry Maddoux
correction