They’re ruining our fun fellas.

[zemuron99]

They’ve become quite good bringing in people, equipment and necessities, doing the job, packing up and leaving. You ask why go to the trouble, and I counter with why not?


ANWR exists at the behest of government. it is, by its very existence interference from man. You can argue the merits of such interference and the nobility of purpose, but it is interference from man and as I said the most poor representation of the species. Government workers.

We are quoting past each other, and really just arguing. I disagree with your assertion.

Oil is a profit driven industry and getting sued definitely cuts into profits, whether or not the suit is successful. So, these safety companies make their money helping to ensure as many obvious issues that can be avoided, are avoided.
Altruism and profit align in this regard. While it may cost money to have the safety crews around and following their recommendations definitely cost money, it’s less money than even a minor accident.

I've respected your opinion on other topics, Slayer, and still do here though I don't completely agree with them. I'm going edit out some of your reply for brevity, but hope to preserve the points.

Yes, they may be good at bringing in people, equipment and supplies. Why not go through all the trouble? Unnecessary duplication, and spreading the risk over even more area. The trouble associated with dealing with an emergency should one arise during an arctic winter. If we can localize risk (aboard a tanker, at the port, in the pipeline, at the refinery), why not do so then localize the emergency response equipment/personnel in that same area? That's as opposed to spreading some of that risk to a more difficult to reach area, and having to stage more equipment/personnel there, or endure the time delay in getting them from wherever they are staged to the site of the incident. It's about efficiency and avoiding duplication. Plus, bringing everything up there is going to require trucks. Lots of trucks. Lots of fuel burning trucks. Increased fuel demand with an already finite supply is going to result in even higher fuel prices.

I get your point about ANWR existing at the behest of gov't. I still don't get how that's the most poor representation of or species-preserving unspoiled land in that state. I dunno, maybe we just agree to disagree on this one.

Yes, oil is a profit driven industry. Your points could be valid, so could this one: Similar to the decision Ford made in regards to the exploding Pinto gas tanks, any payout due to lawsuits would be less than costs to prevent or remedy the situation. This would include the up-front costs to install all the safety and monitoring equipment, staff it (monitoring it), repair and maintain it over it's lifetime, and replace it at the end of it's service life. If their calculations show this cost is less than any potential legal payouts, then unless it's required by the government, it won't happen. Then when (and I believe it's a 'when', not an 'if') the accident happens, natural land is irreperably damaged (they were still finding oil residue in 2001, 21 years after the Exxon Valdez spill. It lingers in the environment).

 

[zemuron99]

So many assumptions with little backbone. Incorrect sir.

Where are the assumptions you seem to see? Does fracking pollute SOME groundwater? Yes. Does SOME of that groundwater make it into municipal water supplies? yes. Does it pollute everyones' groundwater everywhere? I never said it did. These are not assumptions, they're facts you can verify on your own.

Insustries/suppliers being devoted to mitigating oil spill accidents? Not an assumption, another user mentioned that they are in business, so I took his word for it. It seems reasonable someone is trying to develop that technology, the question is will it be cost-effective to implement.

Oil drilling being a profit-driven industry. If it's not, then what is it?

Please point out specific ASSUMPTIONS I made. Your reply seems to be the one lacking any backbone.

 

[zemuron99]

This crowd ... fuhks beetches...

Y'know, this is so offensive, I almost didn't bother to reply, but I just have to. MFNG, I bet you're pretty proud of having put that comment in a public forum for all to see. Let's see how proud you are:

1. Take this to your wife. See how she feels now knowing you just think of her as a beetch. To fuhk.
2. Take this to your mom and dad. See how they feel knowing they raised a son who thinks like this and would make such a comment in a public forum. See how your mom feels knowing you think of her as nothing more than a beetch. To fuhk.
3. Imagine you have a, or think about your daughter. You're out in public, just far enough away that a young man comes up and doesn't realize she's your daughter, and says to you "Man, I'd sure like to bend that beetch over and fuhk her." You gonna give him a nod, a knowing smile, shake his hand and tell him to go for it...or you gonna go all Papa Bear on him? If it's the latter, why? If someone elses' daughter is beetch enough for you to fuhk, then why isn't your daughter beetch enough for someone else to fuhk? Remember, every beetch is someone elses' daughter, maybe their sister, maybe their mother.

So yeah, go ask those people how they feel and get back to me. I'll wait...

 

[Ruger]

The US in still a net exporter of crude. It has been since 2018 and will continue to be this year. (and the US has been the world leading exporter of refined petroleum products like gasoline for over a decade!). More importantly to your points, Biden has approved more drilling permits in his first year than Trump did in his first, second or third year. Not sure where you're getting this info, but it's wrong. So far, Biden in on track to approve FAR MORE oil permits than Trump.

I was talking about this in another thread...the idea that "with a stroke of a pen" we could "produce it ourselves more economically" is wrong. We *already* produce more than enough petroleum to meet domestic demand. However, it's not "our choice" (nor that simple). Until it is more profitable to refine US petroleum into gasoline and sell that refined product to domestic customers, nothing will change. It's more profitable to sell more crude and its refined products abroad. Until that changes, "drill, baby, drill" is just political theater.

Baloney. My source is Fox News broadcast for at least the past 3 weeks, multiple reports, multiple sources, etc. It is well corroborated and well supported. What's your source?

 

[WTX]

Where are the assumptions you seem to see? Does fracking pollute SOME groundwater? Yes. Does SOME of that groundwater make it into municipal water supplies? yes. Does it pollute everyones' groundwater everywhere? I never said it did. These are not assumptions, they're facts you can verify on your own.

Insustries/suppliers being devoted to mitigating oil spill accidents? Not an assumption, another user mentioned that they are in business, so I took his word for it. It seems reasonable someone is trying to develop that technology, the question is will it be cost-effective to implement.

Oil drilling being a profit-driven industry. If it's not, then what is it?

Please point out specific ASSUMPTIONS I made. Your reply seems to be the one lacking any backbone.

Frac’ing does not pollute ground water. The unfortunate thing is “frac’ing” is a loosely used term. The actual definition and execution of frac’ing doesn’t not get to the water table. Physically impossible. Feel free to dig up what you want. Frac is globally used term for the oil industry which is only a single step in the process of making an oil well. Many do not know, I listen to Stu Varney every morning sound like an idiot when he says “frackers.”

The oil industry does not want an oil release of any sort, bad PR and costly mess. We do all we can do mitigate this. And to be honest an oil release is 10x better than salt water. Oil is a mineral, a natural product, Mother Nature will heal herself with oil. While I’m not saying it’s ok, it’s not the worst thing ever. Come to my ranch I’ll show you were oil hit the ground and it will be greener than anywhere else in a matter of time. Again not condoning oil on the ground.

The oil industry is a commodity market, it has wild swings in prices. With big risks comes the opportunity for big rewards. Or big failures.

The petroleum industry has completely transformed the world. From food, manufacturing, usable energy. It will continue to be the most efficient form of energy in our lifetime.

 

[CoronaRaptor]

Holy, some tense moments, relax and have some popcorn folks, its just the internet.

 

[zemuron99]

Frac’ing does not pollute ground water. The unfortunate thing is “frac’ing” is a loosely used term. The actual definition and execution of frac’ing doesn’t not get to the water table. Physically impossible. Feel free to dig up what you want. Frac is globally used term for the oil industry which is only a single step in the process of making an oil well. Many do not know, I listen to Stu Varney every morning sound like an idiot when he says “frackers.”

The oil industry does not want an oil release of any sort, bad PR and costly mess. We do all we can do mitigate this. And to be honest an oil release is 10x better than salt water. Oil is a mineral, a natural product, Mother Nature will heal herself with oil. While I’m not saying it’s ok, it’s not the worst thing ever. Come to my ranch I’ll show you were oil hit the ground and it will be greener than anywhere else in a matter of time. Again not condoning oil on the ground.

The oil industry is a commodity market, it has wild swings in prices. With big risks comes the opportunity for big rewards. Or big failures.

The petroleum industry has completely transformed the world. From food, manufacturing, usable energy. It will continue to be the most efficient form of energy in our lifetime.

" “frac’ing” is a loosely used term" You could be (probably are) right here...I'm not in the industry so I don't have any first hand knowledge of how it affects water tables, nor if every use of 'frac'ing' is referring to the same process. I've only spent a little time reading about this, mostly when I heard about the 'flaming faucets' and found that to be total bunk. But there did seem to be valid evidence of water table contamination. I'd probably need more time/space then we have here to be educated that it's as physically impossible as you assert.

"Oil is a mineral, a natural product" Wrong. A mineral is a homogeneous inorganic solid substance having a definite chemical composition and characteristic crystalline structure, color, and hardness. Oil is an organic hydrocarbon. And just because something is found in nature doesn't make it harmless. Cobra venom is 'found in nature'. As is arsenic, strychnine, atropine (though we use it medicinally in a purified form), and botulinum toxin A, 0.03 ounces of which could kill millions. You're probably not sprinkling any of things on your steak. Point is, just because something is 'found in nature' doesn't make it harmless or good for us, nor for all of nature.

As you're a rancher, I do believe you when you say oil on the ground is not ok, and thank you for the food you produce. Believe it or not, I do realize the meat I buy every week from my grocer does not magically appear neatly packaged on their shelf. It has to be raised, sold, slaughtered, trucked around several times, cut into consumer-ready pieces, etc etc, and I'm grateful to EVERYONE who contributes to allowing me (obviously a city dweller) to simply go to my market and buy fresh high quality meats (and fruits and veggies for you ag's out there). A first world benefit.

I also agree petroleum is the most efficient form of stored energy currently available I'm not anti-petroleum. When recharging an e-vehicle is as easy and quick as filing our tanks, then they'll really become as accepted and practical as ICE vehicles are now. Think universally fitting battery packs, small cars take 1 pack, the Raptor-E takes 6 packs...the TRX-E takes the whole dam*n shelf-full...

 

[MFNG]

Y'know, this is so offensive, I almost didn't bother to reply, but I just have to. MFNG, I bet you're pretty proud of having put that comment in a public forum for all to see. Let's see how proud you are:

1. Take this to your wife. See how she feels now knowing you just think of her as a beetch. To fuhk.
2. Take this to your mom and dad. See how they feel knowing they raised a son who thinks like this and would make such a comment in a public forum. See how your mom feels knowing you think of her as nothing more than a beetch. To fuhk.
3. Imagine you have a, or think about your daughter. You're out in public, just far enough away that a young man comes up and doesn't realize she's your daughter, and says to you "Man, I'd sure like to bend that beetch over and fuhk her." You gonna give him a nod, a knowing smile, shake his hand and tell him to go for it...or you gonna go all Papa Bear on him? If it's the latter, why? If someone elses' daughter is beetch enough for you to fuhk, then why isn't your daughter beetch enough for someone else to fuhk? Remember, every beetch is someone elses' daughter, maybe their sister, maybe their mother.

So yeah, go ask those people how they feel and get back to me. I'll wait...

I read the first sentence and all I heard was WAAAAAHHHHH!

I was going to type something nice about getting along and working together, but then I decided to say *** that because I’m sure you would take my first and second amendments if you had the chance.

One Love!

 

[Frank N]

Dont worry about the environment guys, we wont be getting into ANWR in the current admin, we will have Venezuela and Iran to fill the gap from Russia, both very good stewards of the environment....and think how much those US dollars going over there will help those impoverished peoples....

 

[Frank N]

The calculus is whether it's better to use currently existing infrastructure (pipelines, ports, nearby refineries, existing supertankers) or create entirely new infrastructure to support drilling in ANWR. Which would include housing for the builders of the wells and pipelines and their necessary support needs. Roads to the drilling sites. Trucking all the supplies and equipment up there which will increase demand for the fuel for the trucks (Y'know that whole supply/demand thing). Why go through all that trouble/risk/expense? Yes, there's some validity to the point of 'if we consume it, we should bear the risk and cost of producing it', and if we were starting with these choices from square 1 I'd agree. But we're not. And let's not forget the conditions up there can be...brutal. The concern would be how quickly an emergency response could be put in place in the middle of an arctic winter. 'Cuz you know an emergency will happen eventually.

We would be using a lot of existing infrastructure, we are already in Prudhoe Bay...next door to ANWR. We are not starting at square one....far from it.

The risks for geopolitical consequences of enriching madmen are for more significant, and we are seeing that now and have for the last 30 years.