They’re ruining our fun fellas.

[zemuron99]

So we’re much better off having supertankers for 2 million barrels of oil comings from all over the globe to fuel us And pay for their geopolitical unstability of the regions we pull from rather and pay for their geopolitical instability in the regions we pull from rather than pulling our own oil out of the ground… Your risk assessments are political talking points.

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.

I have a different opinion.
First, ANWR is the very definition of interference from man, and singularly the worst representation of man; government.

Drilling is not what posters of oil wells and spills picture, it’s far, far different from the perceptions in political pamphlets. There are entire industry subsets making their living out of ensuring spills don’t happen. Of course they’re not 100% successful, they’re human, but if it were anywhere near as bad as even the most conservative literature on most enviro-activist literature, you’d be awash in polluted products, food and water. You’re not.

Drilling can be done while minimally impacting wildlife.

See, really this is a lie. Because my family wants the opposite and even if we did want what you do, who are you to appoint yourself our spokesperson? You’re advocating this for YOU and ONLY YOU, and attempting to wrap yourself in the mantle of selflessness to give legitimacy to your assertion(s).


Perhaps. Perhaps it’s a less bad option than all or most of the others. Perhaps it’s somewhere in the middle. Regardless, the deliberate abandonment of sources of domestic fuel puts our country, way of life -including fuel prices at risk by forcing us to deal with regimes who don’t give a $H!T about the environment. Think OPEC and who are members of OPEC.


And I would counter that until we are 100% free of imported oil, we need more drilling ANWR.

Your first point is interesting and I'd like to explore it more. Where did you find the information to form your opinion about ANWR being a bad representation of man? I could do my own DuckDuckGo search, but I might not get the same information you did (search engine bias and all). If you can point me to your information source I'll have a look and see if it's persuasive or not, I'm keeping an open mind here. Your second point is more problematic. We are becoming awash in polluted water, food and products. Do a search on 'fracking contaminated groundwater'. There are lots of articles relating to increased groundwater contamination. (Not talking about the 'flaming faucet' water, those were pretty thoroughly debunked as staged). Of course you can find studies on both sides of this with their own biases, but it seems to weigh in favor of the risk of contamination being significant. You probably wouldn't want your family living in a area that drew it's drinking water from an underground supply that's been affectec. Your next point about industries being devoted to ensuring spills don't happen is also a bit problematic. I don't doubt that they exist, the question is will their equipment be used? Oil drilling is a profit-driven industry. Anything that increases the cost of production will be avoided, including safety equipment. Otherwise they'll have to either reduce profit (won't happen) or raise prices at the wholesale level (not likely to happen,, and isn't that what we're trying to avoid?). So...unless they're REQUIRED to use that safety equipment they're not going to do it out of their sense of altruism. Or are you...suggesting increased regulation of the industry to require that equipment be used IF they drill in ANWR?

Natural occurring oil seeps release thousands of barrels per day.
Oil seeps offshore Santa Barbara release 400 to 1,000 barrels per day.
Earthquake’s and volcanic eruptions release more crude oil and methane than we can even imagine !

So why add more risk to an already existing problem? No thank you.

 

[jnall]

 

[Braaaaptor]

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.

Stop spreading your truth and reasonable conclusions here! We're all just supposed to mouth breathe over here and chant how a non-existant pipeline could've saved us all and that appeasing Putin for the last 4 years was a totally great idea.

 

[WTX]

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.

Good points but partially true.

We need more refineries number one. We’ve needed more for years. Our refineries are set up for heavy crude, similar to what Saudi Arabia produces. Shale crude is sweet light crude that’s why we export it.

And drilling permits do not happen overnight. Those permits were filed and went through the process under trump and finalized under the new regime. Under trump it took 30-60 days to get a drilling permit, under Obama and Biden it is usually 180+ minimum. I drill wells for a living, I get it. More under Biden is political theatre as you would say.

This oil price is not good for anyone. But when the market is based off speculation and a weak president is in the office prices will sky rocket.

You’re correct there is a lot more than drill baby drill but we cannot simply sit back and hope other countries provide for us. The energy transition is a bunch of BS and will bankrupt this country before it does anything else.

This isn’t the topic for the “energy transition” BS. Total scam by the way.

 

[WTX]

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.

Your first point is interesting and I'd like to explore it more. Where did you find the information to form your opinion about ANWR being a bad representation of man? I could do my own DuckDuckGo search, but I might not get the same information you did (search engine bias and all). If you can point me to your information source I'll have a look and see if it's persuasive or not, I'm keeping an open mind here. Your second point is more problematic. We are becoming awash in polluted water, food and products. Do a search on 'fracking contaminated groundwater'. There are lots of articles relating to increased groundwater contamination. (Not talking about the 'flaming faucet' water, those were pretty thoroughly debunked as staged). Of course you can find studies on both sides of this with their own biases, but it seems to weigh in favor of the risk of contamination being significant. You probably wouldn't want your family living in a area that drew it's drinking water from an underground supply that's been affectec. Your next point about industries being devoted to ensuring spills don't happen is also a bit problematic. I don't doubt that they exist, the question is will their equipment be used? Oil drilling is a profit-driven industry. Anything that increases the cost of production will be avoided, including safety equipment. Otherwise they'll have to either reduce profit (won't happen) or raise prices at the wholesale level (not likely to happen,, and isn't that what we're trying to avoid?). So...unless they're REQUIRED to use that safety equipment they're not going to do it out of their sense of altruism. Or are you...suggesting increased regulation of the industry to require that equipment be used IF they drill in ANWR?

So why add more risk to an already existing problem? No thank you.

So many assumptions with little backbone. Incorrect sir.

 

[smurfslayer]

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?

I like what Gutfeld has to say about this kind of false dichotomy; “the prison of 2 ideas” and that the choice must be binary. We must either do one thing 100% or that thing 0 percent and another thing 100%.

Maybe I understand either wrongly, or differently but I thought we had infrastructure in place or close by to ANWR, but even if we don’t, it’s not that big of a deal. One of my brewing buddies does this for his full time job. 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?

Where did you find the information to form your opinion about ANWR being a bad representation of man?

So that’s a misquote. What I said was:
"First, ANWR is the very definition of interference from man, and singularly the worst representation of man; government."

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.

Your second point is more problematic. We are becoming awash in polluted water, food and products. Do a search on 'fracking contaminated groundwater'.

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

Your next point about industries being devoted to ensuring spills don't happen is also a bit problematic. I don't doubt that they exist, the question is will their equipment be used? Oil drilling is a profit-driven industry. Anything that increases the cost of production will be avoided, including safety equipment. Otherwise they'll have to either reduce profit (won't happen) or raise prices at the wholesale level (not likely to happen,, and isn't that what we're trying to avoid?). So...unless they're REQUIRED to use that safety equipment they're not going to do it out of their sense of altruism. Or are you...suggesting increased regulation of the industry to require that equipment be used IF they drill in ANWR?

Oil is a profit driven industry and getting sued definitely cuts into profits, whether or not the suit is successful. So even a relatively benign spill means there’s going to be a payout. 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 do get your point that some will cut corners and not follow procedures for best practices. These people / companies are the exception, not the rule.

Oil, crude, Texas Tea, black gold, whatever you want to call it isn’t the boogeyman.

 

[thatJeepguy]

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.

Found the lib shill. Absolute bS half truths. His first order of business ( after totally getting 81 gorriliion legitimate votes) was banning keystone then had his bLM sec freeze all new leases on fed land. Then after that you have a transport sec and energy sec so far left and anti oil to set the climate (no pun intended) to send a message to markets that the regime will be very much anti-petroleum exploration. This is what is driving the markets my friend. You can dance around it all you like. He knowingly banned Russian oil today because he knew what the impacts on market would be. Almost as if he has a son working for a Ukrainian gas company…hmm. Gassing up our Raptors are the least of our worries. Wait till you see the secondary and 3rd order effects of his lefty “green” energy agenda.

 

[GWBush]

I see what you’re getting at, but I think you missed the mark a bit, if what I think is happening: if Russia can’t sell its oil to Europe and slows its production down, the Russian oil value will drop unless it has other customers in line waiting to fill the gap. Now western oil prices we agree on, as the demand for more oil is present then the price of western oil is going to go up. I wouldn’t confuse the price of oil/gas with ev output, but I would compare it to government tax percentages, especially in states/provinces like California and British Columbia where up to 60% of the end product being gasoline is tax income for state/province coffers. So the higher gasoline prices, the more money for government spending, you know for all those roads they fix and new city buses or maybe it’s so they can send Billions offshore to their Swiss bank accounts, idk.

You had me at “I see..”

 

[zemuron99]

So many assumptions with little backbone. Incorrect sir.

Assumptions where? Supertankers...already exist. Ports for them....already exist. Pipelines to refineries from the ports...already exist. Refineries at the ends of the pipelines...already exist. None of this exists in ANWR. It would all have to be brought in from somewhere. Where's the assumptions?

 

[WTX]

Assumptions where? Supertankers...already exist. Ports for them....already exist. Pipelines to refineries from the ports...already exist. Refineries at the ends of the pipelines...already exist. None of this exists in ANWR. It would all have to be brought in from somewhere. Where's the assumptions?

The other 90% of your post you didn’t mention in this one.