trump opens arctic refuge to drilling.

[Worgen]

Looks like trump has finally managed to approve a plan that will open an Arctic wildlife refuge (ANWR) in Alaska for oil drilling. It would open a patch of 1.5 million acres along the cost of Beaufort Sea to oil companies.

Interestingly it might end up not mattering as much as we would assume, it sounds like oil companies have already started pulling out of Alaska because of the high cost of drilling and shipping oil from remote areas, compared to the cheap wells of Texas. And Alaskan voters have already have a ballot referendum that would raise taxes on oil production, which could further hurt oil profitability. Or, at least it would slow down the amount of environmental damage that such oil exploration could cause in the area. But only time will tell if oil companies make a rush for grabbing this land and once they do, it will pretty much be theirs, to do what they will with it. But, even finding the money for it might prove difficult since banks, such as JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, have said they won'r give financing for drilling in these environments.

Oh well, not like we are worried about global warming anymore, we have way too many people here that are totally down with trump getting 4 more years to fuck things up.

Trump administration approves opening Arctic refuge for drilling

The official decision to open the Arctic wildlife refuge comes at a time when few in the industry are expected to take a risk on unexplored properties.

www.politico.com

 

[Gergar12]

Now if only those banks could do the same for other fossil fuels.

 

[Revnak]

Oh well, not like we are worried about global warming anymore, we have way too many people here that are totally down with trump getting 4 more years to fuck things up.

...you say after Democrats remove language about restricting fracking from their platform. And just how did the US go back to being a net exporter of oil by the way? What innovation allowed for that, and under whose watch did that occur?

Edit: I will add that I’m not a fan of the unlabeled axis on the graph or the fact it starts at 4000, but I do feel it accurately gets the point across regardless.
Edit2: Source below

U.S. Crude Oil Production - Historical Chart

Interactive historical chart showing the monthly level of U.S. crude oil production back to 1983 from the US Energy Information Adminstration (EIA). Values shown are in thousands of barrels produced per day.

www.macrotrends.net

 

[dreng3]

...you say after Democrats remove language about restricting fracking from their platform.

If the choice is between not restricting fracking and not restricting fracking, opening up an arctic refuge to drilling, and weakening the EPA further the decision seems obvious.

 

[Agema]

...you say after Democrats remove language about restricting fracking from their platform. And just how did the US go back to being a net exporter of oil by the way? What innovation allowed for that, and under whose watch did that occur?

My suspicion is that the it was reasoned that oil's day was finished, and so the economically most advantageous thing to do was to frantically drill out as much as they possibly could before renewables replaced it, rather than leave a valueless resource sitting in the ground. And fuck the environment.

Obviously, that also depended on technological advances that made a lot of this more economically viable, especially in the context of increased oil prices after the Iraq war. The break-even price of US oil is rather high in global terms, most of it around $45-60. Fracking was vital because that was the improved tech that allowed a lot of US oil to be brought into the viability range as10 years ago, the same oil might have been as much as twice as expensive to extract. Obviously, this innovation will have been outside the government's control, done by the private sector, unless we consider the tax breaks on R&D.

If there is continued shift away from oil as a fuel, it is likely the price will decline; without significantly more improvement in extraction efficiency, US oil will end up sitting in the ground anyway as cheaper producers meet demand.

 

[Hawki]

My suspicion is that the it was reasoned that oil's day was finished, and so the economically most advantageous thing to do was to frantically drill out as much as they possibly could before renewables replaced it, rather than leave a valueless resource sitting in the ground. And fuck the environment.

How does that work? If you know a resource is finished, then you don't spend time drilling for it.

Thing is, I'd love to believe that oil's time is done, but I'm skeptical. Even if oil is no longer used for transport, you'd still need it for plastics (unless there's a viable alternative for those as well). And for those who talk about peak oil, they've been going on for that for about 140 years.

 

[Silvanus]

...you say after Democrats remove language about restricting fracking from their platform. And just how did the US go back to being a net exporter of oil by the way? What innovation allowed for that, and under whose watch did that occur?

To be frank, the issue of fracking isn't as important as this. It's more to the point that the Democratic platform contains commitments to carbon neutrality & expanding public investment in clean energy.

 

[Agema]

How does that work? If you know a resource is finished, then you don't spend time drilling for it.

Thing is, I'd love to believe that oil's time is done, but I'm skeptical. Even if oil is no longer used for transport, you'd still need it for plastics (unless there's a viable alternative for those as well). And for those who talk about peak oil, they've been going on for that for about 140 years.

Okay, to be more clear, finished as a big money-maker in the near-ish future. If you've got 20-30 years to still make a ton of money, you might make hay whilst the sun still shines. As Worgen said in the OP, many of these areas being opened to exploitation may be pointless, because they'll never be economically worthwhile.

It'll vary by country, but well over half of oil use is transport. That's heading for heavy decline as we move towards electric vehicles. Power generation and heating is a substantial chunk, but that's facing decline too. Manufacturing - chemicals industry and stuff - I think, probably about 10-20%. This is much less of a concern in environmental terms, because the oil is not being burnt to belch out CO2 - although there are other related environmental concerns (e.g. microplastics). As you say, I suspect we'll still use be using oil to some extent for decades and centuries: but vastly less, and oil drilling will likely shrink to relatively few low-cost producers.

 

[Revnak]

To be frank, the issue of fracking isn't as important as this. It's more to the point that the Democratic platform contains commitments to carbon neutrality & expanding public investment in clean energy.

So did the Paris Accords. Remind me, what happened to US oil production after the Democrats made that commitment? Oh, right, WE SUDDENLY BECAME THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PRODUCER OF OIL IN THE WORLD.

If the choice is between not restricting fracking and not restricting fracking, opening up an arctic refuge to drilling, and weakening the EPA further the decision seems obvious.

See above if you have some faith the Dems won’t repeat themselves.

My suspicion is that the it was reasoned that oil's day was finished, and so the economically most advantageous thing to do was to frantically drill out as much as they possibly could before renewables replaced it, rather than leave a valueless resource sitting in the ground. And fuck the environment.

Obviously, that also depended on technological advances that made a lot of this more economically viable, especially in the context of increased oil prices after the Iraq war. The break-even price of US oil is rather high in global terms, most of it around $45-60. Fracking was vital because that was the improved tech that allowed a lot of US oil to be brought into the viability range as10 years ago, the same oil might have been as much as twice as expensive to extract. Obviously, this innovation will have been outside the government's control, done by the private sector, unless we consider the tax breaks on R&D.

If there is continued shift away from oil as a fuel, it is likely the price will decline; without significantly more improvement in extraction efficiency, US oil will end up sitting in the ground anyway as cheaper producers meet demand.

See, here’s a material argument with some history. Also tracks with how Exon has operated for decades. It also provides some measure of hope, and ultimately I do agree that simply decreasing the demand for oil will be sufficient to pull the US out and dramatically throw off the modern oil market (though there’s hardly much time to wait for this). That being said, you’re basically admitting that neither party matters when it comes to US policy on drilling.

 

[Silvanus]

So did the Paris Accords. Remind me, what happened to US oil production after the Democrats made that commitment? Oh, right, WE SUDDENLY BECAME THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PRODUCER OF OIL IN THE WORLD.

I know, I'm not trying to convince you that these commitments are reliable. Your original argument centred on the wording contained in the platform, so it's relevant to point out that it's relatively good on most counts, and that the particular example you cited isn't terribly important in the grand scheme of things.

 

[lil devils x]

Meanwhile...

Canada's Last Intact Ice Shelf Just Collapsed, Forming a Manhattan-Sized Iceberg

A massive chunk of Canada's last fully intact ice shelf, some 4,000 years old, has broken off, reducing the shelf by more than half, scientists reported last Sunday.

www.sciencealert.com

A massive chunk of Canada's last fully intact ice shelf, some 4,000 years old, has broken off, reducing the shelf by more than half, scientists reported last Sunday. After separating from the shelf, the piece split in two, forming an iceberg almost the size of Manhattan.

Greenland, Antarctica Melting Six Times Faster Than in the 1990s – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The two regions have lost 6.4 trillion tons of ice in three decades; unabated, this rate of melting could cause flooding that affects hundreds of millions of people by 2100.

climate.nasa.gov

As Greenland melts, something strange is happening to the ice sheet

What should be like a snowcone is becoming more like a popsicle, speeding up the runoff from the melting ice sheet.

www.nationalgeographic.com

So yea more fracking! That's the solution right?

 

[Agema]

See, here’s a material argument with some history. Also tracks with how Exon has operated for decades. It also provides some measure of hope, and ultimately I do agree that simply decreasing the demand for oil will be sufficient to pull the US out and dramatically throw off the modern oil market (though there’s hardly much time to wait for this). That being said, you’re basically admitting that neither party matters when it comes to US policy on drilling.

I am relatively relaxed about the boom in US production. Ultimately, it made little difference to the world's oil consumption and if not the US, would have come out of somewhere else. Although certainly, to some degree it sucked up investment dollars that could have gone somewhere else.

I don't so much think oil needs to be artificially restricted as greener alternatives should be incentivised and supported. Part of this is just the general benefit of progress - renewables are the future, and the faster we advance the better rather than slog away at a dead end. Part is for perception: if oil is artificially restricted, it gives credibility to the argument it is cheaper and better (if only the gubmint didn't intervene) and can be presented as hurting employment. So be relentlessly positive about renewables. Drive innovation for faster efficiency gains. Job creation and new industries and opportunities. Less pollution, cleaner air, keep your beachfront property from going underwater. Just leave oil to stew in its own juice.

 

[Revnak]

I am relatively relaxed about the boom in US production. Ultimately, it made little difference to the world's oil consumption and if not the US, would have come out of somewhere else. Although certainly, to some degree it sucked up investment dollars that could have gone somewhere else.

I don't so much think oil needs to be artificially restricted as greener alternatives should be incentivised and supported. Part of this is just the general benefit of progress - renewables are the future, and the faster we advance the better rather than slog away at a dead end. Part is for perception: if oil is artificially restricted, it gives credibility to the argument it is cheaper and better (if only the gubmint didn't intervene) and can be presented as hurting employment. So be relentlessly positive about renewables. Drive innovation for faster efficiency gains. Job creation and new industries and opportunities. Less pollution, cleaner air, keep your beachfront property from going underwater. Just leave oil to stew in its own juice.

Largely agree with this, but I do wonder if we have the time anymore. It also doesn’t help that currently the oil industry is heavily subsidized.

 

[Revnak]

I know, I'm not trying to convince you that these commitments are reliable. Your original argument centred on the wording contained in the platform, so it's relevant to point out that it's relatively good on most counts, and that the particular example you cited isn't terribly important in the grand scheme of things.

Fair, though I’d say the most important part of the argument was pointing out Obama oversaw such a rapid increase in oil production.

 

[Agema]

Fair, though I’d say the most important part of the argument was pointing out Obama oversaw such a rapid increase in oil production.

He didn't really "oversee" it though.

There were a load of places where the oil was known, the right to drill already existed, companies were ready to go, it became viable and they went. He could potentially have tried to block it (!!) but it's hard to see how, particularly in the middle of an economic slump where impeding development could have been incredibly politically damaging.

 

[Revnak]

He didn't really "oversee" it though.

There were a load of places where the oil was known, the right to drill already existed, companies were ready to go, it became viable and they went. He could potentially have tried to block it (!!) but it's hard to see how, particularly in the middle of an economic slump where impeding development could have been incredibly politically damaging.

Doing nothing to impede the deregulated spread of fracking and the subsidization of the oil industry while praising the importance of energy independence thereby giving a wink and a nod to this expansion certainly helped it occur. Obama considers it an important and valuable part of his legacy actually, so if you think he genuinely did nothing to cause it, take that up with him.

 

[Silvanus]

Doing nothing to impede the deregulated spread of fracking and the subsidization of the oil industry while praising the importance of energy independence thereby giving a wink and a nod to this expansion certainly helped it occur. Obama considers it an important and valuable part of his legacy actually, so if you think he genuinely did nothing to cause it, take that up with him.

Well, Obama did introduce several fracking regulations that then got struck down in the courts. Rep. Pocan also introduced a bill to ban fracking on federal land, which is still sitting in the House (Republican-controlled at the time of introduction, and until long after Obama left office).

My point isn't to say that these regulations would have been enough. They wouldn't, they didn't go nearly far enough. My point is to highlight that the POTUS doesn't have the power to just stop it if he wants to, when drilling rights have already been given long before.

 

[Buyetyen]

So did the Paris Accords. Remind me, what happened to US oil production after the Democrats made that commitment? Oh, right, WE SUDDENLY BECAME THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PRODUCER OF OIL IN THE WORLD.

I'm still unclear how you think that letting Trump get a second term is preferable.

 

[Revnak]

I'm still unclear how you think that letting Trump get a second term is preferable.

I don’t? I just don’t think it’d make a difference here and believe in holding Democrats to account. While I’d considered voting third party, at this point I’m going to vote for Biden.