Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Zan15]

But what about the 9000 new leases. It doesn't mean any are viable, but that is the response, 9000 new leases so it's the oil companies fault.

but what about the 600+ wells that are not producing right now?

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/e_e...xr0_nus_cm.htm


Who needs the new leases right now when they effectively shut down viable rigs because they were not making enough money?

How about the fact PRODUCTION was already on a sharp planned decrease because of the failed drill drill drill policy that drove hundreds of companies bankrupt?


2018 937 969 989 1,011 1,046 1,056 1,050 1,050 1,053 1,063 1,077 1,077

2019 1,065 1,048 1,023 1,013 986 970 955 926 878 848 810 804

2020 791 790 771 565 348 274 255 250 257 280 311 341

2021 374 397 408 436 453 464 483 501 508 538 569 579

2022 601


How about the fact that activity is up almost 90% under Biden after it caved under trump.

So why are we not back up to 1000+ yet? How are you going to blame Biden for this one?

[TexasRules]

So did they do it or not? Because you claimed they didn't...not they are...but they're doing so because they were forced to...it's hard to keep track of what kind of goal posts are even being moved anymore. It was a football goal but I think we've transitioned to lacrosse now since those goals are easier to move. They're a lot smaller.

I'm done with your idiocy. You quoted a section that said they were forced to do leases, then had a judge suspend those leases without the administration fighting back. So they got what they wanted and didn't sell any because their judge denied the sale. So you tell me in this idiotic rant, did they release leases if they had their judge stop the release? Your mental gymnastics and goalposts are just idiocy for trying to get around the truth...they didn't want them released and didn't fight a judge who blocked them. You can whine, ignore simple logic and do run arounds but the simple facts are easy to discern...IF YOU WANT TO. You don't want to. You want to whine and ask for links that are already here and ask for this and that and provide nothing. Much like you do in arguments, provide nothing.

At no point have you tried to engage in actual good faith debate. At no point have you linked me anything, but have demanded links. You have not tried in any sense to post intelligible arguments, jut talking points and your whines. You keep personally attacking me because you literally have nothing. That is the lowest point in any argument, personal attacks. That is all you do is personal attacks, you have nothing, you bring nothing, you make no sense trying to word salad everything.

[Zan15]

But what about the 9000 new leases. It doesn't mean any are viable, but that is the response, 9000 new leases so it's the oil companies fault.

It can also mean ALL OF THEM are viable.

[Poopymonster]

"new leases". Let me know when its 2035 and they get through the backlog on onshore leases they currently are sitting on. Also let me know when they get through the even bigger OFFSHORE leases they currently are sitting on.

Even the industry says they are doing more NOW than any time in the past 20 years. Odd you said restrictions were preventing them from operating on these leases huh? The industry leaders do not agree with you.

American Exploration & Production Council (AXPC) CEO Anne Bradbury told FOX Business."The fact is that industry is producing at a higher level on existing leases on federal lands than in the last 20 years and these leases take many years to explore, to develop and produce on," Bradbury added.


So more leases are not going to do a freaking thing right now or to anything short term.



Or maybe we could stop blaming the administration and start blaming the real folks behind the production lag/refusal to increase? The oil companies that are not going to fall into the drill drill drill baby trap again from the last administration where they did that and were left for dead/bankruptcy by the previous administration for being stupid enough to follow their plan

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...ressively.html

"Whether it's $150 oil, $200 oil, or $100 oil, we're not going to change our growth plans," Pioneer Natural Resources' chief executive Scott Sheffield told Bloomberg
Sheffield said on Pioneer's call, referring to production growth: "Long term, we're still in that 0% to 5%. It's going to vary. We're not going to change, as I said, at $100 oil, $150 oil, we're not going to change our growth rate. We think it's important to return cash back to the shareholders."

..Companies like Pioneer Natural Resources, Continental Resources, and Devon Energy are keeping discipline and plan to grow production by no more than 5 percent annually.



"Oil and gas companies do not want to drill more," said Pavel Molchanov, an analyst at Raymond James. "They are under pressure from the financial community to pay more dividends, to do more share buybacks instead of the proverbial 'drill baby drill,' which is the way they would have done things 10 years ago. Corporate strategy has fundamentally changed."


To that end, while companies like ExxonMobil (XOM), Chevron (CVX), Marathon (MRO) and Phillips 66 (PSX) expect to spend more on exploration and other capital spending in 2022, none of those companies expect to hit 2019 spending levels. And it will take time for them to turn that additional exploration spending into oil, Molchanov said.
"If someone starts drilling oil wells today, the increased supply might be 6 months, 12 months, even years away," he said.
When asked about production targets for 2022 during a January earnings call, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods responded, "The primary objectives we've had in looking at the portfolio is less about volume and volume targets and more about the quality and profitability of the barrels that we're producing."

BUT BUT BIDEN... BIDEN.. RIGHT GUYS!! GUYS?



Not to mention other factors limiting an increase in production, Right from the Oil companies mouths
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/08/oil-...s-oxy-ceo.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/02/energ...ion/index.html

several issues are stopping these companies from scaling up production.
Like many industries during the pandemic, oil producers are struggling with a shortage of workers. They're also having trouble sourcing some of the equipment they would need to ramp up production, including pipes and specialized sand used in fracking to extract shale oil.
"They can't find people, and can't find equipment," said Robert McNally, president of consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group. "It's not like they're available at a premium price. They're just not available."


UMM, biden....?

Stahp hating on the Job Creators! The Line must be appeased! The Div's must be idends! How will they pay their dividends while posting record profits if they have to help stop high prices, which directly boost the above, without devolving into SOCIALISM?

[Zan15]

Here's a question for all of you out there because you are supporters of Joe Biden, The administration has hampered domestic energy in the name climate control/change. Does the barrel of oil created in America have more of an impact on climate then the barrel of oil imported from Russia, Iran, or Venezuela?

actually location and type of oil being processed/imported has a huge impact difference from country to country.

Just like Canadian tar sands oil has a much larger impact on the environment than light crude from Saudi Arabia.
Fracking oil is going to be a much bigger impact on climate and the environment than regular drilled Venezuela oil. Venezuela oil is heaver grade so its a bigger impact than say SA light oil.


this is simple oil 101 stuff.

- - - Updated - - -

Stahp hating on the Job Creators! The Line must be appeased! The Div's must be idends! How will they pay their dividends while posting record profits if they have to help stop high prices, which directly boost the above, without devolving into SOCIALISM?

but but they want biden to do something about it.

So, Biden should nationalize all the oil companies and force production increases then say "well republicans told me to do something about it, so yah blame them."

[Shadowferal]

So, Biden should nationalize all the oil companies and force production increases then say "well republicans told me to do something about it, so yah blame them."

The moment that gets suggested in public is the moment OPEC quickly on board with..."reasonably priced" oil.

Although I should wonder if the Army Corps of Engineers might do an assessment of feasibility...

[Breccia]

But what about the 9000 new leases.

Oh dear, I seem to have missed you asking me a direct question, and I didn't see it in time to respond. Kind of like missing 50+ 24-hour challenges, except I had (checks timestamps) 20 minutes, and it was just the one. Well, in the spirit of good faith, I will answer your question.

The price of oil temporarily not withstanding, oil is a valuable commodity. Like 1848, you can't just point to a random-ass spot on the map and say "YEEEEEEE HAR I'ma diggin' right thar!" and swing away with a pickaxe and shovel. Someone's going to take issue if you do that on their land, and shoot you. Legally. It's 100% understandable that oil companies, by virtue of being oil companies, are interested in oil. There are leases for mining iron, aluminium, and coal as well, mostly by companies that specialize in such things.

If they find the spot won't make any profit, they can dump the lease and move on. Like Trump did, when he bought the lease for the Old Post Office, lost money, and dumped it. Like many of his other businesses, now that I think of it...actually with the court cases, it might soon be all of them. But I digress.

If they find the spot has potential, very minimum, they can hold onto the rights until they decide it's worth their while. But it's not technically a discovery unless they actually dig. Until then, it's a promising geological survey. It's not "discovered" until you shove a steel straw into it and start sucking like it's a Diet Coke after an overcooked steak with ketchup.

This is hardly new information. As the right-leaning WSJ says Exxon has been backing down from exploration since October. The projects take years and billions, even if unsuccessful. Oh, just so we're clear, they were saying that in 2020 too so it's not like Biden's responsible.

And even if every single one of those leases was on a rich, lucrative spot...there's only so many drill teams and rig construction teams to go around. Plus it's only scarce if you "discover" a bit at a time. When you know your only product is finite, you don't dump it all on the market at once.

This is where the sun comes in. The sun, in context, is not finite. Everyone can get to it basically equally. Nobody's going to start a war over an errant cloud.

But as the facts I laid out in actual sources, not random-ass OP EDs from biased sources, said, oil discovery is objectively down. If I say the deer population is down, firing IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND bullets into the trees doesn't change that. Actually it does, there's even fewer deer and therefore less meat next year. That's why you don't hunt with an A-10. It's why you restrict deer hunting licenses, so the population isn't exhausted, and encourage people to eat a fucking salad for once in their lives.

I hope this response answers your question...I guess you'll tell me eventually? Even if it doesn't, at least you can take comfort that I am showing you more respect than you have ever shown me.

[tehdang]

According to 538, the old map had 3 competitive and 4 solid Republican Districts. The new map has 2 competitive and 5 solid Republican Districts. Not seeing the problem here.

BTW, you have link to the map for this.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ps/california/
Compare estimates of an overt Democratic gerrymander to the actual lines drawn. Furthermore, look at district outcomes if they districts were drawn to maximize competitiveness, Safe D and Safe R seats meaning the election doesn't matter, only the primary, in which case, incumbency is the most important factor.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/golden-...ts-11640213983
Read a challenging examination. It goes into the racial gerrymandering aspect, if you're interested in that too.

Redistricting shouldn't even be a political football in the first place if we were to abide by the constitutionally mandated lower bound of 1 representative per 30,000 persons. Guess what happens when there is more representation in the US?

You mean the constitutionally mandated upper bound of 1 per 30,000?

[Daelak]

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ps/california/
Compare estimates of an overt Democratic gerrymander to the actual lines drawn. Furthermore, look at district outcomes if they districts were drawn to maximize competitiveness, Safe D and Safe R seats meaning the election doesn't matter, only the primary, in which case, incumbency is the most important factor.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/golden-...ts-11640213983
Read a challenging examination. It goes into the racial gerrymandering aspect, if you're interested in that too.

You mean the constitutionally mandated upper bound of 1 per 30,000?

Read U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3

No, the constitution never made a maximum allowable, however it goes to show how far and away we are from the spirit of the constitution if we are at 1 representative per 730,000 people. It is way too much power to give to a representative over free people. This is why the senate needs to be abolished due to the extreme power one representative has over people. The legislative branch since 1929 has created a vaunted royalty in our federal government.

Dilution of power in the legislative branch will stop lobbying, manufactured talking points, and 50 year terms for incumbents. It will make the representatives literally an everyman.

[DarkTZeratul]

No, the constitution never made a maximum allowable, however it goes to show how far and away we are from the spirit of the constitution if we are at 1 representative per 730,000 people.

I think that's more a factor of population growth than "getting away from the spirit of the Constitution." Also keep in mind, that was the mandated minimum, NOT the target number. The population of the United States in 1790 was 3.9 million; the first Congress in 1789 had only 59 representatives, which was approximately 1 per 66,000 people.

Dilution of power in the legislative branch will stop lobbying, manufactured talking points, and 50 year terms for incumbents.

And make it completely fucking useless, because good luck getting 11,000 people to agree on anything.

[Rasulis]

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ps/california/
Compare estimates of an overt Democratic gerrymander to the actual lines drawn. Furthermore, look at district outcomes if they districts were drawn to maximize competitiveness, Safe D and Safe R seats meaning the election doesn't matter, only the primary, in which case, incumbency is the most important factor.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/golden-...ts-11640213983
Read a challenging examination. It goes into the racial gerrymandering aspect, if you're interested in that too.

You mean the constitutionally mandated upper bound of 1 per 30,000?

What the 538 tool shows is that it could have been a lot worse for the GOP

Current Map - 37 Democrats; 9 highly competitive; 7 Republicans.
Gerrymandered to favor Democrats: 47 Democrats and 6 Republicans.

[unfilteredJW]

I'm done with your idiocy. You quoted a section that said they were forced to do leases, then had a judge suspend those leases without the administration fighting back. So they got what they wanted and didn't sell any because their judge denied the sale. So you tell me in this idiotic rant, did they release leases if they had their judge stop the release? Your mental gymnastics and goalposts are just idiocy for trying to get around the truth...they didn't want them released and didn't fight a judge who blocked them. You can whine, ignore simple logic and do run arounds but the simple facts are easy to discern...IF YOU WANT TO. You don't want to. You want to whine and ask for links that are already here and ask for this and that and provide nothing. Much like you do in arguments, provide nothing.

At no point have you tried to engage in actual good faith debate. At no point have you linked me anything, but have demanded links. You have not tried in any sense to post intelligible arguments, jut talking points and your whines. You keep personally attacking me because you literally have nothing. That is the lowest point in any argument, personal attacks. That is all you do is personal attacks, you have nothing, you bring nothing, you make no sense trying to word salad everything.

This is some grade A projection. Top tier and marbled.

Lol.

[Zan15]

I'm done with your idiocy. You quoted a section that said they were forced to do leases, then had a judge suspend those leases without the administration fighting back. So they got what they wanted and didn't sell any because their judge denied the sale. So you tell me in this idiotic rant, did they release leases if they had their judge stop the release? Your mental gymnastics and goalposts are just idiocy for trying to get around the truth...they didn't want them released and didn't fight a judge who blocked them. You can whine, ignore simple logic and do run arounds but the simple facts are easy to discern...IF YOU WANT TO. You don't want to. You want to whine and ask for links that are already here and ask for this and that and provide nothing. Much like you do in arguments, provide nothing.

At no point have you tried to engage in actual good faith debate. At no point have you linked me anything, but have demanded links. You have not tried in any sense to post intelligible arguments, jut talking points and your whines. You keep personally attacking me because you literally have nothing. That is the lowest point in any argument, personal attacks. That is all you do is personal attacks, you have nothing, you bring nothing, you make no sense trying to word salad everything.

Bah no idea why i bother you just ignore when people post links and data, then you end up going off the rails and get banned for another month, it just seems like a waste of time really.

[tehdang]

Read U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3

No, the constitution never made a maximum allowable, however it goes to show how far and away we are from the spirit of the constitution if we are at 1 representative per 730,000 people. It is way too much power to give to a representative over free people. This is why the senate needs to be abolished due to the extreme power one representative has over people. The legislative branch since 1929 has created a vaunted royalty in our federal government.

Dilution of power in the legislative branch will stop lobbying, manufactured talking points, and 50 year terms for incumbents. It will make the representatives literally an everyman.

Quoting from the US Constitution, Article 1, section 2, clause 3

The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand

Daelak, previously: Redistricting shouldn't even be a political football in the first place if we were to abide by the constitutionally mandated lower bound of 1 representative per 30,000 persons.


I'm having trouble reconciling the actual constitutional upper bound of one per thirty thousand to your statement of a constitutionally mandated lower bound of 1 representative per 30,000 persons.

What the 538 tool shows is that it could have been a lot worse for the GOP

Current Map - 37 Democrats; 9 highly competitive; 7 Republicans.
Gerrymandered to favor Democrats: 47 Democrats and 6 Republicans.

So that's just the safe seats calculus, not expected outcomes.

Expected outcome, current: 41 dems 12 republicans
Democratic gerrymander: 45.2 dems, 7.8 republicans.
Yeah, we've really eliminated the gerrymander by pulling Republicans up 4 seats compared to a max-gerrymander process, in the 52 seats available. As before, let's pretend we've eliminated gerrymandering by reducing the 33.7% Republican state congressional votes total to 15.4%. Love it.

If they matched California's Republican turnout for presidential elections to the districts that would reproduce the state's partisan lean: 37.3 dem to 15.7 gop. In conclusion, gerrymandering done by another name, and not independent nor unbiased. Just more of the same.

[Zan15]

The moment that gets suggested in public is the moment OPEC quickly on board with..."reasonably priced" oil.

Although I should wonder if the Army Corps of Engineers might do an assessment of feasibility...

Yah wouldn't want those billions in subsidies and profits/tax breaks going back into oil/gas infrastructure, drilling and lower prices. Could you imagine this country actually subsidized gasoline and home heating oil/gas for consumers like all those other oil rich countries.

nah lets give 99% of that money to the 1%!!

- - - Updated - - -

So Gasoline is down 38 cents in spot trading today, who wants to bet we don't see an overnight decrease in gas prices at the pump like we saw it increase overnight when it rose 40 cents!!!

Oil down 12-13% today.

Sure, they will blame Biden for stations not reducing prices

[Shadowferal]

This was looking good for a bit;

[DarkTZeratul]

eah, we've really eliminated the gerrymander by pulling Republicans up 4 seats compared to a max-gerrymander process, in the 52 seats available. As before, let's pretend we've eliminated gerrymandering by reducing the 33.7% Republican state congressional votes total to 15.4%. Love it.

If they matched California's Republican turnout for presidential elections to the districts that would reproduce the state's partisan lean: 37.3 dem to 15.7 gop. In conclusion, gerrymandering done by another name, and not independent nor unbiased. Just more of the same.

Most of those Republicans live in heavily Democratic areas, though. Since districting is done geographically, you would have to specifically map where Republicans live and then carve out precise Republican-heavy districts in the middle of Democratic cities... which is literally what gerrymandering is.

You do get this concept, right?

[Ripster42]

Most of those Republicans live in heavily Democratic areas, though. Since districting is done geographically, you would have to specifically map where Republicans live and then carve out precise Republican-heavy districts in the middle of Democratic cities... which is literally what gerrymandering is.

You do get this concept, right?

That account presents as a non-rational person. At this point I've got to believe it's intentional.

[Shadowferal]

GOP senator outlines proposal for 'Energy Operation Warp Speed'

The Louisiana Republican's proposal included streamlining the permitting process for energy development at agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, similar to the regulatory streamlining put in place to rapidly develop the COVID-19 vaccine over 2020.

It would also incorporate a streamlined process for advanced nuclear permits and finalize a 5-year plan for future oil and natural gas development.

Cassidy also proposed to eliminate regulatory barriers for technology that reduces emissions and create a strict timeline for feedback and approval of permits and handling of complaints.

Responding to the fact that less than 10 percent of U.S. oil drilling is on federal lands, Cassidy replied saying "energy is very susceptible to margins. So a little bit of extra margin drives down cost pretty quickly, and a little bit of a short margin."

"So when they say 'oh, it's just a little bit on federal lands,' that's the margin that makes the difference," he added, referring to the Biden administration.

Cassidy told reporters that he "absolutely" saw a place for renewable energy in the solution but pointed out that such technology is not ready for full-scale rapid deployment.

"We're seeking common ground with those who are concerned about climate, absolutely. We've also spoken to Europeans that have seen a large-scale rapid deployment of solar energy on the African North Shore, that that could free up natural gas. They're currently using for domestic use in kind of antiquated natural gas plants. And you could ship that by pipeline to Europe," he said.

Cassidy also presented the proposal outline as beneficial with regard to emissions, saying it would remove regulatory obstacles to renewable development and speed up the permitting process for installing emissions-lowering technology.

---------

Normally OPEC wouldn't take this sort of thing seriously. "Normally" being the operative word.
Oil price dropped today. And I wonder if it will continue dropping.

[tehdang]

Most of those Republicans live in heavily Democratic areas, though. Since districting is done geographically, you would have to specifically map where Republicans live and then carve out precise Republican-heavy districts in the middle of Democratic cities... which is literally what gerrymandering is.

You do get this concept, right?

The unquoted part of the post is all the ways you could draw districts reflecting the overall partisan divide in California (seats in the House reflecting how population of California votes) and promoting competitive elections (the two parties have to fight over more seats, i.e. that there is a real election and not just a party primary. If I lived in Los Angeles, I'd vote in the Democratic primary to have more say in my representation in Congress, and in other cities of this country, I'd also register as a Democrat to do the same. People already do the same in DC and New York).

You get the concept that the current gerrymandering setup isn't due to Republicans living in heavily Democratic areas? It's the drawing of the districts. To the extent that San Francisco Republicans, all sub-10% of them, votes wouldn't matter no matter how redistricting gets "fairer" on some axis, I get that point. There will still be safe Dem seats with wasted Republican votes.