According to statements made by Joe Biden; is he going to ban fracking

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

I admittedly don't know shit about fracking or the oil industry, so this is a bullshit question. But, why not use up all the oil in the rest of the world as long as available at a reasonable cost (Yeah, we all like sub $2 pump gas, but we could pay somewhat more without hurting) and hold our resources in reserve for future generations as a strategic asset? Not trying to be confrontational, just curious about rationale for usage of a finite resource. Kinda like land, they ain't making it any more.

Yes, people did look at it at one time as a finite resource. Google M. King Hubbert's peak oil theory if you're interested. That doesn't make as much sense anymore. Improvements in technology mean we're sitting on a lot more oil in the USA than we thought we were. And at higher prices, $80 or $100 or more per barrel, the economically recoverable resource goes up much higher. Give it 50 or 100 years, and we will likely transition to non-carbon energy sources, like solar, wind, fusion, etc. We'll still have oil resources here in the U.S.A. that can be extracted at the right price. And OPEC will be stuck with oil reserves it can't sell.

In the meantime, if we stop producing oil, we'll be hostage to a cartel (OPEC) and Russia, and at times pay whatever price for oil they demand. This boosts our trade deficit, and puts us in a position where we potentially have to fight wars in places like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran. And it puts Americans on the unemployment rolls and bankrupts American businesses.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Fracking was just the straw man, the carrier pigeon. The real item under inspection was Joe-mentia a professional politician, who will say one thing with absolute conviction to your face, only to later learn it is not polling well for them and then turn right around with nearly the same passion and say the exact opposite to your face.

He tends to do that. His position on the Hyde Amendment is another example. In his heart I don't believe he thinks the federal government should pay for abortions. But he couldn't win the Democratic nomination with that position.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

No we're not. First, Biden has been clear that he will not issue drilling permits on federal lands and for federal offshore leases. About 22% of U.S. oil production is from federal leases. This alone with time will cause us to become net importers of foreign oil, jack up our trade deficit, cause 4 million people to lose their jobs by 2030 according to the API, and make tens or hundreds of billions spent on pipelines, gas plants and offshore platforms uneconomic.

Second, Biden has been clear that he wants to eliminate the U.S. oil and gas industry. The only question is over what time period. He repeated this in the debate with Trump last week. The reason provided was because "the oil industry pollutes."

Third, many believe Biden will do to fracking and oil and gas in general what Obama did to coal. He didn't outlaw coal mining. He just instituted environmental regulations through executive orders that made burning coal very difficult.

Jesus H Christ....low gas prices doomed coal.

Next you'll blame Obama for transitioning from whale blubber to kersone.

It is a economic timing matter. Does not really matter who is President. If it did would not have Trumps polices brought back coal?

Come on man....

Look....I don't care for Biden and he was stupid for saying the economic reality right before an election but we all know at some point we will transition. The market will decide ultimately.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

In the meantime, if we stop producing oil, we'll be hostage to a cartel (OPEC) and Russia, and at times pay whatever price for oil they demand. This boosts our trade deficit, and puts us in a position where we potentially have to fight wars in places like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran. And it puts Americans on the unemployment rolls and bankrupts American businesses.

We are not going to stop producing oil! Unless the Russians and Saudis flood the market again. Which they did under TRUMP. Tis a stupid poll and thread.

[reddog1951]

Thanks Tiny, I'm not a Texan and have little interest in oil business, so won't try to opine, just curious. But I still think it wise to look to other energy options such as wind and solar (battery evolution goes with it) and actively fund development. If you remember the movie "The Graduate", the buzzword was plastics. I'm a scientist, not a chemical engineer, but as old school plastics came from oil hydrocarbons, so to me its far greater than fuel. Again, not argumentative, just discussing.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Tiny

He tends to do that. His position on the Hyde Amendment is another example. In his heart I don't believe he thinks the federal government should pay for abortions. But he couldn't win the Democratic nomination with that position.

Guess that's better than labeling an entire demographic as super-predators and then later saying if they don't vote for him You ain't Black, while claiming it's the other team that wants to put them back in chains.

Those would be really odd juxtapositions to make while soliciting (demanding) their vote.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

Jesus H Christ....low gas prices doomed coal.

Next you'll blame Obama for transitioning from whale blubber to kersone.

It is a economic timing matter. Does not really matter who is President. If it did would not have Trumps polices brought back coal?

Come on man....

Look....I don't care for Biden and he was stupid for saying the economic reality right before an election but we all know at some point we will transition. The market will decide ultimately.

Yes, lower natural gas prices did indeed make new gas fired generators more economic to build than coal fired plants. However, Obama's regulations related to emissions did cause some existing coal power plants to close, and thus reduced the demand for coal and coal mining. And I've read speculation that Biden will do something similar, for example, jigger around EPA standards, to make extraction of oil and gas more expensive. This would be a way to further his stated long term objective of reducing net carbon emissions to "0", without as high of political costs of, say, a ban on fracking on private land.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

We are not going to stop producing oil! Unless the Russians and Saudis flood the market again. Which they did under TRUMP. Tis a stupid poll and thread.

Biden was pretty clear that's what he wants to do. Take a look at the last debate transcript:

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts...ranscript-2020

Donald Trump: (23:08)
Would he close down the oil industry?

Kristen Welker: (23:10)
It falls-

Donald Trump: (23:10)
Would you close down the oil industry?

Joe Biden: (23:12)
By the way, I have a transition from the old industry, yes.

Donald Trump: (23:15)
Oh, that’s a big statement.

Joe Biden: (23:15)
I will transition. It is a big statement.

Donald Trump: (23:17)
That’s a big statement.

Joe Biden: (23:18)
Because I would stop.

Kristen Welker: (23:19)
Why would you do that?

Joe Biden: (23:21)
Because the oil industry pollutes, significantly.

And then there's this:

Donald Trump: (23:55)
… he is going to destroy the oil industry. Will you remember that Texas? Will you remember that Pennsylvania, Oklahoma?

Kristen Welker: (24:03)
Okay, Vice President Biden, let me give you 10 seconds.

Kristen Welker: (24:03)
Okay.

Donald Trump: (24:03)
Remember that Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, is-

Kristen Welker: (24:03)
Vice President Biden, let me give you 10 seconds to respond-

Donald Trump: (24:04)
Ohio.

Kristen Welker: (24:05)
… and then I have to get to the final question. Vice President Biden.

Joe Biden: (24:07)
He takes everything out of context, but the point is, look, we have to move toward net zero emissions. The first place to do that by the year 2035 is in energy production, by 2050 totally.

[reddog1951]

YSID -
"The real item under inspection was Joe-mentia a professional politician, who will say one thing with absolute conviction to your face, only to later learn it is not polling well for them and then turn right around with nearly the same passion and say the exact opposite to your face."

You care to defend that statement against Mr. Trump's record?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

Thanks Tiny, I'm not a Texan and have little interest in oil business, so won't try to opine, just curious. But I still think it wise to look to other energy options such as wind and solar (battery evolution goes with it) and actively fund development. If you remember the movie "The Graduate", the buzzword was plastics. I'm a scientist, not a chemical engineer, but as old school plastics came from oil hydrocarbons, so to me its far greater than fuel. Again, not argumentative, just discussing.

I agree with that. The battery evolution is very important. Right now you can go out and raise tons of money from private equity and through the stock market to fund that. Given that, I don't see the point in pumping taxpayer money into storage, unless it's more basic research than what's being done in the private sector.

And yes, without oil and gas, there will be no plastics, polyester, and a lot of other things.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I don't know. I'm seeing reports of a lot of small earthquakes in Oklahoma where they didn't have one before. they've linked this to fracking activity.

That may very well be the case. But in order to ban fracking there must be a safe and viable alternative. So for Joe Biden to just say he'll Ban Fracking without knowing what to replace it with is pure political crap. The world runs off of the Petrochemical Industry and if fracking a a viable component it can't just be banned for the sake of banning something. Joe Biden is one of the dumbest people in American Politics and Kamala Harris is one of the most vindictive. These two are dangerous to have side by side.

[reddog1951]

So Tiny, he who has the last of the oil wins? I'm not talking my lifetime, but my heirs.

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

So Tiny, he who has the last of the oil wins? I'm not talking my lifetime, but my heirs.

So redhog. I take it you're pulling for biden to be elected to the Senate? bahahahahahhahahahah

[Muy Largo]

To Tiny:
Visit the fracking disaster called the Bakken in North Dakota. Read, sir, about how fracking was performed there. Find out about Missouri River water used to facilitate fracking. Visit, sir, the area in southeastern Minnesota (yep, not far from where I reside) where fracking sands for the Bakken and other areas were collected in immense quantities. Learn about North Dakota legislative actions that allowed fracking to proceed, irrespective of environmental problems that were finally acknowledged as the fracking disaster there closed up. Ask the people who live/lived in the Bakken area how they enjoyed fracking development there. Hey, check out the bonding process that fracking companies lobbied for -- so they didn't have to pay to properly and safely close up their holes. Some of them just ducked out, maybe filed bankruptcy after paying themselves a nice tidy fortune for a few years. One more thing. All this talk of socialism, and I'm no socialist, but think about how the research and development of fracking's breakthrough innovations were achieved. If you're not a socialist, and if you bemoan creeping socialism, find out the details of how fracking was made possible. Taxpayers, my friend, funded a measurable share of that development, not the private sector.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Muy Largo

To Tiny:
Visit the fracking disaster called the Bakken in North Dakota.

I've visited areas where fracking occurs in Texas, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming and never saw anything remotely resembling a disaster.

Originally Posted by Muy Largo

Read, sir, about how fracking was performed there. Find out about Missouri River water used to facilitate fracking.

According to the North Dakota Water Commission, in 2018 fracking accounted for 10% of the State's consumptive water use. Oil and gas also accounted for 53% of North Dakota state government revenues. And it provided 25% of the state's total salaries and wages. It directly employed 48,300 people, and accounted for an additional 23,980 jobs in terms of secondary employment. Altogether oil and gas account for 20% of private employment in the state.

Sounds like a fair trade to me. Do you want to ban the fracking and put tens of thousands in North Dakota out of work? Let them make the decision. It shouldn't be the decision of out of state politicians who don't know the difference between their heads and a hole in the ground.

Originally Posted by Muy Largo

Visit, sir, the area in southeastern Minnesota (yep, not far from where I reside) where fracking sands for the Bakken and other areas were collected in immense quantities.

The people employed in those sand extraction projects undoubtedly have a far different perception of the situation than you do. Are you referring to the effect on the landscape? The footprint is small. If you want to do away with mining and oil and gas you better be ready for humanity to go back to living off the land. I'm not ready to do that.

Originally Posted by Muy Largo

Learn about North Dakota legislative actions that allowed fracking to proceed, irrespective of environmental problems that were finally acknowledged as the fracking disaster there closed up.

Where are you reading that? A Sierra Club or Greenpeace publication? That's ridiculous, there's no environmental disaster. Yeah, if Biden bankrupts the oil and gas industry so that the companies don't have the money to properly plug the wells when they're abandoned, yes the state will have to pick up the tab.

Originally Posted by Muy Largo

Ask the people who live/lived in the Bakken area how they enjoyed fracking development there.

Let's see, 20% of the population is employed in oil and gas. The landowners made money hand over foot from their royalties. The state's getting half its revenues from oil and gas. I'm sure they just hate this.

In areas I'm familiar with people approve fracking. I know people who happily leased the land UNDER their houses for oil and gas development. If they don't want fracking they won't lease to the oil companies. Or their representative governments will ban or tightly regulate it, like in eastern Colorado.

Originally Posted by Muy Largo

Hey, check out the bonding process that fracking companies lobbied for -- so they didn't have to pay to properly and safely close up their holes. Some of them just ducked out, maybe filed bankruptcy after paying themselves a nice tidy fortune for a few years.

I don't know anything about that, except that as I said, if Democratic politicians from other states make it where the oil and gas can't be exploited, the companies will go under and they' won't plug their wells.

This isn't a huge deal in Texas. The regulatory commission has funds to plug wells when operators disappear and the amount the state has to spend on it is not huge.

Originally Posted by Muy Largo

One more thing. All this talk of socialism, and I'm no socialist, but think about how the research and development of fracking's breakthrough innovations were achieved. If you're not a socialist, and if you bemoan creeping socialism, find out the details of how fracking was made possible. Taxpayers, my friend, funded a measurable share of that development, not the private sector.

I don't favor taxpayer funded research for the oil and gas industry. That said, I bet the amount that was spent by the government on fracking research was a drop in the bucket compared to what the industry has spent. When Biden says he's going to end subsidies for oil and gas I laugh my ass off, because they're very small compared to the size of the industry. The oil industry actually has to pay severance taxes and gasoline taxes, which aren't levied on other industries. So overall it's subsidizing the U.S.A., not vice versa.