And oil companies have plainly stated that they are DONE supplying the nation with cheap fuel when it comes at the expense of their stakeholders. In keeping with that fact then just exactly what do you think they owe you?
Gas Prices Skyrocketing Thanks Biden!
- Thread starter Maple Grove MN Driver
- Start date
Let's let there be access to Federal land and offshore and let's see if it makes a difference. You won't agree to that because you're afraid it will make a difference and we can't have abundant, cheap energy because the mantra is save the planet with renewable energy even if it destroys the economy doing it.
The scientific data proves conclusively that the planet simply will not support human life for future generations if we don't find alternatives to fossil fuels soon. The evidence is so compelling that the voice of climate deniers is now barely a whisper. And as for federal lands....they belong to everyone and public support for unrestricted drilling including on the most unspoiled and pristine land simply isn't there.
Can you show me where they are successfully transitioning to renewable energy on a national level? Tried it in Sri Lanka and ended up with famine and riots. And drilling on Federal land has been going on for generations with no complaint. Most BLM land is nothing like our national parks. Can you for once admit that we should develop viable alternatives first instead of just cramming this down our throats and say we'll figure it out later?
Why do you continue to hold to the belief that there is this ocean of crude oil under BLM land that will once again provide you with 2 dollar gas? And there's already BLM land leases on the table but there are no takers. Why? Because the data won't support the conclusion that there's enough there to support the cost of drilling and transportation.
We saw this this past summer with the Cook Inlet lease offering. It expired because nobody would take the lease. Reason? Not enough oil believed to be there. Same holds true with Regenerate Alaska who forfeited it's lease on the 23K+ tract of land in ANWR that was put out for lease for drilling. Yes, it was within ANWR borders The reason given was that the other parties it hoped would come in on a joint venture backed out. Granted there might be some there but enough to make it a paying proposition is another matter altogether.
Once again you are incorrect. The 9000 available leases require a government study before they can be used and many of them are being challenged in court by environmentalists. Once again, just rescind the executive orders restricting exploration and drilling on Federal land and offshore and let's see how it turns out.
Once again it comes down to cost vs yield. And once again study or no study if nobody finds the area to have enough yield potential nothing gets done.
A friend of mine lives in the Marcellus gas region. He showed me a map detailing how the Marcellus rock formation is multiple feet thick in some counties. While at the same time just over in the next county it's barely a foot thick. Needless to say where the drilling is getting done. And sometime or another the price will get high enough to go on down the additional 5K feet or so to the Utica shale .
Never heard of fracking? You still haven't told me where in the entire world is transitioning off of oil successful. Come on now, certainly someone somewhere is getting close.
Tesla is expected to announce in the next few days the construction of a new plant in....Mexico. Fracking? Of course I've heard of it . It's being conducted all through the Mid Atlantic region where the Marcellus is thick enough.
Now tonight on Mad Money the special guest was Rusty Braziel executive chairman and president of RBN Energy. He forgot more about energy production than whoever you get your news from will ever know. And here's what Rusty had to say....70 is the new base price for oil and it's not going any lower. If China and US economy hits their stride.....plan on 100. In addition fracked oil wells pump dry faster than Russian wells which means that they are not the long term answer Now he said that the US could supply Western Europe with nearly all of it's LNG needs courtesy of the Marcellus but it would require the construction of numerous additional pipelines to East Coast ports. Getting there would require having to go through some of the most densely populated metropolitan areas of the country . Not a good place to be building high pressure nat gas lines . The more people watching what you're doing the less likely you are getting away with environmental and property damage. Sunoco found that out with Mariner II. As for fracking there are certain intellectual rights that protect the driller thereby not everything they put down that hole is public information.
What the heck are you going on about? Just open up everything that was shut down and see how it works out. Something that will happen shortly after a Republican is sworn in January of '24.
bottomups
Bad Moon Risen'
Predicting another red wave?
Don't know. But I like our presidential chances.
bottomups
Bad Moon Risen'
Without knowing who's on the ballot?
I only have to look at the Democratic field.
And just who for certain might that be?
That's just it, there's no one there.
Sworn in for what? School board president? The current presidential term doesn't end until 1-20-25. And even if a Republican takes over on 1-25 one thing for certain isn't going to happen at that is oil once again NEGATIVE 35 bucks a barrel. As Rusty B pointed out the industry has regained control of it's market and will never again allow itself to become victims of it's own excesses. In keeping with that reality you might find what it is you're looking in the areas of industry collusion and price fixing. .
You got me there. January of '25. Was wishful thinking.
Over70irregs
Well-Known Member
burrheadd
KING Of GIFS
Why would you not get gas with the filler next to the pump nozzle
I hope you’re not one of those people
Similar threads
