Biden catch-all | Final Farewells

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 228
  • Views: 5K
  • Politics 
finesse said:
What's with the moving goalposts? Below is what I responded to. What is the connection to what you're posting now? I never said no one would suffer any pain. Frankly, I care as much about them as they did the whale oil providers in their day.

Thought I made it clear that I had no use for the oil companies or industry. The single biggest mistake Reagan made of many was selling American and alternate energy research out in favor of the oil companies. It completed our enthrallment to the oil companies that started with Rockefeller and left us hopelessly entangled in the ME. There's no telling how many lives or how much money maintaining that as a source for oil has cost the American taxpayer. You know the spot price for oil isn't nearly the real price that the alliances, subsidies and treaties to get access to that oil costs us.

I protested your claims about the effect of higher gas prices because I don't believe you can predict the future. It was your claims that was ludicrous. So was your attempt to change the conversation.

At all? Higher gas costs won't cause anyone pain? I find that claim ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Sorry. Got you and Centerpiece confused. I'll delete and ask him the question.
 
Centerpiece said:
Correct. Not at all.
Doubtful this action will amount to higher gas prices.
The claim you find ludicrous, duly noted.
Click to expand...
So the following will not suffer any pain from this executive action?

-Petroleum industry workers?
-Employees of suppliers of the industry?
-Owners/shareholders of those companies?
-People that will still be driving gas cars in 6-10 years?

I would have a hard time believing how that within those groups "Ain’t nobody gonna suffer any pain from this executive action. None whatsoever." That is an absurd statement.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
So the following will not suffer any pain from this executive action?

-Petroleum industry workers?
-Employees of suppliers of the industry?
-Owners/shareholders of those companies?
-People that will still be driving gas cars in 6-10 years?

I would have a hard time believing how that within those groups "Ain’t nobody gonna suffer any pain from this executive action. None whatsoever." That is an absurd statement.
Click to expand...
"Pain" is doing a lot of work there. If gas prices are 3 cents higher, that would be a negative effect but not pain.

There's a word in economics for a policy that is better for some people and worse for nobody. It's called "Pareto superior." And the general consensus is that Pareto superior actions are vanishingly rare outside of tiny groups of people. Thus, when people say "nobody," they typically do not mean "not a single person anywhere." That is, they aren't asserting Pareto superiority in casual conversation. Keep that in mind before being so literal.

Also, interestingly enough, it's because pareto superiority is so rare that pareto optimality is so common. Which most people find counter-intuitive. What is really says is that Pareto efficiency is not a useful concept in policy making. It's most used analogically in systems theory, I think.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
So the following will not suffer any pain from this executive action?

-Petroleum industry workers?
-Employees of suppliers of the industry?
-Owners/shareholders of those companies?
-People that will still be driving gas cars in 6-10 years?

I would have a hard time believing how that within those groups "Ain’t nobody gonna suffer any pain from this executive action. None whatsoever." That is an absurd statement.
Click to expand...
1) No. The action doesn't stop current drilling or Petrochemical jobs or negatively affect current workers in that field.
2) No. See above
3) No. See above
4) No. Plenty of oil production going on all over the planet without new drilling sites off-shore where this action stipulates.
 
Centerpiece said:
1) No. The action doesn't stop current drilling or Petrochemical jobs or negatively affect current workers in that field.
2) No. See above
3) No. See above
4) No. Plenty of oil production going on all over the planet without new drilling sites off-shore where this action stipulates.
Click to expand...
You're aware that some of those petrochemical workers and suppliers work on new wells right? Who do you think did that work before today? They don't sprout magically.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
You're aware that some of those petrochemical workers and suppliers work on new wells right? Who do you think did that work before today? They don't sprout magically.
Click to expand...
I'm not 100% sure the executive action today literally stops on-going projects... but does curtail new start ups. I could be wrong. Does today's action kick current workers off their job sites immediately? Did Biden just add to the unemployment numbers? Not sure, but I don't think so. Are there some folks who are currently working on "plans" for new drilling off-shore who are adversely affected? Perhaps... but probably not that many folks. And I'm sure those types will transition to new project planning sooner than later.
 
How much $$$ would petroleum companies and investors put into deep sea oil exploration with oil at $75/barrel?

If companies invested heavily in such exploration and drilling in US waters, the Saudis and other Gulf oil states could eff with those wells by increasing production to drive oil down to $50-60/barrel. Production would halt as those wells become unprofitable.

Oil companies are not clamoring for deep sea or Arctic exploration and/or drilling opportunities.

Biden’s executive order won’t impact global oil/gas production in any significant way.
 
Conservatives hoping to hyperventilate themselves with this news -- please take a breath and educate yourself on what this move IS and ISN'T.

This action does not touch the VAST MAJORITY of active drilling areas in the US. Just a quick google search shows that about a decade ago we had 8,237 active offshore leases in the US. The bulk of these leases are in the central and western gulf and northern Alaska - all areas not affected by this order. The areas included in today's announcement include 128 leases in the eastern gulf and 79 leases in California as of a decade ago. That's it. Out of 8200 leases a little over 200 leases. I'm sure someone can find more updated info but as a quick google search its a good reference to get an understanding of scale. These are not oil rich areas that are material to our strategic production. It represents <3% of our offshore drilling rigs.
 
Gas prices are based on perception as much as supply and demand.
Zoo_View said:
How much $$$ would petroleum companies and investors put into deep sea oil exploration with oil at $75/barrel?

If companies invested heavily in such exploration and drilling in US waters, the Saudis and other Gulf oil states could eff with those wells by increasing production to drive oil down to $50-60/barrel. Production would halt as those wells become unprofitable.

Oil companies are not clamoring for deep sea or Arctic exploration and/or drilling opportunities.

Biden’s executive order won’t impact global oil/gas production in any significant way.
Click to expand...
Production might halt or it might increase to sell more barrels to generate more revenue, especially if you take out loan to fund the project.
 
Last edited:
Centerpiece said:
I'm not 100% sure the executive action today literally stops on-going projects... but does curtail new start ups. I could be wrong. Does today's action kick current workers off their job sites immediately? Did Biden just add to the unemployment numbers? Not sure, but I don't think so. Are there some folks who are currently working on "plans" for new drilling off-shore who are adversely affected? Perhaps... but probably not that many folks. And I'm sure those types will transition to new project planning sooner than later.
Click to expand...
You understand those plans for new oil wells do turn into employment for others at some point right? I mean I guess you've moved beyond no pain to some pain so I won't belabor the point. I'm still a little shocked that you don't understand that there is an industry out there beyond planning involved in exploration and constructing new wells and eventually running those wells that will go through some pain from this.

Also a little surprised you don't understand the supply part in the supply and demand equation. We're not exactly going through high-level economic theory.
 
Milk and Cookies said:
Conservatives hoping to hyperventilate themselves with this news -- please take a breath and educate yourself on what this move IS and ISN'T.

This action does not touch the VAST MAJORITY of active drilling areas in the US. Just a quick google search shows that about a decade ago we had 8,237 active offshore leases in the US. The bulk of these leases are in the central and western gulf and northern Alaska - all areas not affected by this order. The areas included in today's announcement include 128 leases in the eastern gulf and 79 leases in California as of a decade ago. That's it. Out of 8200 leases a little over 200 leases. I'm sure someone can find more updated info but as a quick google search its a good reference to get an understanding of scale. These are not oil rich areas that are material to our strategic production. It represents <3% of our offshore drilling rigs.
Click to expand...
Please tell this to our friend from George Tech
 
gtyellowjacket said:
You understand those plans for new oil wells do turn into employment for others at some point right? I mean I guess you've moved beyond no pain to some pain so I won't belabor the point. I'm still a little shocked that you don't understand that there is an industry out there beyond planning involved in exploration and constructing new wells and eventually running those wells that will go through some pain from this.

Also a little surprised you don't understand the supply part in the supply and demand equation. We're not exactly going through high-level economic theory.
Click to expand...
No. I stand by my original statement. Ain't nobody gonna feel any pain from today's executive decision. I'll let it rest now. Too many others on this thread have spoken to the issue. I think my POV has been defended enough.
 
ZenMode said:
Gas prices are based on perception as much as supply and demand.

Production might halt or it might increase to sell more barrels to generate more revenue, especially if you take out loan to fund the project.
Click to expand...
“Gas prices are based on perception…” Really?
 
Centerpiece said:
No. I stand by my original statement. Ain't nobody gonna feel any pain from today's executive decision. I'll let it rest now. Too many others on this thread have spoken to the issue. I think my POV has been defended enough.
Click to expand...
Okay. I mean its not logically consistent or accurate but if you're happy with it, let it rest.
 
This has long been a bipartisan issue as well. Trump himself signed a 12-year moratorium on new offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf near Florida in 2020. Florida's two Republican senators also support the issue - both Rubio and Scott. For Scott its been a big message of his going back to his governor days. Governors along the west coast are in support of this as well.

Essentially, the states that are on the front lines of feeling the effects of climate change and pollution destroy their communities are not hesitant. They don't want more drilling along their coasts.

As has been demonstrated already, this is an immaterial impact to our national production capacity which is at all-time historical highs.
 
Milk and Cookies said:
This has long been a bipartisan issue as well. Trump himself signed a 12-year moratorium on new offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf near Florida in 2020. Florida's two Republican senators also support the issue - both Rubio and Scott. For Scott its been a big message of his going back to his governor days. Governors along the west coast are in support of this as well.

Essentially, the states that are on the front lines of feeling the effects of climate change and pollution destroy their communities are not hesitant. They don't want more drilling along their coasts.

As has been demonstrated already, this is an immaterial impact to our national production capacity which is at all-time historical highs.
Click to expand...
Read, understand, and inwardly digest GtechJacket and Zenmode. Thanks in advance
 
Milk and Cookies said:
This has long been a bipartisan issue as well. Trump himself signed a 12-year moratorium on new offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf near Florida in 2020. Florida's two Republican senators also support the issue - both Rubio and Scott. For Scott its been a big message of his going back to his governor days. Governors along the west coast are in support of this as well.

Essentially, the states that are on the front lines of feeling the effects of climate change and pollution destroy their communities are not hesitant. They don't want more drilling along their coasts.

As has been demonstrated already, this is an immaterial impact to our national production capacity which is at all-time historical highs.
Click to expand...
When Dubya was POTUS and JEB was Governor of Florida, they agreed on a moratorium on drilling off Florida’s coast.

Why would two sons of a Texas oilman agree on an oil drilling moratorium?

Florida politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top