danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #221
That is why right wingers blame democrats; not because it did but because it could.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
um no the things discussed in the OP did happen and are happeningThat is why right wingers blame democrats; not because it did but because it could.
When has this happened?um no the things discussed in the OP did happen and are happeningThat is why right wingers blame democrats; not because it did but because it could.
when xiden cut the oil leases...and prices of fuel are skyrocketingWhen has this happened?um no the things discussed in the OP did happen and are happeningThat is why right wingers blame democrats; not because it did but because it could.
Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?
Biden hasn’t “cut the leases”, his freeze on NEW federal land leases was blocked by a Federal Court, thus the freeze on NEW federal land leases isn’t in effect.when xiden cut the oil leases...and prices of fuel are skyrocketingWhen has this happened?um no the things discussed in the OP did happen and are happeningThat is why right wingers blame democrats; not because it did but because it could.
Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?
I believe the point was that it *could* result in contraction of the domestic production possibilities curve in the future for those commodities, which is true, however given that the market isn't as simple as some apparently believe it doesn't necessarily entail corresponding price increases, for example we import crude oil, refine it and then turn around and export the refined products, contraction of the domestic crude oil PPC might involve reducing such exports to meet domestic demand.The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.
7% in 2020 (on a downward sloping trend line).Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.
BlindBoob want's to keep funding terrorist supporting and oppressive governments and not evelop energy domestically. He's a dick that way.
But in his defense, BlindBoob realizes that terrorist supporting and oppressive government's aren't on the earth as we are and drilling oil there and shipping it across oceans doesn't affect our environment.
Arguing with leftists is always an experience in stupid
The only exercise you seem to get is jumping to conclusions. Of course that’s the only way you can twist the facts to bend your distorted view of things.
One of the most effective ways to lower prices on oil is to reduce the need for it, making it more abundant and therefore cheaper.
Nowhere in any of your articles does it mention the fact that the OPEC cut production at the beginning of January 2020, because prices were so low. They intended to drive up the price of oil, but the pandemic further reduced demand and prices stayed low.
Now that the world is getting moving again, demand is increasing and prices are rising. Instead of blaming OPEC, of course the right wing media blames Biden.
And you gullible fools fall for this bullshit every single time.
Increase grid capacity by twenty-five percent!
Not at all. We could eventually capture lightning energy if we could store it somehow. Mass storage is the answer.Increase grid capacity by twenty-five percent!
You mean via Nuclear power or some ridiculous number of windmills and solar panels? Where and how do we store all this energy when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining?
when xiden cut the oil leases...and prices of fuel are skyrocketingWhen has this happened?um no the things discussed in the OP did happen and are happeningThat is why right wingers blame democrats; not because it did but because it could.
Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?
If 25% of oil and gas on Federal lands is eliminated from the supply will the cost go up to gasoline consumers?
Wind and solar work just fine, for example in Texas where they have 12.6% reserve generation capacity over peak demand and some of the lowest electricity prices in the Country. They generate over 20% of that capacity with Wind (and growing). The problem with wind and solar is that they suffer from geographic limitations not capacity limitations (i.e. they can’t be used everywhere).Increase grid capacity by twenty-five percent!
You mean via Nuclear power or some ridiculous number of windmills and solar panels? Where and how do we store all this energy when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining?
Good points, you also have to factor in the fact that roughly 90% of domestic drilling occurs on private and State owned lands that wouldn’t be affected even if this pause went into effect, nor would current Federal leases affected.If 25% of oil and gas on Federal lands is eliminated from the supply will the cost go up to gasoline consumers?
Our gasoline costs are dependent on how much oil companies make available rather than how much is available to them. It isn't like they're already operating at anywhere near full capacity. Your linked article immediately presents a pretty simple explanation of how capitalism generally works......
In its January 2021 Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
forecasts that annual U.S. crude oil production will average 11.1 million b/d in 2021, down 0.2 million b/d
from 2020 as result of a decline in drilling activity related to low oil prices.
Where is your proof that your statement ?Good points, you also have to factor in the fact that roughly 90% of domestic drilling occurs on private and State owned lands that wouldn’t be affected even if this pause went into effect, nor would current Federal leases affected.If 25% of oil and gas on Federal lands is eliminated from the supply will the cost go up to gasoline consumers?
Our gasoline costs are dependent on how much oil companies make available rather than how much is available to them. It isn't like they're already operating at anywhere near full capacity. Your linked article immediately presents a pretty simple explanation of how capitalism generally works......
In its January 2021 Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
forecasts that annual U.S. crude oil production will average 11.1 million b/d in 2021, down 0.2 million b/d
from 2020 as result of a decline in drilling activity related to low oil prices.
The OPs entire “25% of oil and gas on Federal lands” premise is entirely fictitious.
So this idiot "NightFox" states The OPs entire “25% of oil and gas on Federal lands” premise is entirely fictitious."
but thanks to his idiocy here is further proof as to how a President has a direct effect on the price of gas.
A) The federal share of total U.S. crude oil production fell from its peak at nearly 36% in 2009 to less than
24% in 2017 at the same time overall production increased
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42432
B) Why it feel from 2009 to 2016!!!
Dumb ass Obama (who's policies Biden is following).. had one year were more federal leases were signed ! 1 Year out of 8! Now you dummies are going to say "Yea but Trump signed nearly 1,000 less in 2020" and you idiots forget what happened in 2020???
THE FACTS not guesses show exactly what happens when Obama/Biden stop signing federal leases and now the share of production on Federal land will continue to decrease ... meaning prices will increase at the pump!
View attachment 503199
About a quarter (25%) of U.S. oil and an eighth of the nation's natural gas is produced on federal lands.
Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?
A freeze on NEW oil leases (currently blocked by court order) doesn't "remove" ANY oil whatsoever.If 25% of oil and gas on Federal lands is eliminated from the supply will the cost go up to gasoline consumers?
Where is your proof that your statement ?Good points, you also have to factor in the fact that roughly 90% of domestic drilling occurs on private and State owned lands that wouldn’t be affected even if this pause went into effect, nor would current Federal leases affected.If 25% of oil and gas on Federal lands is eliminated from the supply will the cost go up to gasoline consumers?
Our gasoline costs are dependent on how much oil companies make available rather than how much is available to them. It isn't like they're already operating at anywhere near full capacity. Your linked article immediately presents a pretty simple explanation of how capitalism generally works......
In its January 2021 Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
forecasts that annual U.S. crude oil production will average 11.1 million b/d in 2021, down 0.2 million b/d
from 2020 as result of a decline in drilling activity related to low oil prices.
The OPs entire “25% of oil and gas on Federal lands” premise is entirely fictitious.
Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?Success is found in a can.
I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.
You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?
And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to
You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:
"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.
All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.
In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."
But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.
Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything
"There is no break even point."
Of course there is
Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.
Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."
Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhereNot your argument?Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.
The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.
The whole global warming business is a scam
you keep talking about the carbon footprint of windmills. What are you harping on then? The carbon footprint of windmills is irrelevant as it is a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of, you know, actually burning carbon.