What is your definition of Energy Independence

Gotta feed them chickens.

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Yes, Trump signed legislation in 2017 to allow drilling in Alaska’s long-protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But he recently reversed course to take away a bigger prize by extending a drilling moratorium off Florida’s Gulf Coast in a bid to woo voters in the crucial swing state.

Gotta feed them chickens.

Originally Posted by Precious_b

The difference is that Biden and the Progressives are an existential threat to the oil and gas industry and Trump was not. I'm not any bigger fan of Trump than you are, but this article treats his administration unfairly. A worldwide pandemic caused economies to suffer and the price of oil to fall, not Trump. And poo pooing Trump's deregulatory measures because a Democratic administration was likely to overturn them is disingenuous.

Biden Is in Climate Denial
Even the European left understands what the Ukraine invasion means for fossil fuels.

Republicans know it. The European left knows it. Joe Manchin knows it. Even some of the Beltway press knows it. Now let’s see how long it takes Joe Biden to recognize that the Ukraine war has reset energy politics and that his climate agenda risks dooming his party this fall.

He certainly hasn’t sussed it out yet. The Joe Biden who showed up Monday at his first in-person fundraiser as president sounded like a man in a time warp. “Let me begin by saying: [Climate change] is the existential threat to humanity,” he opened, proceeding to recite an environmental agenda identical to the one he campaigned on. Ukraine got one mention, and only then as further reason why Americans (among other things) need to “weatherize homes and businesses.”

His administration is similarly proceeding as if Vladimir Putin weren’t exploiting his energy dominance to kill Ukrainians. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently announced a new pipeline review policy that will stop most projects. The White House continues its near-moratorium on new leases to drill on federal land and its block of Alaskan drilling. The president announced he’ll attempt to impose his Green New Deal via executive order. The House Progressive Caucus this week offered ideas, calling on him to “declare a national climate emergency,” and use it to ban “fossil fuel leases,” and force companies to build renewables under the Defense Production Act.

Across the pond, things look exactly opposite. The Europeans have embraced the climate religion with a fervor to rival Bernie Sanders. Yet Mr. Putin’s shocking violence in Ukraine—his willingness to wield energy as a weapon—sobered the Continent overnight. No one is giving up on renewables, but nobody is any longer pretending they are the basis of energy reliability or security. Fossil fuels will remain for decades a currency of global power, and Russia’s invasion highlights the stupidity of being broke.

Germany’s government is stockpiling coal and expediting terminals for liquefied natural gas. Europe is working to get more gas through pipelines from Norway and Azerbaijan. Poland plans new nuclear plants. The U.K. may restart onshore fracking and ramp up North Sea drilling. Norway plans to expand Arctic exploration.

Sen. Manchin gets the shift, and this week he deep-sixed Mr. Biden’s nominee to the Federal Reserve, the anti-fossil-fuel Sarah Bloom Raskin, saying that at this “historic moment” the U.S. needs policy leaders focused on the most pressing issues—“specifically rising inflation and energy costs.” Republicans are flooding the zone with ideas to accelerate fossil-fuel production, and even the pro-Biden media is beginning to fret about the president’s failure to see what’s happening.

While European leaders and Republicans are moving to address substantive geopolitical shifts, they also understand the politics. Gasoline and heating prices have been fleecing consumer wallets since Mr. Biden took office. He can try to lay off the more recent rise on “Putin’s price hike,” but polls consistently show voters blame high energy prices and inflation on the administration.

The inconvenient truth is that Mr. Biden’s climate agenda—no matter how much the liberal press wants to differ—has never been popular. It’s a concoction of the party’s progressive left and radical activist groups. A recent survey from Democratic pollster Impact Research of likely voters in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Arizona (three states with Senate races this year) found that 78% had a favorable view of natural gas, and only 22% want an energy policy that looks like the Green New Deal.

And voters aren’t buying Mr. Biden’s argument that the response to Russia should be to double down on his climate visions. In a HarrisX poll this week, nearly 70% of voters said “yes” to the question of whether, in light of Russia’s attack, the administration should “ease its focus on climate change and allow more oil and natural gas exploration.” They want energy and economic security, not electric-car charging stations.

The other risk to Democrats sticking their heads in the non-tar sands is that they make the situation worse substantively as well as politically. Desperate to remain on climate autopilot, Mr. Biden and other Democrats are now trying to blame higher prices on Big Oil and Big Gas and debating a windfall profits tax—a move that would depress production and further raise prices. Democratic governors are clamoring for a federal gasoline-tax holiday, but it’s a gimmick that would only temporarily mask true prices, and may not count for much in any event.

Which gets to the heart of the problem. Democrats want to make the problem go away without addressing its roots. Russia’s invasion has forced energy security to the center of the political debate, where it is likely to stay through the midterms. Voters will cast ballots for candidates who prove they understand the problem and have a plan for fixing it. Democrats who continue to wallow in platitudes about an “existential” climate crisis may find themselves out of jobs.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-...as-11647553480

In my post #82, I gave a reasonable explanation of what I believe to be energy independence for the United States.

WTF paid no attention because all he sees is money. And he really doesn’t mind how the profits are made.

What he fails to comprehend is that money is only worth something when there is something to purchase.

[FONT="Fixedsys"]Biden Is in Climate Denial
Even the European left understands what the Ukraine invasion means for fossil fuels.
] Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes, the world is shifting from energy efficiency to energy security. That will mean higher prices.


You seem not to understand what your own article is saying...which is that it does not matter what Joe B wants.

Jesus, Tiny , you keep posting what one party wants. As an investor, I know the voters will not stand for high gas prices.

Do you think any folks that want more drilling from say Florida, for example the Governor, would approve drilling off Flordia? No he will not. Does that mean there will not be new drilling. No. Yet my guess is you'd vote for him.



Same holds true with Biden. The Democrats are going to get shelled during the midterms like they were Ukrainians!

Anybody with half a brain knew that oil and gas and nuclear power needs to be the bridge to this new green deal.( what ever that pipedream is)

From a personal perspective, I looked into going the whole solar panel and electric truck route. I wanted to power my house and transportation.

I concluded it made no economic sense. That was last December, in late December I bought 30k more shares of my favorite energy sector company. And that was BEFORE this new shift in where nations will get their energy needs from.

Big Oil, like Mark Twain said when he'd heard he'd died said, "The news of my death have been greatly exaggerated".

Maybe you are just focused on the macro and me on the macro. But we are seeing the exact same thing and seemingly are coming to different conclusions.

In my post #82, I gave a reasonable explanation of what I believe to be energy independence for the United States.

WTF paid no attention because all he sees is money. And he really doesn’t mind how the profits are made.

What he fails to comprehend is that money is only worth something when there is something to purchase. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Let me check...ok, sorry I didn't reply, let me do so.

I will say you sound much like AOC.

Maybe the two of you should refresh yourselves on this word's meaning:

Realpolitik is a political system that's not based on beliefs, doctrines, ethics, or morals, but rather on realistic, practical ideas. It actually means practical politics.

It would not hurt Tiny and lustylad to refresh also!

Energy independence for the United States is when every drop of oil and ounce of natural gas we have is produced, every ton of coal we have is being mined, every available source of wind is developed, and every every hydroelectric plant is running.

This goes hand in had with the good paying jobs afforded to American workers.

The most efficient of these is probably Hydro Electric, followed by oil and natural gas. They serve us well for our generation. Future generations can develop other energy sources, just as our ancestors developed the ones we use now. Originally Posted by Jackie S

You forget nuclear....I'm not sure why it is not in the mix. Maybe Chernobyl fuc'd it up for all.

Question: Should we drill off the coast of Florida? If so, will you vote for Trump or Desantis if they do not change their stance?

Let me check...ok, sorry I didn't reply, let me do so.

I will say you sound much like AOC.

Maybe the two of you should refresh yourselves on this word's meaning:

Realpolitik is a political system that's not based on beliefs, doctrines, ethics, or morals, but rather on realistic, practical ideas. It actually means practical politics.

It would not hurt Tiny and lustylad to refresh also!







You forget nuclear....I'm not sure why it is not in the mix. Maybe Chernobyl fuc'd it up for all.

Question: Should we drill off the coast of Florida? If so, will you vote for Trump or Desantis if they do not change their stance? Originally Posted by WTF

I gave my opinion and what I believe.

That being, we should develop every energy resource that we have.

The United States has the technology to combine fossil fuels , renewable assets, and nuclear to dominate the World, using only what we have right here in our own territory, and do it in a “green” fashion.

For us to go begging hat in hand for energy resources from Countries that are our sworn enemies is the definition of stupidity.

All because we elected an old, senile, stupid, inept, corrupt piece of shit as President.

aoc - fossil fuel extraction linked to murder and rape

aoc - fossil fuel extraction linked to murder and rape Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

The Country needs to realize that many are listening to a 32 year old bartender.

It would be in every bodies best interest to not act like one.

For us to go begging hat in hand for energy resources from Countries that are our sworn enemies is the definition of stupidity.

All because we elected an old, senile, stupid, inept, corrupt piece of shit as President. Originally Posted by Jackie S

And I agree with most except this.

They are only our sworn enemies because they kicked our oil companies from their countries.

I'd rather have done oil business with Venezuela and Iran than Russia and Saudi Arabia!

That's not Bidens fault btw...

Nations go to real war over resources....Google why Japan launched the attack on Pearl....it wasn't because they wanted to become Nazi's

The difference is that Biden and the Progressives are an existential threat to the oil and gas industry and Trump was not. I'm not any bigger fan of Trump than you are, but this article treats his administration unfairly. A worldwide pandemic caused economies to suffer and the price of oil to fall, not Trump. And poo pooing Trump's deregulatory measures because a Democratic administration was likely to overturn them is disingenuous. Originally Posted by Tiny

The article starts by saying that only a handful of "favourite" people were in a position to have the potus ear. And that sounds par for course with donny. Kind of a cult of personality that putin has revived. And when the article came out, they were very conservative with those filing the bankruptcy. Turns out over a 100 oil companies went that route. Hasn't been that high " since 142 bankruptcies were filed during the last oil bust in 2016."

Not here to shake pompoms like most. But try as you might, you gotta take feelings out of it. I know. That's about 99.9999% of the post here, people posting their "feelings." But that article surprised me. But just like donny mentioning those "people tell me" crowd without giving sources (sound familiar with the posters here?) I can believe the executives being off the record since people see what happens to those that don't say nice things about donny.

The biggest threat to the oil companies is the writing on the wall about corporations starting moves away from oil. These talks of energy independence is moot compared to when the tap runs dry.

Nations go to real war over resources....Google why Japan launched the attack on Pearl....it wasn't because they wanted to become Nazi's Originally Posted by WTF

I know my history well. I know all about our embargoes and Japan needing to expand their empire to acquire the resources to……expand their empire.

Keep in mind, Japan was already pillaging and raping other Countries before Pearl Harbor. They knew that sooner or later, they would have to come to a decision concerning the United States.

They chose sooner. It turned out to be a very foolish decision but at the time, and with their intelligence it seemed like their only choice.

I know my history well. I know all about our embargoes and Japan needing to expand their empire to acquire the resources to……expand their empire.

Keep in mind, Japan was already pillaging and raping other Countries before Pearl Harbor. They knew that sooner or later, they would have to come to a decision concerning the United States.

They chose sooner. It turned out to be a very foolish decision but at the time, and with their intelligence it seemed like their only choice. Originally Posted by Jackie S

and the US had little choice but to cut off Japan. if not they would be enabling a potential rival who was as you point out already waging war in China and the entire western Pacific region. only a matter of time before they would move east toward the US. it was clear Japan's expansionist ambitions were designed if successful make Japan a world power.


the US was ill prepared to take on the Japanese navy which imo was the finest navy in the world because they were battle tested just the same as the German army was at the time. the Japanese made a smart call in the 1920's by launching their own naval ship building program. before, they had purchased the bulk of their ships from England, then the premier naval ship builder in the world. they took what they learned from the English and began their own program.


the results were obvious and by the mid 1930's Japan had succeeded in building a true White Water Navy that rivaled both the US and England. recall that Japan pulled out of the Naval Treaty that post WWI was supposed to limit the "Naval Arms Race" and were free to build whatever they wanted.


it wasn't just the two Yamato class super battleships, it was the 8-10 large modern carriers they built that made them a threat. the attack on Pearl Harbor could never had succeeded without carriers. the US had only 4 total carriers at the time. we were outnumbered 2 to 1 at least. like Japan, our Yorktown class was also state of the art purpose built carriers. we just needed about 4 more of them before Pearl Harbor.


fortunately the Atlantic was not a carrier centric naval war because the Axis powers Germany and Italy did not have a carrier fleet to speak of. Germany had one biplane based out of date carrier, Italy didn't even have one. the British had 5 carriers also biplane based with only the Ark Royale even remotely "modern". 4 of which the British lost rather quickly. by August 1942 4 had been sunk in battle. only the HMS Eagle survived WWII. the UK did build 4 true modern carriers beginning in 1940 but none were ready before late 1940/early 1941. all of those survived the war.


so the Atlantic was still a battleship based naval war like WWI where the vast Pacific required a large modern carrier fleet to control the vast space. this allowed the US to build up our carrier fleet exclusively for the Pacific while the Royal Navy handled the Atlantic without needing carriers. recall that the Royal Navy was still the largest Navy in the world at the time with over 1,400 ships.


everyone knows what happened after Pearl Harbor where the US began a massive naval build up that by war's end had over 24 modern Essex class carriers which were the gold standard in carrier design at the time. we also had a similar number of smaller escort/light carriers. what isn't generally known is that Japan actually managed to build 4 new modern carriers during the war. but all that did was replace barely their early losses especially at Midway where they lost half their carrier fleet in one battle. this output wasn't even close to enough to counter the US's vast industrial might. once the US was all in after Pearl Harbor the sheer might of american industry would eventually overwhelm Japan. the Japanese knew this would happen which is why they opted for a decisive blow to cripple the US Pacific fleet and buy them time. as successful as Pearl Harbor was, it didn't achieve the true goal, which was not so much the battleships but the carriers. the Enterprise was supposed to be at Pearl on Dec 7th but was delayed by weather returning. the rest were on the west coast fortunately. but losing just one main battle carrier at Pearl would have been a bigger blow than the 9 battleships we lost. and 7 of them were quickly returned to service except the Nevada and of course the Arizona.


of course these battleships were older designs but still formidable with 14 inch main guns. they had been updated over the years and were modernized again during WWII. of course they were no match for the newer classes the US immediately began building starting with the state of the art North Carolina class and culminating with the Iowa class. South Dakota and Iowa classes had radar and the Iowa had what was considered the state of the art radar based fire control.


the Iowa and probably the South Dakota class would have stood a strong chance of victory against the two Yamato class and the two Bismark German class super battleships in a classic battleship engagement. many experts give the Iowa the edge due to the state of the art radar based fire control.


the US did have a super battleship design in progress during WWII to counter the Yamato class but never built any in favor of Essex class carriers. it would have been a monster. 12 16 in. main guns vs 9 for the Iowa, better armor but slower at only 28 knots compared to 33 knots of the Iowa. it also would have been too large to use the Panama canal, another limiting factor.





here's a model of this bad boy. carriers rendered it obsolete before it even got off the drawing board.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana-class_battleship


the British did complete one so-called super battleship, HMS Vanguard and 4 also modern King George V class which were in service during WWII. the Vanguard was too late to see any action in WWII.

The article starts by saying that only a handful of "favourite" people were in a position to have the potus ear. And that sounds par for course with donny. Kind of a cult of personality that putin has revived. And when the article came out, they were very conservative with those filing the bankruptcy. Turns out over a 100 oil companies went that route. Hasn't been that high " since 142 bankruptcies were filed during the last oil bust in 2016."

Not here to shake pompoms like most. But try as you might, you gotta take feelings out of it. I know. That's about 99.9999% of the post here, people posting their "feelings." But that article surprised me. But just like donny mentioning those "people tell me" crowd without giving sources (sound familiar with the posters here?) I can believe the executives being off the record since people see what happens to those that don't say nice things about donny.

The biggest threat to the oil companies is the writing on the wall about corporations starting moves away from oil. These talks of energy independence is moot compared to when the tap runs dry. Originally Posted by Precious_b

Fair enough. Good post.

About your last sentence, there are two things that could cause the tap to run dry in the USA -- if prices are low so that it's not economic to find, develop and produce oil. Or if the politicians shut down the oil fields. And if either happens, it hopefully will only be temporary. Low prices will result in less production capacity as fields deplete. At some point demand will exceed supply and the cycle will turn. Higher prices will provide the incentive to make the investments to crank up production.

The politicians are trickier. WTF is convinced they're not stupid enough to shut down production and keep it shut down. Or they'll be kicked out of office if they do. Well, look at Western Europe. There's no move I'm aware of to allow hydraulic fracturing in Britain or France. They appear to have learned nothing from what's happening right now with Russia.

If AOC/Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren et al ever realize their dream to ban fracking, I'm not sure it would ever come back. The result would be an extreme drop in U.S. production.

Please explain what your definition is and how that will keep our oil prices under control here in this country.

The last thread exposed a bunch nativity or flat out arrogance and ignorance. Originally Posted by WTF

That's easy... the opposite of whatever a Democrat is proposing.

Democrat are too stupid to understand supply and demand... why the fcuk would I expect them to do anything right?