Make America a Net Energy Importer Again: The Uniparty in Action

https://www.nationofchange.org/2024/...to-the-public/
The American oil industry’s playbook, illustrated: How drillers offload costly cleanup onto the public.

https://www.propublica.org/article/t...rys-slow-death
The Rising Cost of the Oil Industry’s Slow Death

Switching to a sustainable renewable energy system and reducing oil production is a net benefit when considering the impact oil production has on our environment. Putting up wind turbines seems like a better option than drilling holes in the ground and pumping in water and chemicals to push up oil and gas. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

So why should people in Austin, Texas and Washington D.C. care? Those affected live in places like Hobbs, Artesia, Midland, Pecos, Crane, Andrews, Big Spring and Seminole. And they'd characterize your links as snuff porn for environmentalists. West Texas counties, most of which are majority Hispanic, went for Trump big time. Why? Because they correctly recognize blue state Democratic Party politicians like Kamala Harris as existential threats to their livelihoods.

Please note I asked you to confine the discussion to the last 20 years. Most of the wells described in the links were drilled before that.

The state of Texas, including the school districts and the counties and the cities and towns, realized $27.3 billion in revenues from oil and gas severance taxes, local property taxes, and state royalties in 2024, according to Perplexity. And the same year the state and Feds spent approximately $78.5 million on plugging wells in Texas.

There's nothing wrong with onshore wind energy. Without subsidies it probably doesn't make as much sense as generating electricity from solar or natural gas. But it's an option, more environmentally friendly than coal, and probably cheaper than nuclear if you can use the incremental intermittent supply. Offshore wind on the other hand is a boondoggle made possible only by subsidies and tax breaks.

And I'm not 100% convinced wind is more environmentally friendly than oil and gas. Neither is Billy Bob Thornton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmbZwxEnAFc

Do you think Billy Bob wants some Propublica or "Nation of Change" dumb asses telling Odessans to plug their oil wells and give up their jobs? The answer is hell no.

You didn't bring up carbon emissions, but if you had, I'd ask you to look at carbon from American oil and gas as a % of worldwide emissions. It's around 7%. If the politicians take away our jobs and energy security by kneecapping oil and gas, they won't do jack to reduce worldwide emissions.

....

That WSJ editorial had the stench of sour grapes all over it. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I'm leaving my comments with that. And I've said this about the WSJ before. Their news and business coverage can be excellent, so I read it every day. But their editorial content is often so biased as to be laughable. At least they are consistent and transparent. If it is "pro business" and all about making as much money as quickly as possible, it gets priority.

I will give them credit for being critical of Trump et al during surprising moments. But overall, they are blatant shills for the most simplistic of capitalist ideology.

(but you could certainly say that I am unrealistic to expect them to be anything else!)

.

So why should people in Austin, Texas and Washington D.C. care? Those affected live in places like Hobbs, Artesia, Midland, Pecos, Crane, Andrews, Big Spring and Seminole. And they'd characterize your links as snuff porn for environmentalists. West Texas counties, most of which are majority Hispanic, went for Trump big time. Why? Because they correctly recognize blue state Democratic Party politicians like Kamala Harris as existential threats to their livelihoods. Originally Posted by Tiny

Would it surprise you to know that I’ve spent a lot of my life in Hobbs, NM and Midland, TX? I’ve got lots of family in the oilfield industry. And many of them probably have viewpoints like those you describe. But that’s not the argument.

Please note I asked you to confine the discussion to the last 20 years. Most of the wells described in the links were drilled before that. Originally Posted by Tiny

The argument was why the regulations that the opinion writer was referring to were implemented. I think that the links provided points to a pattern of behavior in most industries, including the oilfield industry, in which corporations use shell companies to avoid the liability and cleanup costs inherent to their business.

Artificially limiting the argument to the last 20 years is just a disingenuous attempt to avoid the point.

The state of Texas, including the school districts and the counties and the cities and towns, realized $27.3 billion in revenues from oil and gas severance taxes, local property taxes, and state royalties in 2024, according to Perplexity. And the same year the state and Feds spent approximately $78.5 million on plugging wells in Texas.

There's nothing wrong with onshore wind energy. Without subsidies it probably doesn't make as much sense as generating electricity from solar or natural gas. But it's an option, more environmentally friendly than coal, and probably cheaper than nuclear if you can use the incremental intermittent supply. Offshore wind on the other hand is a boondoggle made possible only by subsidies and tax breaks.

And I'm not 100% convinced wind is more environmentally friendly than oil and gas. Neither is Billy Bob Thornton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmbZwxEnAFc

Do you think Billy Bob wants some Propublica or "Nation of Change" dumb asses telling Odessans to plug their oil wells and give up their jobs? The answer is hell no.

You didn't bring up carbon emissions, but if you had, I'd ask you to look at carbon from American oil and gas as a % of worldwide emissions. It's around 7%. If the politicians take away our jobs and energy security by kneecapping oil and gas, they won't do jack to reduce worldwide emissions. Originally Posted by Tiny

I never said that I wanted to kneecap the oilfield industry. World events and the capability for other countries to out produce us will eventually lower the price of crude low enough to put domestic oil production into the crapper even if we removed all environmental regulations entirely.

I would rather see the US implement as many types of power generation as possible so that we are not as dependent upon fossil fuel industry to power our economy.

Change is inevitable and the Trump administration’s attempt to steer us away from renewable energy is a giant mistake doomed to failure.

Would it surprise you to know that I’ve spent a lot of my life in Hobbs, NM and Midland, TX? I’ve got lots of family in the oilfield industry. And many of them probably have viewpoints like those you describe. But that’s not the argument.



The argument was why the regulations that the opinion writer was referring to were implemented. I think that the links provided points to a pattern of behavior in most industries, including the oilfield industry, in which corporations use shell companies to avoid the liability and cleanup costs inherent to their business.

Artificially limiting the argument to the last 20 years is just a disingenuous attempt to avoid the point.



I never said that I wanted to kneecap the oilfield industry. World events and the capability for other countries to out produce us will eventually lower the price of crude low enough to put domestic oil production into the crapper even if we removed all environmental regulations entirely.

I would rather see the US implement as many types of power generation as possible so that we are not as dependent upon fossil fuel industry to power our economy.

Change is inevitable and the Trump administration’s attempt to steer us away from renewable energy is a giant mistake doomed to failure. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

The point is that the articles want to go back to Spindletop. Yeah, when people were drilling many 1,000 and 2,000 foot wells in populated areas with no regulation, there was a problem. Now when they're drilling $15 million wells with 3 mile laterals to measured depths over 25,000 feet in areas where the residents are wholeheartedly behind the industry, it's different. The Texas Railroad Commission does a good job as a regulator.

Please have some compassion for your family.

I agree, Trump's crusade against wind is stupid, and wind and especially solar make a lot of sense.

this is a case in point.
https://www.abqjournal.com/news/ag-f...rators/2949023

regulating wind vs. fossil fuels are very different ballgames.

https://www.nationofchange.org/2024/...to-the-public/
The American oil industry’s playbook, illustrated: How drillers offload costly cleanup onto the public.

https://www.propublica.org/article/t...rys-slow-death
The Rising Cost of the Oil Industry’s Slow Death

Switching to a sustainable renewable energy system and reducing oil production is a net benefit when considering the impact oil production has on our environment. Putting up wind turbines seems like a better option than drilling holes in the ground and pumping in water and chemicals to push up oil and gas. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

this is a case in point.
https://www.abqjournal.com/news/ag-f...rators/2949023

regulating wind vs. fossil fuels are very different ballgames. Originally Posted by pxmcc

You can find examples where companies screwed up the environment and committed fraud in many industries, including wind power. Windmills wipe out birds and bats, including endangered species, and there are a number of instances where wind promoters were convicted of fraud.

Yes it is a different ballgame, in that oil and gas supply about 75% of American energy compared to 11% for wind. And oil and gas have been around for a lot more years than wind, and correspondingly have left a bigger environmental footprint. For that matter, oil and gas are worse for the environment. How much worse is debatable. However, in terms of air quality, carbon emissions, and worker safety, oil and gas are much preferable to coal. And despite what the political class in California believes, you can't wave a magic wand and then all of a sudden wind will supply reliable base load electricity, or produce liquid fuels, that Americans can afford.

As to your article, I don't believe the corporate veil will be sufficient to protect these jokers. While the attorney general's lawsuit is civil, I imagine they could be criminally prosecuted as well.

^^great post Tiny. i appreciate how you see nuance and how you note that everything isn't just black and white. all energy sources come with a list of pros and cons, and wind is no exception.

for example, i see natural gas as a bridge to eventually all renewable energy sources; it is far better than coal. the final solution, imo, will be fusion-same concept as how the sun generates energy-supplemented by other renewables, including biodiesel. we need to do a Manhattan Project for development of commercial-ready fusion technology. proof of concept has already been achieved, but fusion is nowhere near ready for addition to the grid.

although "leave it in the ground" is a catchy slogan, i think, to be realistic, we're not there yet.

having said that, anthropogenic climate change is the single greatest existential threat to planet earth and to the future of mankind. eventually, yes, we actually should leave it in the ground.

meanwhile, a carbon tax should be implemented, imo, at a small but increasing percentage over time. it is good environmental policy and could help us end the sea of federal red ink that threatens the future greatness of America. it also helps to factor in the true cost of burning fossil fuels, which is not presently accounted for in fossil fuel prices.

But this shit is about 10X worse. He's trying to do the same thing, in the USA, simply because he doesn't like wind. And yeah, I'm sure without subsidies the offshore projects wouldn't have made sense at the outset. But now that 75% of the project's built, why on God's Green Earth would you axe it? Originally Posted by Tiny

Though I'm hardly one of the nation's biggest supporters of wind energy, I fully agree. With most of the project built, throwing it away just strikes me as asininity on steroids.

...meanwhile, a carbon tax should be implemented, imo, at a small but increasing percentage over time. it is good environmental policy and could help us end the sea of federal red ink that threatens the future greatness of America. it also helps to factor in the true cost of burning fossil fuels, which is not presently accounted for in fossil fuel prices. Originally Posted by pxmcc

The goal of a carbon tax would be to disincentivize fossil fuel use in order to support the development of renewables. However, I think Senator Ruben Gallego may have pointed up the political impracticability of that idea with his statement that "every young Latino man wants a 'big-ass' truck." Some economic policy commentators on Substack even referred to this as the the "big-ass truck abundance theory." This is considered one of the primary reasons that so many Hispanic voters shifting to Trump last year. Maybe it's not the best political strategy to piss off young Latino men. There are a lot of them!

...we need to do a Manhattan Project for development of commercial-ready fusion technology. proof of concept has already been achieved, but fusion is nowhere near ready for addition to the grid. Originally Posted by pxmcc

That's the Holy Grail!

One joke among physicists that's been around for years is that 30 years ago commercially viable fusion power was said to be 30 years away, and now it's still 30 years away!

But is it? Some researchers believe that advancing AI might help researchers solve the problem of controlling and stabilizing the superheated plasma in such a manner as to ensure the durability and viability of the reactor.

Here are a couple of quick takes on the issue from Carnegie Mellon and Princeton.

https://www.cmu.edu/work-that-matter...-fusion-energy

https://www.pppl.gov/news/2025/findi...stem-faster-ai

Oh, what a world we will enjoy if this comes to fruition!

The goal of a carbon tax would be to disincentivize fossil fuel use in order to support the development of renewables. However, I think Senator Ruben Gallego may have pointed up the political impracticability of that idea with his statement that "every young Latino man wants a 'big-ass' truck." Some economic policy commentators on Substack even referred to this as the the "big-ass truck abundance theory." This is considered one of the primary reasons that so many Hispanic voters shifting to Trump last year. Maybe it's not the best political strategy to piss off young Latino men. There are a lot of them!

let them try an ev truck. 0 to 60 in 2.2 seconds. they'll never look back. all those fucking gears..

That's the Holy Grail!

One joke among physicists that's been around for years is that 30 years ago commercially viable fusion power was said to be 30 years away, and now it's still 30 years away!

But is it? Some researchers believe that advancing AI might help researchers solve the problem of controlling and stabilizing the superheated plasma in such a manner as to ensure the durability and viability of the reactor.

Here are a couple of quick takes on the issue from Carnegie Mellon and Princeton.

https://www.cmu.edu/work-that-matter...-fusion-energy

https://www.pppl.gov/news/2025/findi...stem-faster-ai

Oh, what a world we will enjoy if this comes to fruition![/QUOTE]

px: ya, it was always 20 or 30 years away. tomorrow, tomorrow..

but legit, not any more. this shit is happening. the only question is when, not if. whoever picks the right fusion stocks is set for life, imo..