374
375

House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks (npca.org)

noodlebucket が 投稿

全 38 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]LeDrift 98 ポイント99 ポイント  (14子コメント)

I understand that we can't expect to just halt our reliance on oil and gas, and just switch over to renewable energy. It's going to be a slow, process requiring massive infrastructure changes. However, can we draw a line somewhere? Can we decide to continue our use of oil and gas so long as the procurement process is done in the most environmentally protective ways possible? That means leaving preserves, and national parks alone. Will we not be happy until we've bulldozed and put our mark on every acre of land? This is absurd. We can't possibly make any progress in changing over to cleaner energy if we are constantly seeking to suck the planet dry of every drop of oil and gas.

[–]no_soul_ginger 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

We need to understand that to a large segment of the population, new subdivisions, new malls, new (retail/service) commerce centers, new pavement, new and wider roads all represent progress.

This will keep happening until we can show how wrong they are.

[–]IamShiska 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This makes me really sad....

[–]Steam_Powered_Rocket 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (6子コメント)

What's worse is that it's not that we're pumping oil out that we need to function domestically, but were a net exporter, not importer. This isn't oil necessarily used by you and i, but sold to other nations.

[–]saudiaramcoshill 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Absolutely not true that we are a net exporter. Not even close. We import 9.5 MM bbls per day and export 4.75 MM bbls per day. Literally export half as much as we import.

[–]89y7t6fdrycfxgvhbnoh 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yeah but that's just oil, you're an exporter of natural gas. Net-wise in btu terms the US is pretty close to even for imports/exports http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20812

[–]saudiaramcoshill 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

OK, but the person I replied to said oil, and given that we use oil and gas for entirely different things, I felt it was appropriate to respond to his oil inaccuracy.

[–]dsfox 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Technically correct - the best kind of correct!

[–]calnick0 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They messed up semantically. In the context of this conversation their point is relevant.

[–]OJSamson 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

net exporter of coal and refined gasoline. we import oil and export gas.

[–]saudiaramcoshill 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We can, and we should draw a line. Consumers should expect to pay a little more in accordance with not opening up protected land for resource development, but it's a small price to pay to preserve those lands.

Editing to say that to be honest, the environmental damage done by oil companies in terms of ruining the areas they're drilling has been minimized to very very little damage in the immediate region. The damage is mostly diffuse across pollutants now. Clearing forests to build stuff for drilling doesn't really happen on a large scale like it used to. Not making an argument for the drilling, but something to keep in mind.

[–]reredditnogetit 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

in my opinion, the best way to go about dealing with the energy issue is at the personal level. the fact is the american lifestyle utilizes energy at a reckless and insane rate. we solo drive cars like NBD, we all have charged cellphones all the time, we run the heat when we're not home and its 40 degrees out, and none of this includes the fact everything is "big" in america (from cars to houses to burgers). the result of our lifestyle is a dangerous level of energy consumption, which leads to dangerous means of energy acquisition. i think a cultural overhaul is in order regarding personal accountability and our consumption of energy. only then can we responsibly and effectively address how we procure that energy (lowered consumption opens up the opportunity for renewables to actually meet the demand of the american market, something that is impossible today).

[–]remodox 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Charging your cellphone is so close to nothing it's not even funny.

Turn off a fucking light.

[–]zcleghern 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can we decide to continue our use of oil and gas so long as the procurement process is done in the most environmentally protective ways possible?

Yeah, gonna need to vote for those corrupt Democrats if we want a livable environment.

[–]hms_surprise 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't forget that a huge part of the American tradition is rooted in a Manifest Destiny mindset. Our precedent is—euphemistically—not great over all. The need to "conquer" is an all-consuming obsession for millions of lawmakers and businesspeople.

[–]MrMagistrate 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This would be a real tragedy on many levels.

[–]amcnally88 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ya such a short sighted approach to protecting the environment, truly is a real lose for very many, for the gain of so few :(

[–]-Xarathorn- 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Are you fucking kidding me?!

[–]Augustus_Caesar1 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm more shocked that they don't own the mineral rights. That seems really odd.

I would be really curious to know who does.

[–]offbelayknife 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Beyond all the bullshit going on, it's hilarious to see the allegedly strategic minded conservatives so eager to undermine long term plans for the US to maintain its domestic oil reserves as a safeguard against international instability. You'd think there were limits to their myopia.

[–]saudiaramcoshill 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Couple notes. Public parks aren't held as a strategic oil reserve. They're held as public parks. Second, it makes sense strategically to use our resources as much as we can (putting the parks aside) for multiple reasons. First, because we have no real knowledge of the long term usage of oil and how much we will need in the future. Second, because we actually already hold a strategic crude oil reserve. Third, because there are plenty of allies that we have that could potentially supply us with oil in the event that we run out and the middle East explodes. Fourth, because at what point do you continue to horde reserves? How much is enough to hold back on production?

There are many arguments as to why we should not open up public parks to drilling. This is not a good argument.

[–]offbelayknife 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Huh? You misunderstand what I said. I'm not talking about the operational strategic reserves, rather the undeveloped reserves. Your point by point here is mostly a non-sequitur.

I also wasn't making an argument against opening drilling in parks so you're right to identify it as a rather weak one. I was making an observation of shifting priorities in recent years and the tendency of development proposals from one side of the aisle to be moronic on several levels.

There has been quite a lot of conversation in the defense community about how the US should manage its natural resources in anticipation of a decline/collapse of the global system.

[–]IrishCarBobOmb 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I believe they are talking about the literal SPR, not implying the parks act as one (at least how I interpreted the "beyond" part):

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Oil-Cant-Pull-Higher-In-The-Near-Term.html

[–]battledome 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I wouldn't get too worked up. A lot of drilling stopped a couple of years back when the price of oil collapsed. This raises the specter of future drilling, but the profits on oil would have to be high enough to justify not only new drilling but also public outrage. I don't see that happening anytime soon (because we're drilling the shit out of all available private land already).

Edit: Downvoted already. Source. I'd like to just add that I'm not in favor of drilling in national parks. I just think that it's unlikely in the near future, and there are so many other things to be outraged about these days. For example.

[–]Akeera 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The people who are down voting probably feel like you're encouraging complacency on this issue. If we're not vigilant, it'll slip back in when we're not looking.

But I understand where you're coming from. There's only so much energy people can put into being outraged. I feel like this administration is just flinging crappy policy everywhere to obfuscate their actions. What we have to be able to do is investigate all their activities no matter how mundane, because it will be the boring details that carry the main agenda. All the flashy crap can't last, and by the time the fires are put out we may realize that a whole bunch of unpopular policies were snuck past public perception and implemented without opposition. It's a lot easier and cheaper to stop things before they happen.

[–]battledome 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Important to note that this is a bill and not an EO or a rule/regulation. As such, it's coming out of Congress and not the Oval Office anyway.

But, to your point, yes. Vigilance is good. Drilling inside national parks where the federal government doesn't own mineral rights is already permitted (but is extremely rare because they know people would raise hell). Vigilance means making sure your representative knows you're ready to raise hell should the need arise.

[–]pwmg 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The price of oil and gas has recovered considerably, and companies have been finding ways to collect it more cost effectively (not necessarily more safely or environmentally), especially onshore in the United States.

I would not expect economics to be a reliable check on U.S. onshore drilling.

[–]actionjj 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The current $53 is nothing, perhaps if it went back up to $80, I'd think that considerable. O&G guy here, and a climber.

Most 'oil companies' have sold off or simply stopped operating unproductive and high cost acreage and are focusing their efforts on only the most highly productive areas - notably the Permian Basin (West Texas), the Gulf of Mexico, parts of Wyoming and Colorado, and some parts of Oklahoma where they can be profitable at $53/Barrel.

When the price begins to rise they will start to turn the taps back on in some of the more marginal acreage areas - but you have a long way to go before they will start exploring in national parks. Unless of course there is conventional oil and gas sitting under there, and all they need to do is drill a hole in the ground before the oil starts flowing - but I strongly doubt that - if that were the case, it would never be a national park in the first place.

They have been able to get costs down, but that was mostly by squeezing suppliers and service company margins, and by delaying equipment maintenance expenses at the expense of shortening the life of their equipment. At some stages, major service companies were operating at, and below their operating cost. The message to everyone in the supply chain, was that the pain needed to be taken in the short term, in order to maintain capacity so that when oil prices do go back up, there is still some industry left to operate. Once prices go back up, service companies and their suppliers will looking to at least get back to reasonable profit margins, to recoup the lost profits of the past two years, as well as cover maintenance on equipment etc. Ergo. the low costs they have seen through mid 2015 to now, won't stick.

To me, that's the best argument as to why we shouldn't open up national parks to mineral and resource exploration - there is little to gain from it.

[–]battledome 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

^ He speaks the truth. West Texan with an oil lease on family property here.

[–]saudiaramcoshill 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

A lot of drilling only stopped in the least economical areas. But oil companies will drill when it is economical to do so again. ConocoPhillips just made a discovery in Alaska and will drill it when it becomes economically feasible. Apache I believe made a pretty decently sized discovery in Texas that's close to a park and there was some small amount of concern about affecting the park, but that kinda died off and they're not going to drill it yet because they can't make enough off it.

[–]battledome 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I dunno, dude... they stopped new drilling in Karnes County, TX which was one of the largest shale formations in the country. Baker-Hughes completely pulled out of Texas and wasn't drilling anywhere but in ND.

[–]lionseatcake 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

"Next on Fox News:

As populations of wild buffalo start to rise in the Western United States, House politicians make a surprise move, putting forward a bill opening two seasons in which it will be legal to hunt these once-near-extinct animals.

House representatives in favor of the bill had this to say:

"Too long has the federal government made it impossible for the average working man to supply food for his family. We would like to see a step back in the governments reach over creatures and land. The bible tells us we shall inherit the earth, and all the creatures on it. Its a basic human right to eat what we want when we want."

(...or some other right wing nonsense...)

[–]saudiaramcoshill -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm moderate and not at all religious but c'mon. Both sides say stupid shit and the Bible would not be used as a justification for this kind of thing, no matter how dumb it is.

[–]lionseatcake 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You understand this was satirical....right?

[–]ilove_alot3 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I just think that it's unlikely in the most environmentally protective ways possible?

[–]robster644 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here's a summary of House Bill H.R. 621, as well as information regarding drilling NEAR Zion.

http://thenationalparkguide.com/2017/02/01/h-r-bill-621-newsletter/

[–]HerbertMcSherbert 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have never been more disappointed in Hugh Laurie.

[–]skekze 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is cradle robbing the unborn, so I guess grave robbing ain't off the table.