Biden Administration stops ANWR development

[SAJ-99]

At some point the north slope wont produce enough oil to keep the pipeline going. Then what?

Reclaiming?

 

[BWALKER77]

The Billings area refineries are more able than most to run the Canadian crude. Also not all of the Canadian crude is as heavy as the tar sands syncrude. Without a coker, a refinery can't handle very much heavy crude.

The Billings refineries have benefited from the crude from this part of the world being landlocked. It gets sold at a discount. Certainly for less than if they could get it to the gulf coast.

All three Billings refineries have cokers. And yes they benefit from limited outlets for Canadian crude. Without those benefits they would have a hard time staying profitable given economies of scale.

 

[BWALKER77]

Reclaiming?

And buy it from the Saudis?

 

[BWALKER77]

I could be wrong, but I believe when Anwr was created land was set aside specifically for future mineral extraction.

That's west of ANWR.
The area around Pebble Mine was set aside for mineral extraction.

 

[BWALKER77]

You been to Midland?

Dont get crazy.. I didnt say every place in the lower 48..

 

[SAJ-99]

And buy it from the Saudis?

Oh, you meant what do we do about the oil shortage. We adapt. Like we have done for 100,000 yrs. Gasoline goes to $5/gal, which is where it would be with out fracking, truck sales crater, compact car and EV sales skyrocket. This all assumes that the industry can’t find a new way to get currently “unrecoverable” oil out of the ground. In that case, we continue to treat the Earth like a 1980 RV we bought on Craigslist.

 

[BWALKER77]

There are literally tens of millions of acres leased currently that are not being drilled. Let the industry screw up public lands down here before they screw up a critical wildlife refuge and make us pay for their clean up.

The coastal plain where the drilling question would take place is a very small percentage of the refuge proper. It's also comprised mostly of barren gravel and scrub brush.
The northslope has pretty strict reclamation requirements so uncapped wells will not be a problem. Drilling would be done in the winter months via ice roads so disturbance would be minimal.
And let's not shit ourselves you guys are opposed to this based on ideology, not on the merit. Yet you will give wind and solar projects a pass when they have worse impacts.

 

[BWALKER77]

Oh, you meant what do we do about the oil shortage. We adapt. Like we have done for 100,000 yrs. Gasoline goes to $5/gal, which is where it would be with out fracking, truck sales crater, compact car and EV sales skyrocket. This all assumes that the industry can’t find a new way to get currently “unrecoverable” oil out of the ground. In that case, we continue to treat the Earth like a 1980 RV we bought on Craigslist.

Sounds like a leftists enviro nazi wet dream.

 

[Big Fin]

I have some questions about the Keystone decision, none of which are based on the quality/complexities of Canadian crude.

We claim we make these decisions, for/against based on science. Sometimes science gets ignored when rejecting permits. Sometimes it gets ignored when approving permits. Whatever side someone is on, they claim the science supports the decision they prefer, though that is often not the case.

In the Keystone case, I struggle to understand how the science could be assessed so quickly. Was the science disregarded when it was originally permitted under the Obama Admin, then delayed by the Obama Admin? Was the science disregarded when the permit was reinstated by the Trump Admin?

Whatever way it is decided, I would like that to be based on science. To make this decision immediately seems to raise the question of "What happened to the science?"

This change to remove the permit does have some serious consequences to small towns along the path of the pipeline (including MT small towns) with those consequences deep enough that those communities deserve to have these decisions settled based on the actual facts and science, not the political winds that keep kicking the permit back and forth.

 

[Irrelevant]

Sounds like a leftists enviro nazi wet dream.

Could you be more derogatory please i really hate thoughtful discussion.

 

[44hunter45]

This is all a little, "Where the F is my jet pack?" to me. We should already be done with fossil fuels as a species.

I'm not virtue signalling, as I drive more gas vehicles than some small developing nations. If new computer and communication technologies were supressed to the extent energy tech is, we would still be using rotary phones.

 

[BWALKER77]

I have some questions about the Keystone decision, none of which are based on the quality/complexities of Canadian crude.

We claim we make these decisions, for/against based on science. Sometimes science gets ignored when rejecting permits. Sometimes it gets ignored when approving permits. Whatever side someone is on, they claim the science supports the decision they prefer, though that is often not the case.

In the Keystone case, I struggle to understand how the science could be assessed so quickly. Was the science disregarded when it was originally permitted under the Obama Admin, then delayed by the Obama Admin? Was the science disregarded when the permit was reinstated by the Trump Admin?

Whatever way it is decided, I would like that to be based on science. To make this decision immediately seems to raise the question of "What happened to the science?"

This change to remove the permit does have some serious consequences to small towns along the path of the pipeline (including MT small towns) with those consequences deep enough that those communities deserve to have these decisions settled based on the actual facts and science, not the political winds that keep kicking the permit back and forth.

Randy, I agree with most of what you said. However, the devil is in the detail. By that I mean what is the benchmarks a project should be judged on. If we applied the standards of some people there would never be another infrastructure project in the US.
Also I do believe the pipelines economic benefits long term are much over blown. There is also a real risk of shutting down 1 or more of the 4 refineries in the state by the pipeline being built. One refinery has much more economic benifits than a pipeline that only takes a few guys to maintain and operate.

 

[BWALKER77]

This is all a little, "Where the F is my jet pack?" to me. We should already be done with fossil fuels as a species.

I'm not virtue signalling, as I drive more gas vehicles than some small developing nations. If new computer and communication technologies were supressed to the extent energy tech is, we would still be using rotary phones.

What do you mean by suppressed?
The fact of the matter is if there were technology to go carbon free cost effectively we would have done so. The fact if the matter is every citizen in this country is surrounded by petroleum products every single day of their lives whether they realize it or not.

 

[geetar]

Either way you look at it there is win and loss. The jobs lost are definitely hurting people but as a hunter and conservationist minded person I can’t say I fully disagree with shutting it down. It’s a double edged sword if there ever was one. 🗡

 

[Okie94]

I have some questions about the Keystone decision, none of which are based on the quality/complexities of Canadian crude.

We claim we make these decisions, for/against based on science. Sometimes science gets ignored when rejecting permits. Sometimes it gets ignored when approving permits. Whatever side someone is on, they claim the science supports the decision they prefer, though that is often not the case.

In the Keystone case, I struggle to understand how the science could be assessed so quickly. Was the science disregarded when it was originally permitted under the Obama Admin, then delayed by the Obama Admin? Was the science disregarded when the permit was reinstated by the Trump Admin?

Whatever way it is decided, I would like that to be based on science. To make this decision immediately seems to raise the question of "What happened to the science?"

This change to remove the permit does have some serious consequences to small towns along the path of the pipeline (including MT small towns) with those consequences deep enough that those communities deserve to have these decisions settled based on the actual facts and science, not the political winds that keep kicking the permit back and forth.

Agreed, I'm for the keystone pipeline but that's assuming that it's safe based upon both administration's giving bit the go ahead. Either way now there's many people out of work in a time that there's not much work to be had for their trade, all because a politician wanted to score some points with his party.

It's the same problem with covid, climate change and most other things, nowadays everything is twisted to fit a certain narrative based upon party affiliation.

I lean conservative on most things but republicans continually drop the ball when it comes to conservation and public land. There's no reason you can't support environmental issues and oil&gas it all has its place as long humans are around.

 

[Okie94]

Oh, you meant what do we do about the oil shortage. We adapt. Like we have done for 100,000 yrs. Gasoline goes to $5/gal, which is where it would be with out fracking, truck sales crater, compact car and EV sales skyrocket. This all assumes that the industry can’t find a new way to get currently “unrecoverable” oil out of the ground. In that case, we continue to treat the Earth like a 1980 RV we bought on Craigslist.

People will still purchase trucks because there are still some people that use them for work.

Compact cars and electric vehicles still use fossil fuels, very little electricity overall comes from renewable energy.

As far as treating the earth like a 1980 rv I would rather use oil than solar/ turbines as long as the wells are cemented after production. They take up a small portion of the landscape compared to a field that's rows of solar panels or turbines that will always be there and have to be constantly maintained. I believe the best solution is all of the above but that should be the obvious conclusion.

 

[trasko]

As far as treating the earth like a 1980 rv I would rather use oil than solar/ turbines as long as the wells are cemented after production. They take up a small portion of the landscape compared to a field that's rows of solar panels or turbines that will always be there and have to be constantly maintained. I believe the best solution is all of the above but that should be the obvious conclusion.

The issue with fossil fuels is -- IMO -- a bigger picture issue. These fuels took 100s of millions of years to create. And we've been extracting them at scale for... 200? If we could keep extracting for 1000 years it's still a tiny fraction of how long it took to create the fuel. It's fundamentally not sustainable. The only purpose of fossil fuels, therefor, is to jumpstart our species to sustainable, clean energy production. That's it.

If the earth has to be dirtied up or damaged a little bit in the process then that is the price you pay. I don't think anyone wants environmental degradation. It just might happen along the way. It sucks. But people clamoring for "cheap fuel" to power "our way of life" IMO are missing the point. Our "way of life" (and dependence on fossil fuel -- and the environmental fallout from it -- is temporary. Very temporary. We live a more comfortable life than pretty much all humans before us and if I can help it future generations will have it better yet.

 

[406dn]

Also I do believe the pipelines economic benefits long term are much over blown. There is also a real risk of shutting down 1 or more of the 4 refineries in the state by the pipeline being built. One refinery has much more economic benifits than a pipeline that only takes a few guys to maintain and operate.

This is a piece of my ambivalence about the pipeline. I think Montana would come out a net loser of good paying long term jobs, if the pipeline is built.

Yes, there are jobs for a year or two building the pipeline, then they are gone. It takes very few people to run a completed pipeline. And some of the remaining jobs are done remotely from a central headquarters on the gulf coast.

The refineries in Montana are tiny compared to the refineries on the gulf coast. None of them have an integrated chemical plant connected to them. If they end up paying a comparable price for the crude they run,,they really can't compete, head to head.

 

[SAJ-99]

People will still purchase trucks because there are still some people that use them for work.

Compact cars and electric vehicles still use fossil fuels, very little electricity overall comes from renewable energy.

As far as treating the earth like a 1980 rv I would rather use oil than solar/ turbines as long as the wells are cemented after production. They take up a small portion of the landscape compared to a field that's rows of solar panels or turbines that will always be there and have to be constantly maintained. I believe the best solution is all of the above but that should be the obvious conclusion.

I think you underestimate how people change their purchasing habits. You can actually look at the last 40ys of light truck sales and overlay it with gasoline prices.
Also, what is “very little”. Sort of a nebulous phrase. Almost 18% in 2019, and climbing. I agree that an “all of the above” solution will be necessary, but we are already well on our way down that path. Some tax changes and extensions will accelerate that process.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The coastal plain where the drilling question would take place is a very small percentage of the refuge proper. It's also comprised mostly of barren gravel and scrub brush.
The northslope has pretty strict reclamation requirements so uncapped wells will not be a problem. Drilling would be done in the winter months via ice roads so disturbance would be minimal.
And let's not shit ourselves you guys are opposed to this based on ideology, not on the merit. Yet you will give wind and solar projects a pass when they have worse impacts.

I'm going to put a toxic dump in your yard, but it's cool, because it's just in a corner that you're not using at the moment. I totally promise to bury the waste and even though I'm working to overturn the laws that make my mitigation of trash mandatory, you'll just have to trust me that I'll not totally screw this up, like I've done time & time before.

If you don't like it, you hate America and want us all to live in filth.

I am opposed to drilling in Wildlife Refuges based on the ideology that some places should be left alone, and used for their congressionally intended purpose of ensuring that wildlife has a place to exist and thrive without having to be impacted by any poorly thought out development. Yes. You got me pegged there. I also oppose developing Wildlife Management Areas, National Parks, Wilderness Areas and lands in the NLCS system, as well as wildlife refuges.

Not sure who "you guys" are, but I am opposed to large scale industrial developments on public lands, regardless of the type of energy being extracted. I've been perfectly clear about that.