Ban on Drilling Would Cost One Million Jobs

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/ban-on-drilling-would-cost-1-million-jobs-petroleum-body-says_3493830.html

Is President Trump being too political in extending the offshore drilling ban? Do we have enough other oil to last until then? Is the drilling politically tenable for any administration, especially a Democrat one? RCW

 

Ban on Drilling Would Cost 1 Million Jobs, Petroleum Body Says

API claims drilling ban would hit GDP and boost coal use, gas imports

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

So far as I understand it, without significant searching, the drill ban is in front of the tourist areas of FL GA and the Carolinas, not extending into active areas in the Gulf.

Do I have it right?

[Boat + 1,323]

21 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

So far as I understand it, without significant searching, the drill ban is in front of the tourist areas of FL GA and the Carolinas, not extending into active areas in the Gulf.

Do I have it right?

I think that’s correct. And other fracking in hot spots like the Permian will continue.

Tech has killed most oil and gas jobs while getting much more efficient. Plenty of oil and gas out there. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, 0R0 said:

So far as I understand it, without significant searching, the drill ban is in front of the tourist areas of FL GA and the Carolinas, not extending into active areas in the Gulf.

Do I have it right?

Hello @0R0.  Long time.....and we've missed your contributions and comments.

Hope all is well with you and yours.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

5 hours ago, ronwagn said:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/ban-on-drilling-would-cost-1-million-jobs-petroleum-body-says_3493830.html

Is President Trump being too political in extending the offshore drilling ban? Do we have enough other oil to last until then? Is the drilling politically tenable for any administration, especially a Democrat one? RCW

 

Ban on Drilling Would Cost 1 Million Jobs, Petroleum Body Says

API claims drilling ban would hit GDP and boost coal use, gas imports

 

Trump owns vacation properties in Florida.  It''s not political, it for his personal reasons.

He doesn't care about those oil jobs, he does care if his resorts shut down and/or property values plummet.

 

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

6 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Is President Trump being too political in extending the offshore drilling ban? Do we have enough other oil to last until then? Is the drilling politically tenable for any administration, especially a Democrat one? RCW

You've conflated unrelated points here. The API was talking about a universal drilling ban, not the utterly meaningless ban offshore Florida where to my knowledge they don't even have seismic data, so drilling is beyond moot. 

The demoncrat party could care less about 1 million "far right" jobs. They know those roughnecks aren't going to vote for them, ever. 

[Boat + 1,323]

It’s not just Florida, SC and GA also. Go Google. Trump praises not polluting. Him and Obama are buddies now. 🙃  
Thinking of more drilling, what about those 30,000 DUCT’S yet to frack. As usual Trump is playing to the base in times of a massive glut. He’s special.

Edited September 11, 2020 by Boat

[Boat + 1,323]

Trump had a whack-a-mole issue board built. He plays it like a snare drum. His favorite mole is spending more money. That poor mole has had the crap beaten out of him.

[Boat + 1,323]

In an approaching era of drones, missiles, rail guns, laser, space defense why are there ground troops, tanks, aircraft carriers, destroyers, you get the idea.

Get off my tax neck for 800 bases stacking up expensive crap only to be taken out if there was a war.

We need to be

 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Boat

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

24 minutes ago, Boat said:

It’s not just Florida, SC and GA also. Go Google. Trump praises not polluting. Him and Obama are buddies now. 🙃  
Thinking of more drilling, what about those 30,000 DUCT’S yet to frack. As usual Trump is playing to the base in times of a massive glut. He’s special.

Why humiliate yourself on an oil site with your staggering ignorance? 

First GA and SC are equally meaningless since no one has done seismic offshore there either. Trump might as well ban drilling offshore New York State. 

Second, you understand the difference between fracking and drilling? Hint, they are nothing alike.

[BLA + 1,666]

14 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Trump owns vacation properties in Florida.  It''s not political, it for his personal reasons.

He doesn't care about those oil jobs, he does care if his resorts shut down and/or property values plummet.

 

 

Actually it's not a " vacation" home. He moved his residency from NYC to Florida last year.

He owned homes and several commercial properties in Florida back when he was in favor of Florida drilling.

THINGS CHANGE: Trump has achieved energy independence and reasonable gasoline and heating costs for  U.S. consumer.   No need for FL , SC, GA offshore.

 

Edited September 11, 2020 by BLA

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,237]

There is over 2mmb per day shut in/why would you spend money on coastal drilling as cost is 4 times more? The DUCS here in West Texas and S.E New Mexico will last well into 2021. Demand still stagnate......  Banning coastal Georgia and Florida makes sense. Re-visit in 10 years if necessary...

[ronwagn + 6,290]

18 hours ago, Boat said:

It’s not just Florida, SC and GA also. Go Google. Trump praises not polluting. Him and Obama are buddies now. 🙃  
Thinking of more drilling, what about those 30,000 DUCT’S yet to frack. As usual Trump is playing to the base in times of a massive glut. He’s special.

Becoming an even better politician eh?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

18 hours ago, Boat said:

In an approaching era of drones, missiles, rail guns, laser, space defense why are there ground troops, tanks, aircraft carriers, destroyers, you get the idea.

Get off my tax neck for 800 bases stacking up expensive crap only to be taken out if there was a war.

We need to be

 

I think you make a good point. There is an ever changing balance that needs to be continuously reevaluated. I do not see large ships as a major answer. Neither do I see transporting large numbers of troops overseas as a great idea in future wars. They need to be fought with highly mobile weapons and highly trained troops to operate weapons that kill the enemy forces with minimum losses on our side. Armed infantry are better to defend America itself than operating on foreign battlefields. The Chinese are targeting our ships and bases overseas and in America, as are the Russians, Iranians and North Korea. 

We are at far greater risk, within America, of having our Constitutional Rights overthrown by those who would IGNORE them and do IGNORE them. Our founding fathers foresaw this danger and gave us the Second Amendment with which to protect ourselves. 

We do spend too much on some of our military programs because of the Military Industrial Complex which is intertwined with our corporate behemoths, politicians, and generals. 

See The Military Industrial Complex

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VEybh7XgP4sg6nA0lN2bPwlKhN9esuseGBl2HaXFXgw/edit

Edited September 11, 2020 by ronwagn
added reference

[ronwagn + 6,290]