Is the GOP dumbing down?

It is a useless tidbit of information that is widely masqueraded amongst the left as an implication that it is not the government that has slowed down exploration, rather it is the oil companies.

There is no reason to mention it, yet you did. If you want to say that was NOT you representing it as meaningful, I would say that does not make any sense.

 

you and another member complaining in the one-way tolerance thread about the partisaness of it. Yet I see zero similar complaints from you or that other member in this thread.


I'll admit I can be a partisan hypocrite at times.... The difference between you and me is at least I'll admit it.

 

Had you supplied any quote of my "complaints," in that "one-way tolerance," thread, it would be obvious that I was calling out XXJefferson51's hypocrisy, there, as well. He was presenting that those on the Right, had always been tolerant, but were now, finally, running out of patience, because their tolerance has never been reciprocated, from the Left. XXJeff, as you may know-- or may not have recognized-- has frequently demonized the Progressive Left. This is my, so called, complaint:

DEFinning said: ↑
Are you thinking of "The Progressive Mindset is Evil," or is the one you mentioned, a different one of his Left- demonizing threads?

Which was a reply to:

Kranes56 said: ↑
Didn’t the OP start a thread called “progressivism is a mental disorder”?


Your own partisanship is so well ingrained, that you do not recognize that this thread is not an analog to that one. In that one, l am merely stating the factual title of another one of that poster's threads, which slanders Progressives, while in the thread of my comment, he is portraying the Right as having been "tolerant." This is hypocrisy, FYI. What is the hypocrisy here, which I could easily highlight, by citing the title of another, contradicting thread, by the same poster? In fact, why haven't you done that?

So you have not shown any hypocrisy, on my part. Clearly, you mistake my disagreeing with your view, as a sign of hypocrisy. It may make my ending to this post-- in a thread asking if there has been a "dumbing down" of the GOP-- a little too much on the nose, but I will have to recommend, before your next response, that you consult a dictionary.

 

The lease is worthless without a drilling permit. The drilling permits are difficult to obtain.

Additionally, investors do not want to invest in oil drilling if the administration is going phase out carbon based fuels. Biden said his intent was to get rid of carbon based fuels. Apparently driving up the price is his way of doing it.

 

You are just as much responsible for derailing the thread as I am. I started with pointing out that the polls disapproved of Biden. It then drifted over into the reason for the bad poll numbers. You participated in that discussion..

 

This is bu11shit, and even fits within the scope of a thread, about the dumbing down of politics, on the GOP side. First off, you give no evidence, for your contention that drilling permits are any more "difficult to obtain," than when Trump or G.W. Bush were in office. Second, if you are talking about our current need for increasing oil production, we are not talking about any reserves that do not already have wells drilled into them, because this is a time-consuming process, from start to having a productive well. We are talking about, just as President Biden had said, wells that are already drilled but which oil companies are just sitting on, not pumping out any oil.

Moving to your other contention, that "investors do not want to invest.." one need only check the stock market activity and price changes in oil stocks, to see how blatantly false, is that claim. Of course, longer term, oil will be phased out (and would have eventually run out, otherwise, anyway). But issuing stock is how an oil company gets "investors." You seem to be picturing a need for the driller to find a group of private investors, for each well they drill-- which is nonsense, in the first place, and, in the second place, has nothing to do with the idle wells that are presently at issue.

 

I wasn't aware I said he was. Can you quote me saying so? Meanwhile, you didn't know that there were elections happening this year?

 

"So long as it remains the party of Trump, yes. Of course. 2022 will let us know if there's anything left to salvage of the party."

Yes the 2022 elections take place this year.

 

It is a bit hard to manuever through the data, but there is a slow down in processing.
Applications for Permits to Drill | Bureau of Land Management (blm.gov)

The oil companies are reluctant to invest because they are looking for return on investment.

You are confusing long term investment with short term investment. Drilling a new well is expensive and a long term investment. They are concerned that they will be required to stop pumping before they recoup their investment. It is more advantageous to capitalize on the short term investments with higher oil prices than risk not recouping their long term investments by drilling new wells.

Idle wells also require considerable investment to restart. They can't just turn a switch and start pumping.

 

I think you're overstating it's insignificance.

 

So you're saying new leases would go unused as well?

 

Yeah, shame on me, I'll try not to get suckered in by you're bullshit next time.

 

Recommend you knock off the insults.

 

Yes, I know that-- it was you who, I explained, had mixed those up (which is the only reason that I'd mentioned drilling):

DEFinning said: ↑
This is bu11shit, and even fits within the scope of a thread, about the dumbing down of politics, on the GOP side. First off, you give no evidence, for your contention that drilling permits are any more "difficult to obtain," than when Trump or G.W. Bush were in office. Second, if you are talking about our current need for increasing oil production, we are not talking about any reserves that do not already have wells drilled into them, because this is a time-consuming process, from start to having a productive well. We are talking about, just as President Biden had said, wells that are already drilled but which oil companies are just sitting on, not pumping out any oil.

Correct, this is the issue. My argument is that, for the minor expense of the lease (and of course, the company's production costs), we citizens-- who communally, through our government, OWN the minerals beneath our land-- are giving the drillers our oil, to sell back to us. Because of this, we should be entitled to make some asks of the drillers, to put some conditions on which, their leases are contingent.

That we should expect them to kick back up, wells that they have allowed to fall idle, at a time when oil supplies-- both in the President's view, & in world circumstances presenting at least a good case, for agreement with that conclusion-- need buttressing, is the least we should expect from the companies who benefit from our country's liberal granting of mineral rights to private companies.

And please do not respond with the ludicrous, and patently fallacious, claim that, if we were to include any condition like this, on drilling rights, no company would think it was worth the investment, to drill. Petroleum companies have long been one of the most prosperous industries, of all time.

 

And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, ---Trump


Highlighted is a suggestion, and a moronic one.

That you can't see the fact Trump is an idiot, suggests you are in denial.

 

Most people do offer cop outs.

apparently, they are just fine by you.

 

When the oil companies lease the land, they sign an agreement with the government. The government is free to impose such conditions and the oil companies are free not to agree to them and not lease them.

One of the major problem with public land is that they do not pay taxes to the local government. Some counties in Colorado are made up of almost entirely government land.

 

Most of those 'accomplishments' are hype, such as the 'stats' whose trajectories were headed the way they were headed long befoe Trump took office, mostly the big turnaround began with Obama, and Trump is just riding on Obamas coattails, the rest are padding that all presidents have. Signing EOs are not accomplishments, they are easy. On jobs, Biden created four times as many jobs in the first 13 months than Trump did in four years. And financial stats crashed during the pandemic, which, due to his incompetence, he worsened it far worse than it could have been.

A real accomplishment is legislation that a president is heavily involved in, takes considerable persuasion, negotiation, horse trading, etc., to get through congress and to his desk.

On that front Trump has no accomplishments, He was not involved in the crime bill an the tax cut was a slam bunk.

On the difficult ones, he tried for years to get an infrastructure bill passed, and couldn't do it.

He tried for years to replace the ACA, and couldn't do it.

His initial promise was to build a border wall all along the southern border.

He came no where near it, and sure as hell didn't get Mexico to pay for it.

Biden got the ACA and the Infrastructure bill passed, The latter in his first year.

That's what an accomplishment looks like

 

There is another way to look at it. If the government charges more to drill on government land, the cost to drill goes up and the cost of oil goes up and the gasoline will cost more at the pump. I fail to see how that will end up benefitting the tax payer.

 

Correction on previous post:

most people do not offer cop outs.

Apparently, they are just fine by you.

 

report it.

 

I said nothing about charging more; I was commenting on Biden's current suggestion to Congress: that we penalize those companies that are leaving wells idle, when we have reason to now want more production, from the industry. Personally, I would go further to, endorse the true meaning of the catch phrase that Biden used, in his speech: "use it or lose it."

What will be interesting to see, will be if all the Republicans, blaming Biden for a lack of oil production, will back this idea in Congress. If not, it suggests a lack of sincerity in their true motivations, IMO. That is, that they are only interested in having something over which they can criticize the Democratic President.

In that vein, would you support a fee imposed on any idle wells, not restarted, despite a call from the President (with a reasonable argument of need, which I think one could currently make), to ramp up production?

 

It is my understanding that when the oil companies leased the land, they signed an agreement with the government which allowed them a certain amount of time before they had to drill for oil. The contracts are already "use it or lose it". To impose a "use it or lose it" prior to the contract end, would be a breach of contract.

 

What you or I support is not relevant. That is between the government and the oil companies. I would prefer that what ever action is taken, that it not increase the price of oil.

 

[QUOTE="Patricio Da Silva, post: 1073357670, member: 86272"
Is the GOP dumbing down?
[/QUOTE]

To the Dem level............I don't think so.