Jump to content

Joe Biden 2024 thread - Dark Brandon Strikes Again


StassneyHorn

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

I don’t know the exact number of affected projects, but the fallout I am comfortable attesting to is that the longer this stays in place, the more investment sits on the sidelines to see how it shakes out. A project that could have been approved during the freeze would most likely be online by 2030. Possibly at early as 2027 depending on what stage the project was in at the time of freeze. 

As Hate mentioned, there are projects that have dollars already invested that are affected by this. Land purchased, contracts entered into, gas committed, pipe committed, etc. Upstream and midstream companies will now pull back on commitments, investors will want to wait before committing money to feasibility and economic analyses, land that would have otherwise been acquired in prime export locations may get purchased by other industries, and overall money just goes elsewhere and it most likely isn’t to green initiatives. 

 

You and I are in total agreement. As I said in my initial post, The downstream effects depend on how long this pause lasts. In the short term, I don't think it really affects Europe's energy security, which is my immediate concern. In the mid-term, we've got substantial new capacity coming online. Long-term, yeah, that's an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

LNG export facilities take literally years to go from proposal to FID to being online at full capacity. These facilities that are still being built were approved long ago. Under the Trump administration, EPA approval took ~150 days and it is 300+ under Biden. That’s just for EPA approval. A complete freeze on new approvals for just the election year would probably be a multiple year setback for the industry as a whole. We will maximize exports by 2026 and hit a ceiling that will quickly be eclipsed by Qatar (was #1 in exports until we passed them) and Russia. 

Look, I get it. Paris accords, fossil fuels bad with zero redeeming qualities and no way to make it work with our climate goals, yadda yadda. The reality is that natural gas is a bridge fuel to net zero. It is 60% cleaner than coal and a cheap transition fuel for developing countries. It’s dirt cheap here in the US and that’s why it became such a hot export. The most likely fallout of this is that countries who are hostile to the US or fund NGOs/terrorist organizations that are hostile to the US will reclaim lost market share and profit at our expense. Additionally, countries who need cheap energy will either delay shuttering coal plants they intended to replace with natural gas or even fire up new coal plants. And do you think Qatar and Russia have the same environmental regulations we do? Do you think they are monitoring for methane leaks like we are in the US? Limiting flaring? Protecting water sources around export facilities?

This may actually be a net negative for climate goals. It reeks of election year pandering and won’t serve overall global climate goals. It only soothes the handwringing at home. 

 

I'm not really staking a claim one way or another on this, but what I would need to make an informed opinion is some data based projection on the demand curve 10 years from now against US capacity at that time. Just offhand it seems we will be way ahead on the supply side from what I currently see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hate said:

Which means it continues to be inexpensive. Developing countries can be incentivized to switch to LNG if they know it will continue to be inexpensive. 

I mean that sounds great. I'm not sure that's remotely realistic personally but I am not dismissing it out of hand.

But if you are going to have a reasonable conversation in here about any of this you need to provide something substantive, not nonsense like whatever inane thing you said about our energy policy, which I am very satisfied with the past couple years. You need to provide actual figures and data. Otherwise people are just going to pile on you, and you'll bitch about the cloak room, and the circle goes round and round.

 

And I will reiterate, I don't have any opinion on this one way or another yet, there's not enough information yet to make a call

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hate said:

Which means it continues to be inexpensive. Developing countries can be incentivized to switch to LNG if they know it will continue to be inexpensive. 

Okay, but as G650 said, I'd like to see some data on our supply versus their demand. How substantial is this effect?

Also, I'd like to know how else Biden has "fucked over the US Energy industry"? 

  • Oil production hit an all-time high last year.
  • Natural gas production also hit an all-time high.
  • Ditto for solar and wind.
  • Nuclear energy is flat, but Biden's infrastructure bill invests $6 billion in that. 
  • Coal is on the downswing, but we all agree that's a good thing, right?

Does putting in place some regs to monitor and lower methane emissions escaping from orphan wells and flares (have you been to West Texas lately?) constitute fucking over the energy industry? Does limiting wells on public lands do it? I'm genuinely curious about your statement.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, the chart I wanted to post wouldn’t format correctly since I am doing this from my phone. See the wiki article posted below.

Edited by Hate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, G650 said:

I mean that sounds great. I'm not sure that's remotely realistic personally but I am not dismissing it out of hand.

But if you are going to have a reasonable conversation in here about any of this you need to provide something substantive, not nonsense like whatever inane thing you said about our energy policy, which I am very satisfied with the past couple years. You need to provide actual figures and data. Otherwise people are just going to pile on you, and you'll bitch about the cloak room, and the circle goes round and round.

 

And I will reiterate, I don't have any opinion on this one way or another yet, there's not enough information yet to make a call


 

 

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Okay, but as G650 said, I'd like to see some data on our supply versus their demand. How substantial is this effect?

Which group do you think has a better idea about the longer term demand for LNG globally? 
 

The producers in the marketplace allocating large amounts of capital long term, or this Presidential administration and its bureaucrats?

 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hal Finney said:


 

 

Which group do you think has a better idea about the longer term demand for LNG globally? 
 

The producers in the marketplace allocating large amounts of capital long term, or this Presidential administration and its bureaucrats?

 

Neither one, honestly

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hal Finney said:

Which group do you think has a better idea about the longer term demand for LNG globally? 
 

The producers in the marketplace allocating large amounts of capital long term, or this Presidential administration and its bureaucrats?

I've already said, in the long term, this is a problem. I don't think it is much of one right now, but I am asking how much of an issue it will be in the next few years. It just depends on the length of the pause.

6 minutes ago, Hate said:

I don't know what you're trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I've already said, in the long term, this is a problem. I don't think it is much of one right now, but I am asking how much of an issue it will be in the next few years. It just depends on the length of the pause.

To me, the biggest question is how much growth is there left. I am mainly skeptical there is going to be wide-spread uptake requiring a huge supply increason over what's currently in process.

 

Being in infrastructure construction myself, I also would say that for something permitted right now, it's 10 years to be delivering, so it's further downstream than many are suggesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hate said:

I’m trying to say LNG is the most plausible and lowest cost energy source available right now. We can’t meet our growing energy needs with solar and wind. 

I agree with the "right now" part. I also think the price of solar and wind will continue to diminish. 

 

1 minute ago, G650 said:

To me, the biggest question is how much growth is there left. I am mainly skeptical there is going to be wide-spread uptake requiring a huge supply increason over what's currently in process.

 

Being in infrastructure construction myself, I also would say that for something permitted right now, it's 10 years to be delivering, so it's further downstream than many are suggesting

That's why I keep harping on how many LNG export facilities in the pipeline will be affected by this announcement that it really matters to make such a stink about it right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of you centrists and former Republicans seem to forget that turning out the base is priority #1 for any winning campaign. For environmentalism causes, this is up there with canning the Keystone XL.

This matters even more to the millions of young people that have aged into voting since 2016 and 2020. Many of them are terrified of climate change and inaction from elected officials, real or perceived. At minimum, this will help Biden score some much needed points with this group after his approval of the oil expansion up in Alaska and the Gaza war. Getting voters from this cohort will outweigh any losses from other demographics.

Edited by berlinerbaer
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if this "pause" lasted beyond December. It's a signal to green voters that he cares, but will quickly be forgotten once reelection is secured. LNG is vital to our allies since the invasion of Ukraine. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should’ve made it clear at the beginning of this thread that Oil n Guess  discussion goes in the Spitters Baron thread in DT. The amount of delulu going on with that industry against Dems is laughable and this is my safe space.

My President wearing a construction hat backwards is easy money to get a laugh from union guys. Thank you for posting that @Hal Finney. Hopefully he can show you a 100 dollar bill whenever you show him a physical bitcoin some day.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

I would be surprised if this "pause" lasted beyond December. It's a signal to green voters that he cares, but will quickly be forgotten once reelection is secured. LNG is vital to our allies since the invasion of Ukraine. 

I wonder if any of those green voters have any idea how many gallons of oil are needed to produce and operate solar panels or wind turbine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

I agree with the "right now" part. I also think the price of solar and wind will continue to diminish.

The cost may diminish but the footprint won't.  How many acres of solar or wind farms would you need to power a city like Houston?  LA?  What about the northern climates where the sun isn't out much during the winter?  I'm all for making the world a less polluted place, but it's going to be a gradual process and not the overnight fix those young voters mentioned before want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Hate said:

I wonder if any of those green voters have any idea how many gallons of oil are needed to produce and operate solar panels or wind turbine.

They will comprehend the relationship between the oil and those turbines and solar panels about as well as a libertarian comprehends how public roads get built.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hal Finney said:


 

 

Which group do you think has a better idea about the longer term demand for LNG globally? 
 

The producers in the marketplace allocating large amounts of capital long term, or this Presidential administration and its bureaucrats?

 

Considering how most public O&G companies are run worse than a first grader's lemonade stand, let me get back to you on that one.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hate said:

The cost may diminish but the footprint won't.  How many acres of solar or wind farms would you need to power a city like Houston?  LA?  What about the northern climates where the sun isn't out much during the winter?  I'm all for making the world a less polluted place, but it's going to be a gradual process and not the overnight fix those young voters mentioned before want. 

I was told wind and solar were big winners even when disregarding the externalities of the minerals and fossil fuels required to produce them. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hal Finney said:

I was told wind and solar were big winners even when disregarding the externalities of the minerals and fossil fuels required to produce them. 
 

 

So, producers in the marketplace allocating large amounts of capital long term aren't infallible.

Shocker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Hate said:

The cost may diminish but the footprint won't.  How many acres of solar or wind farms would you need to power a city like Houston?  LA?  What about the northern climates where the sun isn't out much during the winter?  I'm all for making the world a less polluted place, but it's going to be a gradual process and not the overnight fix those young voters mentioned before want. 

Just need to go full speed into nuclear research and start building reactors to fill the gap. Let renewables cover ~40% and use nuclear for most of the rest. The amount of waste produced is minimal, and there could be other uses for it with more research. 

Screenshot_20240126_213226_Facebook.thumb.jpg.e1f1795cc04c8681339a1bc203f83d1e.jpg

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

They will comprehend the relationship between the oil and those turbines and solar panels about as well as a libertarian comprehends how public roads get built.

What’s next? A license to make toast in my own damn toaster?!

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rents-fall-nationwide-third-straight-234418744.html
 

3rd month in a row of rents falling on a nationwide basis. If you paid any attention at all to inflation, a huge part of the problem was rents rapidly increasing during and especially after the pandemic.

I think inflation was just the “hang over” of covid and it’s really starting to subside now which is great news for Biden. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hate said:

The cost may diminish but the footprint won't.  How many acres of solar or wind farms would you need to power a city like Houston? 

 

image.thumb.png.063b11ad39dcc069cdec0c023c2917ae.png

those dots aren't wind turbines or solar farms and they're up to 5 acres each where literally nothing else is happening.

 

 

meanwhile solar panels have gotten so cheap that you can install them vertically and run combines between them:

RgczH9SqjnGT.thumb.png.bd1500fb65fa93272a4ac20a484e3e53.png

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hate said:

The cost may diminish but the footprint won't.  How many acres of solar or wind farms would you need to power a city like Houston?  LA?  What about the northern climates where the sun isn't out much during the winter?  I'm all for making the world a less polluted place, but it's going to be a gradual process and not the overnight fix those young voters mentioned before want. 

Many don't seem to realize that any energy source has a  "footprint". It's just a matter of scale and degree. Yes, there's the physical footprint formed by the drilling pad, the solar panel, the wind turbine, or the cooling tower of a nuclear energy plant. But we must also consider the "footprint" created by the energy that's produced.

For example, nuclear's largest footprint might be created from the disposal of spent fuel, but there's also the potential footprint created by an accident spreading radiation. Obviously, there's also the footprint created by the manufacture of wind turbine components along with photovoltaic cells.

But, please, let's not ignore the "footprint" left by the combustion of fossil fuels that spread CO2 throughout the entire planet's atmosphere, which entraps energy that's causing it not only to heat up but also to produce volatile effects on weather patterns and acidify the oceans' waters.

Each and every energy source has a "footprint". There's no doubt about that. It's only a matter of weighing all the costs and benefits of each and choosing the one that is least harmful to life on our planet as we know it.

At this point, I'm pretty sure we have the necessary information. Hell, we've known for at least 35 years (I remember seeing reports about "greenhouse gasses" from Peter Jennings in the late 1980s). There was an agreed-upon consensus when we were all much younger, and Republican President Bush agreed. But, much like smoking, industry lobbying groups interfered and delayed action. What we've always lacked is the will, because it makes some people really, really rich.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, elfenix said:

 

image.thumb.png.063b11ad39dcc069cdec0c023c2917ae.png

those dots aren't wind turbines or solar farms and they're up to 5 acres each where literally nothing else is happening.

 

 

meanwhile solar panels have gotten so cheap that you can install them vertically and run combines between them:

RgczH9SqjnGT.thumb.png.bd1500fb65fa93272a4ac20a484e3e53.png

 

 

 

West Texas

image.thumb.png.241690e2e88ce70662c6afcef1b1204a.png

 

Edit:

Let's talk about "footprint". When I get out to my hometown in the Permian Basin, you can easily see 30-40 of these at a time in the foreground and along the horizon. How should we measure that in comparison to a wind or solar farm? What gasses are being released?

image.thumb.png.dce931f9ed675d51d85440a1df048a7e.png

Briny water tanks. What's that doing to wildlife and birds?

image.png.eb8c7ab3f3036b1c8395b986ccb47208.png

 

Leaking wells.

image.thumb.png.7292af946e1753aaa04574f098b8b37c.png


 

Edited by bolverk
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, berlinerbaer said:

All of you centrists and former Republicans seem to forget that turning out the base is priority #1 for any winning campaign. For environmentalism causes, this is up there with canning the Keystone XL.

This matters even more to the millions of young people that have aged into voting since 2016 and 2020. Many of them are terrified of climate change and inaction from elected officials, real or perceived. At minimum, this will help Biden score some much needed points with this group after his approval of the oil expansion up in Alaska and the Gaza war. Getting voters from this cohort will outweigh any losses from other demographics.

It's not just young people. In a few months, I'll be 53 years old. I'm neither a former Republican (I don't think I've ever cast a vote for one in my life) nor am I a centrist. On the contrary, I'm proudly a liberal progressive from a political angle. And, from a philosophical perspective, you could also call me a pragmatic idealist who understands the constraints placed on us to make headway within our existing political system.

This is going to be a slog and not a revolutionary sprint. It fucking sucks. Believe me, I'd love nothing more than an immediate reversal on all this shit, but that's unfortunately not how it works. Instead, this is an endurance marathon where we must constantly apply pressure and fight for progress against very powerful forces.

Edited by bolverk
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rents-fall-nationwide-third-straight-234418744.html
 

3rd month in a row of rents falling on a nationwide basis. If you paid any attention at all to inflation, a huge part of the problem was rents rapidly increasing during and especially after the pandemic.

I think inflation was just the “hang over” of covid and it’s really starting to subside now which is great news for Biden. 

IMG_0344.png.4799aa0512946f59b0bc3aef538043ed.png

 

Rents be coming down. Huge influx of supply last year of apartments competed. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

He’s going to win, but not because he’s doing awesome and everyone loves him
 

I would love to hear what the non-MAGA demographics wish that he was or wasn't doing.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I really don't get the low approval numbers.

Republicans think he’s too far left - Commie Joe. A big chunk of progressives think he’s basically a Republican. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I really don't get the low approval numbers.

Take your pick. Some light genocide enabling, border break downs and sanctuary cities getting the length. Cost of living keeps ramping up. The only way Biden has a chance at re upping is if trump is the opposing candidate. 

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Republicans think he’s too far left - Commie Joe. A big chunk of progressives think he’s basically a Republican. 

The worst kind of Republican. A neocon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to guess that your average poll answerer's wish/complaint list looks nothing like Ana's.

I assume it's some combination of the border and he's old and has lost a step. I don't hear much about inflation these days, even from my largely right-leaning friend group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will add that the people in the "he's too old" camp (and he is, of course) who are lucky enough to have ostracized Trump from their lives over the past 3 years...boy, are they in for a treat when they see his cognitive decline once he's back on national television.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • immamac changed the title to Joe Biden 2024 thread - Dark Brandon Strikes Again


×
×
  • Create New...