3 ms·

In addition to that, I'm not sure what the benefit is to energy producers - oil prices are already not far above a 15-year low and domestic crude production is

In addition to that, I'm not sure what the benefit is to energy producers - oil prices are already not far above a 15-year low and domestic crude production is at a 25-year high, currently almost 10% of global consumption. Even without subsidies or other incentives, I just can't see where the demand comes from to drive significant oil supply increases. I'm genuinely curious what the restrictions are that are throttling our energy industry.

knz 10y ago
> I'm genuinely curious what the restrictions are that are throttling our energy industry. "Environmental regulation". Who needs clean air or water. Superfunds Sites are cheap to clean up right?
- sp332 10y ago
  Superfund sites are expensive, and that's exactly why they're great for the economy.
  - rthille 10y ago
    Might as well do the "pay people to bury money in coal mines and let people dig it up" then.
  - badsock 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
chris11 10y ago
I don't know exactly, but there are probably oil reserves in places like Alaska that would be cheaper to extract if it were allowed.
- fisherjeff 10y ago
  That's my guess too, but large numbers of new drilling sites - especially remote ones - would drive up costs while simultaneously helping to keep per-barrel prices low. Just sounds like a terrible ROI to me.
  - chris11 10y ago
    Well, I don't really expect this to cause oil extraction costs to go up. I don't think companies would waste money choosing more expensive drilling sites. But this could also signal an attack on local regulations too. It would make a big difference if local fracking bans were made illegal. Texas did that.
    - fisherjeff 10y ago
      Yeah, I don't see an effect on extraction costs, I was just talking about the significant up-front capex costs in what looks to be a historically slack market. Very interesting thought regarding local regulations; hadn't considered something like that at a federal level. It does also occur to me that this could just be a convenient way to make the opening up of large amounts of protected lands more palatable to the general public.

knz 10y ago

> I'm genuinely curious what the restrictions are that are throttling our energy industry. "Environmental regulation". Who needs clean air or water. Superfunds Sites are cheap to clean up right?

sp332 10y ago
Superfund sites are expensive, and that's exactly why they're great for the economy.
- rthille 10y ago
  Might as well do the "pay people to bury money in coal mines and let people dig it up" then.
- badsock 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

chris11 10y ago

I don't know exactly, but there are probably oil reserves in places like Alaska that would be cheaper to extract if it were allowed.

fisherjeff 10y ago
That's my guess too, but large numbers of new drilling sites - especially remote ones - would drive up costs while simultaneously helping to keep per-barrel prices low. Just sounds like a terrible ROI to me.
- chris11 10y ago
  Well, I don't really expect this to cause oil extraction costs to go up. I don't think companies would waste money choosing more expensive drilling sites. But this could also signal an attack on local regulations too. It would make a big difference if local fracking bans were made illegal. Texas did that.
  - fisherjeff 10y ago
    Yeah, I don't see an effect on extraction costs, I was just talking about the significant up-front capex costs in what looks to be a historically slack market. Very interesting thought regarding local regulations; hadn't considered something like that at a federal level. It does also occur to me that this could just be a convenient way to make the opening up of large amounts of protected lands more palatable to the general public.