GAS PRICES

@SarasotaSlim

This could actually be huge.  If they can get some of the nonsensical monuments rolled back in other areas like this it will be a game changer as well. 

@Raiders22

Exactly .,.....

@cd329

Actually this is not entirely true.  The USA is PRODUCING record oil because of innovations and advancements despite a large decline in DRILLING rigs.  This is for a lot of reasons that are political and environmental and regulatory.  These are some of the things Trump is talking about changing to allow more drilling. 

So just for fun, say Trump dumps on the environment so we can have cheap gas by opening up Alaska, how many years would it take before ANY product hits the markets? What might the crude market be at that time and before? You think O&G companies are going to spend a decade developing new territory if prices are not at this level? When oil went below 30 and to zero there were MANY explorative companies who scrapped new fields and many large players who stopped that marginal production completely, many large players exited the deep water drilling projects that were operating and producing because their cost structures were such that it did not make sense. You think that say Exxon would commit to Alaska when/if Trump opens it up and WHEN prices drop (because they will) that they will not pause or stop the exploration? Of course they would no question in my mind.

I'd suggest it would be a decade plus before any Alaska new field production would hit the markets if at all. 

Talking about just ANWR.

They would like certainty.  For example, the worry would be a reversal, and a re-closure, the next election cycle.

However, if they expedited permits and eased regulations and companies felt a longterm sense of certainty it would help.

Part of the issue is the data is kind of hidden because Chevron and BP have not totally disclosed their findings.

But the estimate is close to 10B, on the low end, in the coastal plains.  This would draw in drilling just because of those numbers, despite the difficulties and logistics.

But to answer your question it is tricky.  Theoretically, you can actually have one online in several months.

But the average is maybe closer to 5 years for decent production and maybe closer to 10 years for peak production.  But they are constantly making advancements and those numbers may be too conservative now.

The exploration is sort of narrowed down in that regard.  So, getting the equipment in place and that sort of thing would be the issue.

As I said, it is more about the regulations being lifted and the permits done.  This can drag on for a while if everyone is not on board with it.

So, the big holdup is how the companies feel about longterm availability.

This is a HUGE investment to make if you are not sure you can keep it online.

But this whole issue is NOT just about ANWR.  It is about the wholesale policy change to make many other areas available.

Like I always say, this is by far the most fickle commodity and it is not close.

So, yes politics and regulations can hamper how long it takes.  But if the way is cleared and the anticipation of continued access and pricing is there, I am not sure it would take as long as we think.

But it is far more beneficial to drill more for the economy.  There is roughly a 1% increase in world GDP for every 10% increase in drilling.  Certainly, the environment considerations have to be looked at.  But oil companies have now made great improvements in keeping an area clean as well.

There is a misconception that they would go make a complete mess in the whole ANWR area.  They would not, it is actually a very, very huge area.

But overall it would be better to have these areas available for the country to access.

Just considering the record low levels of the emergency reserves lately and the fact that until better alternatives are solved, oil is still the lifeblood of the economy.

@Raiders22

 The problem with the brain numbing drill baby drill scheme is it holds no validity, we cannot be energy independent as we have discussed before because we are a society and economy based on capitalism. It is cute seeing people think that if we produce more that it will be an immediate boon to gas prices and that the US could ever be independent. Until the cartel is either broken or minimized the world oil price is controlled by OPEC not by marginal production increases via schemes like Alaska.

OPEC has reserves and production capacity that gives them world pricing power and unless the US nationalizes production and stops ALL and ANY exports the whole silly scheme of drill baby drill is infantile nonsense.

The only direct beneficiary of added production is refinery corporations and large multi national O&G companies, so once again the winner in all and most any schemes is the large corp. Society and voters are so under educated that they actually believe the crap that politicians push and in this case thinking that we are not at ATH production levels and that any increase would trickle down to the consumer.

@wallstreetcappers

 Cato broke this down effectively some time ago.  
Their exact wording was something along the lines of OPEC being more an effective political organization than an effective oil cartel.

The perception is that they have the control over prices they once did.  But you can look at the volatility even there in the USA and Saudi and see correlations.  
but either way it is not exactly about a drop in prices but more the stability, security and availability for the USA.  
I would not categorize Alaska as a ‘scheme’.  It is a legitimate source.  The North Slope has shown the way and ANWR becoming available would open up a huge source.

But all of the other potential sources becoming available as well.  

Sure you need equilibrium in price.  But you need energy security until ‘better’ energies might be available.  This lesson has been learned the very hard way more than once.  

Sure the companies make money — even though their margins are nowhere near other industries.  
But they employee more folks and it is always a boon for the economy.  
Certainly if it lowers prices, that is good as well.

But to restrict all of the available sources just for political reasons is nonsense.  It increases your risk of being susceptible to other suppliers whims, etc.

So, yes, ‘drill, baby drill’ holds validity in more than one way.  
You do not want to be hamstrung at a time you might become desperate. 

@Raiders22

 The phrase implies we are not drilling and this is a false narrative, our production is at all time highs so the implication is only for political purposes and the fact anyone believes it means they are not spending even 2 minutes investigating this obvious ploy or they would call rat on the whole thing.

Alaska is a scheme because it is not functioning currently, there are impacts which can and will come and the results are in limbo even if Trump said it is gold rush season and anyone can go. I know your side views production and consumption as the matters of highest importance but many do not share this view and the downsides and risks associated with long distance production schemes are very high.

Are we a capitalist economy or not? We are so the imaginary excess production will not stay domestically it will flow to the highest bidder wherever that is, we cannot secure energy independence or stability unless we nationalize. Anything short of this is political fodder and nothing else. OPEC still has pricing control and reserve dominance so barring a never possible nationalization all this conjecture has no chance at success, its just noise.

@wallstreetcappers

 Absolutely some of it political.  
But like I said before ‘production’ is at a high BUT ‘drilling’ is not.  
That is more the concern.  As we said it take time for other places to come online — even after permits, etc. 

So, there is good reason for starting new projects sooner rather than later. 
The political part only applies to oil.  It does not apply to new soybean fields, etc.

This is a political-driven agenda that wants to hinder new projects.  
Think about it.  Exactly why are you against it?  Does it hurt the economy or the folks of there is an excess of oil?  Is it worth restricting new ventures just because you think we are good enough — for now?

Alaska is NOT a scheme simply because it is NOT functioning now.  It could be functioning.  It is a scheme to keep it from functioning if a company deems it worthwhile. 
And again, it is NOT just Alaska we are talking about that is restricted. 
I have already explained that so much of what is produced now is not staying domestically anyway.  
This is also more politics.  The refining capability is not available there.  That is a huge part of why you cannot simply nationalize it.  
But people are not opposed to having plenty of soybeans to the point that they are almost free.  
But they are against more drilling ventures and long for higher prices just to reach their goal. 

Again you have to ask EXACTLY why you are against it.  NOT just that we have enough now.  Why do you not want to plan ahead.  Is it sound reasoning or just politics.  

@wallstreetcappers

 So the phrase does not imply we are not drilling.  It just posits that if we drill more it opens more opportunities and grows the economy and eventually has more good effects than bad.

@cdog8043

  to think it has to do with trump shows the lack of knowledge

you have for how things actually work. Just like most trump supporters

bowing down to the stupidest man alive except to all the people he cons.

@Brooklyncapper

 Boys and girls,

Gas prices $2.64 in this area.

I know the BLUE HAIRS HATE IT, BUT - 

AMERICANS ARE WINNING AGAIN.

@cdog8043

 Energy outlook - gas prices to decrease further.

WOW - things are GETTING BETTER FOR ALL AMERICANS.