Biden Administration Approves Huge Alaska Oil Project

The sign of a centrist political policy is that the extremes on both sides hate it.


And our reliance on fossil fuels is a matter of national security and needs to be eliminated.

No one on this forum is a “capitalist”. We’re the workers, not the owners who control the capital.

1 Like

And so your plan is prevent new domestic production now at a time when the technology/infrastructure is not in place to eliminate our reliance? BRILLIANT!!

You should definitely apply for a position with this administration as your thinking and level of common sense is in lockstep with theirs.

Are you illiterate?

I’m literally literate. I can also use alliteration like laughing at liberal lunacy.

1 Like

You can’t be literate and think what you said has anything to do with reality.

Thank you for your input. It is noted and will be given the appropriate level of consideration.

Maybe instead brush up on basic literacy and reading comprehension then go back and read by comments. Please point out where I said anything that would indicate your idiotic assumption.

Ok for starters, if you’re going to make a post scolding someone for lack of literacy/comprehension ability, it’s a bad look for your post to contain a spelling error…'jus sayin…

But regardless, I went back and read the entire thread and it turns out you haven’t said much of anything. Your one comment about reducing reliance on fossil fuels wasn’t really related to any of the topics being discussed at that time. So, before we proceed, please do take a position on any of the threads of conversation within this topic. Here’s a recap and list of things you might wish to contribute on:

  1. Will this new production cause new US tonnage to be ordered/built or will the oil be exported to China or other?

  2. Biden’s approval of this project went against his supposed agenda.

  3. If exported to China, is that a problem?

  4. A few anti-Jones act digs.

  5. National security implications of exporting oil in general, and to China specifically.

  6. Oil company profits, windfall profits/losses, net profit vs. gross profit, taxes oil companies pay.

  7. Possibility/logistics of OSG/ATC breaking out a tanker laid up in Brunei to support moving this oil.

  8. Lawsuits filed since the approval, will this oil ever be produced?

So surely with such a diverse list, you can come up with something productive, on topic, and or relevant right? I, for one, look forward to hearing your valuable input.

From literacy (or lack of it) to the subject of the thread:

So in your angry rage at a perceived “stupid liberal” you literally made up something to me mad at me about. Thanks for admitting that.

Probably not.


True. It doesn’t appear like he could have stopped it if he wanted to and fighting it in court would have wasted millions is taxpayer money for nothing.

No. Oil is a global commodity.

It would be better if our refineries were tooled to refine our crude but it would be better for national security overall to get away from a reliance on oil. That’s why the DoD is starting to switch to electric vehicles, because they realize this.

My comment was on topic. See #5.

The Opposition complains that the present administration wants to decrease reliance on oil.

P46 makes a decision that doesn’t appreciably increase the total amount of oil that will be pumped.

What does the Opposition do? They simultaneously accuse him of increasing the amount of oil being pumped, then complain that he is doing exactly what they want done!

The Opposition complains that America imports too much from China. So what do they do when they think we’re exporting something to China, hence decreasing the trade imbalance? They complain!


By “The Opposition”, are you referring to opposition from the right? What I see is most all of the opposition to P46’s decision is coming from the left. Who on the right is complaining about this decision (other than what took so long)?

Come on now…presumably you’re referring to the ‘trade imbalance’ in strictly monetary terms but surely you can make a distinction between plastic trinkets and coffee makers vs. crude oil from a strategic value standpoint right? Particularly when referring to a likely future adversary.

Our biggest export to China today is food. We are feeding our likely future adversary right now. And you’re quibbling about fuel that may or may not make its way to their shores in the future?

By that reasoning you are OK with stopping American food exports to China.

I was going to type “all while our own strategic reserve is at a 40 year low”, but then I found this:

FACT SHEET: President Biden to Announce New Actions to Strengthen U.S. Energy Security, Encourage Production, and Bring Down Costs | The White House

From that document, dated 10-18-22:

“Second, the President is announcing that the Administration intends to repurchase crude oil for the SPR when prices are at or below about $67-$72 per barrel, adding to global demand when prices are around that range.”

WTI has been below $72 for about a week now, so let’s see if he follows through. (I hope he does).

Not sure if that was intentional, but you’re right, it’s not if that fuel will make its way there because it’s already happening (as your own posted article points out). And no, we shouldn’t expand our exports to them regardless of by what quantity.

I personally would be OK with that, but that’s up to the big guy and his boys to wield that carrot/stick as they see fit.

1 Like

Actually, it’s up to the senators and congressmen of the major agricultural states. Many of which publicly revile and detest China–while their constituents willingly sell billions of dollar to food to them.

Crazy world.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (

Not sure how many farmers have contracts with chinese companies. Farmers sell to the likes of Bunge and ADM and those firms sell the products on the world market.

Or maybe you meant that the actual constituents of congressmen are companies such as those, which is probably more accurate anyway.