$6.00 gas?

[Mister Moose]

SMH. How do you heat your house? Generate your electricity? Fuel your vehicle? Produce the resin in your skis? Manufacture the jet fuel for your vacations? Fuel for the manufacture and shipping on your Chinese goods?

I think you might be missing the point. I'm not saying we don't need oil today. Even today, coal is used in a significant part of energy production, but I don't think many sane people would argue for big investment in coal mining. Oil use is declining. I don't think we need political leaders to be pro-oil production, or to invest political capital in expanding oil production.

Shouldn't we invest resources into the future of energy production, rather than one that is in decline? Think of the advantages of moving away from an energy source that is dirty and props up violent geopolitical entities. That's what we should be focused on.

Why are we investing in new wells at all then?

[Fancypants]

What are the advantages? Do you think because the US moves away from the production of "dirty" energy that our geopolitical enemies will decrease in standing? Au contraire mon frere.

I'm surprised you're asking this. Russia, Iran, Iraq, and many other awful regimes depend on oil money to keep them propped up. Look at the Saudis and that awful murder of the khashoggi. They were allowed to get away with it because we needed their oil more than we cared about justice. If oil were not such a strategic resource, the power of these countries would be greatly diminished.

Encouraging the production/extraction of the fossil fuels we have been gifted within our borders is the best course of action for our Country. In the short term, it provides energy independence and better control of the markets. Fossil fuels are going be burned around the globe for decades to come, why shouldn't the US not set policy to be pro fossil fuel extraction?

I think we should be exploiting our natural resources to the extent it is safe and practical, but I don't think any encouragement from the government is needed or beneficial. The investment of the private market is more than sufficient, and the government's job should be to regulate to ensure the safety of people and the environment to the greatest extent practical.

However, I feel compelled to point out that drilling for more oil will not make us energy independent. As we've gone over many times now, the market for oil is global and the US is just a small part of it. Even if we were a net exporter, prices could still be destabilized by a small OPEC+ cut.

You know what will make us energy independent? Not having to rely on oil. Yesterday there was a news story about the first fusion experiment that successfully produced a net gain in energy. *That* is the kind of thing we should be focusing on.

So if the US was to flood the market with the energy we have (which is not a small percentage) wouldn't that drive the global market prices down, reducing/eliminating the money gained by those awful regimes?

[Bubba]

I believe net US refinery capacity has fallen more recently as necessary upgrade costs exceed required ROI. This is all obviously the result of the current administration’s policies and rhetoric.

Is regulatory burden part of upgrade costs? Which Presidents have worked to ease those costs?

Regulatory burden is definitely a cause. People want clean air and clean water, and refinery emissions and refined products factor into that. Do you think that comes without cost?

Is the approval process convoluted and too expensive? Sure. Should it be streamlined? IMO yes, but others disagree. Who has tried, besides rhetorically? The one that comes to mind in very recent memory is Joe Manchin. He met opposition from some Democrats as well as Republicans who wouldn’t vote for his amendment because it would give him a victory that would help his reelection. Politics of both parties gets in the way.

[easyrider16]

So if the US was to flood the market with the energy we have (which is not a small percentage) wouldn't that drive the global market prices down, reducing/eliminating the money gained by those awful regimes?

I assume by "energy" you mean oil? Sure, if the US produced more, it would lower prices. But OPEC+ can still cut production to compensate. I don't believe it is practical or possible for the US to produce enough oil to eliminate the money gained by these regimes, or even reduce it to an amount that makes much of a difference.

If, however, we reduce our dependence on oil significantly, that changes the game entirely for us. It means oil is no longer such a strategic resource for us. That is true independence.

[easyrider16]

Why are we investing in new wells at all then?

I think we should be exploiting our natural resources to the extent it is safe and practical, but I don't think any encouragement from the government is needed or beneficial. The investment of the private market is more than sufficient, and the government's job should be to regulate to ensure the safety of people and the environment to the greatest extent practical.

On the other hand, I do believe government investment in future enegry sources like fusion, solar, etc. is needed and very beneficial.

[deadheadskier]

Reduced consumption seems to be the way to go. I've been driving a Toyota Sienna for work for the past 5 years. I'm on my 3rd one. The old V6 got 350 - 375 miles out of the 18 gallon tank. New hybrid has the same sized tank and I get 525-550 miles per tank.

Seems to me all new vehicles should employ hybrid technology at minimum.

I'd be curious to hear why some folks appear to be so much more in favor of increased drilling and production vs reduction in consumption.

The only thing I can surmise is they simply don't like the reduction path so much because it's the left who is pushing it. They all cheered quite loudly when Trump reversed Obama's policies on fuel efficiency standards. Why?

[Heywood jablowmee]

WOW...FOR A SELF PROCLAIMED BRIGHT DUDE?.. YOU FAIL MISERABLY ON SO very MANY LEVELS. Disclaimer:...writer is an ASE Cert Automotive TEch....and Subaru/Honda/Toyota Certified.....Econ 101 would show...how you'd NEVER come close to recouping the hybrid addon cost....and likely never have the vision...to look into WHAT those batteries are comprised of....ad infinitum. TRULY...spoken like a deadhead.....

[easyrider16]

The only thing I can surmise is they simply don't like the reduction path so much because it's the left who is pushing it. They all cheered quite loudly when Trump reversed Obama's policies on fuel efficiency standards. Why?

I think it's partly that, and partly that they just don't like change. They feel they should be able to drive the same big gas-guzzling vehicle they always have and nobody should be able to tell them otherwise, even when there are alternatives that are frankly just as good (like hybrids).

The reality is that even many Republican politicians recognize that ICE engines are problematic for the environment, air quality, and geopolitical concerns regarding oil. Kennedy famously stated, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Lowering your usage of gasoline or diesel is something you can do for your country that has many direct benefits.

[Mister Moose]

If, however, we reduce our dependence on oil significantly, that changes the game entirely for us. It means oil is no longer such a strategic resource for us. That is true independence.

Oh yes, that's the magic solution... shift our dependence to rare earth metals from China.

[Heywood jablowmee]

Never confuse an issue with the interjection of FACTS

[easyrider16]

Oh yes, that's the magic solution... shift our dependence to rare earth metals from China.

No one said it was magic, but there are batteries being researched right now that don't rely on metals like Lithium. And things like solar and fusion that I mentioned are not reliant on rare earth metals.

I think it's hard to argue that we wouldn't be in a better place geopolitically if we were less reliant on oil and more reliant on such alternatives as fusion, solar, etc. Are you trying to make that argument?

[deadheadskier]

If, however, we reduce our dependence on oil significantly, that changes the game entirely for us. It means oil is no longer such a strategic resource for us. That is true independence.

Oh yes, that's the magic solution... shift our dependence to rare earth metals from China.

Is Maine in China?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mainep ... f_amp=true

[Mister Moose]

Seems to me all new vehicles should employ hybrid technology at minimum.

A more market driven approach is better, mandates rarely address all segments evenly or fairly. Hybrid cars gain efficiency through 2 ways: Regenerative braking, and smaller engines. On the highway, regenerative braking has zero benefit. (No braking) It's mostly about the smaller engine. Towing for example is not a place where a hybrid will do well.

I'd be curious to hear why some folks appear to be so much more in favor of increased drilling and production vs reduction in consumption.

I am in favor of energy independence. I am in favor of a more diverse source and larger capacity in our refineries. There is almost no excess capacity now and that should be given more priority. We should be able to refine both our own oil and foreign when it's cheap. We should design more elasticity into our supply chain. That is not mutually exclusive with conservation of resources.

[Mister Moose]

Oh yes, that's the magic solution... shift our dependence to rare earth metals from China.

No one said it was magic, but there are batteries being researched right now that don't rely on metals like Lithium. And things like solar and fusion that I mentioned are not reliant on rare earth metals.

Solar is not on the horizon for replacing oil, and neither is fusion.

[Mister Moose]

If, however, we reduce our dependence on oil significantly, that changes the game entirely for us. It means oil is no longer such a strategic resource for us. That is true independence.

Oh yes, that's the magic solution... shift our dependence to rare earth metals from China.

Is Maine in China?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mainep ... f_amp=true

Let's see if they mine it. Lots of industries went offshore, even though we could produce it here. We buy granite pavers from India instead of Maine today. If we can't figure out granite, I have my doubts on Lithium.