Mister Moose wrote: ↑Dec 22nd, '22, 20:22
Why are we investing in new wells at all then?
easyrider16 wrote: ↑Dec 22nd, '22, 06:47
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.
Huh. Are there any federally leased oil sources? Are there additional proven reserves on Federal property?
easyrider16 wrote: ↑Dec 21st, '22, 13:06Oil 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.
Lots of bright people are working on alternative energy sources.
Again, if oil use is declining, why are we investing in new wells at all then?
I'm confused, you don't want government involvement in developing alternatives like hybrids, but you want government involvement in encouraging more oil production? Is that what you're saying?
I think the government should incentivize alternatives to oil. I think if private industry wants to invest in oil, they should be allowed to do so, as long as they can do so without harming people or causing undue harm to the environment.
Mister Moose wrote: ↑Dec 23rd, '22, 12:43
Again, if oil use is declining, why are we investing in new wells at all then?
If by "we" you mean the private companies who are doing the drilling, then I assume they are investing in new wells because they think they can make money. But note what Bubba said earlier, they don't feel it's a good ROI to expand refinery capacity. Why do you think that is? I'd argue it's because oil execs see the writing on the wall, that gasoline prices, long term, are likely to decline due to declining consumption.
Mister Moose wrote: ↑Dec 23rd, '22, 11:36
Solar is not on the horizon for replacing oil, and neither is fusion.
Replacing? I think we're going to be consuming oil for decades to come. It might never be fully replaced. But if we reduce the amount of our consumption significantly, that is going to have a huge impact and a huge benefit for us. When OPEC cuts production by a few percentage points, oil prices skyrocket. Imagine the reverse, if the US, the biggest consumer, cut oil consumption in half? That would mean a ten percent decrease in oil consumption worldwide. That's possible in the next twenty years if we put the effort into it.
Right now, as we speak, the numbers show that we are in fact reducing our consumption, and solar is certainly one way among many that we are doing it. Electric cars and hybrids are another way. Fusion may be ten years away or more, but fission is here right now and can be done safely and efficiently. Reducing our dependence on oil is achievable if we put the effort into it.
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
easyrider16 wrote: ↑Dec 23rd, '22, 06:15
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.
Looks like they are working on new lithium mining/production in Nevada, North Carolina, and Tennessee in part thanks to that big misnamed bill passed under Biden.
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
The last week gas prices have been going up as much as 10 cents a gallon / day. I guess Biden is responsible for our "friends" the Saudis cutting production. we should be sanctioning the sh*t out of them so that when their reserves run out they return to the desert garbage dump they used to be. On our side we need to boycott any gas stations that are price gouging. There are some here in NJ that are charging .40 - .50/gallon more than others for the same gas.
I heard today that 6% of new auto sales are EVs. The writing is on the wall for oil producers and they know it. Sure, there will always be a market for oil, but it will be a shrinking one.
This production cut is short-sighted. It's going to put more people in EVs and make demand for oil even lower in the long run.
In 2022 the U.S. produced more crude oil than ever in history. I guess we should credit Biden for this success? Where are all the Trump supporters who credited Trump on this issue?
Here's Atlantic's recap on Biden's influence on oil prices/production:
This year, the United States pumped out more oil than any other country in history, producing millions more barrels than Russia or Saudi Arabia ever have and accounting for almost a fifth of the world’s total oil production. And the Biden administration played a part in making it happen.
Raising America’s fossil-fuel output was not part of the president’s original plan. In his first week in office, Biden killed the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and placed a moratorium on new leases for oil and gas projects on federal lands (a decision that was later overturned by the courts). But a year into his term, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent global oil prices soaring. From January to June 2022, the price of gasoline rose 49 percent, to a national average of more than $5 a gallon—the highest price in more than a decade. Spiking energy prices pushed already-high inflation even higher, igniting fears of a 1970s-style price spiral. Voters’ views on the economy began plummeting just months before a pivotal midterm election.
So the Biden administration began using every tool at its disposal to bring prices under control, most of which involve increasing supply. It released 180 million barrels from the nation’s strategic petroleum reserve, eased sanctions enforcement against Venezuela and Iran, and pressured domestic companies to boost production. That fall, the administration announced measures to “encourage immediate investment” by promising to buy oil from private producers if the price were to fall below a certain level. Although the president’s control over gas prices is limited, these ongoing actions appear to have made an impact. A Treasury Department analysis credited the strategic-petroleum-reserve release alone with shaving off 40 cents a gallon, and some experts believe that the impact was even greater. “President Biden is committed to doing everything in his power to respond to Putin’s Price Hike at the pump,” read a 2022 White House statement, “and he is delivering.”
If the U.S. were to cut back tomorrow, prices would rise. In the short term, this would lead to less consumption and lower emissions. But those high prices would only entice producers in other countries to step in, as many did in the months after Russia’s invasion. For that reason, reductions in U.S. oil production could actually result in higher overall emissions. The U.S. has one of the least emissions-intensive oil industries on the planet. Shifting production to countries with looser standards would likely be worse for the climate.
Now starts the convoluted positioning politi-speak
But the deeper explanation for the Biden administration’s actions has to do with the politics of climate change. Put simply, pursuing a decarbonization agenda requires Biden to maintain political support, and there is no surer way to lose political support than by presiding over high gas prices. Biden’s approval rating has tracked gas prices for most of his presidency (although he hasn’t yet benefited from recent improvements), and the drop in prices in the months leading up to the 2022 midterms may have contributed to Democrats’ unexpectedly strong performance in those elections. Plus, when the price of energy goes up, the price of everything else tends to rise as well, sparking further inflation. Polls show that voters support boosting domestic fossil-fuel production by a nearly two-to-one margin, with a majority of every demographic group in favor except white Democrats. Energy prices could easily make the difference between a second Biden term and four more years of Donald Trump.
The latter outcome would be truly devastating for the planet. As my colleague Zoë Schlanger has documented, conservative groups are devising a “battle plan” to block solar and wind expansion, prevent states from adopting car-pollution standards, and hobble the Environmental Protection Agency. Trump is also planning to do everything he can to sabotage Biden’s signature climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act; a Republican Congress could repeal it altogether, making it nearly impossible for the U.S. to reach its emissions targets. This all makes the cost-benefit calculus of oil production a lot trickier. A second Trump term would be orders of magnitude worse for emissions than any short-term production increase.
The same political logic extends beyond any single election. High energy prices have already inspired a populist backlash against decarbonization across Europe. The GOP has attempted to brand Biden’s clean-energy agenda as “Biden’s War on American Energy,” stoking the misleading but potent narrative that the transition to clean energy will be financially ruinous for ordinary people. If that fear were to become widespread, many leaders worry it could set back the clean-energy revolution by decades.
Both the Inflation Reduction Act and the climate bill are inflationary, they deserve the budget scissors. Biden has come to earth thankfully on oil production, as his electorate are all happy for climate initiatives, but not if they have to pay significantly higher prices for everything to get there. Reality has come home to the White House. Now let's bad mouth the other side as much as possible to draw attention away from our policy reversal.
And as for governmental influence on oil production, they do not control it, but they contribute significantly to the oil investment climate. Just like in EVs - the government does not control production, but it contributes significantly to the automotive investment climate.
Yeah, I don't buy it. Releasing strategic oil reserves in that amount is literally a drop in the bucket. 180 mil barrels? world oil production is 80-90 mil per day. So congratulations, you increased supply by 2 days worth, a fraction of a percent per year.
As for the stuff about sanctions, I doubt that made a difference either. What made a difference is the increase in US oil production (see articles cites above). While Biden may claim to have pressured them to do so, it's the market that provided all the encouragement needed. Another major factor this article completely ignores is the decrease of demand from China.
No, I think this article is mostly spin. The private market is responsible for the price fluctuations, here, not the government. I do agree that Biden felt the need to get oil prices lower, I just don't buy that anything he did actually helped much.
