$6.00 gas?

[Stormchaser]

Yep…the Biden administration continues choking off domestic oil and gas production.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Basin.html

What percent of wells in the Permian basin are on Federally leased lands??

That’s actually irrelevant to your continuing argument that the administration’s anti-oil rhetoric has been a driving force limiting exploration and production.

No, it's not irrelevant.

So your contention is that because non federal leased drilling in a certain district is showing a year over year gain, that Biden's actions to date have been positive for the oil industry, have moved prices lower, or have increased supply?

Pretty sure he's saying demand (not Biden, maybe even despite Biden) has caused increased exploration dollars. At least that's what I took from the article, which also referenced similar increases in other major industries (again, not due to Biden).

[Bubba]

Yep…the Biden administration continues choking off domestic oil and gas production.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Basin.html

What percent of wells in the Permian basin are on Federally leased lands??

That’s actually irrelevant to your continuing argument that the administration’s anti-oil rhetoric has been a driving force limiting exploration and production.

No, it's not irrelevant.

So your contention is that because non federal leased drilling in a certain district is showing a year over year gain, that Biden's actions to date have been positive for the oil industry, have moved prices lower, or have increased supply?

Intentionally ignoring YOUR own previous argument that the administration's rhetoric has been the driving force behind lack of investment and production increases will not win you points today. The fact of the matter is that while this administration's rhetoric has been somewhat anti-oil, they have done little or nothing to actually inhibit current and future production. Oil and gas producer investment is driven by economics, not speeches, and the industry has plenty (thousands) of unused leases on which to invest their money. Whether the Permian investments are on Federal leases or otherwise is irrelevant.

[easyrider16]

So your contention is that because non federal leased drilling in a certain district is showing a year over year gain, that Biden's actions to date have been positive for the oil industry, have moved prices lower, or have increased supply?

I don't see where anyone in this thread made this contention?

[Mister Moose]

Yep…the Biden administration continues choking off domestic oil and gas production.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Basin.html

What percent of wells in the Permian basin are on Federally leased lands??

That’s actually irrelevant to your continuing argument that the administration’s anti-oil rhetoric has been a driving force limiting exploration and production.

No, it's not irrelevant.

So your contention is that because non federal leased drilling in a certain district is showing a year over year gain, that Biden's actions to date have been positive for the oil industry, have moved prices lower, or have increased supply?

Intentionally ignoring YOUR own previous argument that the administration's rhetoric has been the driving force behind lack of investment and production increases will not win you points today. The fact of the matter is that while this administration's rhetoric has been somewhat anti-oil, they have done little or nothing to actually inhibit current and future production. Oil and gas producer investment is driven by economics, not speeches, and the industry has plenty (thousands) of unused leases on which to invest their money. Whether the Permian investments are on Federal leases or otherwise is irrelevant.

I am not ignoring or being inconsistent with my past remarks.

And I don't think I ever said "the administration's rhetoric has been the driving force behind lack of investment ", what I said was it is a contributing factor. Everything is just a contributing factor. It's a big marketplace.

President Joe Biden signed an executive order placing a temporary moratorium on oil and gas activity in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, hours after his inauguration on Wednesday and one day after the Trump administration issued nine oil and gas leases in the refuge’s coastal plain.
https://www.adn.com/business-economy/en ... ng-office/

This is your idea of rhetoric? This is your idea of nothing? That is taking action. There is a difference. And of course that's just one example.

Leases are exercised on the basis of risk, opportunity and potential return. Quoting the "unused leases" dogma is a political talking point, again, I don't get it coming from you.

Permian leases being Federal or non Federal is of course relevant, as the degree of Federal regulation is different.

Is Biden helping or hurting oil (*Edit Domestic) exploration, drilling and production? That's my focus. What's yours?

[Mister Moose]

Yep…the Biden administration continues choking off domestic oil and gas production.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Basin.html

What percent of wells in the Permian basin are on Federally leased lands??

Pretty sure he's saying demand (not Biden, maybe even despite Biden) has caused increased exploration dollars. At least that's what I took from the article, which also referenced similar increases in other major industries (again, not due to Biden).

Got that. Bubba went further, and insinuated this shows Biden is not "choking off" oil investment. My point is if you choose an area of least Federal influence to prove your point on lack of Federal influence, you just might be coloring the story. Show me a story on a new refinery, hailed and fast tracked by the administration. Show me a story on Biden's strong record for new federal leases for oil and gas. Because this is the record so far:

The Biden administration has leased fewer acres for oil-and-gas drilling offshore and on federal land than any other administration in its early stages dating back to the end of World War II, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... r-AA11rqZK

Perfect illustration of what I meant when I said back on page 9, and earlier:

Again, it's not Keystone, it's what Keystone represents.

[easyrider16]

Is Biden helping or hurting oil (*Edit Domestic) exploration, drilling and production? That's my focus. What's yours?

There is a third alternative - he may not be helping or hurting. I would argue that his actions to date have had a net zero effect on oil production. Remember, this thread was moved to the political forum when Trump supporters claimed Biden was responsible for high gas prices. Bubba, et. al. have only been saying that high gas prices have little to do with anything Biden has actually done.

I think oil production is going to become less and less relevant as time goes on. Consumers are switching to electric cars, natural gas, etc. Even now, demand for oil is not what was expected. OPEC cut production and that only served to stabilize prices, not increase them. If you look at U.S. oil consumption from 2000 or so to today, it's basically flat.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49016

World oil consumption has increased over the last two decades, but it, too, is starting to flatten:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271 ... ince-2006/

Meanwhile, production has been increasing steadily for most of the last two decades, apart from the last two years (which I'd argue is the result of a boom/bust cycle):
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265 ... s-per-day/

I think all of this is worth bearing in mind when analyzing Biden's (or Trump's) oil policies. Even if Biden successfully stopped future oil exploration (which he didn't), that doesn't necessarily mean oil prices would go up given the long-term supply/demand trends. It seems to me that we should be putting our resources into things like upgrading the electrical grid, battery technology, nuclear, solar, etc. rather than into more oil production. It kind of reminds me of how Trump wanted to bring back coal. Oil is yesterday's energy. We need to focus on the future.

[Mister Moose]

production has been increasing steadily for most of the last two decades ---> Oil is yesterday's energy.

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?

[easyrider16]

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.

[Bubba]

Time for a reality check. Natural gas production is at an all time high. Oil production has not yet recovered to its pre pandemic peak.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 022-10-31/

Refinery construction:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=29&t=6

From what I can tell, the last major greenfield refinery was built in 1977. Capacity has been increased at numerous refineries since with some older refineries closed as well. 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.

[boston_e]

$2.87 today.

That was the cash price. I guess gas stations, unlike Killington, still prefer cash.

[Fancypants]

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.

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.

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?

[Killington_Lover]

Every time I have a diesel emissions issue I thank a Democrat and vote R down the line. our customers (and us from larger trucking companies) have certainly enjoyed $100+ fuel surcharges on any delivery wake me up when diesel is under $3

[easyrider16]

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.

[easyrider16]

Every time I have a diesel emissions issue I thank a Democrat and vote R down the line.

I am thankful that I don't have to breathe smog thanks to diesel emission regulations. Also you might want to reconsider who you have to thank, as many R's supported the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, including George W. Bush who signed it into law.

[Mister Moose]

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?