Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, you don’t think that being 100% anti-oil and anti-fossil fuel from day 1 in office has any negative effects on oil prices?
No, I don't believe Biden had much, if any, impact on oil prices. Oil companies lost their collective backsides during Covid, and are reluctant to crank back up to flat out production. Many smaller companies went bankrupt, and will never return, and their principals will never be able to get funding again. Many of the wells that smaller companies were drilling were not economic even at $100 oil, due to the way they were financed. The Saudis haven't opened the tap, because they like the money they are making.
I thought it was common knowledge that he stymied domestic oil exploration and production from day one, but if you're willing to see the truth, here are a couple of quick tidbits for you:
This is what he did on his first day in office:
*January 20, 2021: One of Biden’s first actions was to revoke approval for the Keystone XL pipeline and impose a moratorium on oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters. Roughly 25% of U.S. production comes from federal areas. The Keystone XL cancellation confirmed to many policy-watchers Biden’s willingness to use one of climate activists’ favorite tactics – blocking "midstream" pipelines – to restrict "upstream" production. The moves were part of Biden’s broader climate agenda and target to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/t...gas-priorities
I won't argue with you about this, because it's obvious to anyone with an open mind (and without an agenda) this President wants to force us to stop using oil and gas so we can become greener, despite the obvious drawbacks to that approach. There have even been quotes from his administration that higher fuel prices are desired to force people to change. He can try to blame Russia or OPEC or the Man in the Moon, but his actions are primarily responsible for our high fuel prices. And by extension, for at least a part of the record inflation eating away at our wages, savings and investments.
Keystone XL cancellation had zero impact on prices. That oil was destined for export in any case.
We need higher fuel prices to reduce consumption. It's time we quit just dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at breakneck rates. And I say that as someone whose family has been working for oil companies since about 1916, and whose entire career has been working for oil companies.
None of the cancelled leases would be producing for at least 10 years, and probably 20. There are almost 10,000 Federal leases oil companies already have, and the companies are doing nothing with them. Most of the leases were acquired to prevent competitors from getting them, especially offshore.
Keystone XL cancellation had zero impact on prices. That oil was destined for export in any case.
We need higher fuel prices to reduce consumption. It's time we quit just dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at breakneck rates. And I say that as someone whose family has been working for oil companies since about 1916, and whose entire career has been working for oil companies.
What, that I think continually dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is a bad idea? Or that I think we should have higher fuel prices to encourage less use of fossil fuels? Using up our hydrocarbons on transportation is wasteful, when there are far better things to use them on.
I don't think that fossil fuels will disappear, especially in industrial and agricultural settings, where there aren't many ways to perform the necessary activities with electricity.
As for the grid, that will get taken care of at some point, with necessary upgrades and related projects. Heck, that needs to be done now, but no one is willing to pay for it. They just complain when the power goes out.
I suspect we will see some sort of resurgence in nuclear power, especially with the newer technologies that are being developed, or by using US Navy type reactors in larger numbers.
All of this will take time. It will take longer than the Greens think, but shorter than the people who are irrationally opposed to cleaner power sources think.
I've worked in the oil business for over 30 years. Prices are not controlled by the US President. My Dad and his siblings had nearly 200 years between them working for oil companies. Their mantra when asked about oil prices was "whatever the Saudis want it to be". That hasn't changed.
Good for you. My customers for over 30 years have been energy companies, too.
Making a narrow statement like "prices are not controlled by the US President" is disingenuous. Nobody on this thread thinks they are directly controlled by the POTUS, but most of us recognize that politically driven policies do affect production, and therefore prices, in the long term.
The quip about the Saudis is dated. The U.S. became the largest oil producer in the world thanks to the fracking boom, which Obama could have try to thwart but wisely stepped aside.
Good for you. My customers for over 30 years have been energy companies, too.
Making a narrow statement like "prices are not controlled by the US President" is disingenuous. Nobody on this thread thinks they are directly controlled by the POTUS, but most of us recognize that politically driven policies do affect production, and therefore prices, in the long term.
The quip about the Saudis is dated. The U.S. became the largest oil producer in the world thanks to the fracking boom, which Obama could have try to thwart but wisely stepped aside.
The Saudis still control prices because they can shut down or crank up production pretty much at will. Fracking requires continuous drilling programs due to the decline curves of fracked wells. This article mentions that without additional drilling, US oil production would decline by 4 million barrels per day https://www.hartenergy.com/exclusive...t-think-188251
Notice that first year decline rates in fracked areas exceed 40%
Most Saudi production comes from high porosity, high permeability formations that do not require fracking, and can be brought on production quickly and can be shut in without issues. Marginal production cost on these Saudi wells is probably $10 to $20 per barrel, which is far lower than US production costs on fracked wells.
The Saudis still control prices because they can shut down or crank up production pretty much at will. Fracking requires continuous drilling programs due to the decline curves of fracked wells. This article mentions that without additional drilling, US oil production would decline by 4 million barrels per day https://www.hartenergy.com/exclusive...t-think-188251
Notice that first year decline rates in fracked areas exceed 40%
Most Saudi production comes from high porosity, high permeability formations that do not require fracking, and can be brought on production quickly and can be shut in without issues. Marginal production cost on these Saudi wells is probably $10 to $20 per barrel, which is far lower than US production costs on fracked wells.
Thanks for the info on production. My experience is with wholesale and retail, not production. But as you know, taxes and costs are added every step of the way, and starts way before the stuff comes out of the ground.
My main point of contention is that political pressures have an impact on the cost of doing any business, no matter what the business but especially in a crucial strategic resource like oil. The President, Congress, governors and state legislators all have a say in how expensive it is to put fuel in your car, heat your home, take a vacation, or run your business. The President gets most of the blame for increases (and if you've noticed, takes the credit for decreases) because he's the President.
Unfortunately, some mistakenly think that "going green" will result in leaving the existing supply of fossil fuels in the ground. It will not. We still will extract as much fossil fuel from the ground as we always have - but in the best case, going green means we won't need to expand its extraction as much as we otherwise would.
While atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are clearly higher today than there were at the dawn of the industrial revolution, they are nowhere near planetary maximums. Indeed, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels haven't been this low in the past 500 million years.
Perhaps if our country stopped tearing down woods and building it up so much we'd be better off.
I really hope firm laws are put in place soon
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
