Joe Biden 2022: Enter Dark Brandon

[DixonHur 11154]

9 minutes ago, sidis said:

there is no significant diminishment of production resulting from anything to do with biden policies.

This can't be overstated.  It's not the supply of crude oil that's the problem, it's refining capacity.  There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US since 1976 and the O&G companies exacerbated the issue by shuttered several refineries during the pandemic with no plans to reopen them.  This has led to the remaining refineries running at 95+% capacity.  

That's not on Biden.  Hell, he was still in his first term as Senator when the last refinery was built.  That's a long time ago.

 

[Anastasis 23390]

27 minutes ago, sidis said:

i suppose one could argue that rejoining the paris agreement, biden's reinstitution of the obama era "social cost of carbon" policy (which does not affect fuel prices), the temporary pause in federal leasing in early 2021 that was quickly lifted, and the executive order signed in december seeking to reduce emissions by 2030, and new ferc policies on new pipelines meeting certain environmental thresholds could be seen as "unfriendly" to O&G

Ok. 

[sidis 9731]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Ok. 

do you believe any of them have anything to do with the current market prices for crude or ng in either domestic or international markets?

[fattyflattie 4636]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

This can't be overstated.  It's not the supply of crude oil that's the problem, it's refining capacity.  There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US since 1976 and the O&G companies exacerbated the issue by shuttered several refineries during the pandemic with no plans to reopen them.  This has led to the remaining refineries running at 95+% capacity.  

That's not on Biden.  Hell, he was still in his first term as Senator when the last refinery was built.  That's a long time ago.

 

The fact is there will not be needed investment with a hostile administration.  You want me out of business while campaigning, and now want to place blame for lack of long term investment in infrastructure?  Enjoy your midterms. 

[Poe It Up 126]

“I want end our dependence on fossil fuel.”

”They should build more refineries.”

hmmm. 

[DixonHur 11154]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

The fact is there will not be needed investment with a hostile administration.  You want me out of business while campaigning, and now want to place blame for lack of long term investment in infrastructure?  Enjoy your midterms. 

Really?  What was the excuse for the previous 46 years?

[maninblack 7974]

8 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

This can't be overstated.  It's not the supply of crude oil that's the problem, it's refining capacity.  There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US since 1976 and the O&G companies exacerbated the issue by shuttered several refineries during the pandemic with no plans to reopen them.  This has led to the remaining refineries running at 95+% capacity.  

That's not on Biden.  Hell, he was still in his first term as Senator when the last refinery was built.  That's a long time ago.

 

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=29&t=6#:~:text=The newest refinery in the,is lighter than crude oil.

[Anastasis 23390]

2 minutes ago, sidis said:

do you believe any of them have anything to do with the current market prices for crude or ng in either domestic or international markets?

You said that there were no policy actions that discouraged domestic production in the last year. I asked if there were any since inauguration. I think your list is fine and responsive to that question. Market prices are influenced by many factors. I agree with your assessment of the greatest exacerbating factor atm.  

[DixonHur 11154]

4 minutes ago, maninblack said:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=29&t=6#:~:text=The newest refinery in the,is lighter than crude oil.

Good catch.  

I was looking at an older article and just assumed no new ones had been opened in hostile conditions.

But to be fare it's only 35,000 barrels a day.

Quote

However, the newest refinery with significant downstream unit capacity is Marathon's facility in Garyville, Louisiana. That facility came online in 1977 with an initial atmospheric distillation unit capacity of 200,000 b/cd, and as of January 1, 2021, it had a capacity of 578,000 b/cd.

And the constrained refining vs crude supply still stands.  They're running at 95% capacity.  More crude isn't the issue.

Edited June 15, 2022 by DixonHur

[DixonHur 11154]

dp

Edited June 15, 2022 by DixonHur

[sidis 9731]

Just now, Anastasis said:

You said that there were no policy actions that discouraged domestic production in the last year. I asked if there were any since inauguration. I think your list is fine and responsive to that question. Market prices are influenced by many factors. I agree with your assessment of the greatest exacerbating factor atm.  

those policies are largely inconsequential and, to be clear, i do not believe any of them have discouraged domestic production.  as i characterized it in my post, those policies could be argued to be counter to a desire for the o&g industry to be given a completely unregulated environment to operate within and thus, "unfriendly" to the industry but i personally agree with every one of them (though the leasing halt was largely performative/pointless/red meat for base) and i do not believe any of them affected domestic production.

[Anastasis 23390]

1 minute ago, sidis said:

those policies are largely inconsequential and, to be clear, i do not believe any of them have discouraged domestic production.  as i characterized it in my post, those policies could be argued to be counter to a desire for the o&g industry to be given a completely unregulated environment to operate within and thus, "unfriendly" to the industry but i personally agree with every one of them (though the leasing halt was largely performative/pointless/red meat for base) and i do not believe any of them affected domestic production.

That’s all fair. 
 

Do you think that we should be encouraging domestic production? And if so, what policies do you think would be effective to encourage that production? 

[sidis 9731]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Good catch.  

I was looking at an older article and just assumed no new ones had been opened in hostile conditions.

But to be fare it's only 35,000 barrels a day.

it is also a condensate splitter, not a crude oil refinery.  big difference.

however, maninblack's link certainly undermines fatty's post...since 4 of the last 5 "refineries" were built under obama's "hostile" administration...and the two before that during clinton's presidency.

[Vegas64 660]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm sorry, but the price gouging narrative I think is pretty much bullshit.  But, I suppose it's a fair counter to "It's all his fault, let's go Brandon."

That profit margins are year-on-year the same or very similar means there's no gouging going on.

Now, could you argue that corporations/businesses should share the pain in terms of reducing their margins in addition to the reduced sales they're experiencing.  Absolutely.  That would be good corporate citizenship, though, so fuck that.

I agree. Nobody was complaining (probably more celebrating) during the time and years when Exxon lost $10’s of billions of dollars, but now that the shoe is on the other foot it’s “greedflation”. And I get why it’s a political angle from Biden and honestly I think it could be more effectively wielded because it’s exactly what the Republicans would do, honest or not. Biden needs to triple down on the narrative but in doing so won’t make friends of those he’s asking help for.

[Neonmoon 38127]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

A couple points 

1. Initial Goals: We do need to end our reliance on fossil fuels. That doesn't mean we will ever stop using fossil fuels. It just means the majority of our energy needs to be generated by renewables to reduce climate change and end our reliance on foreign energy production. (we can't force producers in US to only sell in US)

      - Biden stated in his campaign he would be aggressive in this regard. He showed that by cancelling the Keystone Pipeline and reduced drilling permits on Federal Land. He can's stop producers from drilling on private land. 

2. New Info Changes Things: Putin invading Ukraine took a giant shit on stable energy prices. So Biden has to pivot on his renewable energy push and try to help Americans with high energy costs. That doesn't mean he was wrong with his initial talking points and strategy regarding renewable energy. We still need to reduce our depending on fossil fuels, but since the entire landscape of the world changed due to the war, those goals had to be changed. 

3. Dishonest Discourse: Now we are seeing oil and gas employees (and Republicans) take the words of Pre-Ukraine War Biden and blame him for high gas prices. They say the renewable energy push is the reason gas prices are high, etc. That is all complete horseshit. However, we live in a world that lacks critical thinking and supports dishonest discourse. 

Are oil companies making a crap ton of money? Yes. Do high gas prices hurt American people? Yes. Energy is a necessity of life. It would be the socially responsible thing to do, but the United States left social responsibility in the shit heap a long time ago. Welcome to Capitalism. Oil and gas companies could produce more to help out, or reduce prices to help fellow Americans, but they're not going to. They are private companies. They don't give a fuck. 

 

 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

“I want end our dependence on fossil fuel.”

”They should build more refineries.”

hmmm. 

Right on schedule

You're leaving out the Ukraine War in between those two.

You're not being honest in discourse. 

[Vegas64 660]

5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

That's because Republicans benefit politically from gas prices being as high as possible by election day.

This is also true. Every day prices are high Republicans have a boogy man and bad guy to target for replacement. We live in idiot world.

[Neonmoon 38127]

I'm trying to have a rational honest discussion on the oil baron thread about refining capacity. 

The US hasn't built a refinery since 1977 for real supply/demand reasons that don't involve "the democrats"

 

[DixonHur 11154]

4 minutes ago, sidis said:

however, maninblack's link certainly undermines fatty's post...since 4 of the last 5 "refineries" were built under obama's "hostile" administration...and the two before that during clinton's presidency.

The major upgrades were under Obama too.

Quote

Capacity has also been added to existing refineries through upgrades or new construction. Some recent examples of large increases include

• In 2012, Motiva upgraded its refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, making it the largest U.S. refinery, with a capacity of 607,000 b/cd as of January 1, 2021.
• In 2015, Valero expanded its Corpus Christi, Texas refinery after previous expansions, bringing its capacity as of January 1, 2021, to 290,000 b/cd.

 

[fattyflattie 4636]

17 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Really?  What was the excuse for the previous 46 years?

Oh I don’t know, a fraction of the demand we have today?  

[sidis 9731]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

That’s all fair. 
 

Do you think that we should be encouraging domestic production? And if so, what policies do you think would be effective to encourage that production? 

regarding the short-term and the current "pain" for some and "prosperity" for others related to the high price environment, as should be clear from my previous posts, there is not really anything from a domestic policy perspective that i believe should be done...i'm riding shotgun with adam smith and eugene farma on this one.  this particular marketplace is exceptionally efficient...prices will motivate production increases almost immediately and demand destruction around august.  and we will see a renormalization of the market back to $80 oil and $4-5 natural gas into late fall.  the "rational market" concept, while a myth in most arenas, actually applies here. 

politically, biden will want to message or provide some theater on him "doing something" for purposes of the upcoming elections but none of it is actually impactful in any material way.  it will take some time for price stickiness to resolve but not a big deal.  the only thing he could actually do to truly impact things in the short-term from a policy perspective is have vlad putin assassinated or just stop caring that he's invaded ukraine and relieve the import bans.

my personal perspective in the long-term is that a move to more nuclear power for infrastructure would be better which will have significant derivative effects in the o&g markets...but that is a different subject and one that i am likely in the minority on.

[fattyflattie 4636]

10 minutes ago, sidis said:

it is also a condensate splitter, not a crude oil refinery.  big difference.

however, maninblack's link certainly undermines fatty's post...since 4 of the last 5 "refineries" were built under obama's "hostile" administration...and the two before that during clinton's presidency.

Yes. Refineries are planned, permitted, and built during the same administration.  I know you know they typically don’t even make it in 2 administrations.  

[MoJames 8241]

Oh is this the thread where people in O&G suggest the invasion of Ukraine isn't the driving force behind the current situation in energy and that in turn it is on Biden?

[DixonHur 11154]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Oh I don’t know, a fraction of the demand we have today?  

So you're finally admitting that it's been business decisions not "hostile" policies.

[sidis 9731]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes. Refineries are planned, permitted, and built during the same administration.  I know you know they typically don’t even make it in 2 administrations.  

well, that is actually the foundation of what my original response was going to be to your post but this provided a less time-consuming effort.

your post was utterly silly primarily because decisions related to billion dollar facilities such as crude refineries aren't generally tied to extraordinarily myopic and short-term considerations like the current president's political affiliation which is what your post implies.

that said, the majority of the facilities finished in the obama administration time period were started in the same period if you research each of them.  these are not monster facilities.

[Bullneck 18983]

5 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

His comment about it being 98 in June and woe is me how hot will it be next year is equally fucktarded.  I guess no one remembers last summer when we had 3 or 4 days all year over 100.  

 

Ending our reliance on fossil fuels is a goal.  It's a long term goal that's been shoe-horned into unrealistic short term expectations.  We've made a lot of progress, but it's not as simple as "build more wind and solar farms!!!, ERMAGHERD!!!"  

Obviously you know nothing of statistics or climate science.  Let's start with an easy one:  What's the difference between climate and science?

I don't understand why anyone would argue against something good.  It's like you feel like all those science people are looking down on you or something.

[Dahobbs 17420]

21 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Oh I don’t know, a fraction of the demand we have today?  

Is this based on something? Demand peaked around 2006. We are roughly the same level as 20 years ago. And recent demand prior to the pandemic is at most only like 5% greater than demand in the late 70s. 

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-states/oil-consumption

Edited June 15, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Bullneck 18983]

7 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

They can’t be. 
 

Everything around you is dependent on them. 

Biden going with the classic strongly worded letter. 
 

 

But one day there will be more electric cars on the road than gas powered.  It's coming.  It will happen.  Maybe this will wake even the stupidest of people up to that fact. 

[elfenix 34169]

5 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

It's a long term goal that's been shoe-horned into unrealistic short term expectations.

do i need to post the timeline again? 

[Trey3216 15325]

6 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Obviously you know nothing of statistics or climate science.  Let's start with an easy one:  What's the difference between climate and science?

I don't understand why anyone would argue against something good.  It's like you feel like all those science people are looking down on you or something.

so by answering an anecdote with an anecdote, you got that I know nothing about stats or climate...  Interesting.  

[Trey3216 15325]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

do i need to post the timeline again? 

Which one?  It changes with every "voice" in the discussion.  

[elfenix 34169]

this timeline, which was in response to GRHorn's current incarnation.

On 6/9/2022 at 10:49 PM, elfenix said:

if we'd have started this 25 years ago when the oil companies doubled down on their gaslighting campaign the trade offs wouldn't be as severe. 

if we'd have started this 35 years ago when hanson made his presentation to congress the trade offs wouldn't be as severe

if we'd have started this 45 years ago when exxon's own scientists told them this was happening the trade offs wouldn't be as severe

if we'd have started this 55 years ago when the API paid Stanford to investigate and found that it would happen the trade offs wouldn't be as severe

if we'd have started this 65 years ago when Edward Teller told them it was going to happen the trade offs wouldn't be as severe. 

if this had started a couple decades ago we probably wouldn't have even noticed it. 

 

[Trey3216 15325]

22 minutes ago, MoJames said:

Oh is this the thread where people in O&G suggest the invasion of Ukraine isn't the driving force behind the current situation in energy and that in turn it is on Biden?

Considering prices were up about 60% YoY before Ukraine was invaded, that doesn't tell the entire story.  It just makes a nice headline.  It's a chef's kiss.  

[jimmyjazz 45538]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Ok I’ll try to restate. In your view there have been no executive actions since inauguration impacting energy policy and the dynamics related to domestic energy production?

Did you completely ignore my question of you the other day?

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

Hadn’t seen the Exxon response shared. 

In the short term, the U.S. government could enact measures often used in emergencies following hurricanes or other supply disruptions -- such as waivers of Jones Act provisions and some fuel specifications to increase supplies. Longer term, government can promote investment through clear and consistent policy that supports U.S. resource development, such as regular and predictable lease sales, as well as streamlined regulatory approval and support for infrastructure such as pipelines.

 

[MoJames 8241]

6 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Considering prices were up about 60% YoY before Ukraine was invaded, that doesn't tell the entire story.  It just makes a nice headline.  It's a chef's kiss.  

Which has nothing to do with coming out of a Pandemic?

[sidis 9731]

12 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Considering prices were up about 60% YoY before Ukraine was invaded, that doesn't tell the entire story.  It just makes a nice headline.  It's a chef's kiss.  

is this a serious post?  honest question.

[Trey3216 15325]

1 minute ago, MoJames said:

Which has nothing to do with coming out of a Pandemic?

WHere do we begin and end "coming out of a pandemic"?  The markets had fully recovered from the shutdown melt by mid to late summer of '20.  Employment started rounding out to form by the election and knowing the vaccines were hitting the market by Dec '20/Jan '21.   Now, maybe a lot of people who had all the COVID feels and fears weren't "out of the pandemic" until recently, but I'd estimate as a whole for us to have been coming out of the pandemic long before Russia invaded Ukraine.  

 

So Joe's economy was all him, and his vaccines and his and his and his, but the increase in gas by 60% over that time frame was not his.   That increase and the subsequent increase was all Putin?  Or just the subsequent?    

 

I mean, c'mon man.  You've got to look at the things realistically.   I'm not blaming everything on a president.  I'm not giving any president credence for much.  But you gotta look at things as a whole, not in some fucking narrow soundbite vacuum.   

[Trey3216 15325]

3 minutes ago, sidis said:

is this a serious post?  honest question.

It's a fact.  

[MoJames 8241]

3 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

WHere do we begin and end "coming out of a pandemic"?  The markets had fully recovered from the shutdown melt by mid to late summer of '20.  Employment started rounding out to form by the election and knowing the vaccines were hitting the market by Dec '20/Jan '21.   Now, maybe a lot of people who had all the COVID feels and fears weren't "out of the pandemic" until recently, but I'd estimate as a whole for us to have been coming out of the pandemic long before Russia invaded Ukraine.

I'm assuming we could clear this argument up with usage statistics of both Oil and Gas through the last 3 years? Is that something easily obtained?

[jimmyjazz 45538]

55 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Oh I don’t know, a fraction of the demand we have today?  

Actually, not.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

13 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

WHere do we begin and end "coming out of a pandemic"?  The markets had fully recovered from the shutdown melt by mid to late summer of '20.  Employment started rounding out to form by the election and knowing the vaccines were hitting the market by Dec '20/Jan '21.   Now, maybe a lot of people who had all the COVID feels and fears weren't "out of the pandemic" until recently, but I'd estimate as a whole for us to have been coming out of the pandemic long before Russia invaded Ukraine.  

 

So Joe's economy was all him, and his vaccines and his and his and his, but the increase in gas by 60% over that time frame was not his.   That increase and the subsequent increase was all Putin?  Or just the subsequent?    

God damn, I know you are a WHOLE lot smarter than this.

[Trey3216 15325]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

God damn, I know you are a WHOLE lot smarter than this.

Am I being intentionally hyperbolic?  yes.  But no more than anyone else in this argument.  To say that things were all fucking sunshine and roses until Putin got a stiffy is as head in the sand as anything I've said.  

[jimmyjazz 45538]

Just now, Trey3216 said:

Am I being intentionally hyperbolic?  yes.  But no more than anyone else in this argument.  To say that things were all fucking sunshine and roses until Putin got a stiffy is as head in the sand as anything I've said.  

Look, anyone blaming the current O&G price concerns wholly on Vlad Putin is an idiot.

I've been reading this board and this thread for a really long time, and I don't recall anyone saying that in any seriousness.  Maybe I missed some.  It would be nice if every player here was completely earnest, but for fuck's sake, the number of drive-bys from the DT crowd which REFUSES to fucking engage in legitimate discourse is just draining.

Don't be one of those assholes.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

4 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Am I being intentionally hyperbolic?  yes.  But no more than anyone else in this argument.  To say that things were all fucking sunshine and roses until Putin got a stiffy is as head in the sand as anything I've said.  

Let’s settle this.  Please break down the May 8.6% inflation rate, attributing it by cause:

Biden’s policy (including the stimulus congress passed at the beginning of his term)

Trump (and other pre-Biden) stimulus

Pandemic-related (I.e., supply chain, 2020-2021)

Russia-Ukraine (including Saudi unwillingness to increase supply to offset)

Pandemic-related (I.e., supply chain, 2022, including China lockdown this year)

Edited June 15, 2022 by Snake Diggity

[MoJames 8241]

My real question in this scenario is if Trump was in power, or anyone else, what is the best possible position could we be in wandering out of a Pandemic and into the Ukraine conflict? I have no doubt Biden is not the smartest tool in the shed regarding navigating an energy crisis.

[Trey3216 15325]

2 minutes ago, MoJames said:

My real question in this scenario is if Trump was in power, or anyone else, what is the best possible position could we be in wandering out of a Pandemic and into the Ukraine conflict? I have no doubt Biden is not the smartest tool in the shed regarding navigating an energy crisis.

I'm not 100% convinced Russia would have invaded Ukraine again to be honest.  

[wildcat09 29213]

1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

I'm not 100% convinced Russia would have invaded Ukraine again to be honest.  

I'm sure Trump would have tried to pressure Zelenskyy to surrender rather than fight, but I highly doubt he would have been successful.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

2 minutes ago, MoJames said:

My real question in this scenario is if Trump was in power, or anyone else, what is the best possible position could we be in wandering out of a Pandemic and into the Ukraine conflict? I have no doubt Biden is not the smartest tool in the shed regarding navigating an energy crisis.

Not just Trump.  What would literally ANY other candidate have done differently?!  Would president fucking DeSantis have inflation at <5% and the Dow at 40,000??? Give me a fucking break.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

6 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

I'm not 100% convinced Russia would have invaded Ukraine again to be honest.  

Holy fuck.

[Trey3216 15325]

3 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Let’s settle this.  Please break down the May 8.6% inflation rate, attributing it by cause:

Biden’s policy (including the stimulus congress passed at the beginning of his term)

Trump (and other pre-Biden) stimulus

Pandemic-related (I.e., supply chain, 2020-2021)

Russia-Ukraine

Pandemic-related (I.e., supply chain, 2022, including China lockdown this year)

Why May?  Why not the 7.9% in March and 8.3% in April or that it's been over 6% since last October.  7.9% in march was pretty striking as the full brunt of the Ukraine ordeal hadn't even had time to factor into the equation.  It's nice picking nits.    

 

Yes, there are tons of factors involved.  Printing $$ is the number 1 factor in the equation, followed closely by supply chain disruptions.  

 

We're probably going to see a June CPI in the 9 range and another quarter of negative GDP.  It doesn't matter how it happened, shit's fucked.  You can't just go out and blame it on Putin every time and think a fucking populous that can barely pay for food, rent and gas to get to and from work is going to say "That damned ol' Putin!"