Joe Biden 2022: Enter Dark Brandon

[TwiceHorn 31240]

4 hours ago, DixonHur said:

@Immaculate Vibes

I don't agree with all the tactics the Biden administration has proposed, but what is the GOP's plan to lower inflation and fuel prices?

They helped create this monster, so what are they doing / proposing to fix it?  

Moar shitposting on twitter!

There's really not a better example of how the GOP is incapable of governing than their utter inaction during this period.  Other, of course, than making unjustified and non-factual swipes at the current administration.

Edited June 15, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, Hmbre97 said:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/drilling-vs-returns-us-oil-producers-tradeoff-windfall-tax-threatens-2022-06-13/

 

 

Here's a live shot of the oil companies discussing ramping up production to ease the pain at the pump 

Gee, I wonder why those E&P companies might be hesitant to ramp up capex on working over old wells or investing in new ones?

 

[Bullneck 18983]

Fossil fuels NEED to be ended.  Is that so hard to wrap you mind around?

BTW, I see it's really cooled off in Austin.  Only 98 today.  Wonder what it will be this time next year.

[Bama Chick 28596]

[Hmbre97 6297]

53 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Gee, I wonder why those E&P companies might be hesitant to ramp up capex on working over old wells or investing in new ones?

 

You can go peddle that dumb shit to the old boomers on facebook. Demand for fossil fuels isn't going anywhere and they know it. You wanna sell they don't want to tie up capex on building new refineries? Sure, maybe I can buy that due to the time horizon but spinning up old wells or drilling new ones is a nothingburger in the long run. It has nothing to do with Biden or anyone elses threats about getting rid of fossil fuels and everything about purposely sitting idle and taking profits.

The only people crying about the 'new green deal' and the world transitioning over to renewables are either O&G shareholders or mineral rights holders. Like everything else with capitalism, those who are getting those sweet divvys or cashing the royalty checks are perfectly fine letting the planet burn itself up in the name of money.  

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is illustrative of why I hate party politics.  Just as John McCain would have done what Barack Obama did as far as economic policies are concerned immediately post-election, any (sane) POTUS would have done what Joe Biden has done, but the right wing wants us to believe that Biden took unprecedented, malicious and unjustified actions that have driven the price of a tank of gas through the roof.

 

 

To be fair to the GOP, they didn't run a sane candidate.

[Neonmoon 38127]

15 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

We can’t get some posters to accept reality, much less perspective 

The same people who believe quantitative easing is stealing, counterfeiting, handouts to the poor are the same people that lobbied for PPP money. The entire world is going through shit. It’s sucks for everyone. Act accordingly. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

Ugh speaking of stupidity. I just looked at LinkedIn because a recruiter messaged me. I deleted the message.  On my feed, I saw some Corporate Finance guy for some O&G company lamenting Biden for his comments about price gouging and said Biden didn’t say anything about Big Tech profits like Google and Apple. Then a hundred comments from other smart guys with smart degrees saying similar stupid comments 

Do people fill up their cars, trucks, and tankers with IPhones? 

Sweet christ, we’ve lost our ability for critical thinking in this country. The reason why energy is different than iPhones is because without energy, people die. Food doesn’t get delivered. Goods don’t get delivered. Homes aren’t heated. 

So yes, Apple is price gouging too, but the President doesn’t give a fuck because people don’t need Microsoft Windows to heat and feed themselves. 

I’m going to continue rooting for the meteor

 

[3adays 454]

 

 

https://reut.rs/3xmdETL

 

TRANSCRIPT:

REPORTER: "Have you decided, sir, whether to go to Saudi Arabia?"
BIDEN: "No, not yet."
REPORTER: "What would be holding up the decision at this point? Are there commitments you’re waiting for from the Saudis on the negotiations over peace talks?"
BIDEN: "No, no, the commitments from the Saudis don't relate to anything to do with energy. It happens to be a larger meeting taking place in Saudi Arabia. That’s the reason I’m going, and it has to do with national security for that, for Israelis, I have a program — anyway, it has to do with a much larger issue than having to do with the energy."

 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

10 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Fossil fuels NEED to be ended.  Is that so hard to wrap you mind around?

BTW, I see it's really cooled off in Austin.  Only 98 today.  Wonder what it will be this time next year.

They can’t be. 
 

Everything around you is dependent on them. 

Biden going with the classic strongly worded letter. 
 

 

[Trey3216 15325]

10 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Fossil fuels NEED to be ended.  Is that so hard to wrap you mind around?

BTW, I see it's really cooled off in Austin.  Only 98 today.  Wonder what it will be this time next year.

Your comment is equally ignorant 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

13 hours ago, CowboyFred said:

1. What has Biden done, specifically, to “worsen” fuel shortages?

2. Again, what has Biden, or his administration, done specifically to hinder the exploration and refining for hydrocarbons?

3. What does it matter what Kerry says? He’s the climate dude of course he’s going to push green energy. What has he done, policy wise that prevents more drilling?

4. Not going to read that longcat thread.

1) he’s considering ways to subsidize demand (temporary elimination of fuel tax) while considering ways to dampen supply (windfall tax). These ideas shouldn’t even be floated in media  
 

2) there’s been plenty of moves they’ve made to deter drilling and building of infrastructure. Most of them on the margins but when combined with campaigning on killing the business, it’s not hard to see it as a hostile business environment for oil and gas. The whole, “why won’t these guys drill, and where did all the refineries go?” act is so weird.  The stated goal has been to crush demand. 
 

3) He’s been named a key adviser to Biden. 
 

4)whatever

[fattyflattie 4636]

7 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Your comment is equally ignorant 

Bruh. He doesn’t need anything more than an EV. So fossil fuels simply aren’t needed anymore.  Not for electricity, MGO for industry, it’s simply not needed. 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

 

[StassneyHorn 6535]

No it wouldnt

[CowboyFred 1151]

50 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

1) he’s considering ways to subsidize demand (temporary elimination of fuel tax) while considering ways to dampen supply (windfall tax). These ideas shouldn’t even be floated in media  
 

2) there’s been plenty of moves they’ve made to deter drilling and building of infrastructure. Most of them on the margins but when combined with campaigning on killing the business, it’s not hard to see it as a hostile business environment for oil and gas. The whole, “why won’t these guys drill, and where did all the refineries go?” act is so weird.  The stated goal has been to crush demand. 
 

3) He’s been named a key adviser to Biden. 
 

4)whatever

So nothing? Cool.

[CowboyFred 1151]

1 hour ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

They can’t be. 
 

Everything around you is dependent on them. 

Biden going with the classic strongly worded letter. 
 

 

Well Congress tried to pass a price gouging bill but gqp voted it down…

[David Dennison 18646]

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

Edited June 15, 2022 by David Dennison

[elfenix 34169]

i love the argument that is essentially, "there's other things we need it for and that we don't have any substitutes."  seems like a real great reason to not waste our carbon budget doing things like driving from cypress to the energy corridor.   

[Fudge Nuggets 19144]

17 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

Joe should increase Social Security payments, I agree. Those living off fixed income with no other retirement plans have it rough, and high earners shouldn’t be capped for what they contribute to SS. No monster should want to make cuts to SS.

Fuck 'em, if they didn't have the foresight to realize Social Security wouldn't be able to provide for all their retirement needs.  It's not like this is some new-found revelation.

They should have worked harder, made better choices or something like that.

[hookem2010 2597]

1 hour ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

They can’t be. 
 

Everything around you is dependent on them. 

Biden going with the classic strongly worded letter. 
 

 

I think everyone here realizes we are pretty dependent on fossil fuels. But maybe, just maybe, the answer is expanding alternative energy sources rather than racing to see how quickly we can burn the world up. I love how the lessons we were taught as children, like needing to sacrifice initially for long-term success and caring about what we leave behind, are thrown out the window as soon as us "grown-ups" face anything resembling hardship.

[hookem2010 2597]

Also, we've had over three decades of knowledge that burning Fossil fuels leads to climate change and we've done jack shit about it. Just like guns, apparently after or during a crisis is not an appropriate time to take any action to limit further harm.

[elfenix 34169]

4 minutes ago, hookem2010 said:

Also, we've had over three decades of knowledge that burning Fossil fuels leads to climate change and we've done jack shit about it. Just like guns, apparently after or during a crisis is not an appropriate time to take any action to limit further harm.

arrhenius outlined the principle back in the 1800s. 

[hookem2010 2597]

I believe Humboldt may have commented on it even before then. Wasn't it 1988 or something where Exxon acknowledged human-influenced climate change? Regardless, it's a problem we've ignored for too long that we are going to suffer some pain if we choose to actually address it, and a shit ton more pain with our current approach of constantly sucking O&G dick.

[DixonHur 11154]

15 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

I haven’t seen any stated policies.

Do you not see the problem here?  The right just wants to shit on any proposal by the Democrats without offering up any solutions of their own.  Put up or shut up.

15 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

A good place to start would be to not do things that will worsen fuel shortages and inflation. 

Name a policy Biden has enacted to worsen fuel shortages and inflation.

1 hour ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

1) he’s considering ways to subsidize demand (temporary elimination of fuel tax) while considering ways to dampen supply (windfall tax).

I've highlighted the key words for you.  Neither of these have occurred, but you're using them as examples of things Biden has done.  He hasn't.

1 hour ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

2) there’s been plenty of moves they’ve made to deter drilling and building of infrastructure.  

Name one move that Biden has made to deter drilling or building infrastructure?  I'm legit curious and will be honest as to whether I agree with the move.

[Dahobbs 17420]

12 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Fossil fuels NEED to be ended.  Is that so hard to wrap you mind around?

BTW, I see it's really cooled off in Austin.  Only 98 today.  Wonder what it will be this time next year.

 

2 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

Your comment is equally ignorant 

 

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Bruh. He doesn’t need anything more than an EV. So fossil fuels simply aren’t needed anymore.  Not for electricity, MGO for industry, it’s simply not needed. 

Trey and Fatty, Bullneck is correct. We need to end our reliance on fossil fuels. That doesn't mean immediately. It doesn't mean without a plan. But, the science shows that failing to do so would be disastrous for humanity. And, from an economic standpoint, separating ourselves from the tantrums of the oil and gas market (and to a large extent those that control it in OPEC) would also be a great thing. No one is saying that oil and gas aren't needed right now. Of course they are, that's how our infrastructure is setup. But, we have the technology to replace oil and gas as fuel sources in the vast majority of use cases. So we need to transition away as quickly as possible. Besides, hydrocarbons are put to much better use in petrochemicals. Burning them is wasteful.  

Edited June 15, 2022 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 31240]

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.

[Dahobbs 17420]

29 minutes ago, hookem2010 said:

I believe Humboldt may have commented on it even before then. Wasn't it 1988 or something where Exxon acknowledged human-influenced climate change? Regardless, it's a problem we've ignored for too long that we are going to suffer some pain if we choose to actually address it, and a shit ton more pain with our current approach of constantly sucking O&G dick.

Chevron and others have admitted it in court.

Quote

 

 A Chevron attorney said in court on Wednesday that the company supports scientific conclusions that humans are causing climate change, a response to a lawsuit that accuses five major energy producers of misleading the public for years about their role in global warming.

At a hearing in San Francisco federal court, Chevron attorney Theodore Boutrous also said that the scientific consensus about greenhouse gas emissions did not fully form until the past decade.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-hearing/chevron-says-it-will-not-dispute-climate-science-in-u-s-lawsuit-idUSKBN1GX185

More context in the link below:

Quote

The defendants, on the other hand, had Chevron lawyer Theodore Boutrous do all the talking. (After Boutrous surprisingly stated that he would speak only for Chevron, the judge gave the other defendants two weeks to decide whether or not they agreed with everything presented.) As expected, Boutrous did not deny that humans have caused climate change, but he did seek to paint climate science as much more uncertain in the recent past.

* * *

Finally, Boutrous argued that it’s the use of fossil fuels—rather than the production and sale of them—that causes climate change. He pointed out that the IPCC report discusses population growth, land use, and energy use but not fossil fuel extraction. This is the obvious argument for the companies to make, despite the fact that the case explicitly targets their behavior as sellers.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/in-court-oil-companies-accept-climate-science-but-rewrite-its-history/

 

[Trey3216 15325]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

 

Trey and Fatty, Bullneck is correct. We need to end our reliance on fossil fuels. That doesn't mean immediately. It doesn't mean without a plan. But, the science shows that failing to do so would be disastrous for humanity. And, from an economic standpoint, separating ourselves from the tantrums of the oil and gas market (and to a large extent those that control it in OPEC) would also be a great thing. No one is saying that oil and gas aren't needed right now. Of course they are, that's how our infrastructure is setup. But, we have the technology to replace oil and gas as fuel sources in the vast majority of use cases. So we need to transition away as quickly as possible. Besides, hydrocarbons are put to much better use in petrochemicals. Burning them is wasteful.  

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!!!"  

[Dahobbs 17420]

4 minutes 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 think most of the increases in the price of oil are being driven by global disruptions caused by the pandemic, not government policies.  For instance, you can see in the yearly crude oil production that the downturn in production started in 2020. But even then, US production didn't drop that much (roughly 2017 levels). So framing this as a US problem or being driven by US environmental policies is silly.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=M

[Dahobbs 17420]

10 minutes 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.  

It was an anecdote used to illustrate the problem. The trend of increased global temperatures is clear. If anything, your anecdote is that one that looks ignorant because it mistakes a regional decrease in temperatures last summer due to weather patterns for a global trend. 

Quote

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!!!"  

It's not something we can do instantly. And while a complete elimination of oil and gas as energy sources is extremely complicated, replacing most of it isn't that much more complicated than building more wind and solar farms. It just takes time.  

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Longhorn_Fan68 33831]

Ain't it crazy that we're all talking about fucking gas, meanwhile the other side is trying to steal democracy and make us a subservient baby-making slave state. Eye on the fucking ball, people.

[David Dennison 18646]

12 minutes 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!!!"  

We'd be much further along in the process if the oil companies had been transparent about what their own climate scientists were telling them.

[DigglerontheHoof 21044]

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Ain't it crazy that we're all talking about fucking gas, meanwhile the other side is trying to steal democracy and make us a subservient baby-making slave state. Eye on the fucking ball, people.

Yep, if gas prices were such an issue, people wouldn't be traveling at above pre-pandemic rates (what I heard on CBS news radio report).    Do I like paying $5/gal?  Hell no.  Is it changing my habits/lifestyle?  Not on bit. 

[David Dennison 18646]

5 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Yep, if gas prices were such an issue, people wouldn't be traveling at above pre-pandemic rates (what I heard on CBS news radio report).    Do I like paying $5/gal?  Hell no.  Is it changing my habits/lifestyle?  Not on bit. 

Absolutely. Why worry when you can charge it? 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33831]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Absolutely. Why worry when you can charge it? 

you're better than this, I think

[DigglerontheHoof 21044]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Absolutely. Why worry when you can charge it? 

Negatory.  My cc debt is what my company owes me for travel expenses right now and will be zero as soon as that deposit hits my account. 

[Skipper 6100]

17 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Yep, if gas prices were such an issue, people wouldn't be traveling at above pre-pandemic rates (what I heard on CBS news radio report).    Do I like paying $5/gal?  Hell no.  Is it changing my habits/lifestyle?  Not on bit. 

Are you talking about air travel or vehicle?  In either event, a lot of this is is likely flights books or trips planned (if not paid for) months ago.  If this is what the data still suggests I'm guessing it flips sooner rather than later.  A lot of us on this board probably don't have to change our lifestyle/habits but we're fortunate. Most of the country is getting squeezed.

[David Dennison 18646]

4 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Negatory.  My cc debt is what my company owes me for travel expenses right now and will be zero as soon as that deposit hits my account. 

I'm not talking about you. 

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/us-consumer-debt-16-trillion/

[DigglerontheHoof 21044]

7 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Are you talking about air travel or vehicle?  In either event, a lot of this is is likely flights books or trips planned (if not paid for) months ago.  If this is what the data still suggests I'm guessing it flips sooner rather than later.  A lot of us on this board probably don't have to change our lifestyle/habits but we're fortunate. Most of the country is getting squeezed.

The report I heard indicated an increase in travel in vehicle and air. 

[Homercles 10205]

I see 4Doors continues his “I’m going to neg but not post to limit exposure of my paltry rep” style drive by here

[sidis 9731]

15 hours ago, Cacti said:

I haven't read the whole thread, so I wasn't aware someone made that claim.

Although this is a Joe Biden thread, my remarks weren’t specifically directed at current leadership; rather, they were more or less directed to your remarks:

Of course, any rational American leader would have embargoed Russian energy—and encouraged our allies to follow suit—but it definitely was a political decision. It seems to me that you are trying to make a distinction between “just being the face of the nation…who engages in international relations (such as imposing bans on russian imports or negotiating with saudi arabia )” and policy decisions, when there is none. Banning Russian hydrocarbons is a policy, as is making the attempt to mend fences with S.A. in order to increase production. And both will have an effect on prices.

To be sure, the embargo isn’t the only reason for the increase in global oil and gas prices, that’s why I said, “not exclusively driven.”

BTW, why did you say “if your position is that we should not attempt to severely punish Russia,” when I clearly said “I completely agree with this (embargo policy)? Were you talking to someone else?

cacti, i quoted you because I had originally missed your response to me and had not responded to your message...but 99% of my post was generalized towards the political messaging over gas prices, not towards your post in particular.  you and i see things pretty much the same way.

 

34 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Yep, if gas prices were such an issue, people wouldn't be traveling at above pre-pandemic rates (what I heard on CBS news radio report).    Do I like paying $5/gal?  Hell no.  Is it changing my habits/lifestyle?  Not on bit. 

economically, this is an important point.  we haven't reached the point of material demand destruction yet because of summer timing more than anything.  but it will happen soon.  anecdotally, even the wulaw's of the world are altering their RV plans to limit his family being a menace to society only in texas instead of the entire united states.  but a lot of people's behavior hasn't changed yet because of timing.  it will...and the market will respond as it usually does.

 

1 hour 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."

it is complete bullshit and an attractive, but idiotic political messaging weapon that democrats use with some effectiveness but in all reality, it misses the mark just as bad as this republican messaging that joe biden is somehow responsible for universal economic and market principles playing out.

if it costs $10 million for a company to drill a 10,000 ft horizontal on leasehold it owns, and the forward pricing deck it uses in its economic evaluations are at $2.50 gas and it has a net to working interest 15% irr after all the capex, loe, and post-production costs, the company might drill it with a baseline expectation of making that.  and if they make that, they make that.  if the market moves sharply as it has and suddenly they can get $8 gas (completely unrealistic because the contracts are likely hedged), then the return they happen to make is significantly greater and it looks like they are way more profitable.  that doesn't mean they are price gouging...they were just a beneficiary of the markets changing.  but the risk exists the other way as well...gas goes to $1.00 (again, putting aside marketing realities), then they are fucked on the deal and lose a fortune (which no one ever talks about, including opportunistic democrats).  it's just a market outcome.  go look at e&p, field services, and midstream bankruptcies from 2015-2021.  there are tons because they market killed them.  buy a shitload of leases in a play to develop in 2013 for a billion dollars based on reserve valuations using $100 oil.  go develop them in 2014 and by 2015, you have $35 oil.  billion dollar asset now worth $400 million and you're bankrupt.  now the pendulum has swung the other way and profitability will be up significantly when all the 2022 10-Ks hit the press.  but that isn't gouging.  that is a market result.

collusion and market manipulation through supply control is certainly something else and is completely legitimate.  but there are no e&p companies with the type of market power to do that...not even xom, cvx, cop, shell, bp, etc...  there are too many oxys and apaches and citations in the u.s. that would go gobble that up and produce.  that type of manipulation comes from sovereign nations or junta decisions like saudi arabia/opec and russia.

all that said, i think what is remarkably ironic about the republican messaging on biden causing all this inflation (besides the fact that they know it works because their base is comprised of people willing to die to overturn an election on donald fucking trump's behalf or they are disingenuous clowns like IV), is that o&g prices in the u.s. are about as close as one can get to an expression of the market doing precisely what they pretend they want according to their former political philosophy of market economics before they decided that the platform would simply become whatever capricious bullshit donald trump was thinking about that day.  the o&g market is pretty fucking efficient and price changes are a results of simple, intro to microeconomic variables.  those variables are often maniupulated by the saudi arabia's of the world or russia invading another country but u.s. domestic energy is really, really close.  so when the market is saying "hey, the demand is outpacing the supply here, time for the equilibrium to move up the curve," the republicans instead of applauding the market doing its job to create demand destruction, they say "welcome to joe biden's america."  ironic.

[David Dennison 18646]

4 minutes ago, sidis said:

that isn't gouging.  that is a market result.

Fingers crossed for the trickle down.

[sidis 9731]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Fingers crossed for the trickle down.

very little to none outside of a little bit of extra christmas bonus for housekeepers and au pairs in the woodlands but that is a separate conversation.

Edited June 15, 2022 by sidis

[Longhorn_Fan68 33831]

25 minutes ago, Homercles said:

I see 4Doors continues his “I’m going to neg but not post to limit exposure of my paltry rep” style drive by here

same. I get a stinky whiff of that coward as he passes through every once in a while

[Neonmoon 38127]

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. 

 

 

 

 

[Skipper 6100]

29 minutes ago, sidis said:

 

economically, this is an important point.  we haven't reached the point of material demand destruction yet because of summer timing more than anything.  but it will happen soon.  anecdotally, even the wulaw's of the world are altering their RV plans to limit his family being a menace to society only in texas instead of the entire united states.  but a lot of people's behavior hasn't changed yet because of timing.  it will...and the market will respond as it usually does.

Yep.  I'm not on any kind of a real budget but we did a quick trip to Lake Travis last weekend and I made my family pack into my Sedan rather than take the larger SUV.  It's only a matter of time until travel data flips.  We may very well be around the peak gas prices but I don't see much of a chance at all for a smooth landing by midterms. Fully expect the economy to be in rough shape.

[Anastasis 23390]

19 hours ago, sidis said:

I don’t follow your question. Impacts on energy policy of what? The us govt? 

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?

[sidis 9731]

well inherently there are executive actions that impact "energy policy" as an executive's energy policy is "energy policy."  the question still doesn't make sense to me.  i think you may just be stating it inartfully and actually asking if biden's "energy policy" is impacting the energy markets but, as always, i could be wrong.  

the impact of biden's energy specific policies on domestic production are fairly immaterial compared to market variables such as demand and negative supply shocks from international trade.  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 but none of the recent market price sea changes over the last six months can be attributed to any of that.  as i stated repeatedly in the preceding posts, domestic production has been most significantly impacted by the black swan demand events in 2020 attributable to covid and february 2021 attributable to storm uri.  there is no significant diminishment of production resulting from anything to do with biden policies.

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/#ng-tab

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/#oil-tab

the most relevant policy that biden has enacted since his inauguration that can be pointed to as materially impacting the current market prices in O&G is his foreign policy towards russia stemming from russia's invasion of ukraine.  his banning of russian imports and his efforts to coordinate the international community to follow suit is easily the most impactful policy regarding current market dynamics and prices.

Edited June 15, 2022 by sidis

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

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. 

 

 

 

 

1) a shift to renewables shifts our dependency to China. 
 

2) you’re really acting like there wasn’t a looming energy shortage before Putin invaded?

EU was already having shortages and price spikes. They are much farther down the road of don’t drill, all renewables.

 Crude oil and Us natural gas were moving higher.

The invasion obviously spiked things, but the table was set for this to happen. 
 

3) shifting investment to renewables was always going to cause tighter supply and thus higher prices in fossil fuels when there’s still such high demand. Not sure why that’s surprising. 

Also, going after cyclical businesses for making money is funny. Can’t wait until Biden is going after farmers for high food prices. You know it’s coming.