Republicans learn the benefits of moving away from gas/oil…

psu skp

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 7, 2016
7,341
14,751
1
50 yard line after dark
Note so self: tomorrow... after coffee and a nice b.m., post a thread on Test/Politics Board which reads:

Dems learn the benefits of being energy independent (being a net EXPORTER of energy)
 

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
11,521
5,748
1
Note so self: tomorrow... after coffee and a nice b.m., post a thread on Test/Politics Board which reads:

Dems learn the benefits of being energy independent (being a net EXPORTER of energy)

We’re an energy exporter - we’re sure as hell aren’t energy independent.
 

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
989
1,697
1
There will be more oil and gas pumped under Biden than Trump by a long shot. But, you wouldn’t know a basic fact like that
With Russia invading Ukraine, there may not be a ceiling on oil and gas prices. Drilling will boom and more will be produced. That is capitalism. However it would not happen if Joe and the climate change crowd were able to finish implementing their policies.

Ironically, the failure of green energy in Europe led to weakness in NATO which led to giving Putin money and leverage to conduct his invasion. Will we learn any lessons from poorly planned energy transitions?
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,143
55,982
1
With Russia invading Ukraine, there may not be a ceiling on oil and gas prices. Drilling will boom and more will be produced. That is capitalism. However it would not happen if Joe and the climate change crowd were able to finish implementing their policies.

Ironically, the failure of green energy in Europe led to weakness in NATO which led to giving Putin money and leverage to conduct his invasion. Will we learn any lessons from poorly planned energy transitions?
^^^ Exactly correct. "Production" isn't the issue. There is a reason why prices have gone up since the democrats took over. The west has been inundated with this Global Warming nonsense. Trump understood the key to prosperity was self-reliance on energy. That is why the middle east became an afterthought during his administration. Now, because of energy reliance on Russia, Europe could blow up. If they were self-reliant, they could really sanction Russia and that would deter Putin. Now, all we have is words (and Biden/Harris can't even say them correctly).
 
Last edited:

psu skp

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 7, 2016
7,341
14,751
1
50 yard line after dark
Do you know that in a world of private oil & gas that the US has almost no control over what we pay at the pump?
Your last three or four posts were false. They are rubbish. You have no idea what you are talking about and you aren't convincing anybody of anything (other than you are a mental midget).

Sorry to be the one to tell you
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,789
58,209
1
Do you know that in a world of private oil & gas that the US has almost no control over what we pay at the pump?

That's a lie. A flat out lie. You act as if private oil and gas is allowed to drill and refine all they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
16,676
12,525
1
Do you know that in a world of private oil & gas that the US has almost no control over what we pay at the pump?

If we had no control over the price of natural gas, you'd see similar pricing between the U.S. and Europe.

In fact, there is a significant price difference within the U.S. The New England area often pays far more for natural gas during the winter months than other parts of the country.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
Note so self: tomorrow... after coffee and a nice b.m., post a thread on Test/Politics Board which reads:

Dems learn the benefits of being energy independent (being a net EXPORTER of energy)
If we are really serious about energy independence, all our vehicles should be switched to electric for electricity is produced domestically, while we will likely always import oil because domestic sources are not the lowest cost producers.
Countries like Saudi Arabia will always be able to undercut our domestic producers.
So if we switched a significant proportion of our energy consumption away from oil to electricity, it would lower our overall imports, improving our balance of trade and it would make us more energy independent.
 

jjw165

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2005
3,012
2,955
1
If we are really serious about energy independence, all our vehicles should be switched to electric for electricity is produced domestically, while we will likely always import oil because domestic sources are not the lowest cost producers.
Countries like Saudi Arabia will always be able to undercut our domestic producers.
So if we switched a significant proportion of our energy consumption away from oil to electricity, it would lower our overall imports, improving our balance of trade and it would make us more energy independent.
With ideas like that you should be on the Democratic ticket 🎟 for 2024.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Spydersgirl

psu skp

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 7, 2016
7,341
14,751
1
50 yard line after dark
If we are really serious about energy independence, all our vehicles should be switched to electric for electricity is produced domestically, while we will likely always import oil because domestic sources are not the lowest cost producers.
Countries like Saudi Arabia will always be able to undercut our domestic producers.
So if we switched a significant proportion of our energy consumption away from oil to electricity, it would lower our overall imports, improving our balance of trade and it would make us more energy independent.
We were energy independent under Trump and were a net exporter of oil/natural gas. Now that Biden is shutting off our pipelines, we aren't. It's essentially as simple as that.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
With ideas like that you should be on the Democratic ticket 🎟 for 2024.
Just stating facts, if we are serious about energy independence, we have to cut oil consumption. And roughly half of our oil consumption is for transportation.
 

jjw165

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2005
3,012
2,955
1
Just stating facts, if we are serious about energy independence, we have to cut oil consumption. And roughly half of our oil consumption is for transportation.
This is what the admin is doing right now. Don’t take credit for their idea.
 

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
989
1,697
1
If we are really serious about energy independence, all our vehicles should be switched to electric for electricity is produced domestically, while we will likely always import oil because domestic sources are not the lowest cost producers.
Countries like Saudi Arabia will always be able to undercut our domestic producers.
So if we switched a significant proportion of our energy consumption away from oil to electricity, it would lower our overall imports, improving our balance of trade and it would make us more energy independent.
I don’t know if ALL is ever the correct answer. Usually finding the right balance is a better answer. That answer also changes over time with new discoveries, depletion, improved technology in drilling and batteries—or hydrogen.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
This is what the admin is doing right now. Don’t take credit for their idea.
Don’t know what the administration policy is, but if this is their policy then it is a smart one.
Personally, I don’t care whether or not the country is energy independent.
It is a fancy term with no real benefit.
Stable sources of energy are more important.
 

jjw165

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2005
3,012
2,955
1
Don’t know what the administration policy is, but if this is their policy then it is a smart one.
Personally, I don’t care whether or not the country is energy independent.
It is a fancy term with no real benefit.
Stable sources of energy are more important.
Phase 1 is in play.
-executive orders making oil/gas drilling more difficult
-the transportation bill filled with green goodies
-asking Putin to produce more oil for us while he invades Ukraine 🇺🇦
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,319
36,220
1
Don’t know what the administration policy is, but if this is their policy then it is a smart one.
Personally, I don’t care whether or not the country is energy independent.
It is a fancy term with no real benefit.
Stable sources of energy are more important.
You would understand the benefits of energy independence if your's was rationed or extremely expensive.

I guess you don't mind being dependent on China for rare earth minerals. After all, the impact on global warming will be less if they dig up the earth instead of us.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
You would understand the benefits of energy independence if your's was rationed or extremely expensive.

I guess you don't mind being dependent on China for rare earth minerals. After all, the impact on global warming will be less if they dig up the earth instead of us.
Trying to be “energy independent“ will likely makes energy more expensive because the only way to be energy independent is to eliminate energy imports.
I‘m a free market guy, if we are going to buy oil, it might as well be from the least expensive and most stable source.

But as long as we use oil, we will probably be importing it because people like the Saudis are the lowest cost producer.
Unless you want to put a steep tariff on imported oil, we will be importing Saudi oil.
And if you put a steep tariff on imported oil, it would cause oil prices to increase.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,319
36,220
1
Trying to be “energy independent“ will likely makes energy more expensive because the only way to be energy independent is to eliminate energy imports.
I‘m a free market guy, if we are going to buy oil, it might as well be from the least expensive and most stable source.

But as long as we use oil, we will probably be importing it because people like the Saudis are the lowest cost producer.
Unless you want to put a steep tariff on imported oil, we will be importing Saudi oil.
And if you put a steep tariff on imported oil, it would cause oil prices to increase.
Do you really think it's less expensive to have Saudis drill oil, put it into barrels, and deliver it by truck and ship to U.S. refineries than it is for the U.S. to drill and deliver to refineries via a pipeline?

By your logic we shouldn't manufacture anything in this country.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
Do you really think it's less expensive to have Saudis drill oil, put it into barrels, and deliver it by truck and ship to U.S. refineries than it is for the U.S. to drill and deliver to refineries via a pipeline?

By your logic we shouldn't manufacture anything in this country.
Yes it is cheaper for the Saudis to transport it here than it is for us to mail it ourselves.
As for your second statement, it is completely illogical.
Think about it, the Saudis don't make a whole lot other than oil and they are selling their oil on the world market, therefore the Chinese, and the Japanese and the USA pay about the same amount for oil.
And the world price of oil is way higher than it costs the Saudis to produce so it allows other higher cost producers to sell oil and still make a profit too, the Saudis just make more profit per barrel than pretty much anyone else.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,319
36,220
1
Yes it is cheaper for the Saudis to transport it here than it is for us to mail it ourselves.
As for your second statement, it is completely illogical.
Think about it, the Saudis don't make a whole lot other than oil and they are selling their oil on the world market, therefore the Chinese, and the Japanese and the USA pay about the same amount for oil.
And the world price of oil is way higher than it costs the Saudis to produce so it allows other higher cost producers to sell oil and still make a profit too, the Saudis just make more profit per barrel than pretty much anyone else.
Then why do we have large domestic producers? Why don't they just buy from the Saudis?

Your foggy logic says they would have higher profits, the climate would be better, and we wouldn't have supply risks.
 

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
16,676
12,525
1
As Russia And China Grow Closer In Energy, America Unilaterally Disarms

Two new developments of enormous significance passed under the radar last week, buried by the growing threat of an outright Russia/Ukraine war and governmental encroachment on democracy in Canada. These developments, however, could have a huge impact on the future of our planet and the overall security of our citizens.

On Thursday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission updated its policy guidelines for approval of new pipelines by announcing that, for the first time, it will be taking into account all potential “climate change” risks associated with the proposed pipeline.

While at initial glance this looks like a responsible position, in practical effect it may also open the process to extreme speculation and thus make it much more difficult to obtain FERC certification for any new pipelines. Of course, this could be the entire idea in the first place.

As the United States continues to tie its hands with regard to the transportation of natural gas, a fuel that has actually led to a large decrease in CO2 emissions over coal, Russia and China reached an agreement under which Russia will supply 100 million tons of coal to China so that China can continue to open up new coal-fired power plants – in effect, thwarting whatever benefits may come from American policies increasingly tightening the noose on the use and transport of natural gas in this country and elsewhere.

China is by far the world’s largest emitter of CO2 emissions, to the point where its emissions exceed that of the United States and the European Union combined. As pollution knows no geographic boundaries, without China being on board to cut its CO2 emissions, all moves by this country, the EU, and the rest of the world will be undermined, and even negated, in an effort to combat any man-made aspects to planetary climate change. According to the Paris Climate Accords, China will be permitted to keep increasing its CO2 emissions until approximately 2030. This remarkably flawed treaty, combined with China and Russia’s seeming indifference to the fight against man-made climate change altogether, make it highly unlikely that any actions taken by the west in the coming years will have real effect on the struggle.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judecl...fracking-opponents-ignore-its-moral-benefits/

Unfortunately, where western actions will have an effect is in reducing our personal security, as Nord Stream 2 and the recent Russian threats to Ukraine have now made clear. By self-limiting our shale production, making it more difficult to move the shale gas and oil to where it can actually be used and exported, we make it more difficult for the Europeans, who are highly dependent on imported gas and oil, to resist or punish Russian aggression against Ukraine, and elsewhere.

On Tuesday, Germany terminated Nord Stream 2, which has been expected ever since Russia’s provocative threat to invade Ukraine started to become serious. This, however, still leaves Germany, and most of Europe, in need of a replacement for Russian gas and oil supplies.

To that end, President Biden has been feverishly calling countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia asking them to pump more oil and gas, all the while his Administration makes it more difficult for the United States to come to Europe’s rescue with much needed replacement supplies from the shale region in this country. This policy is both fraught and borderline absurd. As we send American men and women to NATO countries bordering Ukraine and put them potentially into harm’s way – in response to a provocation that could trigger another world war, and against a country with nuclear weapons, no less – we refuse to open up our own Marcellus reserves that would both help decrease CO2 emissions in the near term and solidify European resolve against Moscow’s misadventures, not to mention helping our own economy in a time of great need. And we do this for what appear to be mainly ideological reasons given the overall Russian and Chinese indifference to climate change, which the United States is, in effect, subsidizing by our dogged refusal to use our own shale reserves when and where they are truly needed.

Taken individually, it is possible to say that FERC’s announced new policy in reviewing climate change, President Biden’s prior actions in terminating the Keystone Pipeline, and other moves by this Administration to make shale drilling more difficult might make some sense. But taken together, and in light of the present international situation and the global fight against climate change, they make little to no sense. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we are halfway there.

 
  • Like
Reactions: royboy and bdgan

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,319
36,220
1
We’re an energy exporter - we’re sure as hell aren’t energy independent.
The 1.5 million barrels/day that we're down from the Trump administration would come in handy right now.

For the math is racist crowd that's nearly $55 billion per year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,319
36,220
1
As Russia And China Grow Closer In Energy, America Unilaterally Disarms

Two new developments of enormous significance passed under the radar last week, buried by the growing threat of an outright Russia/Ukraine war and governmental encroachment on democracy in Canada. These developments, however, could have a huge impact on the future of our planet and the overall security of our citizens.

On Thursday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission updated its policy guidelines for approval of new pipelines by announcing that, for the first time, it will be taking into account all potential “climate change” risks associated with the proposed pipeline.

While at initial glance this looks like a responsible position, in practical effect it may also open the process to extreme speculation and thus make it much more difficult to obtain FERC certification for any new pipelines. Of course, this could be the entire idea in the first place.

As the United States continues to tie its hands with regard to the transportation of natural gas, a fuel that has actually led to a large decrease in CO2 emissions over coal, Russia and China reached an agreement under which Russia will supply 100 million tons of coal to China so that China can continue to open up new coal-fired power plants – in effect, thwarting whatever benefits may come from American policies increasingly tightening the noose on the use and transport of natural gas in this country and elsewhere.

China is by far the world’s largest emitter of CO2 emissions, to the point where its emissions exceed that of the United States and the European Union combined. As pollution knows no geographic boundaries, without China being on board to cut its CO2 emissions, all moves by this country, the EU, and the rest of the world will be undermined, and even negated, in an effort to combat any man-made aspects to planetary climate change. According to the Paris Climate Accords, China will be permitted to keep increasing its CO2 emissions until approximately 2030. This remarkably flawed treaty, combined with China and Russia’s seeming indifference to the fight against man-made climate change altogether, make it highly unlikely that any actions taken by the west in the coming years will have real effect on the struggle.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judecl...fracking-opponents-ignore-its-moral-benefits/

Unfortunately, where western actions will have an effect is in reducing our personal security, as Nord Stream 2 and the recent Russian threats to Ukraine have now made clear. By self-limiting our shale production, making it more difficult to move the shale gas and oil to where it can actually be used and exported, we make it more difficult for the Europeans, who are highly dependent on imported gas and oil, to resist or punish Russian aggression against Ukraine, and elsewhere.

On Tuesday, Germany terminated Nord Stream 2, which has been expected ever since Russia’s provocative threat to invade Ukraine started to become serious. This, however, still leaves Germany, and most of Europe, in need of a replacement for Russian gas and oil supplies.

To that end, President Biden has been feverishly calling countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia asking them to pump more oil and gas, all the while his Administration makes it more difficult for the United States to come to Europe’s rescue with much needed replacement supplies from the shale region in this country. This policy is both fraught and borderline absurd. As we send American men and women to NATO countries bordering Ukraine and put them potentially into harm’s way – in response to a provocation that could trigger another world war, and against a country with nuclear weapons, no less – we refuse to open up our own Marcellus reserves that would both help decrease CO2 emissions in the near term and solidify European resolve against Moscow’s misadventures, not to mention helping our own economy in a time of great need. And we do this for what appear to be mainly ideological reasons given the overall Russian and Chinese indifference to climate change, which the United States is, in effect, subsidizing by our dogged refusal to use our own shale reserves when and where they are truly needed.

Taken individually, it is possible to say that FERC’s announced new policy in reviewing climate change, President Biden’s prior actions in terminating the Keystone Pipeline, and other moves by this Administration to make shale drilling more difficult might make some sense. But taken together, and in light of the present international situation and the global fight against climate change, they make little to no sense. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we are halfway there.

IMO the pipeline will be fully operational in a year or two. Putin will have grabbed enough real estate to quench his thirst for a couple of years so he'll negotiate a settlement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
Then why do we have large domestic producers? Why don't they just buy from the Saudis?

Your foggy logic says they would have higher profits, the climate would be better, and we wouldn't have supply risks.
Apparently you are not good at this.
The price of oil is set by the market, (supply and demand)
The Saudis limit their production to increase the price of oil.
And other higher cost producers can sell oil and make a profit.
OPEC was formed to keep prices high by limiting production.
A few years ago the Saudis did try to put domestic producers out of business by pumping a lot of oil, driving down the world price to the point where US producers couldn't make a profit.
But it didn't work because domestic producers just shut down operations and waited for the price to go back up again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaoliLion

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
"According to data from energy industry consultant Rystad Energy, on average it cost Saudi Arabia less than $9 to produce a barrel of oil last year. That's the cheapest in the world, though fellow OPEC countries Iran and Iraq can produce for around $10 per barrel as well, which is well below rival nations:"
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
I love it when people throw out numbers like that. Since your grasping at fool articles, tell us the blend of oil, and is that the total cost to produce, fixed cost to produce, or variable cost to produce? And how much does it cost to refine and ship that oil per barrel to the gulf of Mexico?
Why is that important to this discussion?
What is important is the Saudis are among the lowest cost producers in the world and it is unlikely that our domestic producers would ever be able to produce oil at a lower cost than the Saudis, even with transportation costs, therefore, it is unlikely we will ever stop using Saudi oil as long as we are using oil.
Unless of course the government puts up an artificial barrier on imported oil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaoliLion

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,306
10,990
1
SE PA