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

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
16,680
12,539
1
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.

When Trump was President, we produced more petroleum than we consumed. If D's would get out of the way in building pipelines and refineries, we could produce more.

There are parts of the world that might need Saudi oil, but we do not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
When Trump was President, we produced more oil than we consumed. If D's would get out of the way in building pipelines and refineries, we could produce more.

There are parts of the world that might need Saudi oil, but we do not.
The USA at its peak in 2019 produced almost 13,000 barrels of oil per day, while consumption that year was about 19,500 barrels per day.
You probably read or heard someone say we consume less domestic oil than we produce and we are exporting oil, which is true but that is different than our production exceeding our consumption.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,653
27,002
1
An altered state
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.

So, it says FERC will consider ‘all potential climate change impacts’.

Hmmmnnnn.......Drill more wells and build more pipelines vs risking nuclear winter. Seems like an easy decision!
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1

The United States became a net annual petroleum exporter in 2020:​


Did you read your own link?
"Even though in 2020, total U.S. annual petroleum production was greater than total petroleum consumption and exports were greater than imports, the United States still imported some crude oil and petroleum products from other countries to help to supply domestic demand for petroleum and to supply international markets."
Just because oil exports were greater than oil imports doesn't mean we produced more oil than we consumed.
Also, in 2020 oil imports fell sharply, probably due to the pandemic.
And if you look at the charts in my links you will see in 2020 oil production maxed out at about 13,000 barrels per day while consumption was about 17,000 barrels per day, which is a big drop from the 19,500 barrels per day we consumed in 2019.
 

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
16,680
12,539
1
Did you read your own link?
"Even though in 2020, total U.S. annual petroleum production was greater than total petroleum consumption and exports were greater than imports, the United States still imported some crude oil and petroleum products from other countries to help to supply domestic demand for petroleum and to supply international markets."
Just because oil exports were greater than oil imports doesn't mean we produced more oil than we consumed.
Also, in 2020 oil imports fell sharply, probably due to the pandemic.
And if you look at the charts in my links you will see in 2020 oil production maxed out at about 13,000 barrels per day while consumption was about 17,000 barrels per day, which is a big drop from the 19,500 barrels per day we consumed in 2019.

Did you even bother to read my headline???
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,348
36,275
1
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.
Oh I get it. If domestic producers went out of business the Saudis would keep prices low. After all, prices are set by the market.

P.S. The climate and our national security would also be in better shape.

Thanks for explaining. You're correct, I'm not good at liberal logic.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
Oh I get it. If domestic producers went out of business the Saudis would keep prices low. After all, prices are set by the market.

P.S. The climate and our national security would also be in better shape.

Thanks for explaining. You're correct, I'm not good at liberal logic.
I never said the Saudis would keep oil prices low if domestic producers went out of business.
What I did say is the Saudis tried to put domestic oil producers out of business by driving the price below the cost of domestic producers. They tried the old Rockefeller trick by selling low, put your competitors out of business, then increase the price.
Fortunately it didn't work because domestic producers laid low until prices went back up again.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
Foggy ignored that domestic production is 1500 barrels per day lower than it was pre covid.
I'm not ignoring anything, but all of you are dead wrong if you believe domestic oil production exceeded our total oil consumption under Trump.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,348
36,275
1
I'm not ignoring anything, but all of you are dead wrong if you believe domestic oil production exceeded our total oil consumption under Trump.
Per day

2010:
Consumption 19.18
Production 9.53

2020:
Consumption 18.12
Production 18.4

 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,653
27,002
1
An altered state

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
1,012
1,740
1
“Net” doesn’t matter one bit. We still need to import massive amounts of oil to fuel our country.
When your net is zero or positive, you can withstand an unexpected economic calamity like a dictator invading a neighboring country and disrupting global oil supply. Otherwise you may be stuck like, say Germany, where a foreign dictator will tell you how you feel about that invasion.

Long range planning is more holistic. However, short term emergencies require a healthy domestic fossil fuel industry. Germany went green before it was technologically prepared and crapped the bed. They crapped said bed because they invited Russia to get under the covers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,194
1,269
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?
Also, how much money does Saudi Arabia need from that oil to keep its people happy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
11,564
5,791
1
When your net is zero or positive, you can withstand an unexpected economic calamity like a dictator invading a neighboring country and disrupting global oil supply. Otherwise you may be stuck like, say Germany, where a foreign dictator will tell you how you feel about that invasion.

Long range planning is more holistic. However, short term emergencies require a healthy domestic fossil fuel industry. Germany went green before it was technologically prepared and crapped the bed. They crapped said bed because they invited Russia to get under the covers.

we have a private oil industry - they sell to the highest bidder and are price maximizers, just like OPEC. We are currently in a situation where a dictator has disrupted the world economy and caused oil to spike and the President pretty much has his hands tied. Germany is not flush with oil/gas reserves, which makes them expensive. This is why they import oil/gas from. Particularly after Trump, Germany is likely a closer ally of Russia than the US.
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,819
23,343
1
we have a private oil industry - they sell to the highest bidder and are price maximizers, just like OPEC. We are currently in a situation where a dictator has disrupted the world economy and caused oil to spike and the President pretty much has his hands tied. Germany is not flush with oil/gas reserves, which makes them expensive. This is why they import oil/gas from. Particularly after Trump, Germany is likely a closer ally of Russia than the US.
Are there any industries that should be privately held in your world?
 

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
1,012
1,740
1
we have a private oil industry - they sell to the highest bidder and are price maximizers, just like OPEC. We are currently in a situation where a dictator has disrupted the world economy and caused oil to spike and the President pretty much has his hands tied. Germany is not flush with oil/gas reserves, which makes them expensive. This is why they import oil/gas from. Particularly after Trump, Germany is likely a closer ally of Russia than the US.
1). Germany had already aligned itself with Russia before Trump. He just called them out for it and Angela got pissed—but Trump was right. Germany now is screwed and has no good answers.

2). When you are close to net zero, you can weather short term emergencies like this by using emergency governmental powers FOR the SHORT TERM. Rather than running out, you can direct your supplies where needed and limit rationing hopefully. Long term energy planning should be driven by market forces with some governmental input.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

Petch

Well-Known Member
Mar 28, 2012
3,413
5,388
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.
Hey Mr. Environment! How the hell do you think electricity is created? You are aware that it is primarily natural gas and coal, right?
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,343
8,145
1
Hey Mr. Environment! How the hell do you think electricity is created? You are aware that it is primarily natural gas and coal, right?

He will tell you its from a windmill. Sort of like a sailboat, you get to use your car when the wind blows. That's when you get heat for your house too. Fortunately most people are not in their house when they drive, so I guess one can be switched off to use the other. It's a brilliant strategy. You get to take the day off when the wind doesn't blow, but you might have to go without eating.
 

Petch

Well-Known Member
Mar 28, 2012
3,413
5,388
1
He will tell you its from a windmill. Sort of like a sailboat, you get to use your car when the wind blows. That's when you get heat for your house too. Fortunately most people are not in their house when they drive, so I guess one can be switched off to use the other. It's a brilliant strategy. You get to take the day off when the wind doesn't blow, but you might have to go without eating.
Can you imagine California when every car is electric? The state will be in perpetual rolling blackout.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
25,656
41,613
1
Hey Mr. Environment! How the hell do you think electricity is created? You are aware that it is primarily natural gas and coal, right?
I've never seen anyone keep digging a hole like he does.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,348
36,275
1
Net does matter. It says that we produce more than we consume.
FALSE! We produced more than we consumed in 2020. We could produce more if the industry was motivated to do so.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
25,656
41,613
1
Yeah, war going on, oil over $100.00/barrel, and dumbass Biden shuts down federal permits over climate change. This is what stupid looks like.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
Hey Mr. Environment! How the hell do you think electricity is created? You are aware that it is primarily natural gas and coal, right?
Natural gas, renewables and coal are our primary sources of electricity. And for the most part they are domestically produced and are not imported like oil.
So the more we reduce our demand for oil, the less we have to rely on imported oil.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,348
36,275
1
Yeah, war going on, oil over $100.00/barrel, and dumbass Biden shuts down federal permits over climate change. This is what stupid looks like.
This oil & gas would have lessened the impact of the Russian mess.

Then we have Foggy telling us we should be buying from Saudis instead of drilling.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hotshoe

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
11,564
5,791
1
Yet we are pumping almost 15% less than the peak under Trump.

You folks either struggle with basic reading comprehension or your slippery as fvck. I didn’t say “currently”

As of Nov, we pumped 9% less oil than we did in Nov. 2019, but oil consumption is also down by a similar amount
 

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,307
10,996
1
SE PA
FALSE! We produced more than we consumed in 2020. We could produce more if the industry was motivated to do so.
That's a completely different discussion. FACT: "Net positive" means we produce more than we consume. It's a very simple definition. You are welcome to look it up in Websters.
 

Petch

Well-Known Member
Mar 28, 2012
3,413
5,388
1
Natural gas, renewables and coal are our primary sources of electricity. And for the most part they are domestically produced and are not imported like oil.
So the more we reduce our demand for oil, the less we have to rely on imported oil.
Wait…wait…wait….I thought fossil fuels were the devil.

And why can’t we just drill and refine our own oil domestically? We don’t have to rely on imported oil, but the feckless wonder in the White House would have none of that energy independence talk. He has the bartender advising him on energy policy, after all!
 

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
11,564
5,791
1
Sure. But Net means Net, not something else.

“Net” is a bit of a bullshit word when it comes to oil imports/exports.

Most US oil comes from private wells and is exported outside of the country to maximize profit of the respective company. Those companies don’t give a flying rats ass about Americans. In fact, companies are generally international legal entities that are often not really tied to any one country. Theoretically, the government could come in put rules in place that mandate production levels, pricing restrictions, and export constraints, but that would be tied up in court for a decade and Republicans, of course, would absolutely go bonkers. As such, unless the president, senate, house, and Supreme Court are controlled by Democrats, you might as well consider such rules/limits completely off limits. So, when you talk about being a “net” exporter of oil, you‘re really just saying that “companies that export oil in the US are making a nice chunk of change”.

The idea of energy independence is completely ludicrous because, ultimately, the American consumer goes out to the international oil markets and buys oil…no different than Germany.
 

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,194
1,269
1
Natural gas, renewables and coal are our primary sources of electricity. And for the most part they are domestically produced and are not imported like oil.
So the more we reduce our demand for oil, the less we have to rely on imported oil.
Nuclear produces 20% of our electricity, almost double wind and solar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,307
10,996
1
SE PA
“Net” is a bit of a bullshit word when it comes to oil imports/exports.

Most US oil comes from private wells and is exported outside of the country to maximize profit of the respective company. Those companies don’t give a flying rats ass about Americans. In fact, companies are generally international legal entities that are often not really tied to any one country. Theoretically, the government could come in put rules in place that mandate production levels, pricing restrictions, and export constraints, but that would be tied up in court for a decade and Republicans, of course, would absolutely go bonkers. As such, unless the president, senate, house, and Supreme Court are controlled by Democrats, you might as well consider such rules/limits completely off limits. So, when you talk about being a “net” exporter of oil, you‘re really just saying that “companies that export oil in the US are making a nice chunk of change”.

The idea of energy independence is completely ludicrous because, ultimately, the American consumer goes out to the international oil markets and buys oil…no different than Germany.
LOL!!

You'll try and wiggle your way out of anything. Such a hack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,819
23,343
1
“Net” is a bit of a bullshit word when it comes to oil imports/exports.

Most US oil comes from private wells and is exported outside of the country to maximize profit of the respective company. Those companies don’t give a flying rats ass about Americans. In fact, companies are generally international legal entities that are often not really tied to any one country. Theoretically, the government could come in put rules in place that mandate production levels, pricing restrictions, and export constraints, but that would be tied up in court for a decade and Republicans, of course, would absolutely go bonkers. As such, unless the president, senate, house, and Supreme Court are controlled by Democrats, you might as well consider such rules/limits completely off limits. So, when you talk about being a “net” exporter of oil, you‘re really just saying that “companies that export oil in the US are making a nice chunk of change”.

The idea of energy independence is completely ludicrous because, ultimately, the American consumer goes out to the international oil markets and buys oil…no different than Germany.
We still haven't seen an answer from you, yet. Which industries would remain private, in your perfect world? Or, would government control all of them?