Politics

[Doubleplay]

We are producing a lot under this president - but not the most.

But your point with respect to market determination is exactly correct. For instance, prices have to be high enough to make the US shale fields economically viable.

U.S. Crude Oil Production - Historical Chart

Interactive historical chart showing the monthly level of U.S. crude oil production back to 1983 from the US Energy Information Adminstration (EIA). Values shown are in thousands of barrels produced per day.

www.macrotrends.net

if you compare oil production over the course of a presidency, it’s technically highest under Biden.
According to EIA statistics, on average oil production reached just over 11 million barrels a day during the Trump administration. So far, with 14 months of available data, it's 11.2 million barrels a day during the Biden administration.
Main point is Presidents has nothing to do with oil prices be it Biden or Trump or whoever. It's a global commodity and dictated by supply and demand.

 

[Red Leg]

if you compare oil production over the course of a presidency, it’s technically highest under Biden.
According to EIA statistics, on average oil production reached just over 11 million barrels a day during the Trump administration. So far, with 14 months of available data, it's 11.2 million barrels a day during the Biden administration.
Main point is Presidents has nothing to do with oil prices be it Biden or Trump or whoever. It's a global commodity and dictated by supply and demand.

That is a valid point. If looking at presidencies, average production makes more sense.

And yes, I totally agree with the reality of market determinism.

 

[Tanks]

Don't know about the first three but I know that we're producing the most oil ever produced under any president. Problem is oil is a global commodity and none of the US companies will sell their production cheaper here when they can export for a higher price. It's called capitalism and free market. Bottom line Presidents has nothing to do with the oil price.

Presidents have a lot to do with permitting cost of drilling, transportation, refining etc. of the oil. If those costs do go up, then so does the price of oil/gas.

There is a whole industry of environmental engineering, source testing (testing pollution gasses from stacks), CEMS (continuous emissions monitoring systems) vendors that service not only the oil industry, but anything that has stacks. Every refinery in CA has been a client of ours in regard to CEMS and installing the equipment and maintaining them has cost oil companies hundreds of millions (adding up all the overhead of the regulations).

The government also has been disingenuous in that estimated costs were a fraction of what they were projected to be. An example, initial estimation for the LA basin was $60 million by CA SCAQMD for RECLAIM program (Fed regulations on steroids), Chevron alone in 1995 was $24 million (we have upgraded them twice since then). Multiply that for all the other refineries and it adds up.

Also, expect the water bills to go up as well. New thing now is PFAS treatment plants at every water distribution center, someone will have to pay the cost of that.

When, the government goes hog wild with regulations the taxpayers pay the cost. Though it does generate revenue for companies that service those regulations not to mention extra compliance employees that are hired by the impacted companies.

 

[Dragan N.]

I think you and I are essentially in agreement. The US did implement the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, and if we set aside the War of 1812 (particularly the long term effects of the defeat of the British Army at New Orleans following a fairly humiliating peace agreement), the nation had the demonstrated power to enforce it by the 1898 with the conclusion of the Spanish American War.

With respect to Cuba, you are correct. It only represented a real threat when the Soviet Union attempted to put medium range nuclear weapons on the island. Fortunately, an accommodation was reached with respect to Turkey before Russia was tested if Cuba was worth all out war (I have always suspected the had concluded it was not). Cuba wasn't even a very good launching pad for regional revolution. Che Guevara can provide long mute testimony.

Like the US at the close of the 19th century, the Soviet Union following WWII was in a regionally powerful position. The Red Army occupied most of Eastern Europe, and those political relationships were dictated by Moscow. But that Army and that geographic political reach represented the Apex of Russian imperial power.

One only gets to demand buffer zones and vassal states if the empire is powerful enough to enforce those demands. The Russian Federation clearly is not. Though the time frame is different, their demands are about as meaningful as the UK demanding the return of Calais or perhaps Aquitaine.

And as I noted above, with the entry of Finland into NATO, Putin's strategic genius has resolved the issue of buffer zones for a very long time to come.

Yeah Old Hickory F@#ked the Brits up pretty good at New Orleans. The British suffered some pretty staggering losses at that battle. I think it was their worst of the whole war...

The Ukrainian war has been a massive strategic blunder for Putin. Apart from the insane losses, he also killed any notion that the Russian army is the second army in the world. Prior to this war, Russian military tech and so forth was widely viewed as a peer competitor to NATO tech. This conflict has put that notion to bed... I do not think that the West overestimates Russia anymore...

 

[Tanks]

... I do not think that the West overestimates Russia anymore...

I sure hope that the West does respect the nukes that Russia has. As Sun Tsu has said in Art of War:

“In difficult ground, press on; In encircled ground, devise stratagems; In death ground, fight.”​

I hope that the West does not give the impression to the Russians and Putin that they are in "death ground".

 

[Doubleplay]

Presidents have a lot to do with permitting cost of drilling, transportation, refining etc. of the oil. If those costs do go up, then so does the price of oil/gas.

There is a whole industry of environmental engineering, source testing (testing pollution gasses from stacks), CEMS (continuous emissions monitoring systems) vendors that service not only the oil industry, but anything that has stacks. Every refinery in CA has been a client of ours in regard to CEMS and installing the equipment and maintaining them has cost oil companies hundreds of millions (adding up all the overhead of the regulations).

The government also has been disingenuous in that estimated costs were a fraction of what they were projected to be. An example, initial estimation for the LA basin was $60 million by CA SCAQMD for RECLAIM program (Fed regulations on steroids), Chevron alone in 1995 was $24 million (we have upgraded them twice since then). Multiply that for all the other refineries and it adds up.

Also, expect the water bills to go up as well. New thing now is PFAS treatment plants at every water distribution center, someone will have to pay the cost of that.

When, the government goes hog wild with regulations the taxpayers pay the cost. Though it does generate revenue for companies that service those regulations not to mention extra compliance employees that are hired by the impacted companies.

Good info. However policies only effects the bottom line of our domestic oil companies. Price of oil move with the global demand and supply and nobody can tell our companies not to sell/export or sell domestically for a lower price or increase/cut production for that matter. Actually they love it when prices are higher, they don't care about the average Joe paying more..

 

[sestoppelman]

When you have a president who on day one, takes an anti fossil fuel position as Biden did, it has a
chilling effect on the whole industry. He hates fossil fuel and as we have seen he is Hell bent on going as Green as he will be allowed to go.
Almost daily they push another thing they want to ban in the interest of weaning us off of fossil fuels, dishwashers, water heaters, gas stoves etc etc.
If more oil is being produced under Biden, then we should be in much better shape than we are, but we arent because the industry knows Joe is the enemy of freedom of choice in our lives and fossil fuels, and that as long as he inhabits the WH, they are one EO from being canceled!

 

[steve white]

if you compare oil production over the course of a presidency, it’s technically highest under Biden.
According to EIA statistics, on average oil production reached just over 11 million barrels a day during the Trump administration. So far, with 14 months of available data, it's 11.2 million barrels a day during the Biden administration.
Main point is Presidents has nothing to do with oil prices be it Biden or Trump or whoever. It's a global commodity and dictated by supply and demand.

But closing the Keystone pipeline did not affect supply? Gas was $1.87 gal. in Tx the day Trump left office. Strategic storage was better off, too, which I believe the Saudis are mad at us for breaking a promised deal to replenish that?

 

[sestoppelman]

But closing the Keystone pipeline did not affect supply? Gas was $1.87 gal. in Tx the day Trump left office. Strategic storage was better off, too, which I believe the Saudis are mad at us for breaking a promised deal to replenish that?

And selling OUR SPR to the Chicoms to boot!! What a country!

 

[Doubleplay]

When you have a president who on day one, takes an anti fossil fuel position as Biden did, it has a
chilling effect on the whole industry. He hates fossil fuel and as we have seen he is Hell bent on going as Green as he will be allowed to go.
Almost daily they push another thing they want to ban in the interest of weaning us off of fossil fuels, dishwashers, water heaters, gas stoves etc etc.
If more oil is being produced under Biden, then we should be in much better shape than we are, but we arent because the industry knows Joe is the enemy of freedom of choice in our lives and fossil fuels, and that as long as he inhabits the WH, they are one EO from being canceled!

I don't give a rats a.. about Biden but are you sure oil companies are hating him? They are braking profit records and producing as much as they can. The higher the oil price the better for them because they don't have much time left. Most companies will seize production of combustion engines in 2030's..

 

[sestoppelman]

I don't give a rats a.. about Biden but are you sure oil companies are hating him? They are braking profit records and producing as much as they can. The higher the oil price the better for them because they don't have much time left. Most companies will seize production of combustion engines in 2030's..

I didnt say they hated him, they fear his green agenda as we all should.
I do give a rats ass about Biden, he is single handedly destroying this country with his moronic, libtard approach to govt.

 

[Scott CWO]

if you compare oil production over the course of a presidency, it’s technically highest under Biden.
According to EIA statistics, on average oil production reached just over 11 million barrels a day during the Trump administration. So far, with 14 months of available data, it's 11.2 million barrels a day during the Biden administration.
Main point is Presidents has nothing to do with oil prices be it Biden or Trump or whoever. It's a global commodity and dictated by supply and demand.

Yes but it would be even higher if Biden hadn’t canceled pipelines and made permitting more difficult. Trump set up the current oil production, not Biden.

 

[shootist~]

Oh, Biden did his part to raise oil production and increase oil company profits - inadvertently, of course. And it looks like he hasn't learned from his mistakes, either.

 

[Doubleplay]

But closing the Keystone pipeline did not affect supply? Gas was $1.87 gal. in Tx the day Trump left office. Strategic storage was better off, too, which I believe the Saudis are mad at us for breaking a promised deal to replenish that?

Both the Obama and Trump administrations concluded that the Keystone XL pipeline would not have lowered gasoline prices. NRDC and its partners also found the majority of Keystone XL oil would have been sent to markets overseas—aided by a 2015 reversal of a ban on crude oil exports.

This lines up with an industry trend: Oil and gas companies are exporting 8.4 million barrels of crude oil and refined fuels every single day. That’s up nearly threefold from a decade ago, and an amount equal to 42 percent of our consumption. And these exports are more than 10 times the capacity of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.
These are facts and it's called free market. If our government would ban exports of oil, oil prices possibly would be much lower here because on paper we're oil independent!
But in capitalism governments shouldn't dictate what companies can or can't do!
However everybody in politics are in the pockets of oil companies and some here still thinks it's this President or that President issue.
Enough education about oil markets you guys can keep beating the dead horse. I'm out.

 

[shootist~]

OK, I'll play.

Stop all oil exports from the US and sure, domestic oil prices (and profits) would fall - causing overseas prices to spike.

Where do think the drilling would move to and what happens to the domestic supply? It ain't rocket science.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

OK, I'll play.

Stop all oil exports from the US and sure, domestic oil prices (and profits) would fall - causing overseas prices to spike.

Where do think the drilling would move to and what happens to the domestic supply? It ain't rocket science.

I presume you're saying domestic oil prices would fall due to an export ban and a resulting surge in supply of that particular source of oil. And conversely international prices would rise due to the removal of that supply of the same source.

As to exactly who would then supply the USA with oil for refining purposes, I think that would depend on just how much the prices vary. Certainly if domestic drillers can't make a profit, they'll just turn off the pumps. This in turn would shift the supply to foreign surfaces.

......now my damn head hurts

We've dreamed of being oil independent and it seemed we were there or close to it not long ago.

.......now my damn head hurts more

 

[Tanks]

...
As to exactly who would then supply the USA with oil for refining purposes, I think that would depend on just how much the prices vary. Certainly if domestic drillers can't make a profit, they'll just turn off the pumps. This in turn would shift the supply to foreign surfaces.
...

Yep, the ROI for some people I know that have oil leases in Texas is $60 a barrel. Below that production stops.

 

[Red Leg]

Yep, the ROI for some people I know that have oil leases in Texas is $60 a barrel. Below that production stops.

Exactly right. Texas and Louisiana have closed and reopened sites several times over the decades due to price fluctuations. Apparently shale extraction is even more PPB sensitive.

 

[Dirtdart]

A bit further, however I am pretty sure that Cuba doesnt have pre WWII military capability.

If they did, they might have already invaded, but somehow that hasnt happened.

In 1980 Florida was invaded by a Cuba force well over 100,000 strong. The amphibious invasion referred to as the Mariel boat lift was very successful despite using pre WWII era equipment.

 

[sestoppelman]

In 1980 Florida was invaded by a Cuba force well over 100,000 strong. The amphibious invasion referred to as the Mariel boat lift was very successful despite using pre WWII era equipment.

Hardly the same thing..LOL Nice try though.