This guy explains it well in 20 minutes.

Personal transportation is a tick on an elephant.

Good chanel on IC engines.

I stopped when he started talking about how fast a fast a gas station is, if the average person drives 10,000 miles a year, at 300Wh per mile (high) that's 8.2kWh a day, enough to be covered by being plugged in for 6 hours a night on a 120v 12A circuit.

Or never having to go to a gas station. If you road trip a lot, get an Ice or a Plaid/Taycan.

agracer said:

---

Matt Hooper said:

---

To presume 7 billion people reliant on mostly fossil fuels is a big impact might not be a good assumption. The world is a big place, 70% covered with water and large parts of continental land masses sparsely populated.

1. Do you have any idea what % human activity adds to the total volume of CO2 world wide?
2. Do you have any idea what % CO2 is relative to the total volume of greenhouse gases world wide?

I will make a few guesses as I am not sure myself but I think these two guesses are in the ballpark:

1. Human activity produces less than 3% of the total volume of CO2. More than 97% is naturally occurring.
2. CO2 is less than 5% of the total volume of greenhouse gases world wide.

If my guesses are anywhere close to correct that would put our contribution to the world wide volume of co2 greenhouse gases at 5% x 3% = 0.15% of the total world wide volume greenhouse gases.

If close to being accurate would that scale be surprising? Would that cause you to revaluate the cost/benefit relative to a battery reliant power delivery chain and the largely ignored environmental costs and use limitations of batteries.

Edit - there is no power generation option to us on this planet that will have no impact. Efficiency and cost benefit have to be evaluated. I believe the current conversation is much more about politics and control than objective analysis.

---

Didn't a volcano erupt recently that eclipsed all human CO2 output for all the existence of mankind?

---

Yes. Volcanoes have changed the climate much more than man over the millennia. 1816 was called "The Year Without a Summer" thanks to Mt. Tambora.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

My Name Is Judge said:

---

The inconvenient truth about climate change is that the planet's climate is cyclical, and that humans have no bearing on it….

The ever changing climate has become a boogeyman for establishment government to steal money from the working middle class…

---

But Shel on KBTX says climate change is real and we all know how accurate his forecasts are.

Matt Hooper said:

---

That is great info.

It is a great way to scale the trace impact fossil fuel use has in proportion to larger global scale. Especially when factored against large scale cyclic influences that have seen ice ages come and go.

---

Quote:

---

I live in a high rise, but if I'm ever back in a house I can't want for the freedom solar + batteries brings.

---

Yeah, freedom. After you have spent about $150k on solar and a EV. You may be able to afford that - most cannot. Moreover, that's for a 25-year lifespan solar system (batteries won't live that long).

Cepe said:

---

If you really dig into "green energy " you see it's all a sham. Incredibly destructive environmentally and we haven't really gotten to the disposal of toxic wastes yet.

If the country wants to vote to move away from oil and gas that's fine but we need a comprehensive plan, including nuclear, to get us there. Just shutting off the spigot and making everyone suffer is not a plan and is actually detrimental because it will cause a rebound in the opposite direction.

---

That isn't what's happening however. OPEC and the war in Ukraine are leading to higher oil prices. Cutting off funding for green energy so we can hopefully eventually go mostly nuclear or solar is a very bad idea.

Muy said:

---

It's cute you think that. And let's not say "we", the real countries destroying the environment are China and India.

---

Never said "we" or "United States" for that matter.

agracer said:

---

Didn't a volcano erupt recently that eclipsed all human CO2 output for all the existence of mankind?

---

If you have data from the example you're referencing, please post.

I'm pretty sure you're incorrect on this. Human emitted CO2 is many times (like x100) the CO2 emitted from volcanic activity in a "normal year". Even large volcanic events don't come close to annual human emissions.

An indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels measured by sampling stations, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would have large spikes after each eruption - and they do not.

However, large volcanic eruptions also emit ash and aerosols which typically create a cooling effect for a couple of years or so depending on the size of the eruption.

Maybe a REALLY LARGE Super Volcano event like Yellowstone erupting again would expel that much CO2, but that hasn't happened in about 600,000 yrs and if/when it happens again we can all kiss our ass good bye anyway.

Quote:

---

That isn't what's happening however. OPEC and the war in Ukraine are leading to higher oil prices. Cutting off funding for green energy so we can hopefully eventually go mostly nuclear or solar is a very bad idea.

---

Pretty sure all three sentences are fundamentally wrong, at least given your intent.

And we can go all in on nuclear and be energy independent within a decade.

(Of course three years ago we were already energy independent.)

MemphisAg1 said:

---

aglaes said:

---

To say human activity has no effect is illogical. There are 7 billion of us burning millions of tons of carbon every day - carbon that has been sequestered underground for millions of years, released into the atmosphere in the last century (a millisecond in geological terms). Our impact is small relative to the overall balance of energy that regulates earths temperature, but it is not zero.

---

Your thesis is rational. It's hard to believe we don't impact our broader climate to some degree, but it's also hard to think we're changing it to the point of imminent destruction that the leftists claim. There's been ongoing claims since the 70's of a global winter, then global warming, and now climate change... and it'll be something different in a few years as we pass every milestone that someone previously said would be the end of civilization.

I just want a climate change fanatic to answer one question for me... what portion of climate change today is caused by humans? I don't want an individual opinion, but instead a broadly peer-reviewed scientific analysis, accepted by credible scientists on the left and right.

Is 100% of climate change caused by humans? 50%? Or 2%?

The answer matters, because if it's substantial, maybe we should embrace big transformations to change it... in order to truly save the planet. But if it's small, there's a very strong argument that says the economic upheaval far outweighs the benefit of disrupting our way of life.

My gut tells me the answer is "small," but I'm open to facts and data that are broadly peer-reviewed. So far I can't find anybody who can produce that... all we get is emotion, hyperbole, and manipulated data.

---

Don't put any faith in peer review. Academia has bought into globohomo and wokeness more than any other institution

How does one find a surgeon to transition to electricity?

LOYAL AG said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

---

This has always struck me as a false equivalency. Meme politics at its worst so to speak. If you're going to compare the extraction of oil then show a rig site. For better or worse that's the comparison here, not a pipeline that's established. For what it's worth that rig site is still going to look significantly better than that lithium mine but it obviously won't be as pristine as a pipeline through the field.

---

Agreed, and the rig site will look infinitely better for the environment. Then compare this pipeline to the massive electrical plants needed to support a completely electrical utopia.

aglaes said:

---

To say human activity has no effect is illogical. There are 7 billion of us burning millions of tons of carbon every day - carbon that has been sequestered underground for millions of years, released into the atmosphere in the last century (a millisecond in geological terms). Our impact is small relative to the overall balance of energy that regulates earths temperature, but it is not zero.

The problem is the number and scale of the projects worldwide that would be needed to get off of fossil fuels or significantly reduce CO2 emissions are so colossal I just don't see it happening.

I also don't believe this is some kind of scheme by the leftist to gain control over us, although I think there are a few extremists who are exploiting it for other political agendas.

---

CO2 is the lightest of all greenhouse gases. The biggest molecule, and by far the most abundant, is water vapor. Water vapor is not a constant. In fact it is highly dependent on solar radiation, which too is not constant. Solar heat is fluctuating on 11 year minicycles and major centuries long cycles.

If you were serious about CO2, the solution would be major tree planting projects. But if you were serious about the "problem" you would be finding california a way to trap water vapor and help fight their annual potable water crisis. But no. Let's tax gasoline so blue collar john has a hidden 40% tax on his work vehicle to feed his children.

The Debt said:

---

CO2 is the lightest of all greenhouse gases. The biggest molecule, and by far the most abundant, is water vapor. Water vapor is not a constant. In fact it is highly dependent on solar radiation, which too is not constant. Solar heat is fluctuating on 11 year minicycles and major centuries long cycles.

If you were serious about CO2, the solution would be major tree planting projects. But if you were serious about the "problem" you would be finding california a way to trap water vapor and help fight their annual potable water crisis. But no. Let's tax gasoline so blue collar john has a hidden 40% tax on his work vehicle to feed his children.

---

Most people don't realize water vapor is the most abundant green house gas. A warming planet probably means more water vapor in the atmosphere, but more water vapor probably also means more cloud cover and clouds reflect heat, so all these things play off one another. It is VERY complex and there are many holes and gaps in the understanding of both natural and human effects. To say that the science is settled is premature.

Read the book I referenced in an earlier post on this thread. It says exactly that.

How White Sands formed.

Approximately 12,000 years ago, the land within the Tularosa Basin featured large lakes, streams, grasslands, and Ice Age mammals. As the climate warmed, rain and snowmelt dissolved gypsum from the surrounding mountains and carried it into the basin. Further warming and drying caused the lakes to evaporate and form selenite crystals. Strong winds then broke up crystals and transported them eastward. A similar process continues to produce gypsum sand today.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sands_National_Park#cite_note-NPS_Geology-7][7][/url]


Amazing all that CO2 impact from early humans was causing the earth to warm enough to turn a lush environment into a desert just a mere 10,000 years later.

Neehau said:

---

Cepe said:

---

If you really dig into "green energy " you see it's all a sham. Incredibly destructive environmentally and we haven't really gotten to the disposal of toxic wastes yet.

If the country wants to vote to move away from oil and gas that's fine but we need a comprehensive plan, including nuclear, to get us there. Just shutting off the spigot and making everyone suffer is not a plan and is actually detrimental because it will cause a rebound in the opposite direction.

---

That isn't what's happening however. OPEC and the war in Ukraine are leading to higher oil prices. Cutting off funding for green energy so we can hopefully eventually go mostly nuclear or solar is a very bad idea.

---

Ummm…no.

We're worried about OPEC because we aren't energy independent like we were in January, 2021. That's a direct result of Executive Orders signed by President Biden in his first few days. Those orders had a direct negative impact on the amount of oil America could produce. The price of oil started climbing immediately and most of the damage was done before Russia v Ukraine was on anyones mind. Biden's actions directly weakened our energy supply, please don't insult us by deflecting blame to someone else who was willing to take advantage of that weakness.

I'm genuinely curious about people that come on sites like this and make statements that are easily disproved. It's the same mindset that leads people to proclaim the AR15 as the deadliest civilian weapon in the nation despite the fact the truth is a available on more than one government website. You continue to make factually incorrect arguments to well informed people as if your bad info is going to make a difference. It just makes you look misinformed.

aglaes said:

---

agracer said:

---

Didn't a volcano erupt recently that eclipsed all human CO2 output for all the existence of mankind?

---

If you have data from the example you're referencing, please post.

I'm pretty sure you're incorrect on this. Human emitted CO2 is many times (like x100) the CO2 emitted from volcanic activity in a "normal year". Even large volcanic events don't come close to annual human emissions.

An indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels measured by sampling stations, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would have large spikes after each eruption - and they do not.

However, large volcanic eruptions also emit ash and aerosols which typically create a cooling effect for a couple of years or so depending on the size of the eruption.

Maybe a REALLY LARGE Super Volcano event like Yellowstone erupting again would expel that much CO2, but that hasn't happened in about 600,000 yrs and if/when it happens again we can all kiss our ass good bye anyway.

---

.

First prove CO2 is a pollutant?

agracer said:

---

First prove CO2 is a pollutant?

---

Never said it was.

aglaes said:

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

One thing we do know about increased CO2, the earth is greening.

---

So you agree that we are having an effect?

Anyway, I know it seems like maybe my earlier comments are an argument for going to extremes to address human influence on climate change, it's really not. I'm just not a denier - ie that we are having no effect.

I read this book ( https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-LvRp_fc-AIVm3xvBB2lIQc4EAAYASAAEgIo8PD_BwE&hvadid=568647870677&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9027721&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=b&hvrand=9944846320377446885&hvtargid=kwd-1210994604891&hydadcr=22535_9636730&keywords=unsettled+koonin&qid=1656858615&s=books&sr=1-1 ) and would suggest for those of you that are not at either end of the spectrum on this issue and can still listen to reasonable arguments for or against.

I guess, as I think about the issue of the left wanting to control us, I would probably revise my earlier statement - but only as it pertains to climate change. I do think that there are many that truly believe (partly due to MSM misinformation and hysteria) the result of human influences on the climate are going to lead us to a hell on earth that we (homo sapiens) have never experienced before - ie mass extinctions, irreversible damage to ecosystems, breakdown of our agricultural system and ocean fisheries and ability to feed the ever growing human population. Some of these people also believe the only way to accomplish the magnitude of change necessary to get to net zero and "save the planet" is a New World Order that has complete control over mankind's energy economy.

Others want the New World Order for other reasons, but climate change is the excuse to use to attain it.

---

Do you know what's going to be MUCH worse for mankind?

When this current interglacial period ends and we head back into the current Ice Age that we're still in. All the global warming panty wadders are going to WISH we'd made it WAY warmer...

And if you look at the data from the Vostok Ice Core sampling, we're pretty ****ing close to the end of this interglacial period...

Manhattan said:

---

I stopped when he started talking about how fast a fast a gas station is, if the average person drives 10,000 miles a year, at 300Wh per mile (high) that's 8.2kWh a day, enough to be covered by being plugged in for 6 hours a night on a 120v 12A circuit.

Or never having to go to a gas station. If you road trip a lot, get an Ice or a Plaid/Taycan.

---

Then you will continue in your ignorance.

Personal vehicles account for only 6-7% of CO2 emissions worldwide. If they were all converted to EVs, the emissions from those vehicles would simply be transferred to the power plants. It's whack a mole! Yet FJB and the Marxists in his admin are pushing this with their anti oil and gas policies.

If you want to address CO2, you have to address power generation and nuclear power is the way. But the Marxists will not do that. As an example, Germany has only 3 nuke plants left and they plan to kill them off by EOY.

Unicorn energy does not scale and cannot replace oil, gas and nukes! It's a niche and always will be.

It was an exaggeration most likely, but probably referring to this :

https://english.cas.cn/newsroom/research_news/tech/202202/t20220218_300957.shtml

Ag with kids said:

---

Do you know what's going to be MUCH worse for mankind?

When this current interglacial period ends and we head back into the current Ice Age that we're still in. All the global warming panty wadders are going to WISH we'd made it WAY warmer...

And if you look at the data from the Vostok Ice Core sampling, we're pretty ****ing close to the end of this interglacial period...

---

This ( Glad You Asked: Ice Ages What are they and what causes them? Utah Geological Survey ) is great information on ice ages and glacial/interglacial periods of the current and past ice ages. Certainly an argument that our (human) current effect on the climate pails in comparison to larger forces.

Can you imagine an ice sheet covering all of Canada and a good protion of the US, as far south as Kentucky, basically covering all of the Great Lakes region, from the last glacial period.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Cepe said:

---

If you really dig into "green energy " you see it's all a sham. Incredibly destructive environmentally and we haven't really gotten to the disposal of toxic wastes yet.

If the country wants to vote to move away from oil and gas that's fine but we need a comprehensive plan, including nuclear, to get us there. Just shutting off the spigot and making everyone suffer is not a plan and is actually detrimental because it will cause a rebound in the opposite direction.

---

That isn't what's happening however. OPEC and the war in Ukraine are leading to higher oil prices. Cutting off funding for green energy so we can hopefully eventually go mostly nuclear or solar is a very bad idea.

---

Ummm…no.

We're worried about OPEC because we aren't energy independent like we were in January, 2021. That's a direct result of Executive Orders signed by President Biden in his first few days. Those orders had a direct negative impact on the amount of oil America could produce. The price of oil started climbing immediately and most of the damage was done before Russia v Ukraine was on anyones mind. Biden's actions directly weakened our energy supply, please don't insult us by deflecting blame to someone else who was willing to take advantage of that weakness.

I'm genuinely curious about people that come on sites like this and make statements that are easily disproved. It's the same mindset that leads people to proclaim the AR15 as the deadliest civilian weapon in the nation despite the fact the truth is a available on more than one government website. You continue to make factually incorrect arguments to well informed people as if your bad info is going to make a difference. It just makes you look misinformed.

---

Unfortunately, your claims above, at least in terms of their impact on the macroeconomy, are wildly inaccurate. Oil price volatility has not been caused by President Bidens executive actions. There is ample analysis of this, in print, from knowledgeable people across the political scale (not Fox News pundits or other far right wing news sources shown to not be credible).

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/real-reasons-high-oil-and-gas-prices
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/high-oil-prices/

I could sit here and paraphrase these articles or you could just read them yourself. Biden is a putz for other reasons, not this one. He is still better than Herr Trump.

Neehau said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Cepe said:

---

If you really dig into "green energy " you see it's all a sham. Incredibly destructive environmentally and we haven't really gotten to the disposal of toxic wastes yet.

If the country wants to vote to move away from oil and gas that's fine but we need a comprehensive plan, including nuclear, to get us there. Just shutting off the spigot and making everyone suffer is not a plan and is actually detrimental because it will cause a rebound in the opposite direction.

---

That isn't what's happening however. OPEC and the war in Ukraine are leading to higher oil prices. Cutting off funding for green energy so we can hopefully eventually go mostly nuclear or solar is a very bad idea.

---

Ummm…no.

We're worried about OPEC because we aren't energy independent like we were in January, 2021. That's a direct result of Executive Orders signed by President Biden in his first few days. Those orders had a direct negative impact on the amount of oil America could produce. The price of oil started climbing immediately and most of the damage was done before Russia v Ukraine was on anyones mind. Biden's actions directly weakened our energy supply, please don't insult us by deflecting blame to someone else who was willing to take advantage of that weakness.

I'm genuinely curious about people that come on sites like this and make statements that are easily disproved. It's the same mindset that leads people to proclaim the AR15 as the deadliest civilian weapon in the nation despite the fact the truth is a available on more than one government website. You continue to make factually incorrect arguments to well informed people as if your bad info is going to make a difference. It just makes you look misinformed.

---

Unfortunately, your claims above, at least in terms of their impact on the macroeconomy, are wildly inaccurate. Oil price volatility has not been caused by President Bidens executive actions. There is ample analysis of this, in print, from knowledgeable people across the political scale (not Fox News pundits or other far right wing news sources shown to not be credible).

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/real-reasons-high-oil-and-gas-prices
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/high-oil-prices/

I could sit here and paraphrase these articles or you could just read them yourself. Biden is a putz for other reasons, not this one. He is still better than Herr Trump.

---

Let's do our own analysis. Let's see. WTI for August, 2022 delivery:
1/20/2021 - $53.24
2/9/2021 - $58.36 - 10% increase since inauguration
3/5/2021 - $66.09 - 24% increase since inauguration
7/1/2021 - $75.23 - 41% increase since inauguration
10/20/2021 - $83.87 - 58% increase since inauguration
11/10/2021 - $81.34 - 53% increase since inauguration - first sign of trouble as US notes troop movements.
Today - Almost 100% up from inauguration.

I'm willing to concede that after 11/10/2021 it's a mixed bag of war in eastern Europe and other factors but it's a fact that this admin is the most hostile we've ever had to the O&G industry at it looks like 53% of the current increase is on their hostility. Their basic message to the industry is, "Hey, we're going to shut you down just like we did coal but spend money to keep the price low until we do." It's absurd to think none of that matters and you're naive if you believe whatever you've read that suggests this admin's hostility isn't relevant.

In addition to the admin's hostility we have a Democrat party that for 20+ years has been quick to demand price concessions when prices are high but where were they in May, 2020 when the spot price was negative? Where were they in 2010 when prices were low and the industry was struggling? This is the most important commodity in the world and the US industry is literally the key to our financial and physical security and the Democrats attack it constantly then whine when they don't do anything to bring the price down at a time when the real world smacks them in the face. It's just simply irresponsible to fault anyone other than the career politicians that know nothing of the real world. The fact that you support career politicians instead of American businesses just reflects a lack of understanding of the world as it actually exists.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Cepe said:

---

If you really dig into "green energy " you see it's all a sham. Incredibly destructive environmentally and we haven't really gotten to the disposal of toxic wastes yet.

If the country wants to vote to move away from oil and gas that's fine but we need a comprehensive plan, including nuclear, to get us there. Just shutting off the spigot and making everyone suffer is not a plan and is actually detrimental because it will cause a rebound in the opposite direction.

---

That isn't what's happening however. OPEC and the war in Ukraine are leading to higher oil prices. Cutting off funding for green energy so we can hopefully eventually go mostly nuclear or solar is a very bad idea.

---

Ummm…no.

We're worried about OPEC because we aren't energy independent like we were in January, 2021. That's a direct result of Executive Orders signed by President Biden in his first few days. Those orders had a direct negative impact on the amount of oil America could produce. The price of oil started climbing immediately and most of the damage was done before Russia v Ukraine was on anyones mind. Biden's actions directly weakened our energy supply, please don't insult us by deflecting blame to someone else who was willing to take advantage of that weakness.

I'm genuinely curious about people that come on sites like this and make statements that are easily disproved. It's the same mindset that leads people to proclaim the AR15 as the deadliest civilian weapon in the nation despite the fact the truth is a available on more than one government website. You continue to make factually incorrect arguments to well informed people as if your bad info is going to make a difference. It just makes you look misinformed.

---

Unfortunately, your claims above, at least in terms of their impact on the macroeconomy, are wildly inaccurate. Oil price volatility has not been caused by President Bidens executive actions. There is ample analysis of this, in print, from knowledgeable people across the political scale (not Fox News pundits or other far right wing news sources shown to not be credible).

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/real-reasons-high-oil-and-gas-prices
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/high-oil-prices/

I could sit here and paraphrase these articles or you could just read them yourself. Biden is a putz for other reasons, not this one. He is still better than Herr Trump.

---

Let's do our own analysis. Let's see. WTI for August, 2022 delivery:
1/20/2021 - $53.24
2/9/2021 - $58.36 - 10% increase since inauguration
3/5/2021 - $66.09 - 24% increase since inauguration
7/1/2021 - $75.23 - 41% increase since inauguration
10/20/2021 - $83.87 - 58% increase since inauguration
11/10/2021 - $81.34 - 53% increase since inauguration - first sign of trouble as US notes troop movements.
Today - Almost 100% up from inauguration.

I'm willing to concede that after 11/10/2021 it's a mixed bag of war in eastern Europe and other factors but it's a fact that this admin is the most hostile we've ever had to the O&G industry at it looks like 53% of the current increase is on their hostility. Their basic message to the industry is, "Hey, we're going to shut you down just like we did coal but spend money to keep the price low until we do." It's absurd to think none of that matters and you're naive if you believe whatever you've read that suggests this admin's hostility isn't relevant.

In addition to the admin's hostility we have a Democrat party that for 20+ years has been quick to demand price concessions when prices are high but where were they in May, 2020 when the spot price was negative? Where were they in 2010 when prices were low and the industry was struggling? This is the most important commodity in the world and the US industry is literally the key to our financial and physical security and the Democrats attack it constantly then whine when they don't do anything to bring the price down at a time when the real world smacks them in the face. It's just simply irresponsible to fault anyone other than the career politicians that know nothing of the real world. The fact that you support career politicians instead of American businesses just reflects a lack of understanding of the world as it actually exists.

---

You are making the mistakes the Democrats make when oil prices go up when a Republican is in office. The President really has limited impact on oil prices unless he bombs some place in the middle east or we go to war. Oil prices have not been impacted by his policies. High oil prices are here to stay and that has more to do with global pricing then domestic policy. This has been a high risk item we have faced as a country since the 1890's. It will only change once such an inelastic good is replaced with a less inelastic one.

Quote:

---

Oil prices have not been impacted by his policies.

---

This is just patently untrue. Of course his policies aren't the only impact, but to say "none" is abject nonsense?

Neehau said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Cepe said:

---

If you really dig into "green energy " you see it's all a sham. Incredibly destructive environmentally and we haven't really gotten to the disposal of toxic wastes yet.

If the country wants to vote to move away from oil and gas that's fine but we need a comprehensive plan, including nuclear, to get us there. Just shutting off the spigot and making everyone suffer is not a plan and is actually detrimental because it will cause a rebound in the opposite direction.

---

That isn't what's happening however. OPEC and the war in Ukraine are leading to higher oil prices. Cutting off funding for green energy so we can hopefully eventually go mostly nuclear or solar is a very bad idea.

---

Ummm…no.

We're worried about OPEC because we aren't energy independent like we were in January, 2021. That's a direct result of Executive Orders signed by President Biden in his first few days. Those orders had a direct negative impact on the amount of oil America could produce. The price of oil started climbing immediately and most of the damage was done before Russia v Ukraine was on anyones mind. Biden's actions directly weakened our energy supply, please don't insult us by deflecting blame to someone else who was willing to take advantage of that weakness.

I'm genuinely curious about people that come on sites like this and make statements that are easily disproved. It's the same mindset that leads people to proclaim the AR15 as the deadliest civilian weapon in the nation despite the fact the truth is a available on more than one government website. You continue to make factually incorrect arguments to well informed people as if your bad info is going to make a difference. It just makes you look misinformed.

---

Unfortunately, your claims above, at least in terms of their impact on the macroeconomy, are wildly inaccurate. Oil price volatility has not been caused by President Bidens executive actions. There is ample analysis of this, in print, from knowledgeable people across the political scale (not Fox News pundits or other far right wing news sources shown to not be credible).

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/real-reasons-high-oil-and-gas-prices
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/high-oil-prices/

I could sit here and paraphrase these articles or you could just read them yourself. Biden is a putz for other reasons, not this one. He is still better than Herr Trump.

---

Let's do our own analysis. Let's see. WTI for August, 2022 delivery:
1/20/2021 - $53.24
2/9/2021 - $58.36 - 10% increase since inauguration
3/5/2021 - $66.09 - 24% increase since inauguration
7/1/2021 - $75.23 - 41% increase since inauguration
10/20/2021 - $83.87 - 58% increase since inauguration
11/10/2021 - $81.34 - 53% increase since inauguration - first sign of trouble as US notes troop movements.
Today - Almost 100% up from inauguration.

I'm willing to concede that after 11/10/2021 it's a mixed bag of war in eastern Europe and other factors but it's a fact that this admin is the most hostile we've ever had to the O&G industry at it looks like 53% of the current increase is on their hostility. Their basic message to the industry is, "Hey, we're going to shut you down just like we did coal but spend money to keep the price low until we do." It's absurd to think none of that matters and you're naive if you believe whatever you've read that suggests this admin's hostility isn't relevant.

In addition to the admin's hostility we have a Democrat party that for 20+ years has been quick to demand price concessions when prices are high but where were they in May, 2020 when the spot price was negative? Where were they in 2010 when prices were low and the industry was struggling? This is the most important commodity in the world and the US industry is literally the key to our financial and physical security and the Democrats attack it constantly then whine when they don't do anything to bring the price down at a time when the real world smacks them in the face. It's just simply irresponsible to fault anyone other than the career politicians that know nothing of the real world. The fact that you support career politicians instead of American businesses just reflects a lack of understanding of the world as it actually exists.

---

You are making the mistakes the Democrats make when oil prices go up when a Republican is in office. The President really has limited impact on oil prices unless he bombs some place in the middle east or we go to war. Oil prices have not been impacted by his policies. High oil prices are here to stay and that has more to do with global pricing then domestic policy. This has been a high risk item we have faced as a country since the 1890's. It will only change once such an inelastic good is replaced with a less inelastic one.

---

My God you're naive.

Neehau said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Cepe said:

---

If you really dig into "green energy " you see it's all a sham. Incredibly destructive environmentally and we haven't really gotten to the disposal of toxic wastes yet.

If the country wants to vote to move away from oil and gas that's fine but we need a comprehensive plan, including nuclear, to get us there. Just shutting off the spigot and making everyone suffer is not a plan and is actually detrimental because it will cause a rebound in the opposite direction.

---

That isn't what's happening however. OPEC and the war in Ukraine are leading to higher oil prices. Cutting off funding for green energy so we can hopefully eventually go mostly nuclear or solar is a very bad idea.

---

Ummm…no.

We're worried about OPEC because we aren't energy independent like we were in January, 2021. That's a direct result of Executive Orders signed by President Biden in his first few days. Those orders had a direct negative impact on the amount of oil America could produce. The price of oil started climbing immediately and most of the damage was done before Russia v Ukraine was on anyones mind. Biden's actions directly weakened our energy supply, please don't insult us by deflecting blame to someone else who was willing to take advantage of that weakness.

I'm genuinely curious about people that come on sites like this and make statements that are easily disproved. It's the same mindset that leads people to proclaim the AR15 as the deadliest civilian weapon in the nation despite the fact the truth is a available on more than one government website. You continue to make factually incorrect arguments to well informed people as if your bad info is going to make a difference. It just makes you look misinformed.

---

Unfortunately, your claims above, at least in terms of their impact on the macroeconomy, are wildly inaccurate. Oil price volatility has not been caused by President Bidens executive actions. There is ample analysis of this, in print, from knowledgeable people across the political scale (not Fox News pundits or other far right wing news sources shown to not be credible).

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/real-reasons-high-oil-and-gas-prices
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/high-oil-prices/

I could sit here and paraphrase these articles or you could just read them yourself. Biden is a putz for other reasons, not this one. He is still better than Herr Trump.

---

The below info was originally posted by Gator92. I felt it was applicable to copy/paste here.

Quote:

---

On January 20, 2021,
[ol]

Besides canceling the Keystone XL pipeline,

President Biden restricted domestic production by issuing a moratorium on all oil and natural gas leasing activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

He also restored and expanded the use of the government-created social cost of carbon metric to artificially increase the regulatory costs of energy production of fossil fuels when performing analyses, as well as artificially increase the so-called "benefits" of decreasing production.

Biden continued to revoke Trump administration executive orders, including those related to the Waters of the United States rule and the Antiquities Act. The Trump-era actions decreased regulations on Federal land and expanded the ability to produce energy domestically.

[/ol]On January 27, 2021,
[ol]

Biden issued an executive order announcing a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on public lands

or in offshore waters

and reconsideration of Federal oil and gas permitting and leasing practices.

He directed his Interior Department to conduct a review of permitting and leasing policies.

Also, by Executive Order, Biden directed agencies to eliminate federal fossil fuel "subsidies" wherever possible, disadvantaging oil and natural gas compared to other industries that receive similar Federal tax treatments or other energy sources which receive direct subsidies.

This Biden Executive Order attacked the energy industry by promoting "ending international financing of carbon-intensive fossil fuel-based energy while simultaneously advancing sustainable development and a green recovery." In other words, the U.S. government would leverage its power to attack oil and gas producers while subsidizing favored industries.

Biden's EO pushed for an increase in enforcement of "environmental justice" violations and support for such efforts, which typically are advanced by radical environmental organizations and slip-and-fall lawyers hoping to cash in on the backs of energy consumers.

[/ol]On February 2, 2021,
[ol]

The EPA hired Marianne Engelman-Lado, a prominent environmental justice proponent, to advance its radical Green New Deal social justice agenda at the EPA, a signal to industry that it plans to continue its attack on American energy.

[/ol]On February 4, 2021,
[ol]

At the behest of the January 27th Climate Crisis EO, the DOJ withdrew several Trump-era enforcement documents which provided clarity and streamlined regulations to increase energy independence.

[/ol]On February 19, 2021,
[ol]

Biden officially rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement, which is detrimental to Americans while propping up oil production in Russia and OPEC and increasing the dependence of Europe on Russian oil and natural gas. It also benefits China, who dominates the supply chain for critical minerals that are needed for wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicle batteries.

[/ol]On February 23, 2021,
[ol]

Biden administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy in support of H.R. 803 which curtailed energy production on over 1.5 million acres of federal lands.

[/ol]On March 11, 2021,
[ol]

The President signed ARPA, which included numerous provisions advancing Biden's green priorities, such as a $50 million environmental slush fund directed towards "environmental justice" groups, including efforts advanced by Biden's EO.

ARPA also included $50 million in grant funding for Clean Air Act pollution-related activities aimed at advancing the green agenda at the expense of the fossil fuel industry.

[/ol]On March 15, 2021,
[ol]

Biden's Securities and Exchange Commission sought input regarding the possibility of a rule that would require hundreds of businesses to measure and disclose greenhouse gas emissions in a standardized way, hugely increasing the environmental costs of compliance and disincentivizing oil and gas production.

[/ol]On April 15, 2021,
[ol]

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's policy statement outlines and effectively endorses how the agency would consider market rules proposed by regional grid operators that seek to incorporate a state-determined carbon price in organized wholesale electricity markets. This amounts to a de facto endorsement of a carbon tax that would be paid by everyday Americans in their utility bills.

[/ol]On April 16, 2021,
[ol]

At Biden's Direction, Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland revoked policies in Secretarial Order 3398 established by the Trump administration including rejecting "American Energy Independence" as a goal;

rejecting an "America-First Offshore Energy Strategy;"

rejecting "strengthening the Department of the Interior's Energy Portfolio;"

and rejecting establishing the "Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting." These actions set the stage for the unprecedented slowdown in energy activity by the Interior Department, steward of 2.46 billion acres of federal mineral estate and all its energy and mineral resources.

[/ol]On April 22, 2021,
[ol]

Biden issued the U.S. International Climate Finance Plan to funnel international financing toward green industries and away from oil and gas.

[/ol]On April 27, 2021,
[ol]

The Biden administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy in support of S.J. Res. 14 which rescinded a Trump-era rule that would have cut regulations on American energy production.

[/ol]On April 28, 2021,
[ol]

Biden's EPA issued a Notice of Reconsideration that would propose to revoke a Trump-era action that revoked California's waiver for California's Advanced Clean Car Program (Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements).

[/ol]On May 5, 2021,
[ol]

This proposed Fish and Wildlife Service Rule revokes a Trump administration rule and expands the definition of "incidental take" under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The rule would impact energy production on federal lands, increasing regulatory burdens.

[/ol]On May 20, 2021,
[ol]

Biden issued an executive order on Climate-Related Financial Risk that would artificially increase regulatory burdens on the oil and gas industry by increasing the "risk" the federal government undertakes in doing business with them.

[/ol]On May 28, 2021,
[ol]

Biden's FY 2022 revenue proposals include nearly $150 billion in tax increases directly levied against the oil and gas energy producers.

[/ol]On July 28, 2021,
[ol]

This Department of Energy determination increases regulatory burdens on commercial building codes, requiring green energy codes to disincentivize natural gas and other energy sources. DOE readily admits they ignored efforts private industry is making on their own and utilized the questionable "social costs of carbon" to overstate the public benefit.

The Executive Order also kicked off the development of more stringent long-term fuel efficiency and emissions standards, a backdoor way to compel the electrification of vehicles.

[/ol]On August 11, 2021,
[ol]

The White House released a letter from Jake Sullivan begging OPEC+ (OPEC plus Russia) to produce more oil.

[/ol]On September 3, 2021,
[ol]

Biden's Department of Transportation issued a proposed rule that would update the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 20242026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks to increase fuel economy regulations on passenger cars and light vehicles. The modeling calculated "fuel savings" by multiplying fuel price with 'avoided fuel costs' to disincentivize gasoline by making it more costly to afford ICE cars and trucks.

[/ol]On September 9, 2021,
[ol]

NASA and the FAA launched a partnership to reduce "fuel use and harmful emissions" by strong-arming industry to adopt elements of their green agenda.

Department of Education's Climate Adaptation Plan (CAP) includes efforts to incorporate the green agenda into as many guidance and policies as possible, effectively leveraging the department as an anti-fossil fuel propaganda tool.

[/ol]On October 4, 2021,
[ol]

The FWS published its final rule revoking Trump-era actions which eased burdensome regulations on energy action.

[/ol]On October 7, 2021,
[ol]

The Council on Environmental Quality revoked Trump administration NEPA reforms that reduced regulatory burdens by reinstating tangential environmental impacts of proposed projects.

Biden announced plans to designate the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, a move counter to Trump's reversal of a similar Obama-era proclamation. Trump aimed to allow energy exploration in the area to increase energy independence.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) CAP includes efforts to switch fuel away from oil and natural gas and subsidize more costly, less efficient fuel sources.

As part of its CAP, EPA intends to incorporate Biden's Green New Deal agenda throughout its rulemaking process.

[/ol]On October 21, 2021,
[ol]

This report paints climate change, and therefore oil and gas producers, as a "risk to financial stability." The report recommended the "climate disclosures" later set forth by the Biden administration.

[/ol]On October 28, 2021,
[ol]

Rep. Rho Khanna interrogated oil CEOs about why they were increasing production as their 'European Counterparts' were lowering their own.

[/ol]On October 29, 2021,
[ol]

The Bureau of Land Management announced the use of social costs of carbon in decision making for approving permits for oil and gas drilling. This devalues the economic benefits of energy production on federal lands.

[/ol]On October 30, 2021,
[ol]

The Department of Labor issued a final ESG Rule that would require fiduciaries to consider the economic effects of climate change and other so-called environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors when evaluating funds for retirement plans. The rule would strongly encourage fiduciaries to draw capital from domestic energy development in oil and natural gas to renewables.

[/ol]On November 2, 2021,
[ol]

The Biden administration led a "Global Methane Pledge" to reduce global methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030. Neither Russia nor China signed the pledge, increasing the world's reliance on these two countries for energy-related imports and disadvantaging the U.S. oil and natural gas industry, as well as large consumers of energy such as industrial manufacturing and agriculture.

[/ol]On November 4, 2021,
[ol]

Biden committed to "ending fossil fuel financing abroad," targeting the global fossil fuel industry, thereby disadvantaging them, which increases global oil and gas prices. Further, key countries, like China, did not sign the pledge, so the pledge harms signatories while empowering adversaries. This is another case of unilateral economic and energy disarmament.

[/ol]On November 5, 2021,
[ol]

Biden Energy Sec. Granholm laughed at questions about boosting oil production.

[/ol]On November 12, 2021,
[ol]

New Source Review: These broad, overreaching regulations target new, modified, and reconstructed oil and natural gas sources, and would require states to reduce methane emissions from hundreds of thousands of existing sources nationwide for the first time. The Proposed Rule follows the President's Day 1 Climate EO and the passage of the S.J. Res. 14, a CRA rescinding Trump-era energy independence policies. The proposed rule spends several paragraphs dismissing the effects of the rule on the oil and gas industry and misleadingly applies its effects on the industry to only the "140,000" (an underestimate of the over 220,000) employees directly involved in extraction. This means it ignores the nearly 10 million other people working in the oil and gas industry and the impacts to the oil and gas economy more broadly.

[/ol]On November 15, 2021,
[ol]

Biden's Interior Department announced plans to withdraw Chaco Canyon from oil and gas drilling for 20 years.

The Biden administration nominated Saule Omarova to serve as Comptroller of the Currency. Omarova's past comments speak for themselves: "A lot of the smaller players in [the fossil fuel] industry are going to, probably, go bankrupt in short orderat least, we want them to go bankrupt if we want to tackle climate change," she said.

[/ol]On November 17, 2021,
[ol]

HUD's CAP leverages the Community Development Block Grant to advance 'environmental justice' efforts.

Biden calls on FTC to probe "anti-consumer behavior" by energy companies.

[/ol]On November 19, 2021,
[ol]

Biden endorsed several oil and gas provisions in the Build Back Better Bill, including a new tax on methane, of up to $1500 per ton;

prohibiting energy production in the Arctic and offshore leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Atlantic, Pacific and Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas;

increased fees and royalties for onshore and offshore oil and gas production;

a new $8 billion tax on companies that produce, process, transmit or store oil and natural gas starting in 2023;

limited ability of energy producers to claim tax credits for upfront and royalty payments in foreign countries amounting to a tax increase on domestic energy producers;

and a 16.4 cent tax on each barrel on crude oil up from 9.7 cents a $13 billion tax increase on oil production.

[/ol]On November 26, 2021,
[ol]

Biden's Interior Department issued its report on the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Program includes recommendations to raise rents and royalty rates on oil and gas producers, even though federal energy production already lags that from state and private lands.

[/ol]On December 14, 2021,
[ol]

The EPA launched a revamp of its Office of Civil Rights to add so-called environmental justice enforcement as a key pillar in enforcing Title VI civil rights complaints. The agency's announcements mean social justice claims against, among others, the oil and gas industry will increase costs and penalties that have specious connections to its environmental mission.

[/ol]On December 21, 2021,
[ol]

Biden's Department of Transportation issued its Final Rule revoking Trump-era actions which prevented California from arbitrarily becoming the national standard for fuel emissions. The rule set the stage for the administration to reinstate California's waiver, and, since automakers do not make different cars for different states, the rule would allow California's radical environmental policies to reach nationwide, forcing people nationwide to pay for vehicles meeting California's standards.

[/ol]On December 30, 2021,
[ol]

Biden's EPA issued its Final Rule for increased "fuel efficiency standards." According to the Final Rule, "These standards are the strongest vehicle emissions standards ever established for the light-duty vehicle sector. The rule, in responding to comments, claims "energy security benefits to the U.S. from decreased exposure to volatile world oil prices" suggesting that decreasing oil and gas production in the U.S. will result in less exposure to the international oil and gas market because they will be disincentivizing vehicles that use oil and gas. The rule also claims that it will result in "fuel savings" entirely due to less use of fuel.

[/ol]On January 13, 2022,
[ol]

DOE announced an initiative to hire 1,000 staffers for their Clean Energy Corps, a group of staff dedicated to Biden's promise to destroy fossil fuels.

[/ol]On January 14, 2022,
[ol]

Biden nominated Sarah Raskin to serve as Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve. She was deemed so radical on her belief that fed policy should be dictated by environmental policy that she gained a bipartisan opposition and had to withdraw her nomination.

[/ol]On February 9, 2022,
[ol]

A proposed rule on Coal and Oil Power Plant Mercury Standards would revoke a Trump-era rule that cut red tape on coal and oil-fired power generators and followed the Supreme Court's rejection of an earlier Obama administration rule. This would effectively reinstate Obama-era regulations which sought to increase regulations on coal and oil-fired power plants.

[/ol]On February 18, 2022,
[ol]

FERC updated a 23-year-old policy for assessing proposed natural gas pipelines, adding new considerations for landowners, environmental justice communities, and other factors. In a separate but related decision, the commission also laid out a framework for evaluating projects' greenhouse gas emissions.

[/ol]On February 21, 2022,
[ol]

The Biden administration paused working all new oil and gas leases on Federal land in response to a judge blocking their arbitrary use of social costs of carbon, unnecessarily hurting domestic oil and gas production.

[/ol]On February 28, 2022,
[ol]

The Ozone Transport Proposed Rule would expand federal emissions regulations over a wider geographic region and over a wider array of sources, including the gathering, boosting and transmission segments of the oil and gas sector. Integral energy production states like Nevada, Utah and Wyoming would be required to jump through more red tape.

[/ol]On March 1, 2022,
[ol]

Refusal To Appeal adverse leasing court decision: The Biden administration refused to appeal an unprecedented decision to vacate an offshore oil and gas leasing sale held in November 2021. This means under Biden, the U.S. has not held one successful lease sale offshore.

Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities: This policy statement increases climate change regulations for new interstate natural gas facilities.

[/ol]On March 8, 2022,
[ol]

President Biden tried to deflect from his anti-energy record saying there are 9,000 issued leases on federal lands without current drilling. This is true and it's also true that this is the lowest percentage of unused leases in at least 20 years in other words, lease utilization is at a multi-decade high.

[/ol]On March 9, 2022,
[ol]

EPA Reinstates California Emissions Waiver: The EPA reinstated California's emissions waivers, allowing the state to set its own greenhouse gas emissions standards, standards which will likely be adopted nationwide and are sure to make vehicles more expensive. The practical effect is that California is setting policy for people in all the other states despite their terrible record of energy inflation.

[/ol]On March 11, 2022,
[ol]

Natural Gas Infrastructure Project Reviews: This interim regulation will increase the regulatory burden on natural gas facilities by, among other things, requiring climate change impacts be considered when determining whether a project is in the public interest.

[/ol]On March 16, 2022,
[ol]

Doubling Down on Social Costs of Carbon: The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the dubious social costs of carbon metric which had been rejected by another court by issuing a stay on the lower court's ruling. The ruling itself cast doubt on the lower court's ruling. The Biden administration argued against the lower court's ruling to reinstate the SCC metric. The Social Cost of Carbon is a "made-up" number designed to make any hydrocarbon project in the U.S. more expensive. It is an "end-around" the politically difficult carbon tax most of the Green Establishment supports.

[/ol]March 21, 2022,
[ol]

SEC Proposed Rule on Mandatory Climate Disclosures: The SEC's proposed rule would require public companies to disclose greenhouse gas emissions

and their exposure to climate change. This rule would massively increase so-called environmental costs of compliance and, in tandem with so-called social costs of carbon, artificially disincentivizing oil and gas production.

[/ol]March 28, 2022,
[ol]

Army Corps of Engineers' Review of its Nationwide Permit 12 for Oil or Natural Gas Pipeline Activities: The corps announced it would be reviewing NWP 12 late last month as part of Biden's day-1 executive order on climate change mandating all federal agencies ensure their work is in line with its climate and environmental objectives. The review is part of a long list of actions that confuse and delay permitting for critical infrastructure. This makes pipelines harder to build and improve in the U.S.

[/ol]March 30, 2022
[ol]

Environmental Justice Advisory Council Meeting: The WHEJAC will hold its first two meetings to, among other things, advance Green New Deal priorities including "environmental justice and pollution reduction, energy, climate change mitigation and resiliency, environmental health, and racial inequity."

[/ol]March 31, 2022
[ol]

Biden wants to penalize oil companies with unused leases: President Biden called on Congress to pass legislation enacting "use it or lose it" fines on wells that oil companies have leased from the federal government but have not used in years and "on acres of public lands that they are hoarding without producing… Companies that are producing from their leased acres and existing wells will not face higher fees." The extra fees on federally leased land are on top of rents that the oil companies pay to hold the leases, "bonus bids" paid by the winning bidder at lease sales and the fact that 66 percent of federal leases are currently producing oil. This is simply a deflection from the Biden administration's war on affordable North American energy supplies.

Biden's Budget Contains More Anti-Oil Proposals: President Biden's budget for the fiscal year 2023 is $5.8 trillion. It contains large amounts of climate spending and anti-oil and gas policies that did not get passed in his Build Back Better bill last year.

Biden is seeking $50 billion for programs to address climate change,

including $18 billion to build the U.S. government's resilience to climate change,

$3.3 billion in funding for clean energy projects and at least $20 million for a new "Civilian Climate Corps."

To help pay for the increased climate spending, Biden is asking Congress to eliminate tax provisions that aid domestic energy production,

including tax deductions for intangible drilling costs and low-production wells that enable small producers in the United States to produce oil. Removing these deductions will lower domestic output while further raising already high oil and gasoline prices.

[/ol]April 5, 2022,
[ol]

Biden's Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management releases a "Strategic Vision" with no discussion of increasing domestic fossil energy production: The Department of Energy is statutorily required to carry out research and development with "the goal of improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and environmental performance of fossil energy production, upgrading, conversion, and consumption." (42 USC 16291) However, the Biden Department of Energy has no interest in increasing fossil energy production. Despite the requirements of the law, the Strategic Vision is only about "Advancing Justice, Labor, and Engagement; Advancing Carbon Management Approaches toward Deep Decarbonization; and Advancing Technologies that Lead to Sustainable Energy Resources."

[/ol]April 12, 2022,
[ol]

Biden extended the availability of higher biofuels-blended gasoline during the summer to lower gasoline costs and to reduce reliance on foreign energy sources. The measure will allow Americans to buy E15, a gasoline blend that contains 15 percent ethanol from June 1 to September 15. Oil refiners are required to blend some ethanol into gasoline under a pair of laws, passed in 2005 and 2007, known as the Renewable Fuels Program, intended to lower the use of oil and greenhouse gas emissions and reduce dependency on foreign oil by mandating increased levels of ethanol in the nation's fuel mix every year. However, since the passage of the 2007 law, the mandate has been met with criticism that it has contributed to increased fuel prices and has done little to lower greenhouse gas emissions. With looming food shortages already acknowledged by President Biden, turning his back on domestic energy production while dedicating even more food to make energy inefficiently is not wise.

[/ol]April 15, 2022,
[ol]

Biden announced 144,000 acres of the federal mineral estate opened for oil and gas leasing just 0.00589 percent of the 2.46 billion acres the American people own. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said, "Today's action…was the result of a court injunction that we continue to appeal, and it's not in line with the president's policy, which is to ban additional leasing."

The administration announced it would resume leasing, but with a royalty rate almost 50 percent higher.

Withdrawal of M-37046 and

reinstatement of M37039: "The Bureau of Land Management's Authority to Address Impacts of its Land Use Authorizations Through Mitigation" The Interior Department reversed a Trump administration decision which limited the scope of "compensatory mitigation" the Department could force upon projects on federal land as a condition of receiving a permit, which will hit energy and mining projects especially hard. Under the new guidance, opponents in the federal government could require mitigation located far from the project with little relevance, effectively giving bureaucrats a blank check to request whatever they wish of a permit seeker with little controls. This decision was made less than a week after the DOI Inspector General reported that there were no controls or apparent records justifying previous versions of this program, and warned they may have to review the overall program again. This is a "3rd world" approach giving government officials the latitude to effectively deny a project by assessing "compensatory mitigation" so expensive as to make it uneconomic, or to fund their pet projects by extorting additional funds from a permit-seeker.

[/ol]April 19, 2022,
[ol]

Biden Restores Climate to NEPA: The Biden administration completed reforms on how agencies implement the National Environmental Policy Act, effectively undoing one of the Trump administration's most important environmental regulatory rollbacks. This opens the door for officials to cook up whatever justification they desire to impede energy development under the guise of NEPA.

[/ol]April 20, 2022,
[ol]

White House Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy states on MSNBC that "President Biden remains absolutely committed to not moving forward with additional drilling on public lands."

[/ol]April 21, 2022,
[ol]

U.S. Climate Envoy John Kerry said the world's reliance on natural gas should be limited to a decade. He said, "We have to put the industry on notice: You've got six years, eight years, no more than 10 years or so, within which you've got to come up with a means by which you're going to capture, and if you're not capturing, then we have to deploy alternative sources of energy." Repeated statements like this from administration officials tell investors not to sponsor energy investments in the U.S., since it implies the use of those energy sources will be limited by the government.

[/ol]April 25, 2022,
[ol]

Biden reverses Trump's Alaska oil plan: The Biden administration released a management plan for the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, an Indiana-sized area reserved for oil and gas leasing. The final decision reverses a Trump-era plan that had opened most of the reserve to oil and gas leasing and withdraws some of the most prospective oil and gas areas from consideration.

[/ol]On April 28, 2022,
[ol]

The Biden administration admitted to using faulty modeling which overestimated wildlife effects, delaying permitting on existing leases.

[/ol]On May 18, 2022,
[ol]

The Biden administration announced they were canceling a lease sale of over one million acres in the Cook Inlet in Alaska.

At the same time, the Biden administration announced they were canceling a lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico.

[/ol]On May 19, 2022,
[ol]

HR. 7688 is named the "Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act," and it would give the President vast powers to set price controls by executive fiat. If passed, this legislation will cause even more harm to American energy consumers. Price controls don't work, and our experience during the gas lines of the 1970s should remind us that price controls will lead to shortages

S.4214 is a similar "price gouging" bill taken up in the Senate.

---

Neehau said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Cepe said:

---

If you really dig into "green energy " you see it's all a sham. Incredibly destructive environmentally and we haven't really gotten to the disposal of toxic wastes yet.

If the country wants to vote to move away from oil and gas that's fine but we need a comprehensive plan, including nuclear, to get us there. Just shutting off the spigot and making everyone suffer is not a plan and is actually detrimental because it will cause a rebound in the opposite direction.

---

That isn't what's happening however. OPEC and the war in Ukraine are leading to higher oil prices. Cutting off funding for green energy so we can hopefully eventually go mostly nuclear or solar is a very bad idea.

---

Ummm…no.

We're worried about OPEC because we aren't energy independent like we were in January, 2021. That's a direct result of Executive Orders signed by President Biden in his first few days. Those orders had a direct negative impact on the amount of oil America could produce. The price of oil started climbing immediately and most of the damage was done before Russia v Ukraine was on anyones mind. Biden's actions directly weakened our energy supply, please don't insult us by deflecting blame to someone else who was willing to take advantage of that weakness.

I'm genuinely curious about people that come on sites like this and make statements that are easily disproved. It's the same mindset that leads people to proclaim the AR15 as the deadliest civilian weapon in the nation despite the fact the truth is a available on more than one government website. You continue to make factually incorrect arguments to well informed people as if your bad info is going to make a difference. It just makes you look misinformed.

---

Unfortunately, your claims above, at least in terms of their impact on the macroeconomy, are wildly inaccurate. Oil price volatility has not been caused by President Bidens executive actions. There is ample analysis of this, in print, from knowledgeable people across the political scale (not Fox News pundits or other far right wing news sources shown to not be credible).

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/real-reasons-high-oil-and-gas-prices
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/high-oil-prices/

I could sit here and paraphrase these articles or you could just read them yourself. Biden is a putz for other reasons, not this one. He is still better than Herr Trump.

---

Let's do our own analysis. Let's see. WTI for August, 2022 delivery:
1/20/2021 - $53.24
2/9/2021 - $58.36 - 10% increase since inauguration
3/5/2021 - $66.09 - 24% increase since inauguration
7/1/2021 - $75.23 - 41% increase since inauguration
10/20/2021 - $83.87 - 58% increase since inauguration
11/10/2021 - $81.34 - 53% increase since inauguration - first sign of trouble as US notes troop movements.
Today - Almost 100% up from inauguration.

I'm willing to concede that after 11/10/2021 it's a mixed bag of war in eastern Europe and other factors but it's a fact that this admin is the most hostile we've ever had to the O&G industry at it looks like 53% of the current increase is on their hostility. Their basic message to the industry is, "Hey, we're going to shut you down just like we did coal but spend money to keep the price low until we do." It's absurd to think none of that matters and you're naive if you believe whatever you've read that suggests this admin's hostility isn't relevant.

In addition to the admin's hostility we have a Democrat party that for 20+ years has been quick to demand price concessions when prices are high but where were they in May, 2020 when the spot price was negative? Where were they in 2010 when prices were low and the industry was struggling? This is the most important commodity in the world and the US industry is literally the key to our financial and physical security and the Democrats attack it constantly then whine when they don't do anything to bring the price down at a time when the real world smacks them in the face. It's just simply irresponsible to fault anyone other than the career politicians that know nothing of the real world. The fact that you support career politicians instead of American businesses just reflects a lack of understanding of the world as it actually exists.

---

You are making the mistakes the Democrats make when oil prices go up when a Republican is in office. The President really has limited impact on oil prices unless he bombs some place in the middle east or we go to war. Oil prices have not been impacted by his policies. High oil prices are here to stay and that has more to do with global pricing then domestic policy. This has been a high risk item we have faced as a country since the 1890's. It will only change once such an inelastic good is replaced with a less inelastic one.

---

My old man was an economist in the O&G industry for 25 years and I am just your standard macroeconomist. It has been 10 years or so, but I believe in grad school my professors would have called a take like this a "big oof."

dannyv said:

---

Neehau said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Cepe said:

---

If you really dig into "green energy " you see it's all a sham. Incredibly destructive environmentally and we haven't really gotten to the disposal of toxic wastes yet.

If the country wants to vote to move away from oil and gas that's fine but we need a comprehensive plan, including nuclear, to get us there. Just shutting off the spigot and making everyone suffer is not a plan and is actually detrimental because it will cause a rebound in the opposite direction.

---

That isn't what's happening however. OPEC and the war in Ukraine are leading to higher oil prices. Cutting off funding for green energy so we can hopefully eventually go mostly nuclear or solar is a very bad idea.

---

Ummm…no.

We're worried about OPEC because we aren't energy independent like we were in January, 2021. That's a direct result of Executive Orders signed by President Biden in his first few days. Those orders had a direct negative impact on the amount of oil America could produce. The price of oil started climbing immediately and most of the damage was done before Russia v Ukraine was on anyones mind. Biden's actions directly weakened our energy supply, please don't insult us by deflecting blame to someone else who was willing to take advantage of that weakness.

I'm genuinely curious about people that come on sites like this and make statements that are easily disproved. It's the same mindset that leads people to proclaim the AR15 as the deadliest civilian weapon in the nation despite the fact the truth is a available on more than one government website. You continue to make factually incorrect arguments to well informed people as if your bad info is going to make a difference. It just makes you look misinformed.

---

Unfortunately, your claims above, at least in terms of their impact on the macroeconomy, are wildly inaccurate. Oil price volatility has not been caused by President Bidens executive actions. There is ample analysis of this, in print, from knowledgeable people across the political scale (not Fox News pundits or other far right wing news sources shown to not be credible).

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/real-reasons-high-oil-and-gas-prices
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/high-oil-prices/

I could sit here and paraphrase these articles or you could just read them yourself. Biden is a putz for other reasons, not this one. He is still better than Herr Trump.

---

Let's do our own analysis. Let's see. WTI for August, 2022 delivery:
1/20/2021 - $53.24
2/9/2021 - $58.36 - 10% increase since inauguration
3/5/2021 - $66.09 - 24% increase since inauguration
7/1/2021 - $75.23 - 41% increase since inauguration
10/20/2021 - $83.87 - 58% increase since inauguration
11/10/2021 - $81.34 - 53% increase since inauguration - first sign of trouble as US notes troop movements.
Today - Almost 100% up from inauguration.

I'm willing to concede that after 11/10/2021 it's a mixed bag of war in eastern Europe and other factors but it's a fact that this admin is the most hostile we've ever had to the O&G industry at it looks like 53% of the current increase is on their hostility. Their basic message to the industry is, "Hey, we're going to shut you down just like we did coal but spend money to keep the price low until we do." It's absurd to think none of that matters and you're naive if you believe whatever you've read that suggests this admin's hostility isn't relevant.

In addition to the admin's hostility we have a Democrat party that for 20+ years has been quick to demand price concessions when prices are high but where were they in May, 2020 when the spot price was negative? Where were they in 2010 when prices were low and the industry was struggling? This is the most important commodity in the world and the US industry is literally the key to our financial and physical security and the Democrats attack it constantly then whine when they don't do anything to bring the price down at a time when the real world smacks them in the face. It's just simply irresponsible to fault anyone other than the career politicians that know nothing of the real world. The fact that you support career politicians instead of American businesses just reflects a lack of understanding of the world as it actually exists.

---

You are making the mistakes the Democrats make when oil prices go up when a Republican is in office. The President really has limited impact on oil prices unless he bombs some place in the middle east or we go to war. Oil prices have not been impacted by his policies. High oil prices are here to stay and that has more to do with global pricing then domestic policy. This has been a high risk item we have faced as a country since the 1890's. It will only change once such an inelastic good is replaced with a less inelastic one.

---

My old man was an economist in the O&G industry for 25 years and I am just your standard macroeconomist. It has been 10 years or so, but I believe in grad school my professors would have called a take like this a "big oof."

---

Unfortunately, the macroeconomic evidence doesn't support a contrary claim. I am happy to revise my stance on this with evidence such as multivariate regression or something of the sort isolating and analyzing the impact of Biden's policies. The overwhelming consensus among macroeconomists/experts is the exact opposite of this being categorized as a "big off".

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Cepe said:

---

If you really dig into "green energy " you see it's all a sham. Incredibly destructive environmentally and we haven't really gotten to the disposal of toxic wastes yet.

If the country wants to vote to move away from oil and gas that's fine but we need a comprehensive plan, including nuclear, to get us there. Just shutting off the spigot and making everyone suffer is not a plan and is actually detrimental because it will cause a rebound in the opposite direction.

---

That isn't what's happening however. OPEC and the war in Ukraine are leading to higher oil prices. Cutting off funding for green energy so we can hopefully eventually go mostly nuclear or solar is a very bad idea.

---

Ummm…no.

We're worried about OPEC because we aren't energy independent like we were in January, 2021. That's a direct result of Executive Orders signed by President Biden in his first few days. Those orders had a direct negative impact on the amount of oil America could produce. The price of oil started climbing immediately and most of the damage was done before Russia v Ukraine was on anyones mind. Biden's actions directly weakened our energy supply, please don't insult us by deflecting blame to someone else who was willing to take advantage of that weakness.

I'm genuinely curious about people that come on sites like this and make statements that are easily disproved. It's the same mindset that leads people to proclaim the AR15 as the deadliest civilian weapon in the nation despite the fact the truth is a available on more than one government website. You continue to make factually incorrect arguments to well informed people as if your bad info is going to make a difference. It just makes you look misinformed.

---

Unfortunately, your claims above, at least in terms of their impact on the macroeconomy, are wildly inaccurate. Oil price volatility has not been caused by President Bidens executive actions. There is ample analysis of this, in print, from knowledgeable people across the political scale (not Fox News pundits or other far right wing news sources shown to not be credible).

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/real-reasons-high-oil-and-gas-prices
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/high-oil-prices/

I could sit here and paraphrase these articles or you could just read them yourself. Biden is a putz for other reasons, not this one. He is still better than Herr Trump.

---

Let's do our own analysis. Let's see. WTI for August, 2022 delivery:
1/20/2021 - $53.24
2/9/2021 - $58.36 - 10% increase since inauguration
3/5/2021 - $66.09 - 24% increase since inauguration
7/1/2021 - $75.23 - 41% increase since inauguration
10/20/2021 - $83.87 - 58% increase since inauguration
11/10/2021 - $81.34 - 53% increase since inauguration - first sign of trouble as US notes troop movements.
Today - Almost 100% up from inauguration.

I'm willing to concede that after 11/10/2021 it's a mixed bag of war in eastern Europe and other factors but it's a fact that this admin is the most hostile we've ever had to the O&G industry at it looks like 53% of the current increase is on their hostility. Their basic message to the industry is, "Hey, we're going to shut you down just like we did coal but spend money to keep the price low until we do." It's absurd to think none of that matters and you're naive if you believe whatever you've read that suggests this admin's hostility isn't relevant.

In addition to the admin's hostility we have a Democrat party that for 20+ years has been quick to demand price concessions when prices are high but where were they in May, 2020 when the spot price was negative? Where were they in 2010 when prices were low and the industry was struggling? This is the most important commodity in the world and the US industry is literally the key to our financial and physical security and the Democrats attack it constantly then whine when they don't do anything to bring the price down at a time when the real world smacks them in the face. It's just simply irresponsible to fault anyone other than the career politicians that know nothing of the real world. The fact that you support career politicians instead of American businesses just reflects a lack of understanding of the world as it actually exists.

---

You are making the mistakes the Democrats make when oil prices go up when a Republican is in office. The President really has limited impact on oil prices unless he bombs some place in the middle east or we go to war. Oil prices have not been impacted by his policies. High oil prices are here to stay and that has more to do with global pricing then domestic policy. This has been a high risk item we have faced as a country since the 1890's. It will only change once such an inelastic good is replaced with a less inelastic one.

---

My God you're naive.

---

Misspelled "troll".

Neehau said:

---

dannyv said:

---

Neehau said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Cepe said:

---

If you really dig into "green energy " you see it's all a sham. Incredibly destructive environmentally and we haven't really gotten to the disposal of toxic wastes yet.

If the country wants to vote to move away from oil and gas that's fine but we need a comprehensive plan, including nuclear, to get us there. Just shutting off the spigot and making everyone suffer is not a plan and is actually detrimental because it will cause a rebound in the opposite direction.

---

That isn't what's happening however. OPEC and the war in Ukraine are leading to higher oil prices. Cutting off funding for green energy so we can hopefully eventually go mostly nuclear or solar is a very bad idea.

---

Ummm…no.

We're worried about OPEC because we aren't energy independent like we were in January, 2021. That's a direct result of Executive Orders signed by President Biden in his first few days. Those orders had a direct negative impact on the amount of oil America could produce. The price of oil started climbing immediately and most of the damage was done before Russia v Ukraine was on anyones mind. Biden's actions directly weakened our energy supply, please don't insult us by deflecting blame to someone else who was willing to take advantage of that weakness.

I'm genuinely curious about people that come on sites like this and make statements that are easily disproved. It's the same mindset that leads people to proclaim the AR15 as the deadliest civilian weapon in the nation despite the fact the truth is a available on more than one government website. You continue to make factually incorrect arguments to well informed people as if your bad info is going to make a difference. It just makes you look misinformed.

---

Unfortunately, your claims above, at least in terms of their impact on the macroeconomy, are wildly inaccurate. Oil price volatility has not been caused by President Bidens executive actions. There is ample analysis of this, in print, from knowledgeable people across the political scale (not Fox News pundits or other far right wing news sources shown to not be credible).

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/real-reasons-high-oil-and-gas-prices
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/high-oil-prices/

I could sit here and paraphrase these articles or you could just read them yourself. Biden is a putz for other reasons, not this one. He is still better than Herr Trump.

---

Let's do our own analysis. Let's see. WTI for August, 2022 delivery:
1/20/2021 - $53.24
2/9/2021 - $58.36 - 10% increase since inauguration
3/5/2021 - $66.09 - 24% increase since inauguration
7/1/2021 - $75.23 - 41% increase since inauguration
10/20/2021 - $83.87 - 58% increase since inauguration
11/10/2021 - $81.34 - 53% increase since inauguration - first sign of trouble as US notes troop movements.
Today - Almost 100% up from inauguration.

I'm willing to concede that after 11/10/2021 it's a mixed bag of war in eastern Europe and other factors but it's a fact that this admin is the most hostile we've ever had to the O&G industry at it looks like 53% of the current increase is on their hostility. Their basic message to the industry is, "Hey, we're going to shut you down just like we did coal but spend money to keep the price low until we do." It's absurd to think none of that matters and you're naive if you believe whatever you've read that suggests this admin's hostility isn't relevant.

In addition to the admin's hostility we have a Democrat party that for 20+ years has been quick to demand price concessions when prices are high but where were they in May, 2020 when the spot price was negative? Where were they in 2010 when prices were low and the industry was struggling? This is the most important commodity in the world and the US industry is literally the key to our financial and physical security and the Democrats attack it constantly then whine when they don't do anything to bring the price down at a time when the real world smacks them in the face. It's just simply irresponsible to fault anyone other than the career politicians that know nothing of the real world. The fact that you support career politicians instead of American businesses just reflects a lack of understanding of the world as it actually exists.

---

You are making the mistakes the Democrats make when oil prices go up when a Republican is in office. The President really has limited impact on oil prices unless he bombs some place in the middle east or we go to war. Oil prices have not been impacted by his policies. High oil prices are here to stay and that has more to do with global pricing then domestic policy. This has been a high risk item we have faced as a country since the 1890's. It will only change once such an inelastic good is replaced with a less inelastic one.

---

My old man was an economist in the O&G industry for 25 years and I am just your standard macroeconomist. It has been 10 years or so, but I believe in grad school my professors would have called a take like this a "big oof."

---

Unfortunately, the macroeconomic evidence doesn't support a contrary claim. I am happy to revise my stance on this with evidence such as multivariate regression or something of the sort isolating and analyzing the impact of Biden's policies. The overwhelming consensus among macroeconomists/experts is the exact opposite of this being categorized as a "big off".

---

Heck, you don't need that. Just look at how much you were paying for gas before Biden took office and compare it to how much you're paying now.

The proof is in the pudding.

dannyv said:

---

Neehau said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Neehau said:

---

Cepe said:

---

If you really dig into "green energy " you see it's all a sham. Incredibly destructive environmentally and we haven't really gotten to the disposal of toxic wastes yet.

If the country wants to vote to move away from oil and gas that's fine but we need a comprehensive plan, including nuclear, to get us there. Just shutting off the spigot and making everyone suffer is not a plan and is actually detrimental because it will cause a rebound in the opposite direction.

---

That isn't what's happening however. OPEC and the war in Ukraine are leading to higher oil prices. Cutting off funding for green energy so we can hopefully eventually go mostly nuclear or solar is a very bad idea.

---

Ummm…no.

We're worried about OPEC because we aren't energy independent like we were in January, 2021. That's a direct result of Executive Orders signed by President Biden in his first few days. Those orders had a direct negative impact on the amount of oil America could produce. The price of oil started climbing immediately and most of the damage was done before Russia v Ukraine was on anyones mind. Biden's actions directly weakened our energy supply, please don't insult us by deflecting blame to someone else who was willing to take advantage of that weakness.

I'm genuinely curious about people that come on sites like this and make statements that are easily disproved. It's the same mindset that leads people to proclaim the AR15 as the deadliest civilian weapon in the nation despite the fact the truth is a available on more than one government website. You continue to make factually incorrect arguments to well informed people as if your bad info is going to make a difference. It just makes you look misinformed.

---

Unfortunately, your claims above, at least in terms of their impact on the macroeconomy, are wildly inaccurate. Oil price volatility has not been caused by President Bidens executive actions. There is ample analysis of this, in print, from knowledgeable people across the political scale (not Fox News pundits or other far right wing news sources shown to not be credible).

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/real-reasons-high-oil-and-gas-prices
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/high-oil-prices/

I could sit here and paraphrase these articles or you could just read them yourself. Biden is a putz for other reasons, not this one. He is still better than Herr Trump.

---

Let's do our own analysis. Let's see. WTI for August, 2022 delivery:
1/20/2021 - $53.24
2/9/2021 - $58.36 - 10% increase since inauguration
3/5/2021 - $66.09 - 24% increase since inauguration
7/1/2021 - $75.23 - 41% increase since inauguration
10/20/2021 - $83.87 - 58% increase since inauguration
11/10/2021 - $81.34 - 53% increase since inauguration - first sign of trouble as US notes troop movements.
Today - Almost 100% up from inauguration.

I'm willing to concede that after 11/10/2021 it's a mixed bag of war in eastern Europe and other factors but it's a fact that this admin is the most hostile we've ever had to the O&G industry at it looks like 53% of the current increase is on their hostility. Their basic message to the industry is, "Hey, we're going to shut you down just like we did coal but spend money to keep the price low until we do." It's absurd to think none of that matters and you're naive if you believe whatever you've read that suggests this admin's hostility isn't relevant.

In addition to the admin's hostility we have a Democrat party that for 20+ years has been quick to demand price concessions when prices are high but where were they in May, 2020 when the spot price was negative? Where were they in 2010 when prices were low and the industry was struggling? This is the most important commodity in the world and the US industry is literally the key to our financial and physical security and the Democrats attack it constantly then whine when they don't do anything to bring the price down at a time when the real world smacks them in the face. It's just simply irresponsible to fault anyone other than the career politicians that know nothing of the real world. The fact that you support career politicians instead of American businesses just reflects a lack of understanding of the world as it actually exists.

---

You are making the mistakes the Democrats make when oil prices go up when a Republican is in office. The President really has limited impact on oil prices unless he bombs some place in the middle east or we go to war. Oil prices have not been impacted by his policies. High oil prices are here to stay and that has more to do with global pricing then domestic policy. This has been a high risk item we have faced as a country since the 1890's. It will only change once such an inelastic good is replaced with a less inelastic one.

---

My old man was an economist in the O&G industry for 25 years and I am just your standard macroeconomist. It has been 10 years or so, but I believe in grad school my professors would have called a take like this a "big oof."

---

Since your post appears to be a serious post from a serious scholar, I offer the following for your review and wlll a little more effort into this post. A key conclusion of this analysis is The real price of oil is affected the most under unexpected strong demand for alternative energy sources scenario.:

"This study proposes new measures of global energy market uncertainty.

Our uncertainty estimates display important differences from other proxies.

The real price of oil responds negatively to energy market uncertainty shocks.

We find heterogenous responses to different types of energy market uncertainties.

Oil prices drop considerably under strong alternative demand uncertainty scenario."

This paper is unique in that it uses a Monte Carlo simulation vis a vis Factor Augmented Vector Autoregression model to simulate energy market uncertainty with a set of normally distributed time series data.

Article

The article is behind a paywall so if you dont have access to this website I am happy to pay for you to have it for review.