Jump to content

US Oil Independence (re: Ukraine/Russia conflict)


RunInRed

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

You're going to get a lot of reaction from the words "relative equality".

I understand what you are getting at though - democracy thrives when there is a very large middle class where the opportunity to participate in it is equally provided to all people.

(Oh, shucks, now I have to find a more euphemistic way to say "equally provided".  ;D)

Yes and, I believe capitalism at it's best is very competitive and broadly, relatively equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





On 2/28/2022 at 12:12 PM, bigbird said:

I think both are true. We should consume less and raise domestic production to become independent. Our equilibrium point needs to be adjusted, IMO.

We produce enough to be independent now and I agree that we can produce more.  The problem is that, like many things, this is more complicated due to the government's lack of direct control over supply.  I'm not arguing that the government should have more control, but that dichotomy has to be considered when comparing imports/exports and supply issues as compared with some other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Democracy is, IMHO, already threatened by the wealthiest Americans. 

It's hard to say definitively that our democracy is not already an oligarchy. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, McLoofus said:

It's hard to say definitively that our democracy is not already an oligarchy. 

Restoring the "Government of the People" should be our primary political goal.  It should be unifying.  Partisan politics is nothing but a distraction.  A divided society has no chance against the political and capital classes. 

The reason those people rioted on January 6th was the election but, the simmering anger that allowed them to be manipulated is something else.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Restoring the "Government of the People" should be our primary political goal.  It should be unifying.  Partisan politics is nothing but a distraction.  A divided society has no chance against the political and capital classes. 

The reason those people rioted on January 6th was the election but, the simmering anger that allowed them to be manipulated is something else.

No doubt. And they're really good at the divisive rhetoric, because I know you're right and I still mix myself up in it. 

You're also right that 1/6 and trump are a symptom (singular intentionally) and not the disease. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why can we not get Saudi to raise production? they have done it before ans i am thinking trump gave them a buttload of money over something {someone will have to remind me }. i have read in the past where they have slowed down production but i never fact checked it. but i will never be for fracking because all i ever hear is it destroys groundwater tables to the point water is useless. i have seen the water pouring from the taps in homes where the water used to be great. but why not pressure Saudi to ramp up to help get over this tight spot. i am pretty sure obama or W did this and they even let some of our stockpile go to help things.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Partisan politics is nothing but a distraction.  A divided society has no chance against the political and capital classes. 

How do think identity politics plays a roll in a divided society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RunInRed

 

Don't let people fool you into thinking that the US isn't energy independent when it comes to oil. We are and have been been for quite some time. Look at it this way, just two of the formations in the Permian Basin have enough proven oil reserves to supply global demand for an entire year. That is just two formations. Texas alone produces more oil than every other country except for Russia and Saudi Arabia. 

Yes it is more difficult to extract from the Permian, but technology has lowered the break even point so much that portions of the basin considered uneconomical have break even points in the $30-40 a barrel range. 

The biggest influence a president has on oil production is mostly how they handle leasing out the acreage to the operators. Keep in mind that the production of crude oil and everything along the way to the end product is a cash cow for the government's coffers. They get money from the leases, money via the royalties (certain parts of offshore and also federal lands), money via taxes on modes of transport, taxes on companies refining it, and taxes on it at the pump etc. By the time it gets to it's end user the government has made way more per gallon than the tax posted at the pump. So trying to lay blame on any president is just a way to point fingers at someone they don't like. I have posted some of the Biden stickers that say "I did that" with him pointing to the price of gas. But that's in joking reference. 

We aren't independent because in reality it is a global market with oil. The only way to be independent is to totally isolate ourselves with regard to oil. But at what costs? How much will our price of oil be if it is separated from the outside benefits of a larger market? That may drive up costs, put us at risk of losing jobs, more jobs going overseas, etc.

It is more about the oil companies feeling like they want to ramp up production, how fast, how will OPEC react, etc. It is now about OPEC flooding the market and trying to crash US shale companies. Look at it this way, OPEC tried to get Texas to join OPEC+ which is essentially a few extra countries that are a part of OPEC but it is more of a gentleman's agreement. Texas declined, but don't think that the Texas Railroad Commission (they oversee natural resources) doesn't have a direct line into OPEC. 

We get oil from 32 states (I think that is still the current number).

So technically we are independent by reserves and capability, but dependent from geopolitical aspect and global market view. Which is largely out of any president's control. 

BTW, I am in oil and gas. 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

How do think identity politics plays a roll in a divided society?

That depends upon whether we talk about what it is or, how it is used.

It is mostly used because it is an excellent tool to manipulate people based on fear, bias, prejudice.  It has always been used by those with power to manipulate those without power. It was used in the South before it ever even existed.  Fear of Black people was cultivated, prejudice was cultivated even though slaves had no power, no movement.  In the end, poor white dirt-farmers were willing to die for a cause that they really couldn't articulate.

Keeping society divided has a long history.  I believe it was Jay Gould who, during the gilded age was asked if he feared a populist revolt.  His answer was no, I can always pay one half of America to kill the other half.

It really shouldn't be an issue.  Most identity groups simply want to be treated equally, fairly, respectfully.  In this country, with our Constitution, that shouldn't even be debatable.  
 

There is no "War on....................", only ourselves.  It obscures the imbalance of power.

 

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

@RunInRed

 

Don't let people fool you into thinking that the US isn't energy independent when it comes to oil. We are and have been been for quite some time. Look at it this way, just two of the formations in the Permian Basin have enough proven oil reserves to supply global demand for an entire year. That is just two formations. Texas alone produces more oil than every other country except for Russia and Saudi Arabia. 

Yes it is more difficult to extract from the Permian, but technology has lowered the break even point so much that portions of the basin considered uneconomical have break even points in the $30-40 a barrel range. 

The biggest influence a president has on oil production is mostly how they handle leasing out the acreage to the operators. Keep in mind that the production of crude oil and everything along the way to the end product is a cash cow for the government's coffers. They get money from the leases, money via the royalties (certain parts of offshore and also federal lands), money via taxes on modes of transport, taxes on companies refining it, and taxes on it at the pump etc. By the time it gets to it's end user the government has made way more per gallon than the tax posted at the pump. So trying to lay blame on any president is just a way to point fingers at someone they don't like. I have posted some of the Biden stickers that say "I did that" with him pointing to the price of gas. But that's in joking reference. 

We aren't independent because in reality it is a global market with oil. The only way to be independent is to totally isolate ourselves with regard to oil. But at what costs? How much will our price of oil be if it is separated from the outside benefits of a larger market? That may drive up costs, put us at risk of losing jobs, more jobs going overseas, etc.

It is more about the oil companies feeling like they want to ramp up production, how fast, how will OPEC react, etc. It is now about OPEC flooding the market and trying to crash US shale companies. Look at it this way, OPEC tried to get Texas to join OPEC+ which is essentially a few extra countries that are a part of OPEC but it is more of a gentleman's agreement. Texas declined, but don't think that the Texas Railroad Commission (they oversee natural resources) doesn't have a direct line into OPEC. 

We get oil from 32 states (I think that is still the current number).

So technically we are independent by reserves and capability, but dependent from geopolitical aspect and global market view. Which is largely out of any president's control. 

BTW, I am in oil and gas. 

 

Thank you.  I have been trying to get people to understand this for a while.  You stated it very clearly.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

@RunInRed

 

Don't let people fool you into thinking that the US isn't energy independent when it comes to oil. We are and have been been for quite some time. Look at it this way, just two of the formations in the Permian Basin have enough proven oil reserves to supply global demand for an entire year. That is just two formations. Texas alone produces more oil than every other country except for Russia and Saudi Arabia. 

Yes it is more difficult to extract from the Permian, but technology has lowered the break even point so much that portions of the basin considered uneconomical have break even points in the $30-40 a barrel range. 

The biggest influence a president has on oil production is mostly how they handle leasing out the acreage to the operators. Keep in mind that the production of crude oil and everything along the way to the end product is a cash cow for the government's coffers. They get money from the leases, money via the royalties (certain parts of offshore and also federal lands), money via taxes on modes of transport, taxes on companies refining it, and taxes on it at the pump etc. By the time it gets to it's end user the government has made way more per gallon than the tax posted at the pump. So trying to lay blame on any president is just a way to point fingers at someone they don't like. I have posted some of the Biden stickers that say "I did that" with him pointing to the price of gas. But that's in joking reference. 

We aren't independent because in reality it is a global market with oil. The only way to be independent is to totally isolate ourselves with regard to oil. But at what costs? How much will our price of oil be if it is separated from the outside benefits of a larger market? That may drive up costs, put us at risk of losing jobs, more jobs going overseas, etc.

It is more about the oil companies feeling like they want to ramp up production, how fast, how will OPEC react, etc. It is now about OPEC flooding the market and trying to crash US shale companies. Look at it this way, OPEC tried to get Texas to join OPEC+ which is essentially a few extra countries that are a part of OPEC but it is more of a gentleman's agreement. Texas declined, but don't think that the Texas Railroad Commission (they oversee natural resources) doesn't have a direct line into OPEC. 

We get oil from 32 states (I think that is still the current number).

So technically we are independent by reserves and capability, but dependent from geopolitical aspect and global market view. Which is largely out of any president's control. 

BTW, I am in oil and gas. 

 

well i did hear you were full of gas........lol. i meant that light hearted for the record...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also the Keystone XL is always a great “fall guy” for people to point to. We are still getting that same oil, it just comes by rail instead of pipelines. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

@RunInRed

 

Don't let people fool you into thinking that the US isn't energy independent when it comes to oil. We are and have been been for quite some time. Look at it this way, just two of the formations in the Permian Basin have enough proven oil reserves to supply global demand for an entire year. That is just two formations. Texas alone produces more oil than every other country except for Russia and Saudi Arabia. 

Yes it is more difficult to extract from the Permian, but technology has lowered the break even point so much that portions of the basin considered uneconomical have break even points in the $30-40 a barrel range. 

The biggest influence a president has on oil production is mostly how they handle leasing out the acreage to the operators. Keep in mind that the production of crude oil and everything along the way to the end product is a cash cow for the government's coffers. They get money from the leases, money via the royalties (certain parts of offshore and also federal lands), money via taxes on modes of transport, taxes on companies refining it, and taxes on it at the pump etc. By the time it gets to it's end user the government has made way more per gallon than the tax posted at the pump. So trying to lay blame on any president is just a way to point fingers at someone they don't like. I have posted some of the Biden stickers that say "I did that" with him pointing to the price of gas. But that's in joking reference. 

We aren't independent because in reality it is a global market with oil. The only way to be independent is to totally isolate ourselves with regard to oil. But at what costs? How much will our price of oil be if it is separated from the outside benefits of a larger market? That may drive up costs, put us at risk of losing jobs, more jobs going overseas, etc.

It is more about the oil companies feeling like they want to ramp up production, how fast, how will OPEC react, etc. It is now about OPEC flooding the market and trying to crash US shale companies. Look at it this way, OPEC tried to get Texas to join OPEC+ which is essentially a few extra countries that are a part of OPEC but it is more of a gentleman's agreement. Texas declined, but don't think that the Texas Railroad Commission (they oversee natural resources) doesn't have a direct line into OPEC. 

We get oil from 32 states (I think that is still the current number).

So technically we are independent by reserves and capability, but dependent from geopolitical aspect and global market view. Which is largely out of any president's control. 

BTW, I am in oil and gas. 

 

 

 

Thanks for the insight. The oil economy and America's place in it is an issue I've been confused about and didn't really understand. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

 

Thanks for the insight. The oil economy and America's place in it is an issue I've been confused about and didn't really understand. 

Yeah it’s a little complicated when you consider that the US is mostly capitalistic with regards to the oil industry and most other countries it’s a government run industry. I say mostly capitalistic because a handful of states have laws in place that allows them to limit oil production. Texas is one of them and OPEC was actually modeled after the way the Texas Railroad Commission regulated the oil industry. 
 

Frac-ing bans, pipeline bans, etc all make for great rhetoric for both sides really. But in reality there’s already work arounds that keep the oil flowing. Typically it’s hydraulic fracturing that is the hot topic, but there are other ways to achieve the same results.
 

It’s the leases that matter, hence why Biden allowed the sale of more leases even right after the climate meeting. That’s essential to national security and revenue and he knows that, those leases may not even produce oil for 15-20 years down the road. But oil companies need them on their books because it takes that long to plan out and execute. 
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@wdefromtx, you mentioned in an earlier post, that the break even point for production of the Permian is around $30-40 a barrel.  Oil in now selling over $110 a barrel as of yesterday.  Profits could be made.

The optics of buying Russian oil in the middle of Russia invading Ukraine does not sit well with the population as a whole.  The oil industry is a for profit organization and, I assume, would not voluntarily sacrifice profits for the perceived notion of sanctioning Russia as an independent industry in the US.

During a crisis, our leaders have asked industry to *help out* in certain ways.  Do you think this is possible in this incident?  How would it be viewed by the oil industry as a whole?  Would the US get blow back from other governments that control their respective oil companies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

@wdefromtx, you mentioned in an earlier post, that the break even point for production of the Permian is around $30-40 a barrel.  Oil in now selling over $110 a barrel as of yesterday.  Profits could be made.

The optics of buying Russian oil in the middle of Russia invading Ukraine does not sit well with the population as a whole.  The oil industry is a for profit organization and, I assume, would not voluntarily sacrifice profits for the perceived notion of sanctioning Russia as an independent industry in the US.

During a crisis, our leaders have asked industry to *help out* in certain ways.  Do you think this is possible in this incident?  How would it be viewed by the oil industry as a whole?  Would the US get blow back from other governments that control their respective oil companies?

Profits can definitely be made for sure. And right now they are reaping the benefits of the price. It is already estimated that US production will be increasing by nearly 840,000 barrels a day by the end of 2022 mostly from the Permian. I don't have the latest numbers but there are probably still about 2,000 wells that are drilled and sitting there waiting to be completed and production started. 

I agree that our leaders have asked in the past that industries help out in a crisis. But with oil they can't just open the taps and flood the market to bring the price down, without major blowback from other countries. OPEC and OPEC+ might retaliate, which they did in 2014 when they tried to put all the US shale companies out of business. They are ramping up production already though, right now the bottleneck is enough crews, equipment, etc. to complete the wells. This is largely due to the fact that OPEC decimated shale producers from about 2014-2019 and then the virus hit. So tons of workers bailed on oil and decided to never go back. But production is increasing.

For oil sanctions to work the US needs many other countries to go along, but Europe doesn't want to do that because they will be hurt the most and they don't want Russia to retaliate more in the future. Honestly it is their own fault for relying on Russia so heavily to begin with. Without other countries willing to sanction oil along with the US any US sanction alone is largely symbolic in nature. We only import about 7% of Russian petroleum products. That would cause the price of oil to increase, not by market fundamentals but by panic and fear. Which would probably offset a lot of the lost revenue they would get from those exports. And Putin still may retaliate against Europe just based on US involvement anyways. Honestly, Biden is in a bad spot. If he sanctions oil and prices soar and it does not hurt Russia financially and stop this he will look bad. On the flipside no oil sanctions looks bad as well to people that don't see all the parts at play here. He took the safe route saying no sanctions because it will hurt American families. In reality I am sure he is being pressured by other countries to not get them in a tight spot with oil, gas, etc. with Russia. If the US intervenes Putin will try to make everyone else suffer.

Decisions made in the 60's to 90's are starting to bite Europeans in the @$$. Whoever thought relying on Russia for their energy needs was a dumb idea, There really is no logical quick solution to replace that gas. Until a large collection of countries are willing to band together to squeeze Russia nothing will really deter them. 

Perhaps if we could get the price of oil to tank down to almost nothing we could sanction Russia that way. LOL Doubt Saudi Arabia would go along with that. 

Hopefully this gives a better picture of why we are or aren't doing certain things with the oil companies and sanctions. 

Edited by wdefromtx
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@wdefromtx, thanks.  With their deal with China and European’s dependency on Russian oil and gas, the world is between a rock and a hard place on this.  I wish I felt better about the outcome.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

@wdefromtx, thanks.  With their deal with China and European’s dependency on Russian oil and gas, the world is between a rock and a hard place on this.  I wish I felt better about the outcome.

Yeah, and Russia knew what they were doing all these years. They were playing the long game and decided to cash out some of their chips. The US has their hands tied, if we intervene Russia will cripple various major countries as revenge. We won't be one of them, but every country will blame us. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Yeah, and Russia knew what they were doing all these years. They were playing the long game and decided to cash out some of their chips. The US has their hands tied, if we intervene Russia will cripple various major countries as revenge. We won't be one of them, but every country will blame us. 

I wouldn’t, but somebody may call that genius.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Yeah, and Russia knew what they were doing all these years. They were playing the long game and decided to cash out some of their chips. The US has their hands tied, if we intervene Russia will cripple various major countries as revenge. We won't be one of them, but every country will blame us. 

What if an economic alliance is created that buys/sells with a currency that is not the dollar?  I think that would hurt us significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

What if an economic alliance is created that buys/sells with a currency that is not the dollar?  I think that would hurt us significantly.

For sure it would hurt us big time. We'd be f**ked if Russia strong armed some of our allies into an alliance like that. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2022 at 5:38 PM, wdefromtx said:

Also the Keystone XL is always a great “fall guy” for people to point to. We are still getting that same oil, it just comes by rail instead of pipelines. 

Keystone XL has suffered from a decade of hilarious and hyperbolic messaging from both parties. Dems think it's bad for the environment even though we have tens of thousands of miles of pipelines and it's by far the best way to move oil. Pubs think building the pipeline is the ticket back to $1 gas even though the Keystone pipeline already exists. XL was to take a shorter, more direct route to the refineries. I have a degree in supply chain management and I cringe every time I hear about it. It's a great punching bag if you need re election though. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, WalkingCarpet said:

Keystone XL has suffered from a decade of hilarious and hyperbolic messaging from both parties. Dems think it's bad for the environment even though we have tens of thousands of miles of pipelines and it's by far the best way to move oil. Pubs think building the pipeline is the ticket back to $1 gas even though the Keystone pipeline already exists. XL was to take a shorter, more direct route to the refineries. I have a degree in supply chain management and I cringe every time I hear about it. It's a great punching bag if you need re election though. 

Exactly!!! 

  • Like 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2022 at 9:11 AM, TexasTiger said:

“Half true” overstates their own assessment. They point out many caveats (one is that oil, if produced, can be transported in other ways to refineries. We could also build refineries closer to the production), the most critical of which, those theoretical 800k barrels would still have been years away having zero impact on the current situation. Given the assertion claimed, it’s more accurate to frame it as a big lie wrapped around a kernel of truth.

They are shipping oil by truck and train now. There is a fallacy that not completing the pipeline STOPPED the use of the oil. It did not. We maybe would be getting more oil from US sources. Not completing the pipeline was just politics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

They are shipping oil by truck and train now. There is a fallacy that not completing the pipeline STOPPED the use of the oil. It did not. We maybe would be getting more oil from US sources. Not completing the pipeline was just politics.

Treating not completing XL as having an impact on current gas prices is pure politics, zero fact.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...