Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Bounty66 t1_iwnxm5v wrote

Keep US oil for the US while we work to transition to better energy sources.

Nope! Sell all the crap on the international markets! Drive up prices everywhere with gouging and artificial scarcity! Investor bros love that shiz!

23

munchi333 t1_iwo5g6y wrote

How exactly does additional supply in the international market drive up prices?

14

whodatbeson t1_iwq69ai wrote

He said it wrong but we produce a hell of a lot more now than we consume. So if they really wanted to they would just ban exports on oil like pre 2016. Gas prices would sink but no one in the oil industry wants that

3

Xyrus2000 t1_iwoqzw5 wrote

Oil, like every other commodity, is traded on international markets and gets sold to the highest bidder. There is no way to "keep US oil for the US" short of the US government nationalizing the oil industry and forcing the cessation of exports.

The repercussions of such an action would be economically catastrophic. If you think prices are high now, wait until all of our trade partners jack prices through the roof as a result of a massive oil spike due to the US ceasing exports. It will drive already desperate countries to make concessions to places like Russia and Iran. It would not be pretty.

The US does not exist in a vacuum. Taking drastic unilateral action without seriously examining the consequences is not wise.

12

Mountain_Fig_9253 t1_iwp4k1j wrote

Fun fact, it used to be illegal to export oil from the US up until 2015. The repeal of the Crude Oil Export ban was the negotiating point that republicans used to re-open the government closure they had started.

13

dalkon t1_iwq3i0d wrote

The US banned oil exports from 1975 until December 2015. When Obama promised to veto the bill to approve exports, Republicans added it to appropriations bill. https://ballotpedia.org/Crude_oil_export_ban

This should be Democrats' talking point about high gas prices, because that is the reason our gas prices got so much higher.

6

Mountain_Fig_9253 t1_iwqqfxp wrote

It doesn’t matter. Every time I explain this to a conservative they just scream fake news. They can’t wrap their heads around the idea that Republicans actually shut the government down for this specific issue.

6

VikingBorealis t1_iwp92sd wrote

Yet people keep saying you need to appease Saudi and sell them weapons and help them null Yemeni so you can afford to buy their oil or the US will collapse...

1

bareboneschicken t1_iwo5ipr wrote

Those who export energy, import money. Best to get that money while we can.

−8

Roguecurv t1_iwocblb wrote

Best who get that money while they can? It ain't you and I playboy.

13

breaditbans t1_iwpsfn4 wrote

It is if you own any stock in the major oil producers. They pay some of the highest dividends of all equities. If have a pension or most 401k plans, you probably own some of these companies

1

Roguecurv t1_iwq1tpz wrote

And your pensions and 401ks are in the dirt while groceries are up 20%.

1

tickleMyBigPoop t1_iwp3wp5 wrote

$50,000-$70,000, depending on where you work, a year starting pay fresh out of high school.

Find me another job that pays that much fresh out of high school

−2

BoneyDanza t1_iwsiwg8 wrote

Do you mind doing solar installation? I worked 9 months and made 45k. That was after working in kitchens for 10 years with zero degree and I was 30. If you are 19 and you can lift or move, 50k is attainable after a few years.

If you want to make GOOD money, just learn everything about one industry. research the tools, methods, materials, where Jim puts his wrench, when the supervisor takes a smoke break, learn ALL of it. I worked under a guy at bookface that started as a tech with no degree. Within 5 years he was a 6 figure manager.

2

bareboneschicken t1_iwon2mq wrote

Better than it going to OPEC+. If American oil production was high enough, we could have forced a real embargo on Russian oil.

−3

myklob t1_iwonlbh wrote

We don't need to cut off the supply. We need to cut off demand. It is ridiculous all the people who drive cars that use gas say we should stop producing oil. The production by those evil oil and gas companies isn't the problem. You have met the enemy. The enemy is ourselves. The enemy is looking at us in the mirror. Buildings produce more global warming than transportation. Do you work or live in a building? Cows and agriculture produce more global warming than transportation. Europe, Africa, and South America all need energy. People may starve. It's not a joke. It's not a time for everyone to share their feelings and thoughts who have never thought about it and had to deal with how the world is instead of just how they wish the world were. People in Pakistan have no energy because they are getting priced out of the markets because of the Russia/Ukraine situation. And you demand that we cut off the supply, without thinking about the consequences, because voters that use oil and gas in their cars and homes are hypocrites, and demand that politicians live in a make-believe world, in which food just magically appears because spoiled western hypocrites think tractors can operate on dreams and fairy dust. Is it better that poor Asians, Africans, and South Americans get 100% of their energy from Russia, Saudi Arabia, or the US? OPEC is run like a diamond monopoly, and they artificially raise the prices, kill gays, and objectify and dominate women. Why don't we tax THE USE OF OIL AND GAS, not the production? Shouldn't we demand to know that people who say we should not produce oil and gas put their lives where their mouths are and prove to us that they do not live in houses or use transportation? Or explain why it is better for South America to get oil and gas from Russia than us?

−1

bareboneschicken t1_iwoo4us wrote

There are taxes on consumption. People pay at the pump. Are those taxes high enough? Perhaps not but you'll look long and hard before you find a politician with the will to raise them.

1

Dylan-Baddour OP t1_iwnu33s wrote

OP and author here. This is the future that wealthy energy executives and many public officials are working toward. Only a handful of activists showed up to protest.

18

No-Hospital559 t1_iwo0r32 wrote

Oil and gas are way more profitable in overseas markets. The limited supply is a myth. The more we drill here, the more we export.

18

Dylan-Baddour OP t1_iwo3xlm wrote

Also important to note that we’ve only been exporting since 2016

9

bobniborg1 t1_iwo6245 wrote

Who made that change?

0

Dylan-Baddour OP t1_iwo6891 wrote

Obama and the US Congress https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fiscal-oil/congress-kills-u-s-oil-export-ban-boosts-solar-wind-power-idUSKBN0U121U20151219

11

VikingBorealis t1_iwpa7p7 wrote

You forgot the say because the Republican closed the government and decided to be a kindergarten

4

bigolenate t1_iwo3wvo wrote

Maybe something like export tariffs to keep US oil in the US?

1

No-Hospital559 t1_iwo40uv wrote

I agree but we would have to get that passed by a congress bought and paid for by the oil industry.

3

SillyNluv t1_iwntoqb wrote

Screw that. I thought we were working to get away for a reliance on oil?

13

myklob t1_iwonmrp wrote

We don't need to cut off the supply. We need to cut off demand. It is ridiculous all the people who drive cars that use gas say we should stop producing oil. The production by those evil oil and gas companies isn't the problem. You have met the enemy. The enemy is ourselves. The enemy is looking at us in the mirror. Buildings produce more global warming than transportation. Do you work or live in a building? Cows and agriculture produce more global warming than transportation. Europe, Africa, and South America all need energy. People may starve. It's not a joke. It's not a time for everyone to share their feelings and thoughts who have never thought about it and had to deal with how the world is instead of just how they wish the world were. People in Pakistan have no energy because they are getting priced out of the markets because of the Russia/Ukraine situation. And you demand that we cut off the supply, without thinking about the consequences, because voters that use oil and gas in their cars and homes are hypocrites, and demand that politicians live in a make-believe world, in which food just magically appears because spoiled western hypocrites think tractors can operate on dreams and fairy dust. Is it better that poor Asians, Africans, and South Americans get 100% of their energy from Russia, Saudi Arabia, or the US? OPEC is run like a diamond monopoly, and they artificially raise the prices, kill gays, and objectify and dominate women. Why don't we tax THE USE OF OIL AND GAS, not the production? Shouldn't we demand to know that people who say we should not produce oil and gas put their lives where their mouths are and prove to us that they do not live in houses or use transportation? Or explain why South America should get oil and gas from Russia than us?

2

SillyNluv t1_iwpv6r7 wrote

I’m sure you’re making valid points. It’s hard to wade through the recrimination.

More specifically, I don’t think we need to build even more infrastructure for a fuel source that’s being phased out. I am not knowledgeable about the industry and am open to learning more.

From what little I’ve read on the matter, there isn’t a shortage and the price increases are due to greed because the cost of a barrel of oil hasn’t increased.

I welcome more correct information , if you’d like, but settle down so I can hear you.

6

myrd13 t1_iwpzezm wrote

There isn't a shortage of oil, that is a truth... I guess u/myklob's point is we are trying to have our cake and eat it. We can't push for a reduction in coal/oil-based expenditure while living lives that necessitate the need for continuous non-renewable energy production.

One key example is in whatever space you are in right now (assuming it's a building) is probably at least 70% based on non-renewable energy sources, whether it's concrete for the walls that need coal, phone/laptop/cables that are crude-oil based...

Personally, I see the problem but I can't really see us finding a solution

7

SillyNluv t1_iwpzyy7 wrote

Thank you for your measured response. I would say I agree with you.

3

myklob t1_iwrxnix wrote

Thank you for your kind, thoughtful, intelligent response. Let me try again without the recrimination. I'm an electrical engineer with my US green building council certification. I'm very interested in developing a green future. I support a carbon tax. I also believe that we need to tax industry to make them pay for their negative externalities. I'm not an economist but it's a term that I have heard here or there. Basically a negative externality is when you dump garbage in a river. It's free to you. But you make the community pay for your laziness. By external people are trying to say that The people who do the damage are not the same people who feel the damage. So I do believe that government needs to construct a framework where polluters pay for the damage they do. I have to say all of that because you're not going to like what I say next. But I need you to understand that I hope you don't dismiss me as a person who doesn't care about the environment. My concern is environmentalist often cause harm when they oppose improvement because the improvement isn't perfect. For me, the clearest example is opposition to liquid natural gas. Before I transition to my current job, I was in the LNG industry. Basically 10 of the largest boats produce more pollution than almost all of Europe's vehicles put together. These massive super tankers use bunker oil as their fuel. Bunker oil is the worst stuff on Earth. However, it's a cheap way of moving large boats. I was part of a project that was putting in LNG infrastructure so boats could be retrofitted to burn l&g instead of bunker fuel. Now LNG is not perfect. However everyone on the planet should agree that LNG is better than bunker fuel. However, environmentalist try to stop the project and they do stop LNG projects all over the planet because they are two idealistic and don't want gradual improvement. They want perfection. They go so far as to want perfection even when there is no green method of moving boats. They are working on batteries large enough or powerful enough to move super tankers but they just do not exist. Therefore, you have to choose between bunker fuel and LNG. Or you could be a hypocrite and just not want to send grain to Africa or South America. Because the only way of moving massive amounts of grain to Africa or South America is with very large boats. So my problem is when people don't think through the consequences of their idealistic goals. So back to Texas and their pipeline for getting oil out to the tankers. This is an improvement in efficiency. If we don't want to export oil and gas, we should just ban it, but we shouldn't require oil and gas companies to operate in a inefficiently. As an engineer, I hate inefficiency. Environmentalists tend to oppose oil and gas improvements in efficiency even when they would reduce the carbon output. Environmentalist often say anything in oil and gas company does is bad. However, I have a massive problem with that... If we don't want to export oil and gas, we should just regulate it so much that it will not be able to compete. We should just tax it so much and plant trees to offset the neck negative externalities until it goes out of business. However, we should not oppose construction projects that improve efficiency.

3

SillyNluv t1_iwrzrtq wrote

Thank you for writing this out. And I understand what you’re saying, I think.

I am not deep into the environmentalist movement but I do support their goals. Seeing this made me think that big, powerful companies are ignoring the will of citizens to continue their glutinous business endeavors.

By pointing out that building these facilities will make their operations more efficient and less likely to cause problems v their old way of handling it, I can see the value of the project.

1

myklob t1_iwwubrs wrote

Thanks again! I don't know anything about this project in particular, and perhaps like the people I am frustrated at, perhaps I am oversimplifying and assuming it is good because it is efficient... Who knows!

2

VikingBorealis t1_iwp9c7t wrote

See the thing is. USA is a rich nation, you will be off oil "fast and easy", but many other third world nations will still need to buy oil.

The irony is that while this should be the truth. Half the US na ion is acting like Neanderthals and refusing to move into the future and letting third world countries outpace the US in dropping reliance on fossil fuels.

1

SillyNluv t1_iwpvp3m wrote

We do have a Neanderthal problem right now. But I think our bigger problem is not the people, who must make smaller changes, rather the corporations causing the bigger problems.

The people alone cannot make the necessary changes until we get our large corporations brought to heel.

1

VikingBorealis t1_iwq12od wrote

The people are and always has been the ones to force major change.

Name one (positive)change that hasn't been vmcause by a united people. All revolutions are by people workers rights and such, people, voting rights and we'll all rights, people, United.

2

SillyNluv t1_iwq1lrd wrote

I’m with you in that the people force the necessary changes. I’m saying that my recycling of plastic isn’t doing much in the big scheme.

1

VikingBorealis t1_iwqjyzv wrote

I'd say that in Europe where a high percentage of plastic is recycled, it would have a large impact if we stopped.

1

SillyNluv t1_iwrtst7 wrote

Ah. I’m in the US and it’s very unclear whether the recyclables we separate are actually being recycled.

1

Equivalent-Ice-7274 t1_iwo3hmr wrote

I’m left-leaning but energy prices are sky high right now, and people are hurting because of it. We NEED to keep producing oil until we have a sufficient supply of renewable energy. Unless you are ok with everyone paying $300 for a sandwich, and $50 for a bag of chips?

0

SillyNluv t1_iwo6o9c wrote

Energy prices are sky high now due to greed. And if we NEED to keep producing oil to off-set that, we probably shouldn’t sell it to other countries.

14

tickleMyBigPoop t1_iwp3ysq wrote

> Energy prices are sky high now due to greed

It was the year 2022 when corporations discovered greed

1

Kingofthetreaux t1_iwo8nnv wrote

...if you believe what you just we’re fucked. You can’t say 30 year inflation high without saying highest profits in 70 years in the same breath.

7

Dylan-Baddour OP t1_iwoa2w1 wrote

Prices at home are high, in large part, because the US is exporting oil now. (US export ban was only liften in Dec 2015.)

3

tickleMyBigPoop t1_iwp40yw wrote

Lol that has nothing to do it with. Especially seeing as US shale isn’t profitable at low price points

1

mikeyt6969 t1_iwo46o8 wrote

It doesn’t matter if it’s processed off shore or in the middle of Nebraska, nobody gains a thing except the oil company.

7

DamonFields t1_iwoan04 wrote

So oil companies can export more processed oil to foreign countries depleting our stocks and thereby raising our prices and raking in higher profits. Oh, the joy!

4

Crizbibble t1_iwpp0nr wrote

They will process Caribbean and South/Central American oil too. Some US oil.

1

myklob t1_iwonpy1 wrote

Our prices do not have anything to do with how much oil we store in the ground.

0

Miserly_Bastard t1_iwopy2q wrote

Not exactly. Reducing the cost of trade means that international buyers can afford to bid higher to more cheaply buy our oil instead of from somewhere else, like Saudi Arabia.

If that results in higher prices locally then that will induce more production, which results in a larger market share and a diminished influence of OPEC on global oil prices.

The equilibrium is a small bit of a price effect and a large effect on the quantity supplied through exports.

You'd think that the climate effect would be adverse, but if this takes pricing power away from OPEC and Russia...it could possibly net a gain. I guarantee you that Russia doesn't care if the planet gets warmer and that in both instances there are few qualms regarding greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel production. Claiming more market share from them could be an effective strategy.

Also, human rights, blah blah blah, and all that jazz.

0

Osxachre t1_iwnzzb6 wrote

And yet there's a critical shortage of diesel fuel?

1

Mountain_Fig_9253 t1_iwp4rlg wrote

The issue with diesel fuel is refining. Back in 2020 Trump negotiated a historic production cut with the US and OPEC+ that extended out to 2022. After that production cut was finalized a number of east coast diesel refineries shut down permanently. The ones remaining are running at 103% of capacity and there is no spare capacity to bring on line.

Refineries historically have been the money losing part of the oil and gas system so there isn’t much financial incentive to build new ones. It’s a systemic infrastructure issue, not a supply issue.

2

Osxachre t1_iwpw0cl wrote

You just described it exactly. They need to start them up again, even so far as to give them incentives, IMO.

2

Mountain_Fig_9253 t1_iwqqn8h wrote

Now you are talking socialism.

I agree, they should but my lord would the right explode in furious anger.

2

Osxachre t1_iwqvqc3 wrote

The price of diesel would drop and that would help inflation.

1

BigBadMur t1_iwowllq wrote

Isn't there something wrong here? Aren't we supposed to be cutting down on fossil fuels?

1

Dylan-Baddour OP t1_iwoyv17 wrote

There is something wrong. We are supposed to be cutting fossil fuels. But our leaders say whatever brings the votes then do whatever brings the money.

1

Black_RL t1_iwrcs9g wrote

And that’s how we fight climate changes guys and gals!

Right?

Wait……

Never forget plastic folks.

1

ThePopeOnWeed t1_ix08orb wrote

So if there's that much extra capacity for export, why are we still importing on Saudi oil?

1

TheArmed501st t1_iwopm0s wrote

Kill CEO profits permanently and their “overheads” and ban stock trading from them. Then youll see prices go back to normal

0

tickleMyBigPoop t1_iwp42sk wrote

I see you have no idea how commodities prices work

1

TheArmed501st t1_iwp8net wrote

A company can run without a CEO raking in millions and billions and using none of it for their workers, working them to the bone for measly pay compared to what the ceo does sitting in the posh office telling the shareholders what they wanna hear and telling them how much theyre screwing everyone and the climate over with a smile on their face.

0

tickleMyBigPoop t1_iwpapky wrote

I see you have no idea how commodities prices work

Are you going to keep on showing us the results of the American education system

2

TheArmed501st t1_iwpbbzx wrote

Are you going to be a one track record are you going to be a one track record?

0