DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Gasoline

You can always count on a lefty to take one of the more complicated geopolitical issues of our time involving the Kurds, Syria and turkey and try to make it something simple like “abandon”. Next thing you know you will be telling us trump abandoned nato. Lol

How is he wrong?

It was significant enough to cause that “lefty” James Mattis to resign.

Did you actually expect him to address the topic when I answered his question?

as much as I expected you or Old to reply to my last comments

I'm not sure what part of it you want me to respond to. In a lot of those cases we actually agree. In most cases I agree that a president has very little influence on gas prices. I do however understand that when Trump threatened to stop our military support from Saudi Arabia it most certainly had a direct result by them cutting their production. Which is what a person would do if they are only thinking in the moment and not the long term ramifications of what that action may result in. We are still paying the long term consequences of that decision.

I agree that releasing our oil reserves is like putting a band aid on a bullet wound. It makes for great headlines for people who don't know any better but that's about it.

As far as how much the price of oil was influenced by the war in Ukraine that's a topic up for debate. As to your comments on how much the price of gas went up before the war started verses how much it went up after the war started, your numbers seem to me to be correct. But the fact is that oil prices are set according to the futures market. Often time prices fluctuating upwards is as much based on what they think "might happen" rather than what is actually happening at the moment. They are set as a protection for the oil market based on what may happen in the future. So while your figures are correct I'm not sure how much of the price increase before the war broke out was predicated on the build up of Russian troops and the prediction of a coming war looming. I don't believe either of us can make a fact based conclusion about that.

As it pertains to price gouging. Once again I agree with your statement that when oil prices increase we see an immediate rise at the pump and when oil prices decrease it takes a long time for that decrease to trickle down to us at the pump. And yes that is typical. But how isn't that price gouging at one end or the other? Either they're charging us a higher price at the pump for gas at the inception of the rise in oil prices before they are actually seeing those price increases themselves or they're overcharging us once the prices goes down for gas they are already paying less for. Either at the beginning of price increases or when the price of oil drops, at one of those points there must be price gouging.

Just because it's typical to see price gouging doesn't change that price gouging exists.

If there's anything else you would like for me to address I'd be happy to.

Biden administration cancels oil and gas lease sales in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico

The Interior Department will not move forward with planned oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska’s Cook Inlet, it announced Wednesday night.

A spokesperson for the department confirmed the Cook Inlet lease sale would not proceed due to insufficient industry interest. Meanwhile, the planned sale of two leases, lease 259 and lease 261, in the Gulf of Mexico will not proceed due to contradictory court rulings on the leases, the spokesperson confirmed.

Shortly after taking office, President Biden signed an executive order freezing all new oil and gas leasing on federal lands. Last summer, Judge James Cain, a Trump appointee, struck down the ruling, prompting the Biden administration to appeal.

Meanwhile, in January, the Washington, D.C., District Court invalidated another Gulf of Mexico lease sold by the federal government, lease 257. The administration is not appealing the January ruling, although it affects a separate lease from the ones named by the Interior spokesperson.

The Alaska lease would have covered more than 1 million acres. The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management previously canceled lease sales in the area in 2007, 2008 and 2011, also citing lack of interest from industry at the time.

Under federal law, the Interior Department is required to adhere to a five-year offshore leasing plan, which was set to end at the end of June in the case of the affected leases.

“I’m glad Cook Inlet belugas won’t be forced to face even more oil drilling in their only habitats, but much more must be done to protect these endangered whales from offshore drilling,” Kristen Monsell, Oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The Hill in a statement. “To save imperiled marine life and protect coastal communities and our climate from pollution, we need to end new leasing and phase out existing drilling.”

The announcement comes at a time when the president’s approvals have plunged on economic issues in particular, and congressional Republicans have blasted the administration’s energy policies after average nationwide gas prices reached an all-time high earlier this week.

However, much of the surge has been due to factors outside the administration’s control, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...as-lease-sales-in-alaska-gulf-of-mexico/

I'd say some of the surge. As for outside the administrations control, I'd say the administration isn't in control of much. The administration is pretty inept at most things.

Since you seemed to take a shot rather than address the topic, which don't get me wrong I sometimes do as well, what is it you think they could do to actually control gas prices?

Crude prices have been dropping as gas prices keep increasing. I mean we know the government isn't supposed to interfere in business because that would be communism, right? So what is it exactly you suppose they do?

It wasn't directed at me, but since I just saw an article that is correlating the continued rise to a decrease in stockpiles due to an increase in demand and exports, I'd suggest that the administration could do a few things to ensure that domestic production and stockpiles were higher and closer to where they were a year ago before companies export. e.g. if stockpiles are below a certain threshold, we curtail exports. We gotta take care of #1. Since most petroleum inventories are down a minimum of 5% from the year before, and distillate inventories (diesel and heating oil) are approaching being down by 25% over a year ago, then I would suggest that any policies that curtail domestic production should be set aside until/unless stockpiles are maintained and to go with that, exports are hit with an export tariff if inventories are below a certain threshold.

Increase our production, make sure the domestic economy is supplied first and maintained at an affordable level, then export and supply the rest of the world.

However, I do not think this administration cares about domestic oil & gas as they do certain Euro markets

Those are very good points. I think your first point would get backlash because America doesn't actually own the oil, oil companies do. And you know how people can be when the government dictates what businesses do. Dictating oil companies not export any of their oil production is something that wouldn't be a popular idea among a large part of our population. Not that it isn't a great idea.

And I agree that on paper what some people tend to call " policies that curtail domestic production" is not something that helps, it isn't quite as cut and dry as that. Currently oil companies have taken out thousand of leases they have thus far refused to drill on. At some point if we keep allowing them to do that they will control all of the oil rich reserves with no incentive to drill so they have full control over the price of oil. So I propose they be demanded to drill on the current leases before we expand even more leases to them. I mean if they aren't drilling on their current leases, what's to say they will drill on even more leases?

Yup, I get all of that, which is why my suggestion ties export tariffs to domestic supplies. If they aren't producing and ensuring that the homestead is covered first and foremost, then they don't get to capitalize on foreign market prices. The government enacts tariffs on imports and other things all the time, this would be no different... .it is still protectionist interference, but it is the sort that offers a good balance between free market and government meddling. It encourages an increase in domestic production and a stabilization of domestic markets before all else. If the domestic market is happy, there are no tariffs.... simple as that.

I'm not sure I agree with you that it would increase domestic production but otherwise I totally agree with you. I think the oil companies will always keep their prices in line with the global market and if we shut off our exports that may actually serve to increase the price of oil on the global market. But you could be correct. I think the idea of forcing them to drill on existing leases and only giving them access to new and more leases should be tied to their use of existing leases would help serve the same purpose. You want more leases? Start drilling on the ones you already have and we'll give you more leases.

Question...

Does Biden own an electric car?


Didn't think so.

That's what usually happens to a decent conversation around here. White noise.

He does drive higher gas prices.

Come on man!