$7/gallon gas is coming

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How about we put the refineries and diesel/gas distribution under the Defense Production Act and put limits on profits and markups. You'd see the price drop right back down in line with crude index.

No, you wouldn’t. You’d see the price of crude go up to match current gas prices.

There are only two ways out of this. More supply. Less consumption.

"Less consumption" is something completely incomprehensible to the MAGA idiots who think they "need" monstrously oversized diesel-guzzling 4x4 pickup trucks even though the bed of their truck is spotless from never having hauled anything. Need someplace to display that dumb "MOLON LABE" sticker that they think makes up for inadequacies elsewhere. Need a big truck to intentionally block EV charging stations. Need to spend hundreds of dollars illegally modifying the truck to push excess fuel at the push of a button so that you can cover bicyclists and Prius drivers (and your own truck) in thick black clouds of greasy black soot.

This is the moronic right wing idiocy America is dealing with. And now they want us to share in their outrage over high gas prices and join them to blame "Biden" for it.

[Anonymous]

This is bananas. In the same breath as claiming the Admin wants more oil production right now, SECDOE states she wants oil companies out of business in 5 to 10 years. Does the Admin truly not understand that investments in more production/refining capacity are 30-year life investments and nobody in their right mind would make those investments just to be out of business in 5 to 10 years? I feel like this is some kind of sick joke.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Interesting, when adjusting for inflation, those 2008 costs pencil out to $156/barrel and $4.70/gallon in 2022 dollars. Thanks for sharing!

[Anonymous]

Tefinery capacity is down 1,000,00 barrels/day since 2019 and having significant effect on pricing above and beyond crude prices. Plus added costs for transport and jobbers.

[Anonymous]

Every member of this administration is incompetent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every member of this administration is incompetent.

You posted this yesterday and it didn't get any traction then, either. What, exactly, is incoherent about wanting to ease short-term supply issues while still trying to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels?

[Anonymous]

Hey if refiners and oil drillers need subsidies to survive the green transition, I'm all for it. We WILL need fossil energy for the next few decades as we transition to renewables. This is a 40-60 year transition process.

But I want the USG to get equity stakes in any of these companies. These companies want subsidies, tax credits, and leases from Uncle Sam but they don't want to share in the upside.

I want the taxpayer to get a cut for providing financing. Get a deal done, Joe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every member of this administration is incompetent.

You posted this yesterday and it didn't get any traction then, either. What, exactly, is incoherent about wanting to ease short-term supply issues while still trying to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels?

The incoherence is that there are only “long term” solutions to “short term” supply issues. New investment in oil production and and refining are done on 30 to 50 year time horizon. If you want a company to invest in projects that have a 30 to 50 year return profile but you want those projects to be out of business inside of ten years you really have to alter the economics in favor of the oil/refining company or else it would be irrational for the oil/refining company to invest in additional production/capacity.

Would you build a sky rise that you knew you wanted to tear down in five years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every member of this administration is incompetent.

You posted this yesterday and it didn't get any traction then, either. What, exactly, is incoherent about wanting to ease short-term supply issues while still trying to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels?

The incoherence is that there are only “long term” solutions to “short term” supply issues. New investment in oil production and and refining are done on 30 to 50 year time horizon. If you want a company to invest in projects that have a 30 to 50 year return profile but you want those projects to be out of business inside of ten years you really have to alter the economics in favor of the oil/refining company or else it would be irrational for the oil/refining company to invest in additional production/capacity.

Would you build a sky rise that you knew you wanted to tear down in five years?

Sounds like a good reason for nationalization under the auspices of national security: this is a market failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every member of this administration is incompetent.

You posted this yesterday and it didn't get any traction then, either. What, exactly, is incoherent about wanting to ease short-term supply issues while still trying to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels?

The incoherence is that there are only “long term” solutions to “short term” supply issues. New investment in oil production and and refining are done on 30 to 50 year time horizon. If you want a company to invest in projects that have a 30 to 50 year return profile but you want those projects to be out of business inside of ten years you really have to alter the economics in favor of the oil/refining company or else it would be irrational for the oil/refining company to invest in additional production/capacity.

Would you build a sky rise that you knew you wanted to tear down in five years?

Great, now tell that to your fellow Republican trolls bleating about Sleepy Joe and high gas prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every member of this administration is incompetent.

You posted this yesterday and it didn't get any traction then, either. What, exactly, is incoherent about wanting to ease short-term supply issues while still trying to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels?

The incoherence is that there are only “long term” solutions to “short term” supply issues. New investment in oil production and and refining are done on 30 to 50 year time horizon. If you want a company to invest in projects that have a 30 to 50 year return profile but you want those projects to be out of business inside of ten years you really have to alter the economics in favor of the oil/refining company or else it would be irrational for the oil/refining company to invest in additional production/capacity.

Would you build a sky rise that you knew you wanted to tear down in five years?

Sounds like a good reason for nationalization under the auspices of national security: this is a market failure.

Nationalization will almost certainly make shortages worse in the short to medium term. But go ahead and try it.

Failure to deliver long term investment into a product that government officials and material portions of the population don’t want to exist long term is the exact opposite of a market failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every member of this administration is incompetent.

You posted this yesterday and it didn't get any traction then, either. What, exactly, is incoherent about wanting to ease short-term supply issues while still trying to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels?

The incoherence is that there are only “long term” solutions to “short term” supply issues. New investment in oil production and and refining are done on 30 to 50 year time horizon. If you want a company to invest in projects that have a 30 to 50 year return profile but you want those projects to be out of business inside of ten years you really have to alter the economics in favor of the oil/refining company or else it would be irrational for the oil/refining company to invest in additional production/capacity.

Would you build a sky rise that you knew you wanted to tear down in five years?

Great, now tell that to your fellow Republican trolls bleating about Sleepy Joe and high gas prices.

You’ve got it reversed. POTUS and his admin need to commit to (a) higher fossil fuel prices and the political fallout therefrom or (b) lower prices and the political fallout therefrom. Biden finds himself in the same exact spot Obama was in with regards to Obamacare—he knows exactly what he wants but he is unwilling to pay the political price for it. So instead he’ll pursue half measures that don’t really fix the problem in hopes that he and his party won’t be punished at the ballot box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every member of this administration is incompetent.

You posted this yesterday and it didn't get any traction then, either. What, exactly, is incoherent about wanting to ease short-term supply issues while still trying to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels?

It's incoherent to ask oil companies to make investments that are against their near- and long-term interests. If I told you that America needs you to dump your money into gas stocks right now, while also telling you I'm going to heavily regulate gas and make it unprofitable within a decade, you would be smart not to invest the money. It's the same way with companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Basically they’re just blaming others at this point.