$7/gallon gas is coming
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
As if you GAF about kids in Africa.... |
Anonymous
Gasoline prices are based on futures - which is sentiment. The broad forward-looking sentiment under Biden is negative for gasoline. Despite available capacity, the expectation is that Democrats will continue to place additional restrictions to reduce domestic supply capacity in order to pursue green energy policies. The current unwillingness for US to stop the importation of Russian oil is a very strong signal that Biden will continue down this path and therefore the market is reacting by bidding up the cost of oil. |
Anonymous
|
It takes fossil fuels to mine for and purify copper, cobalt, nickel, etc. etc. All of the EV infrastruture, ironically, requires tons of fossil fuels to produce. Nickel prices (a critical element for battery tech) are currently undergoing the MOASS in the history of the metals market.
You can keep saying build renewable infrastructure and buy EVs all you want, but until the costs for building them become tenable and producers can make adequate margins while the tech can be adopted by consumers at affordable prices, then it is nothing more than a pipedream. |
Anonymous
That decision would have huge implications and the Biden admin is unlikely to make that decision impulsively. I think they are trying to line up options to stabilize the market and US prices short term as they think of mid term and long term implications. As someone upthread noted, we are past the inflection point, the technology is there (and economics viable) for alternative energy to take off. It will take some time, but there is no going back to oil no matter who is elected. |
Anonymous
And here’s the rub - oil companies and the banks who cover that market all agree on this. The US military also agrees. All these entities are already pivoting their companies and operations to a future that is less dominated by fossil fuels. None of this is shocking. They know it’s an incremental process. That said, it creates a weird tension during the transition - why continue investing in fossil fuel projects when you know that will end up being retired in a generation or two? Frankly, the best person to handle US energy policy was Obama. He took an “all of the above” approach when it came to energy security. Shale flourished under Obama and made (dirty) coal unviable. While at the same time he invested heavily in green and battery tech. US energy companies don’t need more federal leases when they have so many going unused right now that we’re granted to them by the Trump administration for fire sale prices. That’s a red herring. The bigger problem is getting them to maintain investments for a form of energy that they admit will eventually be replaced. |
Anonymous
Lots of conjecture with no proof there. Biden stopped the lease program and he’s almost directly responsible |
Anonymous
| This is a good reason to promote continued remote work. Cities need to pivot to housing not office space. |
Anonymous
This is the answer, right here. |
Anonymous
Why do they need more leases? Trump sold a sh#tload of leases that are not even being utilized yet for drilling/exploration by the companies. There is zero need for more leases right now, considering they are not even using the ones they already have! The fact of the matter is that they don't want to invest their own money - they want taxpayer subsidies to drill. |
Anonymous
|
We are moving towards a Russian import ban, a fully-functional Keystone pipeline, drilling in Alaska, AND renewed relations with Venezuela. It will take ALL of that (plus pressure on OPEC) to correct the effects of the Ukraine war. |
Anonymous
' Bolding for the first PP. Please read again b/c what this PP says is accurate. And you are wrong. |
Anonymous
| The RED wave is coming. |