Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gas should be expensive and more expensive until people stop using it.

If you cannot afford an EV, you have public transit.

I am not interested in allowing flyover yahoos to ruin our environment for future generations.

Please keep saying stuff like this. Demand that every democrat running for office include something like this in every campaign speech they make.

Please! PLEASE!!!!!!

Yeah, stupidest post ever.

So how is a person in the suburbs or rural area supposed to use public transport if there is none. Also how is that teacher who makes 30k a year supposed to afford a 50k EV? So basically your kids in their rural school district will be missing their teacher since he/she can’t afford gas, and EV and has no Lou Loc option. Let’s add that grocery clerk, nurse, librarian, trash collector, restaurant cool, etc…. Good luck with society if all these people can’t get to work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gas should be expensive and more expensive until people stop using it.

If you cannot afford an EV, you have public transit.

I am not interested in allowing flyover yahoos to ruin our environment for future generations.

Please keep saying stuff like this. Demand that every democrat running for office include something like this in every campaign speech they make.

Please! PLEASE!!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

About a dozen or so pages back I was lectured for pointing out the problem here, but I’ll try again:

1. Drilling for oil is a technically complex operation. You’re trying to extract a molecule thousands of feet beneath the surface of the earth. You’re drilling into asymmetric geological formations. Those formations will determine the success of your venture. You can’t actually put your eyes on the molecule until it is extracted. There is a reason why Petroleum engineers are amongst the best paid on the planet.

2. Drilling for oil is a capital intensive business. Most of your costs are upfront before you start to collect revenue. The economics on any particular well are typically based on 30+ years of production from that well. Investing in a new well is inherently a very long term commitment.

3. Even under ideal circumstances, assuming you have a lease to drill on, first planning to first production takes about 180 days. Typically, it is much longer. Presently, it would be even longer due to labor and supply shortages.

4. EVEN BEFORE COVID, the oil business in North America was going through a historic reorganization with record bankruptcies filed. COVID further supercharged the process. Numerous big time investors flat out declared they would never invest in the space again. Politicians all over the globe have stated a desire to phase out oil sometime between 2030 to 2050.

5. EVEN BEFORE RUSSIA ATTACKED UKRAINE, the price of oil was steadily marching upward as demand was outstripping market forecasts. Just like COVID accelerated what was already a badly declining price environment, Russia’s actions accelerated what was a badly increasing price environment.

Now, a bunch of politicians who as recently as three weeks ago were openly cheering on/trying to legislate the end of the oil industry, have a SHORT term problem. They want oil companies to deploy expensive LONG term solutions to solve the problem. I don’t know what the solution is and there are probably a thousand more wrinkles to this problem I’ve left out from this post.

Still doesn’t mean the windfall should be paid out to shareholders rather than invested in more efficient energy sources or somehow used to soften the price increases on consumers. The message to consumers is that the companies and the shareholder are happy with inflation. They making out like robber barons at their consumers’ expense.

Anonymous wrote:Gas should be expensive and more expensive until people stop using it.

If you cannot afford an EV, you have public transit.

I am not interested in allowing flyover yahoos to ruin our environment for future generations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything Democrats touches, turns shit. Good luck paying high gas , food, rent, and household goods America.

All of those items are global commodities. The prices are up worldwide. Democrats are not responsible for the greed of global corporations.

Which might be somewhat true to a limited extent.


But it doesn’t matter. Voters - especially independents - will blame dems. And that’s awesome.


You dems actually have people convinced you WANT them paying $7/gallon for gas.

Bravo!


Can’t wait ‘til November

Republicans actually lie and distort the truth just to win elections! You can’t wait for bullies and liars to be elected? Look at this whole thread how dishonest everyone is blaming Biden for everything. So transparent.

Turnabout is fair play, hon.

Dems would be burning Trump in effigy (again) if gas prices were this high during his term, whether it was his doing or not.

Shoe’s on the other foot now.

Sucks, huh?


Hahaha!!!!!


Hope it stays over $10 all the way through the election. “Elections have consequences” - remember Obama saying that? Well, now it’s the dems and low information voters to get what they voted for.

You are vile. Trump helped create this situation with Putin and you know it Komrad. Trump is personably responsible for the deaths of innocent Ukranian citizens. The blood is on his hands and Putin's.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything Democrats touches, turns shit. Good luck paying high gas , food, rent, and household goods America.

All of those items are global commodities. The prices are up worldwide. Democrats are not responsible for the greed of global corporations.

Which might be somewhat true to a limited extent.


But it doesn’t matter. Voters - especially independents - will blame dems. And that’s awesome.


You dems actually have people convinced you WANT them paying $7/gallon for gas.

Bravo!


Can’t wait ‘til November

Republicans actually lie and distort the truth just to win elections! You can’t wait for bullies and liars to be elected? Look at this whole thread how dishonest everyone is blaming Biden for everything. So transparent.

Turnabout is fair play, hon.

Dems would be burning Trump in effigy (again) if gas prices were this high during his term, whether it was his doing or not.

Shoe’s on the other foot now.

Sucks, huh?


Hahaha!!!!!


Hope it stays over $10 all the way through the election. “Elections have consequences” - remember Obama saying that? Well, now it’s the dems and low information voters to get what they voted for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything Democrats touches, turns shit. Good luck paying high gas , food, rent, and household goods America.

All of those items are global commodities. The prices are up worldwide. Democrats are not responsible for the greed of global corporations.

Which might be somewhat true to a limited extent.


But it doesn’t matter. Voters - especially independents - will blame dems. And that’s awesome.


You dems actually have people convinced you WANT them paying $7/gallon for gas.

Bravo!


Can’t wait ‘til November

Republicans actually lie and distort the truth just to win elections! You can’t wait for bullies and liars to be elected? Look at this whole thread how dishonest everyone is blaming Biden for everything. So transparent.

Turnabout is fair play, hon.

Dems would be burning Trump in effigy (again) if gas prices were this high during his term, whether it was his doing or not.

Shoe’s on the other foot now.

Sucks, huh?


Hahaha!!!!!


Hope it stays over $10 all the way through the election. “Elections have consequences” - remember Obama saying that? Well, now it’s the dems and low information voters to get what they voted for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything Democrats touches, turns shit. Good luck paying high gas , food, rent, and household goods America.

All of those items are global commodities. The prices are up worldwide. Democrats are not responsible for the greed of global corporations.

Which might be somewhat true to a limited extent.


But it doesn’t matter. Voters - especially independents - will blame dems. And that’s awesome.


You dems actually have people convinced you WANT them paying $7/gallon for gas.

Bravo!


Can’t wait ‘til November

Republicans actually lie and distort the truth just to win elections! You can’t wait for bullies and liars to be elected? Look at this whole thread how dishonest everyone is blaming Biden for everything. So transparent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Was mentioned several times upthread, the investments to expand production are uneconomical to companies like Shell. It would take either some sort of regulation or incentive by US gov for these companies to expand production.

That is not true production is expanding and is extremely profitable at current price points. The problem, as it were, is more that companies are not convinced that this price spike isn't just temporary. Investments in production capacity take at least a year to start seeing a return. They are holding back because of how hard many companies got hit by debt issues from 2018-2020 and not having a clear idea where the price of oil will be a year from now. Investors want financial discipline and dividends over growth. The market will take some time to adjust but it will. The oil guys also want a pat on the head and a belly rub

That's how the oil industry has always worked. Certain wells are always profitable, as the prices rise, other sources like shale and deeper water become profitable, as the price falls, those rigs are taken off line.

Of course, it's basic economics. I'm just pushing back on the assertion that increasing production is uneconomical.

Increasing production is uneconomical for the companies for all the reasons mention by the poster at 15:54

That's not what that poster was saying. The poster was explaining why the industry isnt jumping and immediately expanding production.

The breakeven price for most shale is, conservatively, $60. Prices greater than $70 are economical. The issue is whether $75+ prices will be sustained over the medium term.

That's what makes it uneconomical. Huge capital expenditure upfront with zero guarantees of being able to recover that investment or turn a profit long term. Also, OPEC countries can increase production and choke shale producers. They'd have to get some guarantees from the Government.

No. Shale doesn't require the level of capex traditional production did. The tradeoff is that wells are shorter lived and the breakeven price is higher. Conventional production has a much lower breakeven point but requires a lot more capex. OPEC has been around for decades. We've been through this before.

I dont know which is worse the drill baby drill capitalists demanding socialism or the stop oil production now environmentalists complaining about prices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Was mentioned several times upthread, the investments to expand production are uneconomical to companies like Shell. It would take either some sort of regulation or incentive by US gov for these companies to expand production.

That is not true production is expanding and is extremely profitable at current price points. The problem, as it were, is more that companies are not convinced that this price spike isn't just temporary. Investments in production capacity take at least a year to start seeing a return. They are holding back because of how hard many companies got hit by debt issues from 2018-2020 and not having a clear idea where the price of oil will be a year from now. Investors want financial discipline and dividends over growth. The market will take some time to adjust but it will. The oil guys also want a pat on the head and a belly rub

That's how the oil industry has always worked. Certain wells are always profitable, as the prices rise, other sources like shale and deeper water become profitable, as the price falls, those rigs are taken off line.

Of course, it's basic economics. I'm just pushing back on the assertion that increasing production is uneconomical.

Increasing production is uneconomical for the companies for all the reasons mention by the poster at 15:54

That's not what that poster was saying. The poster was explaining why the industry isnt jumping and immediately expanding production.

The breakeven price for most shale is, conservatively, $60. Prices greater than $70 are economical. The issue is whether $75+ prices will be sustained over the medium term.

That's what makes it uneconomical. Huge capital expenditure upfront with zero guarantees of being able to recover that investment or turn a profit long term. Also, OPEC countries can increase production and choke shale producers. They'd have to get some guarantees from the Government.

No. Shale doesn't require the level of capex traditional production did. The tradeoff is that wells are shorter lived and the breakeven price is higher. Conventional production has a much lower breakeven point but requires a lot more capex. OPEC has been around for decades. We've been through this before.

I dont know which is worse the drill baby drill capitalists demanding socialism or the stop oil production now environmentalists complaining about prices.