The White House is reportedly weighing a controversial measure to lower gas prices ahead of midterm

The crude oil export ban prohibited most crude oil exports from the United States to other countries. It was implemented in 1975 and lifted in December 2015


Proponents of the ban made the following arguments:

• Repealing the ban would lead to fewer jobs at U.S. refineries because crude oil would be exported to foreign refineries.
• Lifting the ban could increase carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
• Lifting the ban could lead to higher domestic oil and gasoline prices.

As of 2015, interest groups that supported the ban included the United Steelworkers Union, the Sierra Club, and the Center for American Progress.

In June 2015, Leo W. Gerard, international president of the United Steelworkers, argued that lifting the ban would negatively affect jobs at U.S. refineries. Gerard argued, "Lifting the ban would not only prove detrimental to the jobs of the men and women employed at U.S. refineries, but also to the communities that rely on the tax base generated from these wages.''

In June 2015, Mike Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, contended that repealing the ban would increase CO2 emissions and thus result in human-caused climate change and global warming, arguing, "Lifting the crude oil export ban will also increase greenhouse gas emissions, hampering our nation’s efforts to combat climate change and lower U.S. emissions."

In January 2014, Daniel J. Weiss and Miranda Peterson of the Center for American Progress argued that lifting the ban could increase gasoline prices in the same way that gasoline prices rose after Congress repealed a ban on Alaska's crude oil exports to the lower 48 states in 1996. Weiss and Peterson contended, "This experience suggests that lifting the crude oil export ban could similarly raise gasoline prices because 68 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline is the price of oil, according to [Energy Information Administration] EIA

https://ballotpedia.org/Crude_oil_export_ban

CAN YOU GUESS WHICH SIDE WON?

 

January 27, 2022

Biden outpaces Trump in issuing drilling permits on public lands

The widening gulf between the president’s policies on oil, gas and coal extraction and his initial promises has raised questions about his climate goals
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/27/oil-gas-leasing-biden-climate/


NO PAYWALL LINK
https://archive.ph/joG8J



Although the legal morass facing the leasing and permitting processes may have had some impact on oil production, experts suggest that market forces are the real culprit driving current oil production and pricing trends.

Many oil producers and financiers are wary of investing too heavily during the profitable periods, only to see their investments wiped out when prices turn lower. The rapid collapse of oil prices in 2014 and then again in 2020 resulted in a large number of bankruptcies. That has led investors and oil companies alike to be far more disciplined in deploying capital in the face of the current rise in oil prices.

One of the country’s biggest fracking companies, Devon Energy, has no plans to increase production in spite of the recent rise in oil prices. Instead, the company will focus on returning capital to shareholders. This appears to be the course many oil producers are taking—who are seemingly unphased by the prospect of $100-per-barrel prices.

In addition to long-term pricing concerns, producers are also facing the same COVID-19-related supply chain and employment issues plaguing other sectors of the economy.

As evidence of these non-regulatory forces, one spokesperson for the Interior Department reportedly noted that a significant number of drilling permits and 60 percent of leased land currently “sits unused.” In fact, the Biden Administration approved more drilling permits in its first year than the Trump Administration, but oil developers are currently using their permits at lower rates.

These considerations paint a more complicated picture than just an Administration hostile to oil and gas
https://www.theregreview.org/2022/06/21/miller-drilling-approvals-not-reason-high-oil-prices/

 

9k unused permits. Now you have to ask yourself why. The why isn’t because they don’t want to it’s because those permitted areas may have failed exploratory processes first. The cost of those areas may be more expensive to drill than the current price allows. They should open up more land for exploration and still sale more permits.

 

If you read that whole article it also states that the Biden administration was almost forced to sale those leases and only sold a fraction of them. Which tells me they were crap leases.

 

If you looked at US oil production by year, you'd learn the US oil boom started quite a few years before he took office and was going to hit the mark no matter who was in office.

As of 2021
Crude oil imports = 6.11 million b/d
Exports = 8.54 million b/d

So, according to the same definition as was used in 2019, we are energy independent today.

No one "cut the markets". Don't believe everything you read in InfoWars and Breitbart

You can tell yourself anything you want, but the oil execs had a totally different story, which makes a whole lot more sense.

 

Maybe, but mainly It's because oil executives want their operations to be subsidized.

 

There was nothing wrong with the leases. Oil execs made it clear they were not interested to invest more because they were making record profits already, and because they went all-in only to get burned in 2020 and losing lot of money.

 

So, what's your point?

 

And?

 

They don't want to invest money, then have the senile administration stab them in the back.

 

Biden* “winning” is all by itself proof.

 

The oil execs had a different reason, which makes a lot more sense than partisan barking.
1. They are already making record profits at these oil prices
2. The expectation by many economists is that there will be a global recession next year, which would mean drop in demand and drop in oil prices, and they just experienced that scenario in 2020 and lost a lot of money. They would have to be idiots to want to repeat it only 2 years later. When oil price falls below a certain point, oil production becomes unprofitable in US.
3. Shareholders have made it clear to them, that they do NOT want to lose money again by going "all-In"

Simple economics / business decisions.

 

The DOJ is a political entity, it only goes after political opponents and they make up charges and “evidence”.

 

Banning exports will have a negative affect, by causing even less production, higher prices and less product at the pump that will cause shortages, lines and even rationing. We've already done this and it was a massive failure. Why do it again?

 

As I said earlier in this thread, I do not think its a good idea, and I don't think it will fly. IMO the suggestion was made to put pressure on OPEC and Non-OPEC oil producers.

 

You have no clue about the viability of the leases - the oil companies don't even know that and these leases matter not anyway. The rest of your post is mostly correct.

The current crisis has nothing to do with oil leases and everything to do with lack of investment into the sector - (you need money to explore and drill) the regulatory nightmare - political risk and shinannigans - which increases the uncertainty .. and capital hates uncertainty.

The Keystone was a huge blunder .. forget the fact that domestic pipeline is far more enviro friendly .. here you had a company invest Billions of dollars up front - on the belief that the US was not a third world puppet regime -- only to have the project scuttled because of third world puppet political games.

Any good economist will tell you that you need to watch the flow of global capital .. if its coming your direction good -- of not .. "Cuba - Venezuela" and so on. Global Capital was watching the Obama-Biden disaster .. and it has better places to go. Competition these days for global capital is fierce .. in case no one noticed..

 

Seems like a bipartisan agreement that it's simply not a good idea.

 

When you say lack of investment, you do know that means subsidized correct?

Somehow canceling the Keystone, which provides no extra energy, and is only a method of transportation, was a blunder, but Putins catastrophe is not, and is going as planned?
Well maybe not as planned, but you still apologize and make excuses for him, and not Biden.

Some odd standards you got there.

 

Who cares if it was subsidized -- how does that weigh on the under supply issue .. other than not.. you then blather on about Putin for some strange reason .. then call me strange.. and then make some nonsense comment about not providing extra energy .. which is false .. but has no bearing on anything.

Cancelling the Keystone was a massive blunder .. for the reasons explained .. the ones you failed to address. 1) really bad for the environment "Not in my back Yard - Dump it in the Ocean" environmental Policy 2) a horrible economic move - for reasons explained.

 

Tax payers care.
Unless Canada is producing enough to offset global prices, its irrelevant to the situation.

The putin part just goes to your credibility on the situation.

 

This (see below) is what that 'disaster' looked like. US oil production started a very sharp rise in 2010. I don't credit Obama for it, and nor do I blame Trump for it falling off a cliff while he was in WH. It doesn't make sense to build every argument around who is in the WH, but it seems some people can't help it. Fortunately now domestic production is near record levels again.

 

about what . and now is this relevant .. complete gibberish you are spouting.

An absurd and completely false premise - the reverse of which is true. Decreasing supply into constant or increasing demand is relevant to price.

 

Not sure what the point of posting the above chart was - has nothing to do with stifling global investment .. Trump was a brief respite in the USA -- the rest of the world policy continued against global investment.. a process which over more than a decade managed to significantly decrease investment into oil .. in particular new production .. finding new product to replace old which depletes every year.

 

Voter fraud is prosecuted at the county level. DOJ input is precisely dick.