January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[MDlaxfan76]

Note that when PB or cradle are speaking of the increase of oil prices they reference their numbers to the rock bottom prices a few months into the pandemic.

To be fair on any prices you need to be looking at where those numbers compare to the situation before COVID hit. Try this graph on for size:



Does not look so bad when you look at more of the data, does it?

Yup, they look pretty "good" now versus 2018.

From what I'm hearing from those who focus on this topic, prices are most likely to moderate slightly lower again, though maintain general moderate upward trend line...In the short to medium term that's dependent on no major supply shocks, as may well occur eg Russia etc. Or some sort of OPEC play (less likely)...but generally the nationalized suppliers manage to keep prices in a range that is sustainable for their economies. Our private producers in the US etc react to market forces as well.

[Farfromgeneva]

$90/barrel is fairly high big picture. Some of that is the relative value of the dollar but many had decks with forward projections in the low 60s 3-5yrs ago.

[Peter Brown]

Note that when PB or cradle are speaking of the increase of oil prices they reference their numbers to the rock bottom prices a few months into the pandemic.

To be fair on any prices you need to be looking at where those numbers compare to the situation before COVID hit. Try this graph on for size:



Does not look so bad when you look at more of the data, does it?

It’s actually much worse than that chart. In an era when electric cars are taking over, where shale oil was enabling America to be a net exporter of oil, when deep sea drilling has become precise rather than wildcat, one would expect prices to definitively trend down if not sideways, not up.

This energy pricing problem isn’t a demand issue, it’s a supply issue. Supply is the one area where Biden’s multitude of regressive carbon fuel policies are directly impacting pricing.

[youthathletics]

This energy pricing problem isn’t a demand issue, it’s a supply issue. Supply is the one area where Biden’s multitude of regressive carbon fuel policies are directly impacting pricing.

Indeed it is, its why I scratch deez nuts about the "electrification era" being crammed down our throats. Why we would want to put all our eggs in one basket is beyond me....not anywhere else is that encouraged, well except in the the bedroom. I almost feel like it is wall street pushing electrification, because it is a new way to buy and sell electricity relatively speaking. Not to mention, in times of high electrical demand....commercial, residential, and industrial are sent demand curtailment requests to shed electrical load b/c of the supply side issues. And when those demand requests are sent.....these places are often forced to switch to fossil fuels.

Coupe that with the threats of our power gird and we are sitting ducks.

[Peter Brown]

This energy pricing problem isn’t a demand issue, it’s a supply issue. Supply is the one area where Biden’s multitude of regressive carbon fuel policies are directly impacting pricing.

Indeed it is, its why I scratch deez nuts about the "electrification era" being crammed down our throats. Why we would want to put all our eggs in one basket is beyond me....not anywhere else is that encouraged, well except in the the bedroom. I almost feel like it is wall street pushing electrification, because it is a new way to buy and sell electricity relatively speaking. Not to mention, in times of high electrical demand....commercial, residential, and industrial are sent demand curtailment requests to shed electrical load b/c of the supply side issues. And when those demand requests are sent.....these places are often forced to switch to fossil fuels.

Coupe that with the threats of our power gird and we are sitting ducks.

To wit,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... willpower/

German Emissions From Electricity Rose 25% In First Half Of 2021 Due To The Lack Of Wind

[a fan]

This energy pricing problem isn’t a demand issue, it’s a supply issue. Supply is the one area where Biden’s multitude of regressive carbon fuel policies are directly impacting pricing.

Indeed it is, its why I scratch deez nuts about the "electrification era" being crammed down our throats. Why we would want to put all our eggs in one basket is beyond me....not anywhere else is that encouraged, well except in the the bedroom. I almost feel like it is wall street pushing electrification, because it is a new way to buy and sell electricity relatively speaking. Not to mention, in times of high electrical demand....commercial, residential, and industrial are sent demand curtailment requests to shed electrical load b/c of the supply side issues. And when those demand requests are sent.....these places are often forced to switch to fossil fuels.

Coupe that with the threats of our power gird and we are sitting ducks.

What's your teams answer? As usual, you don't have one. No vision. No plans. Just status quo, and a whole lot of "we can't do that". You guys don't believe in America anymore, and it's sad to watch.
'
Biden put $65 Billion into updating the electrical grid, btw. You know: that infrastructure bill that you all pretend didn't happen.

[Peter Brown]

This energy pricing problem isn’t a demand issue, it’s a supply issue. Supply is the one area where Biden’s multitude of regressive carbon fuel policies are directly impacting pricing.

Indeed it is, its why I scratch deez nuts about the "electrification era" being crammed down our throats. Why we would want to put all our eggs in one basket is beyond me....not anywhere else is that encouraged, well except in the the bedroom. I almost feel like it is wall street pushing electrification, because it is a new way to buy and sell electricity relatively speaking. Not to mention, in times of high electrical demand....commercial, residential, and industrial are sent demand curtailment requests to shed electrical load b/c of the supply side issues. And when those demand requests are sent.....these places are often forced to switch to fossil fuels.

Coupe that with the threats of our power gird and we are sitting ducks.

What's your teams answer? As usual, you don't have one. No vision. No plans. Just status quo, and a whole lot of "we can't do that". You guys don't believe in America anymore, and it's sad to watch.
'
Biden put $65 Billion into updating the electrical grid, btw. You know: that infrastructure bill that you all pretend didn't happen.

This is an hysterically obtuse post.

How about just open the Keystone Pipeline? There’s one.

How many ideas do you need? There are about thirty proposals, but my guess is you won’t like any of them, and then complain that Republicans have no ideas.

[RedFromMI]

It’s actually much worse than that chart. In an era when electric cars are taking over, where shale oil was enabling America to be a net exporter of oil, when deep sea drilling has become precise rather than wildcat, one would expect prices to definitively trend down if not sideways, not up.

This energy pricing problem isn’t a demand issue, it’s a supply issue. Supply is the one area where Biden’s multitude of regressive carbon fuel policies are directly impacting pricing.

Actually the "era when electric cars are taking over" is not yet occurring as sales are tiny compared with fossil fuel vehicles. So that price trend might be valid in the not so distant future, but is insignificant now.

And as another more logical poster has already said - the pandemic killed a lot of exploration when demand dropped off the map, so to blame the lack of supply on Biden is not actually correct.

And apart from cancelling the one pipeline (that would not necessarily mean anything for fuel for vehicles due to the nature of shale oil - much of that pipeline's capacity would have been for Canadian shale oil anyway) exactly how has Biden's policies actually affected exploration or production of oil?

[CU88]

LOL, now r's are taking credit for the idea behind a CANADIAN pipeline???

Anyone keeping track on how many times PB has been wrong?

[a fan]

This is an hysterically obtuse post.

How about just open the Keystone Pipeline? There’s one.

You mean the line that takes oil from Canada to the Gulf, where it's shipped overseas, leading to profits for the Canadians?

Go ahead. Now what's that gonna do to the price of Bacon, Pete?

How many ideas do you need? There are about thirty proposals, but my guess is you won’t like any of them, and then complain that Republicans have no ideas.

30? Great. What are they? And why didn't Trump already do all of them?

[a fan]

LOL, now r's are taking credit for the idea behind a CANADIAN pipeline???

Anyone keeping track on how many times PB has been wrong?

Nope, but it sure is entertaining watching him try and make everything fit into his "R's are awesome, D"s are bad" view of the world.

I'm wondering how he thinks the rest of the 1st world functions, where you can't blame Democrats for everything that's wrong.

[Peter Brown]

LOL, now r's are taking credit for the idea behind a CANADIAN pipeline???

Anyone keeping track on how many times PB has been wrong?

Broken.

Do you know what a pipeline does? It supplies.

Do you know what our problem is right now? Supply.

[a fan]

LOL, now r's are taking credit for the idea behind a CANADIAN pipeline???

Anyone keeping track on how many times PB has been wrong?

Broken.

Do you know what a pipeline does? It supplies.

Do you know what our problem is right now? Supply.

Holy Cow, I hope your bosses don't read this.

A pipeline TRANSPORTS LIQUIDS, Pete. That's it. Facepalm.

[Peter Brown]

LOL, now r's are taking credit for the idea behind a CANADIAN pipeline???

Anyone keeping track on how many times PB has been wrong?

Broken.

Do you know what a pipeline does? It supplies.

Do you know what our problem is right now? Supply.

Holy Cow, I hope your bosses don't read this.

A pipeline TRANSPORTS LIQUIDS, Pete. That's it. Facepalm.

Like I said, broken.

Yes a pipeline delivers supplies. In this case, crude oil. And we have a supply problem. I dunno but seems like limiting supplies hurts our and the worlds supply problem.

You wanted one Republican idea because you said ‘Republicans have none’. I provided one.

[a fan]

Yes a pipeline delivers supplies. In this case, crude oil. And we have a supply problem. I dunno but seems like limiting supplies hurts our supply problem.

Who is "our". The oil goes overseas, Pete? This does nothing to drive US prices down. But ok, great idea, Pete!

Whats the plan for bacon and hotels. Pete?

[Peter Brown]

Yes a pipeline delivers supplies. In this case, crude oil. And we have a supply problem. I dunno but seems like limiting supplies hurts our supply problem.

Who is "our". The oil goes overseas, Pete? This does nothing to drive US prices down. But ok, great idea, Pete!

Whats the plan for bacon and hotels. Pete?

It sounds like no amount of discussion will convince you that Joe can have a direct impact on oil prices via regulations and laws. He does.

And while you stomp your feet and say ‘Republicans bad’, the voters are going to do what they do best: make change happen.

[youthathletics]

This energy pricing problem isn’t a demand issue, it’s a supply issue. Supply is the one area where Biden’s multitude of regressive carbon fuel policies are directly impacting pricing.

Indeed it is, its why I scratch deez nuts about the "electrification era" being crammed down our throats. Why we would want to put all our eggs in one basket is beyond me....not anywhere else is that encouraged, well except in the the bedroom. I almost feel like it is wall street pushing electrification, because it is a new way to buy and sell electricity relatively speaking. Not to mention, in times of high electrical demand....commercial, residential, and industrial are sent demand curtailment requests to shed electrical load b/c of the supply side issues. And when those demand requests are sent.....these places are often forced to switch to fossil fuels.

Coupe that with the threats of our power gird and we are sitting ducks.

What's your teams answer? As usual, you don't have one. No vision. No plans. Just status quo, and a whole lot of "we can't do that". You guys don't believe in America anymore, and it's sad to watch.
'
Biden put $65 Billion into updating the electrical grid, btw. You know: that infrastructure bill that you all pretend didn't happen.

You really do a poor job of of cultivating discussion.

Last I checked, investing in the power grid, is not generation....can you make fill 1000 gallons of bourbon if you only make 750 gallons....not unless you take shortcuts. Some call it diversity (no not the racial kind) the kind where you intentionally under power design. Closing our eyes that max capacity is not always expected all the time. It's how we got here...and making everything electrical is just plain stupid IMO. How about we get the entire grid fixed first, add in all the extra options that can backfeed power onto the grid, before we shut down coal, oil, and gas. Oh no, we cant do that.....the poor wittle progressive's will need more crying rooms. Mention anything nuclear any those same poor wittle progressive will need to go on anxiety meds.

Last I checked....the republican's have been pushing back on "your sides" green ideas, b/c they know full damned well we aint even close to being ready for green power.

Your turn.....what happens when your building loses power in the middle of run, how do you stay operational without the KW you need? How does a data center stay operations OR said better, how does a data center stay self reliant with n+2 or N+3 and no street power coming in?

[RedFromMI]

First, in basic economics it is both a matter of supply and demand. In this case the supply dwindled in the recent past because the demand collapsed. That also caused a lack of supply capacity because the downturn during the pandemic was fairly long lived. Then the supply became short due to increased demand!

So while it is a supply problem it is not primarily due to any of Biden's policies.

As far as the grid, and other things included in the BIF measure, these are investments in the future - one in which the reliance on carbon fuels will be lessened.

Certainly nuclear fission is going to be a means to keep from using more fossil fuels as well for the near term, as we cannot stand up solar power (including wind which is indirect solar power) fast enough. NYS did not do itself a favor by stopping Indian Point for this near term future, for example. Also stopping nuclear power too soon is Germany. Hopefully some more modular and other advance fission reactors can be spun up in a relatively short time to help with the stopgap measures.

As a final comment - this should be in the environment thread, as this one is supposed to be about Jan 6 and such...

[a fan]

It sounds like no amount of discussion will convince you that Joe can have a direct impact on oil prices via regulations and laws. He does.

To the point where it makes a material difference? No, the President doesn't make a material difference. Every oil person on the planet will tell you as much.

I'm for opening the XL pipeline. Always have been. But it has NOTHING to do with current oil prices, and you know it.

And while you stomp your feet and say ‘Republicans bad’, the voters are going to do what they do best: make change happen.

Great. I'm ready for the tax breaks heading my way. Hope your TrumpNation enjoys the inflation with no end in sight, coupled with no tax breaks.

[old salt]

Yes a pipeline delivers supplies. In this case, crude oil. And we have a supply problem. I dunno but seems like limiting supplies hurts our supply problem.

The oil goes overseas, Pete? This does nothing to drive US prices down.

Not necessarily. Some US Bakken crude from ND & MT will move via XL (rather than on rail). Much of the Canadian tar sands crude is refined in US Gulf Coast refineries already, & the rest exported unrefined. Some also makes it to US refineries in IL. Opening a source of crude supply this large into the US has ripple effects which will change existing refining & transport patterns, all driven by market forces, which will drive down domestic prices, increase US refining, & maximize combined reliable North American supply.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... inocchios/
Fact Checker
Obama’s claim that Keystone XL oil ‘bypasses the U.S.’ earns Four Pinocchios

“I’ve already said I’m happy to look at how we can increase pipeline production for U.S. oil, but Keystone is for Canadian oil to send that down to the Gulf. It bypasses the United States and is estimated to create a little over 250, maybe 300 permanent jobs. We should be focusing more broadly on American infrastructure for American jobs and American producers, and that’s something that we very much support.”
— President Obama, interview with WDAY of Fargo, N.D., Feb. 26, 2015

President Obama, seeking to explain his veto of a bill that would have leapfrogged the approval process for the Keystone XL pipeline, in an interview with a North Dakota station repeated some false claims that had previously earned him Pinocchios. Yet he managed to make his statement even more misleading than before, suggesting the pipeline would have no benefit for American producers at all.

See more
The Fact Checker obviously takes no position on the pipeline, and has repeatedly skewered both sides for overinflated rhetoric. Yet the president’s latest comments especially stand out. Let’s review the facts again.

The Facts
As we have noted before, when the president says “it bypasses the United States,” he leaves out a very important step. The crude oil would travel to the Gulf Coast, where it would be refined into products such as motor gasoline and diesel fuel (known as a distillate fuel in the trade). Current trends suggest that only about half of that refined product would be exported, and it could easily be lower.

A report released in February by IHS Energy, which consults for energy companies, concluded that “Canadian crude making its way to the USGC [Gulf Coast] will likely be refined there, and most of the refined products are likely to be consumed in the United States.” It added that “for Gulf refineries, heavy bitumen blends from the oil sands are an attractive substitute for declining offshore heavy crude supply from Latin America.” It concluded that 70 percent of the refined product would be consumed in the United States.

Enviromentalists dismiss IHS as a biased source, but the analysis mirrors the conclusions of the State Department’s final environmental impact statement on the Keystone XL project. This is what is especially strange about Obama’s remarks, as he appears to be purposely ignoring the findings of the lead Cabinet agency on the issue.

“Comments were received throughout the review process speculating that WCSB heavy crude oil supplies carried on the proposed Project would pass through the United States and be loaded onto vessels for ultimate sale in markets such as Asia,” the State Department said. “As crude of foreign origin, Canadian crude is eligible for crude export license as long as it is not commingled with domestic crude. However, such an option appears unlikely to be economically justified for any significant durable trade given transport costs and market conditions.”

The report added:
' Once WCSB [Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin] crude oil arrives at the Gulf Coast, Gulf Coast refiners have a significant competitive advantage in processing it compared to foreign refiners because the foreign refiners would have to incur additional transportation charges to have the crude oil delivered from the Gulf Coast to their location….Gulf Coast refineries have the potential to absorb volumes of WCSB crude that go well beyond those that would be delivered via the proposed Project. On this basis, the likelihood that WCSB crudes will be exported in volume from the Gulf Coast is considered low.”
Finally, note that Obama said Keystone was just for Canadian oil, and “we should be focusing on American infrastructure for American jobs and American producers.” But actually, Keystone would help U.S. oil producers in North Dakota and Montana. TransCanada, the builder of the pipeline, has signed contracts to move 65,000 barrels a day from the Bakken area –and hopes to build that to 100,000. That’s nearly 10 percent of the region’s production.

The Congressional Research Service in 2013 estimated that about 12 percent of the pipeline’s capacity had been set aside for crude from the Bakken region. Of course, delays in the Keystone project have sent oil producers in search of other methods of transport, potentially making this link less relevant, but the president can’t argue the project was not proposed without U.S. producers in mind.

Moreover, as we have noted before, U.S. companies control about 30 percent of the production in Canada’s oil sands region. Thus, contrary to Obama’s suggestion, it is not strictly Canadian.

We have poked fun at TransCanada for suggesting the pipeline would reduce reliance on foreign energy — when in fact Canada is a foreign country — but that does not give Obama license to suggest there is no possible American benefit from the pipeline.

(Incidentally, while the president spoke of 250 to 300 permanent jobs, the State Department report actually says 35. But this is a construction project. How many construction projects result in very many permanent jobs?)

The White House declined to provide an on-the-record defense of the president’s statement. That certainly suggests officials are unwilling to make a public case contradicting the State Department findings.

The Pinocchio Test
When Obama first started making the claim that the crude oil in the Keystone pipeline would bypass the United States, we wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios — and strongly suggested he take the time to review the State Department report.

The president’s latest remarks pushes this assertion into the Four Pinocchios column. If he disagrees with the State Department’s findings, he should begin to make the case why it is wrong, rather than assert the opposite, without any factual basis. Moreover, by telling North Dakota listeners that the pipeline has no benefit for Americans, he is again being misleading, given that producers in the region have signed contracts to transport some of their production through the pipeline.