Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EnigmaticHat]

"Energy weakness and energy dominance" whoever came up with that is just making shit up.  Trump know what voter want!  Weak bad, strong good.

[smjjames]

It's also an extremely narrow focus on only oil, which has been slowly declining and is going to be eclipsed by other sources. Plus, it'll take years before anything is actually operational, they're likely trying to find a short term fix (in the multiple defiinitions of 'fix') which won't really start having an impact for a long time.

If I really wanted 'energy dominance', I'd pour cash into everything energy related, including research into Fusion power, given that whoever develops it first is going to have a head start in it.

[nenjin]

They just want to threaten OPEC and drive down their oil prices.

[Loud Whispers]

It's also an extremely narrow focus on only oil, which has been slowly declining and is going to be eclipsed by other sources. Plus, it'll take years before anything is actually operational, they're likely trying to find a short term fix (in the multiple defiinitions of 'fix') which won't really start having an impact for a long time.

If I really wanted 'energy dominance', I'd pour cash into everything energy related, including research into Fusion power, given that whoever develops it first is going to have a head start in it.

Plus utilizing all of those untapped resources eliminates the USA's strategic reserves in case something happens which would have actually made having all that untapped energy of vital importance to the USA... Unfortunately this is not a policy founded from ignorance, but is deliberate policy intended to eliminate the USA's strategic long term power in exchange for economic growth which will make Trump's administration seem successful, while leaving all the permanent strategic and environmental damage for future Presidents to deal with. Thus in the event of war, economic collapse or environmental catastrophe, future US Presidents will not have the power they could have used had this not been decided upon, all to maintain economically cheap but environmentally costly energy for a little while longer, further disincentivizing private R&D into cleaner energy production & storage infrastructure. It will likely work as intended :[

The post-Regan GOP mantra per excellence.

What I don't get is that the USA still could pursue energy dominance as it's uniquely positioned to have the capital, technological knowledge, political will, geography and resources needed to be at the forefront of renewables & nuclear, all without depleting its strategic reserves. The billions of dollars the USA will make from this is surely weighing in on Trump's mind as an easy way to boost his administration, but I also can't help but wonder if he's pursuing this policy to deliberately spite Obama and his environmental protections against coastal drilling. Especially since the rhetoric and reality do not align, the USA has more than enough to be energy independent, but does not have enough to attain dominance.

Rystad Energy estimates recoverable oil in the US from existing fields, discoveries and yet undiscovered areas amounts to 264bn barrels. The figure surpasses Saudi Arabia’s 212bn and Russia’s 256bn in reserves.

Although US shale oil has become more economical to produce — costs have halved over the past two years to below $40 a barrel in some instances — Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern producers still pump oil for less than $10 a barrel.
“There is a sweet spot for conventional producers in Opec. They want prices high enough to generate solid revenues to fund social spending in their countries, but not high enough to make too much expensive oil economically feasible,” added Mr Mallinson.

Sad!

[nenjin]

What I don't get is that the USA still could pursue energy dominance as it's uniquely positioned to have the capital, technological knowledge, political will, geography and resources needed to be at the forefront of renewables & nuclear, all without depleting its strategic reserves. The billions of dollars the USA will make from this is surely weighing in on Trump's mind as an easy way to boost his administration, but I also can't help but wonder if he's pursuing this policy to deliberately spite Obama and his environmental protections against coastal drilling. Especially since the rhetoric and reality do not align, the USA has more than enough to be energy independent, but does not have enough to attain dominance.

The issue is the cost involved in developing both the technology and infrastructure to deploy these new renewable energy sources. Current energy interests are more focused on maximizing profits from existing infrastructure and technologies than they are pioneering new ones, which will cost them money, open them up to competition and carries less of a profit guarantee than current systems. That's who Trump is trying to appease. There is plenty of new money out there which would capitalize on new technologies and would do so more eagerly with Federal support. But after Obama's attempt at this and the political hay people made out of its failure to completely change everything in 4 years, we're back to catering to the whims of the energy sector elite. They know one day the model will have to change. But they're going to make as much money on the current model as they possibly can, first.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Renewable energy is one of those things that fries the brain of your average Republican politician, because they're not so utterly stupid as to say that we should just drill and burn forever (since 2008 onwards, anyway), but they still face the reality that they're at the beck and call of the fossil fuel lobby, which is in turn dealing with the deluded perceptions of companies like Exxon who decades ago reached a point of "climate change is definitely real and definitely bad and definitely us...but fuck it, we're all old cirrhosis-riddled bastards anyway, FUCK HUMANITY, LET'S GET RICH!".

So this need to somehow disbar renewables leads to cultist chanting of "it's just not efficient enough" even as solar beats out everything but LNG for cost per watt and escalates into "renewables shouldn't get handouts (and coal should), try again when you're older champ". Eventually allowing a path to get back to that forbidden halcyon land of "climate change Just Happens, WE certainly don't have anything to do with this Natural and Godly cycle of Earth".

[smjjames]

They just want to threaten OPEC and drive down their oil prices.

OPEC (okay, mostly because Saudi Arabia went rogue) already sabotaged themselves with oil prices in an attempt to force American oil off the market, but all it ended up doing was letting the American companies fill in the gap when OPEC was forced to stop glutting the oil market.

[nenjin]

Yeah, prices have been suppressed ever since then. I don't think summer gas prices ever went over $3.00/gal in the midwest. But I think it's very Trumpian to look at that situation and go "we're not happy until OPEC is charging for gas what they were in the 1960s."

[martinuzz]

Sooo. Trump just cancelled the federal endorsement of marijuana, reprioritizing it for the feds to go after weed in the 'legal states' ?
https://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/regering-trump-draait-softdrugs-gedoogbeleid-obama-terug-verkopers-en-gebruikers-in-vizier-van-justitie~a4554226/

[MrRoboto75]

"we're not happy until OPEC is charging for gas what they were in the 1960s."

Something something inflation

[Loud Whispers]

They just want to threaten OPEC and drive down their oil prices.

OPEC (okay, mostly because Saudi Arabia went rogue) already sabotaged themselves with oil prices in an attempt to force American oil off the market, but all it ended up doing was letting the American companies fill in the gap when OPEC was forced to stop glutting the oil market.

It is important to note that the Saudis could have feasibly continued to maintain high production, as was the strategy of Ali Al-Naimi, then the Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia, whose grand strategy was to have prices stabilize at a price too low for American shale to compete. However, Crown Prince bin Salman's crackdown on the old guard has probably included Ali Al-Naimi, whose successor Al-Falih wanted to stop the price drop and reduce Saudi reliance on petroleum. Thus Saudi politics has saved the day surprisingly

[smjjames]

Sooo. Trump just cancelled the federal endorsement of marijuana, reprioritizing it for the feds to go after weed in the 'legal states' ?
https://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/regering-trump-draait-softdrugs-gedoogbeleid-obama-terug-verkopers-en-gebruikers-in-vizier-van-justitie~a4554226/

It's his Attorney General Sessions doing that and the federal law never changed (so, the federal government never really endorsed it), he's just changing the enforcement guidelines to where they were before Obama.

They just want to threaten OPEC and drive down their oil prices.

OPEC (okay, mostly because Saudi Arabia went rogue) already sabotaged themselves with oil prices in an attempt to force American oil off the market, but all it ended up doing was letting the American companies fill in the gap when OPEC was forced to stop glutting the oil market.

It is important to note that the Saudis could have feasibly continued to maintain high production, as was the strategy of Ali Al-Naimi, then the Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia, whose grand strategy was to have prices stabilize at a price too low for American shale to compete. However, Crown Prince bin Salman's crackdown on the old guard has probably included Ali Al-Naimi, whose successor Al-Falih wanted to stop the price drop and reduce Saudi reliance on petroleum. Thus Saudi politics has saved the day surprisingly

Given their wealth, yeah its definetly possible that they could have done it for a longer period of time, but the other members of OPEC who don't have that kind of wealth would have started complaining sooner or later.

[McTraveller]

I don't care about base gasoline or oil prices, what's up with this new crap of $0.30 (or more!) difference between each grade of gasoline instead of the historical $0.10?

[smjjames]

I don't care about base gasoline or oil prices, what's up with this new crap of $0.30 (or more!) difference between each grade of gasoline instead of the historical $0.10?

I hadn't heard about that with the difference between each grade of gasoline and no clue what would be behind that.

[sluissa]

I don't care about base gasoline or oil prices, what's up with this new crap of $0.30 (or more!) difference between each grade of gasoline instead of the historical $0.10?

I've seen >10 cents for a while now. Not sure if it's all the way up to 30, but I've definitely seen >20 at least once. Let's be honest though, if you're driving something that needs higher grade gasoline, you can afford it.

If i had to guess the reasoning though, it's the flat out lack of demand for it, turning it into a niche product which requires higher costs to justify the transport and storage of it. Very few cars are made that "require" it these days and those that say they need it often don't. (Although be wary about potentially voiding the warranty over it.)