In an awful move, OPEC+ cuts production of oil of 2,000,000 barrels a day. Saudi Arabia proving they are no friend to us or Europe. https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/05/energy/opec-production-cuts/index.html
OPEC + Cuts Production
- Thread starter cernjSHU
- Start date
He tried. It obviously didn’t work. Curious timing for this to happen. And, just an example of what outright greed for OPEC. . It’s helping the Russians by increasing gas prices It’s just very odd.
Failed strategy. Seriously though…Biden took credit several weeks ago for dropping gas prices; does it go both ways?
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
He didn’t succeed in getting OPEC to help. It’s not a failed strategy. He had to try to get OPEC to increase production. Two reasons to lower the global price for oil and to not give more money to Russia.
It’s not a failed strategy. The strategy was a good one. Failed execution.
Biden needs to suspend the Jones Act (I think its the Jones Act) that prohibits any non American oil tanker to go from one American port to another. Using American ships makes it very expensive to ship from the Gulf to the East coast. This is the reason why, the country still imports oil.
He also needs to have an oil summit to ramp up American production. No matter what, we as a country have produced near record highs. It is time to get the oil companies to push through and. produce more.
The overall strategy was a failure. When you depend on a Hail Mary pass with Saudi Arabia, that’s not a winning strategy.
This is what should happen but politics won't let it. It's an untenable position for him because he would alienate the left wingers he has catered to in his nearly two years in office.
Curious about the timing of this action a month before the mid-terms???
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...he-offense-of-simple-possession-of-marijuana/
Yes that’s political timing from a US politician. Also, good policy. OPEC cutting production after record profits right before the elections and right when Russia really needs the help with higher oil prices is very curious coming from an organization run by the Saudi’s who are supposed to be an ally to the US and Europe in general.
This is not only seems political but also seems like they are helping the enemy.
When you attack the oil industry your first days in office (stupid strategy when we rely so much on oil and gas) and have no alternative solutions that are anywhere close to being implemented and relied upon to win favor with your unrealistic electorate, karma comes back for you. That is what you are seeing.
Personally I wish OPEC did not cut production but it was very predictable. Saudi Arabia and Russia are not our friend and will continue to do what is best for them and their allies.
Sad that the political BS of pushing only EVs is the mantra of the NY Times, Wash Post and other left wing rags out there and politicians from CA, NY and other places. Hybrids in my opinion are a more logical solution, cost less money for the average car buyer, better range and emit much lower carbon. They offer a more realistic option based on our infrastructure in the next ten to fifteen years. But you won't hear too many folks from our government saying that. It's all or nothing and the US buyers are not buying their BS and starting to see right through it. How telling was it when CA passed the law to ban cars using gas and a few days later asked people to not charge their EVs. F'n hysterical. We are still very reliant on oil and gas and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. So let's attack the industry we rely on and then go back on our hands and knees and ask them to do more when we need it? Genius plan!
Personally I wish OPEC did not cut production but it was very predictable. Saudi Arabia and Russia are not our friend and will continue to do what is best for them and their allies.
Sad that the political BS of pushing only EVs is the mantra of the NY Times, Wash Post and other left wing rags out there and politicians from CA, NY and other places. Hybrids in my opinion are a more logical solution, cost less money for the average car buyer, better range and emit much lower carbon. They offer a more realistic option based on our infrastructure in the next ten to fifteen years. But you won't hear too many folks from our government saying that. It's all or nothing and the US buyers are not buying their BS and starting to see right through it. How telling was it when CA passed the law to ban cars using gas and a few days later asked people to not charge their EVs. F'n hysterical. We are still very reliant on oil and gas and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. So let's attack the industry we rely on and then go back on our hands and knees and ask them to do more when we need it? Genius plan!
Last edited:
A little dramatic there.
2022 will be the second highest year ever for US oil production. 2023 is expected to be the highest. The industry is not being attacked.
Still don't get the opposition to EVs as something that is forced on your by a government.
There is a reason why all of these car manufacturers have outlined plans to abandon internal combustion moving towards electric in the next 10-15 years. Electric engines are just better.
The oil companies have been complicit in killing Electric vehicle technology in the 90's. The oil companies are no friend to the American public. Let's not make them out to be salt of the earth people that should not be criticized.
We should be pushing alternative energy. Nothing wrong with that. Now, you say you prefer hybrids over EV. Ok that is your choice. I don't see more Americans opting for hybrids when the fully EV are about the same price for the nicer vehicles. Yes there are hybrids that are cheaper but smaller vehicles. . Our infrastructure will be changing quite rapidly to accommodate the EV world with charging electric charging stations being built all over in the next few years. The infrastructure bill will also address the needs of this.
As far as California, they should have never passed a law banning the sale of new gas powered cars. Let the market determine that. Most people won't want gas powered cars. No need to ban the sale. That was stupid. However, the ban did not include hybrid vehicles. So, you must actually like the California ban since it does encourage the use of hybrids.
Now, the electrical grid must be upgraded and it will be due to the infrastructure bill, but let's not jump the gun and that's what California did.
Last edited:
CA outlawing sales of gas powered care is government forcing you to do something instead of letting the free market decide. Its pure government overreach. If electric cars are so great, why are they priced so much higher? Why do they not go as far as gas cars? And why do they use so many other minerals that have to be mined that also strip the ground and hurt the environment and are difficult to dispose of etc? And if our infrastructure is ready for it or closer than it is today, that might make more sense to promote them but never tell the public what they have to buy.
Here is a great article about the actual cost of taking trips and EVs don't save you much at all. Eye opening from an independent publication.
www.pcmag.com
It is not a strong compelling argument right now but the govt continues to push it very hard and its minions line up with the company line.
Here is a great article about the actual cost of taking trips and EVs don't save you much at all. Eye opening from an independent publication.
Electric vs. Hybrid vs. Gas: Which One Saves the Most Money?
We took a 4,500-mile road trip in a Tesla Model 3 Long Range EV and compared its 'fuel' costs with hybrid and gas cars. As they say, the results will surprise you.
It is not a strong compelling argument right now but the govt continues to push it very hard and its minions line up with the company line.
And that was my point. Timing has something to do with both.
And the electrical grid is still totally reliant on Oil, gas and coal. So is using an EV right now actually cutting the use of oil, gas and coal? Maybe a little.
I totally agree we need to do better for our environment for the future, but you also have to consider the economy, what people can afford and the infrastucture. CA is nuts and we've all known that for years. Yet other states are trying to follow quickly to push their unrealistic agendas too that are probably in worse shape infrastructure wise than CA.
And I never said the oil companies are good citizens. Where did you get that implication??? They run their industry like any other company and make money for their shareholders. With that said, they are actually funding some ways to improve clean energy production and we will continue to need their R&D. My point was you don't attack an industry when you are so reliant on them and they play such a massive role in the economy (most goods that are shipped, grocery prices, gas prices etc.). Silly and unrealistic strategy for a government to take especially when the commodity is purchased in the futures markets where speculation drives the prices. Get an understanding of the commodity markets and you might understand. Our government obviously doesn't.
I totally agree we need to do better for our environment for the future, but you also have to consider the economy, what people can afford and the infrastucture. CA is nuts and we've all known that for years. Yet other states are trying to follow quickly to push their unrealistic agendas too that are probably in worse shape infrastructure wise than CA.
And I never said the oil companies are good citizens. Where did you get that implication??? They run their industry like any other company and make money for their shareholders. With that said, they are actually funding some ways to improve clean energy production and we will continue to need their R&D. My point was you don't attack an industry when you are so reliant on them and they play such a massive role in the economy (most goods that are shipped, grocery prices, gas prices etc.). Silly and unrealistic strategy for a government to take especially when the commodity is purchased in the futures markets where speculation drives the prices. Get an understanding of the commodity markets and you might understand. Our government obviously doesn't.
Interesting article. However, most people do not go on huge long distance drives. At this moment in time, that big drive is not going to save you all that much money in an EV. But, most people do not drive that long and use their cars for commuting purposes where they charge at their house. Now that is where the real savings comes. in. And that is most of the year.CA outlawing sales of gas powered care is government forcing you to do something instead of letting the free market decide. Its pure government overreach. If electric cars are so great, why are they priced so much higher? Why do they not go as far as gas cars? And why do they use so many other minerals that have to be mined that also strip the ground and hurt the environment and are difficult to dispose of etc? And if our infrastructure is ready for it or closer than it is today, that might make more sense to promote them but never tell the public what they have to buy.
Here is a great article about the actual cost of taking trips and EVs don't save you much at all. Eye opening from an independent publication.
Electric vs. Hybrid vs. Gas: Which One Saves the Most Money?
We took a 4,500-mile road trip in a Tesla Model 3 Long Range EV and compared its 'fuel' costs with hybrid and gas cars. As they say, the results will surprise you.
It is not a strong compelling argument right now but the govt continues to push it very hard and its minions line up with the company line.
I think if your lifestyle works for an EV that is great. Go for it. I know a few households that have one EV and another gas car for longer trips. That makes sense. But don't tell me I have to buy one in my state and not be ready for it at all. Complete and utter BS and pie in the sky thinking not based in reality of even the next five years.
I agree. That was dumb on CA's part.
In 2035 almost all manufacturers will not be providing internal combustion cars anyway. That said the state will reverse course on that.
Are the better options normally cheaper in your experience?
I lease 2 EVs currently. Lease payments are $560 total for both cars. $2k total at signing on 1 and $0 on the other.
Because the technology is different.
You wouldn't notice unless you drive over 200 miles a day.
As if Gasoline just falls from the sky? And the great thing about the materials in a battery is that they can be recycled, unlike gasoline.
About 90-95% of my charging has been at home where I pay significantly less than I would be paying for gasoline.
If you drive more than 100 miles a day and take a lot of road trips, I'd agree that EV's in 2022 are just not for you at this point. I expect the technology to improve in the next ten years where that will no longer be the case. For me, I drive less than that and EVs are perfect for me.
GM, Volvo, Audi etc... are not government minions. They are corporations looking to make money and they see where the future is. You're here arguing against technological progress for the sake of oil companies, and you think the other side are the minions buying the company line?
No not at all. I am arguing against politicians taking stupid stances while oil and gas is such a huge contributor to our economy and then going back to oil and gas companies when all of a sudden they need them. I could care less about oil and gas companies. I am arguing that EVs are not all that yet and take a lot of resources to make and aren't the end all be all solution like everyone makes them out to be. If you are local they make more sense right now I agree. I am arguing that states like CA and politicians like Biden are at war with oil and gas companies when we are significantly dependent on them and our infrastructure is far from ready (the electric grid is 60-70% reliant on oil and gas and some coal). They want it both ways - they want to trash the industry (see them putting pressure on banks not to lend to the O&G industry for instance) and then all of a sudden when it hurts our economy they pressure oil and gas companies to produce? It makes no sense and they are getting the karma they deserve for being so wishy washy.
But you’re arguing against technology and infrastructure that is 13 years away. The move by CA was dumb, but in the context that most car companies have announced plans to stop producing internal combustion cars by then anyway.
I don’t agree with the government imposing the restriction at all, but EVs are where the industry will be regardless of what CA does.
We want to move away from fossil fuels but we also don’t want price fluctuations to hurt our economy. It’s a decades long transition that started years ago and is a balancing act between making energy policy progress against economic disruption.
