11 ms·

This is not just the US but also China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. It's serious enough that OPEC+ is threatening "response".

by blago 5y ago

rblion 5y ago
Hmmmm. Why are we needing to get oil from the reserves? Is this due to politics or demand or both? Could this lead to global conflict?
- the-dude 5y ago
  We already have global conflict. Multiple.
  - rblion 5y ago
    True. I can't help but wonder when/if WWIII will begin or if it already has... It almost feels inevitable to be honest. Am I wrong?
    - _Understated_ 5y ago
      I've long felt that WWIII will not be fought (initially, anyway) with tanks and bombs and such, but with computers. What could be more effective for your enemy than taking out all your power stations and plunging your country into total darkness and chaos? Everything would run out in short order and people would turn on each other. Saves having to mess the place up with bombs and you have plausible deniability within the international community.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      You aren't necessarily wrong, but IMHO maybe too pessimistic. I don't see a global conflict starting anytime soon due to MAD. Baring another Trump-like person with zero regard for international norms, relations and basically anything, most world leaders at the highest level aren't complete idiots and understand the risks involved. There are and will still be many localised conflicts, even some which might impact lots of people ( e.g. if the US does end up attacking Iran, it will be a bloodbath with consequences through Europe, Asia and Africa at the very least). Ukraine-Russia, and everyone around ( Belarus, Baltics, Poland) will probably turn out to be an even nastier affair. Israel's apartheid will probably also result in another war. But a global war is highly unlikely, at least until climate change and other ongoing environmental disasters wipe out too much resources and people ( e.g. poor communities relying on fishing for sustenance being decimated by dropping fish populations and/or deforestation draining major rivers and lakes).
      - roamerz 5y ago
        I would counter that a Trump like person would lead to less chance of war. Countries tend to toe the line better if there is a measuarble chance at retaliation. A Biden like person who's demonstrated incompetance (Afghanistan pullout) and placation (weak stance on China relations) would lead to contries rolling the dice on whether we would retaliate or not. We'll see what happens with China and Taiwan or Russia and Ukraine. I would also counter that the response to alleged climate change could also spark conflicts which could lead to more encompassing war for example some greenie gets elected to power in Russia and decimates their ability to export energy (similar to current U.S. situation). That would leave many angry people in the cold in the E.U. and lead to unrest and potentially war. That's kind of out there but still within the realm.
        tomc1985 5y ago
        1) The afghanistan pullout is the country keeping a promise that Trump failed to keep that was made long before either Trump or Biden, and it would have been a quagmire to whoever had the guts to actually follow through on it 2) People keep repeating this weak-on-China meme but Biden seems a lot more hawkish on them than people seem to be giving him credit for
        roamerz 5y ago
        I don’t disagree with keeping the promise at all. Where he completely demonstrated his competence was in the implementation. I am an IT guy and I would have done a much better job. We’ll see on China. Proof is in action not talk.
        peter422 5y ago
        You’d have done a better job? How so? You have expertise in strategic retreats after 20 years of war?
        miked85 5y ago
        I don't think it takes a military strategic expert to say get civilians out first, then the military and equipment. If you can't take the equipment, destroy it.
    - seanw444 5y ago
      WWIII already began. Using carefully-cut video clips, intentionally misleading articles, and social media platforms increasingly encouraging unrest to pad their bottom line, decreasing their users' attention span, and spying into their users' devices, the factions only need to fight for public opinion in this day in age. You can convince someone to surrender to you out of spite for their own country, long before you have to point a gun at them nowadays.
      - systemvoltage 5y ago
        This gave me chills. Sometimes California feels more pro-China than pro-US. “But man, China is so impressive. They’re so good at governance.” - verbatim quote from a professor I met at UC Berkeley.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jjallen 5y ago
  We don't _need_ to. It is to lower prices that are fairly high and OPEC doesn't want to increase supply. So governments are doing what they can to increase supply and retaliate against OPEC.
  - sAbakumoff 5y ago
    + Biden is trying to save his plummeting ratings.
    - kibwen 5y ago
      India, China, Japan, Korea, and the UK are not doing this to prop up Biden's popularity. Sometimes (nearly every time), a cigar is just a cigar.
      - sAbakumoff 5y ago
        but sometimes a cigar with 40% approval rating confirms that he is looking for re-election[1] in 2024 right before opening the oil reserve [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/22/joe-biden-intends-to-run-again-2024-white-house https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/22/joe-biden-in...
        dTal 5y ago
        All US presidents seek reelection. This narrative has zero explanatory or predictive power.
        sAbakumoff 5y ago
        Biden is 79 years old and he demonstrated some terrible mental health issues at times when he came out of the basement last year. it's not clear why he would seek for reelection given these conditions.
        hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
        Voters barely remember what someone did six months ago. You honestly think they are going to remember, or care, what gas prices were 3 years before an election?
- mc32 5y ago
  On the one hand he’s closing pipelines which are safer than rail for oil transport. On the other hand he’s asking/telling OPEC to pump out more… Canada is willing but we’re closing pipelines. And then, we get into the business of telling Europe whether they should put up with higher natgas prices because we have an opinion about nordstream II.
  - Anechoic 5y ago
    On the one hand he’s closing pipelines which are safer than rail for oil transport. By "he" I presume you're referring to the Biden administration. What "pipelines" have they closed? Biden pulled the permit for the Keystone XL, but that's not so much closing a pipeline as prohibiting a new one from being build (maybe you were including that under the umbrella of "closing"?). The other Keystone pipelines are still operating. There is also news about possibility closing the Line 5 pipeline, but that hasn't happened and he recently indicated that he had no intention of closing it. Is there another (or multiple other) pipelines that have been shutdown by the administration? A google search only comes up with the Keystone XL and Line 5 pipelines.
    - satronaut 5y ago
      "what pipelines did he close?" then you say "A google search only comes up with the Keystone XL and Line 5 pipelines". There's 2 rite there. Oil prices go up, choke supply by closing down 2 pipelines, and then complain/blame trump that prices are going up. Please explain your thought process joebiden.info
      - ncallaway 5y ago
        Keystone XL was (as the previous comment says) not a closure, but preventing new building. Line 5 is not something Biden closed. How are you counting a pipeline that Biden didn’t close and Biden has no plans to shutdown, as a closure? I don’t understand how you get to 2 closures.
        satronaut 5y ago
- lenkite 5y ago
  US oil supply dropped precipitously thanks to Covid and the Biden administration's drilling bans on federal lands, offshore drilling restrictions, cancelling oil pipelines and other blockades. Many folks went bankrupt and US turned from a net Oil exporter to an Oil importer. The Biden administration recently started to reverse their policies in the last few months as oil prices surged. (There was also a court case loss on the federal drilling auction ban) OPEC merrily took advantage of the state of affairs since high oil prices are good for them. Unfortunately, it will take some time for domestic supply to climb again. To tide over the state of affairs, it makes sense to open the strategic reserve. The Trump administration added 77 million barrels to the strategic reserve when the US was having an oil glut anyways, so its not as if the US doesn't have a safe buffer.
  - joshuanapoli 5y ago
    The US supply dropped precipitously because the price was too low for fracing to be consistently profitable. Letting the price rise would help US-based producers invest in more production.
  - someguydave 5y ago
    In Colorado the incumbent Democrat legislature effectively banned most new oil drilling projects even after a plebiscite on that question failed to pass.
  - clashmoore 5y ago
    When I look at the SPR weekly levels at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCSSTUS1&f=W https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W... it doesn't show an increase of 77M barrels. During President Trump's term it fell from 695,118,000 (Jan 22 2016) barrels to 638,085,000 barrels (Jan 15th 2021) In March of 2020 it went from 634,967,000 to a peak of 656,147,000 in July of 2020, to then fall back. Unless I did my math incorrectly, where can we find the information about the 77M?
    - lenkite 5y ago
      The drop in Jan 2017 was due to Hurricane Harvey which disrupted foreign crude deliveries. https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/31/us-taps-strategic-oil-reserves/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/31/us-taps-strategic-oil... You are right that it wasn't 77M barrels in 2020 - my bad. I didn't realise that Democrats had blocked funding for that proposed initiative of SPR increase. The Trump administration worked around this by reducing this to ~30 million barrels and awarding storage contracts. This appears to match your figures. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-25/trump-s-thwarted-oil-buy-would-ve-given-biden-6-billion-bonanza https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-25/trump-s-t... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-25/funding-to-refill-oil-reserve-cut-from-stimulus-but-could-return https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-25/funding-t...

This is not just the US but also China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. It's serious enough that OPEC+ is threatening "response".

by blago 5y ago

This is not just the US but also China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. It's serious enough that OPEC+ is threatening "response".

rblion 5y ago

Hmmmm. Why are we needing to get oil from the reserves? Is this due to politics or demand or both? Could this lead to global conflict?

the-dude 5y ago
We already have global conflict. Multiple.
- rblion 5y ago
  True. I can't help but wonder when/if WWIII will begin or if it already has... It almost feels inevitable to be honest. Am I wrong?
  - _Understated_ 5y ago
    I've long felt that WWIII will not be fought (initially, anyway) with tanks and bombs and such, but with computers. What could be more effective for your enemy than taking out all your power stations and plunging your country into total darkness and chaos? Everything would run out in short order and people would turn on each other. Saves having to mess the place up with bombs and you have plausible deniability within the international community.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    You aren't necessarily wrong, but IMHO maybe too pessimistic. I don't see a global conflict starting anytime soon due to MAD. Baring another Trump-like person with zero regard for international norms, relations and basically anything, most world leaders at the highest level aren't complete idiots and understand the risks involved. There are and will still be many localised conflicts, even some which might impact lots of people ( e.g. if the US does end up attacking Iran, it will be a bloodbath with consequences through Europe, Asia and Africa at the very least). Ukraine-Russia, and everyone around ( Belarus, Baltics, Poland) will probably turn out to be an even nastier affair. Israel's apartheid will probably also result in another war. But a global war is highly unlikely, at least until climate change and other ongoing environmental disasters wipe out too much resources and people ( e.g. poor communities relying on fishing for sustenance being decimated by dropping fish populations and/or deforestation draining major rivers and lakes).
    - roamerz 5y ago
      I would counter that a Trump like person would lead to less chance of war. Countries tend to toe the line better if there is a measuarble chance at retaliation. A Biden like person who's demonstrated incompetance (Afghanistan pullout) and placation (weak stance on China relations) would lead to contries rolling the dice on whether we would retaliate or not. We'll see what happens with China and Taiwan or Russia and Ukraine. I would also counter that the response to alleged climate change could also spark conflicts which could lead to more encompassing war for example some greenie gets elected to power in Russia and decimates their ability to export energy (similar to current U.S. situation). That would leave many angry people in the cold in the E.U. and lead to unrest and potentially war. That's kind of out there but still within the realm.
      - tomc1985 5y ago
        1) The afghanistan pullout is the country keeping a promise that Trump failed to keep that was made long before either Trump or Biden, and it would have been a quagmire to whoever had the guts to actually follow through on it 2) People keep repeating this weak-on-China meme but Biden seems a lot more hawkish on them than people seem to be giving him credit for
        roamerz 5y ago
        I don’t disagree with keeping the promise at all. Where he completely demonstrated his competence was in the implementation. I am an IT guy and I would have done a much better job. We’ll see on China. Proof is in action not talk.
        peter422 5y ago
        You’d have done a better job? How so? You have expertise in strategic retreats after 20 years of war?
        miked85 5y ago
        I don't think it takes a military strategic expert to say get civilians out first, then the military and equipment. If you can't take the equipment, destroy it.
  - seanw444 5y ago
    WWIII already began. Using carefully-cut video clips, intentionally misleading articles, and social media platforms increasingly encouraging unrest to pad their bottom line, decreasing their users' attention span, and spying into their users' devices, the factions only need to fight for public opinion in this day in age. You can convince someone to surrender to you out of spite for their own country, long before you have to point a gun at them nowadays.
    - systemvoltage 5y ago
      This gave me chills. Sometimes California feels more pro-China than pro-US. “But man, China is so impressive. They’re so good at governance.” - verbatim quote from a professor I met at UC Berkeley.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jjallen 5y ago
We don't _need_ to. It is to lower prices that are fairly high and OPEC doesn't want to increase supply. So governments are doing what they can to increase supply and retaliate against OPEC.
- sAbakumoff 5y ago
  + Biden is trying to save his plummeting ratings.
  - kibwen 5y ago
    India, China, Japan, Korea, and the UK are not doing this to prop up Biden's popularity. Sometimes (nearly every time), a cigar is just a cigar.
    - sAbakumoff 5y ago
      but sometimes a cigar with 40% approval rating confirms that he is looking for re-election[1] in 2024 right before opening the oil reserve [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/22/joe-biden-intends-to-run-again-2024-white-house https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/22/joe-biden-in...
      - dTal 5y ago
        All US presidents seek reelection. This narrative has zero explanatory or predictive power.
        sAbakumoff 5y ago
        Biden is 79 years old and he demonstrated some terrible mental health issues at times when he came out of the basement last year. it's not clear why he would seek for reelection given these conditions.
      - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
        Voters barely remember what someone did six months ago. You honestly think they are going to remember, or care, what gas prices were 3 years before an election?
mc32 5y ago
On the one hand he’s closing pipelines which are safer than rail for oil transport. On the other hand he’s asking/telling OPEC to pump out more… Canada is willing but we’re closing pipelines. And then, we get into the business of telling Europe whether they should put up with higher natgas prices because we have an opinion about nordstream II.
- Anechoic 5y ago
  On the one hand he’s closing pipelines which are safer than rail for oil transport. By "he" I presume you're referring to the Biden administration. What "pipelines" have they closed? Biden pulled the permit for the Keystone XL, but that's not so much closing a pipeline as prohibiting a new one from being build (maybe you were including that under the umbrella of "closing"?). The other Keystone pipelines are still operating. There is also news about possibility closing the Line 5 pipeline, but that hasn't happened and he recently indicated that he had no intention of closing it. Is there another (or multiple other) pipelines that have been shutdown by the administration? A google search only comes up with the Keystone XL and Line 5 pipelines.
  - satronaut 5y ago
    "what pipelines did he close?" then you say "A google search only comes up with the Keystone XL and Line 5 pipelines". There's 2 rite there. Oil prices go up, choke supply by closing down 2 pipelines, and then complain/blame trump that prices are going up. Please explain your thought process joebiden.info
    - ncallaway 5y ago
      Keystone XL was (as the previous comment says) not a closure, but preventing new building. Line 5 is not something Biden closed. How are you counting a pipeline that Biden didn’t close and Biden has no plans to shutdown, as a closure? I don’t understand how you get to 2 closures.
      - satronaut 5y ago
lenkite 5y ago
US oil supply dropped precipitously thanks to Covid and the Biden administration's drilling bans on federal lands, offshore drilling restrictions, cancelling oil pipelines and other blockades. Many folks went bankrupt and US turned from a net Oil exporter to an Oil importer. The Biden administration recently started to reverse their policies in the last few months as oil prices surged. (There was also a court case loss on the federal drilling auction ban) OPEC merrily took advantage of the state of affairs since high oil prices are good for them. Unfortunately, it will take some time for domestic supply to climb again. To tide over the state of affairs, it makes sense to open the strategic reserve. The Trump administration added 77 million barrels to the strategic reserve when the US was having an oil glut anyways, so its not as if the US doesn't have a safe buffer.
- joshuanapoli 5y ago
  The US supply dropped precipitously because the price was too low for fracing to be consistently profitable. Letting the price rise would help US-based producers invest in more production.
- someguydave 5y ago
  In Colorado the incumbent Democrat legislature effectively banned most new oil drilling projects even after a plebiscite on that question failed to pass.
- clashmoore 5y ago
  When I look at the SPR weekly levels at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCSSTUS1&f=W https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W... it doesn't show an increase of 77M barrels. During President Trump's term it fell from 695,118,000 (Jan 22 2016) barrels to 638,085,000 barrels (Jan 15th 2021) In March of 2020 it went from 634,967,000 to a peak of 656,147,000 in July of 2020, to then fall back. Unless I did my math incorrectly, where can we find the information about the 77M?
  - lenkite 5y ago
    The drop in Jan 2017 was due to Hurricane Harvey which disrupted foreign crude deliveries. https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/31/us-taps-strategic-oil-reserves/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/31/us-taps-strategic-oil... You are right that it wasn't 77M barrels in 2020 - my bad. I didn't realise that Democrats had blocked funding for that proposed initiative of SPR increase. The Trump administration worked around this by reducing this to ~30 million barrels and awarding storage contracts. This appears to match your figures. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-25/trump-s-thwarted-oil-buy-would-ve-given-biden-6-billion-bonanza https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-25/trump-s-t... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-25/funding-to-refill-oil-reserve-cut-from-stimulus-but-could-return https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-25/funding-t...