6 ms·

The crux of the article is that oil prices in the US are a historical outlier among advanced economies because of how low they are. Food, land, and housing are

The crux of the article is that oil prices in the US are a historical outlier among advanced economies because of how low they are. Food, land, and housing are other commodities that are cheaper in the United States than in most advanced economies. Current inflation is slowing bringing these commodities in line with the historical baseline that other countries have always experienced. Americans have been spoiled for a long time.

proc0 4y ago
It's explaining why here: > In general, gas is cheapest in countries that are net exporters of crude oil and refined oil products. These countries have surplus oil production that they can export and provide gas to their domestic markets at below-market, heavily subsidized costs. This suggests the U.S. recently went from being a net exporter to an importer, and I think that was done during this administration. It's no secret they are pushing for more green energy, and doing so by decreasing existing gas and oil production. This is the natural result of believing combustion engines are a huge problem for the environment. Of course we need to stop using it, so higher prices is good because people won't use it as much. Unfortunately it's a drastic change and it's affecting everything because there really is no proper alternative. The end result is that it hurts poor people the most.
- V__ 4y ago
  > This suggests the U.S. recently went from being a net exporter to an importer Looking at the data [1], that's probably not the reason. Sanctions on Russia, combined with the outlook of lower demand in the future, make short-term investments in increased production capacities unfeasible: [2] > the biggest firms have so far stuck with investment plans forged before prices really soared, choosing to put the windfalls primarily toward shareholder payouts, rather than extra production. > Investors are pushing companies to share profits now, instead of making long term investments, given uncertainty over demand as the world pushes to shift away from fossil fuels [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61446317 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61446317
- piva00 4y ago
  > and I think that was done during this administration. It's no secret they are pushing for more green energy, and doing so by decreasing existing gas and oil production. I think this is an easy statement to substantiate, and I believe it'd set a foundation as it derails to a moot point the moment a conclusion is derived from your own speculation.
  - warning26 4y ago
    It's impressive how far people are willing to go to avoid looking up information in order to come to their own preordained conclusions.
    - nemothekid 4y ago
      To be fair to the original commenter, he probably didn't make this up and was fed it by a source he believes is reputable. You spend too much time in an echo chamber it's easy to be fed ideas that seem reasonably on the onset but are actually propaganda. I think media literacy is incredibly hard; and if he didn't throw in "by this administration", I wouldn't have been as skeptical of his claim either (not because I'm a Biden loyalist, but because any time anyone tries to pin a market effect on the president I'm immediately skeptical).
      - proc0 4y ago
        I try to read all kinds of sources, and I was just interpreting the article at a high level. We're clearly trying to switch over to renewable sources, except also not investing in nuclear energy, so I think we're seeing some of the consequences of pushing for something that cannot meet demand. I'll keep looking into this, however I'm sure Biden did change several energy policies and is pushing for green energy (and it's the ethical decision in the long term, but has short term consequences).
        nemothekid 4y ago
        >however I'm sure Biden did change several energy policies and is pushing for green energy (and it's the ethical decision in the long term, but has short term consequences). For what it's worth Biden has done little of the sort. I think it's important to differentiate the media circus around AOC's wishful policies, like the green new deal, and what Biden has actually implemented. 1. The number of oil drilling/fracking permits has actually increased under Biden (despite him campaigning on banning them)[1] 2. The only "green" EO biden has passed thus far EO 14057, only mandates reaching carbon neutrality by 2035 and largely does so by buying electric vehicles.[2] 3. The rest of his energy related EOs are about sanctioning russia. Meanwhile congress has pretty much been toothless when it has come to green energy initiatives. While both major media parties make a lot of noise to make it seem like the democrats are doing something about energy, to the dismay of those of us who actually care, nothing has actually materially passed. I wish I could blame Biden for rising energy prices due to green technology; at least we would be getting something in return for $5 gas. To my earlier point, unless you can show me what those policies are, and when they passed in congress, you are just speculating. It's one thing to say the Biden is focused on green energy. To say that's the cause of our current energy woes you have to be able to point to specific EOs are laws passed that would support such a claim. AFAICT, the democrats have pretty much squandered their majority in congress with little to show for it. [1] https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/new-data-biden-slays-trumps-first-year-drilling-permitting-by-34-2022-01-21/ https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/new-da... [2] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/13/2021-27114/catalyzing-clean-energy-industries-and-jobs-through-federal-sustainability https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/13/2021-27...
- soperj 4y ago
  US has been a net importer since the 1950s until 2020-2021. Even then, they were barely above the threshold of being an exporter. > Total petroleum net exports were about 0.16 million b/d in 2021, and total petroleum net exports in 2020 were 0.63 million b/d.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  The U.S. is currently exporting a massive amount of petroleum, much more than at any time in our history. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTEXUS2&f=M https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M... We also import a lot of oil, because the nation is enormous and consists of multiple markets. But we are importing less than we were 10-20 years ago. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMUS2&f=M https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M... Whether the balance is slightly above or below zero cannot be all that important.
  - proc0 4y ago
    Sure, I should have qualified that a bit more. I would think overall if production goes down it affects the price.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Sorting out EIA's data presentation is difficult, but my understanding is that given the fracking boom, a large fraction of US extraction is distillate and NGL --- very light components of petroleum which are highly volatile and not suited to vehicle fuel --- they have very low octane ratings, in the 60s or lower. (These were used as fuels early in automotive history, but higher octane and resulting higher compression ratios are more efficient). Those NGLs are sold for other uses, and in particular, for mixing with heavy tar crudes (as from Venezuela) or tar-sands oil (Canada) to improve flow qualities and lower the net weight of those fuels.
- chasd00 4y ago
  i was convinced fracking put in a price ceiling on a barrel of oil at around $75. Where are they?? There's been enough time to bring capacity online and there's plenty of money to be made uncorking the wells. Did opec buy all the wells and are just leaving them offline? I can't figure out why the frackers aren't pumping in full force.
  - vidanay 4y ago
    "Supply chain issues" (I wish I was joking - we are going to be hearing that excuse for the next decade)
  - exhilaration 4y ago
    The New York Times did an article on this: https://nyti.ms/3mFPBue https://nyti.ms/3mFPBue American energy production has only inched up because executives fear that oil and gas prices won’t stay high.
  - tyrfing 4y ago
    Because the survivors are risk averse. 2 years ago people were cheering as they proclaimed the death of oil and companies with ~ 60 billion in debt went bankrupt. Now the Fed is pushing the economy into recession (lower demand) and high oil prices are policy-driven (Russia sanctions), mostly from displaced supply. Investing heavily in this environment is risky. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-business-china-middle-east-b6a90423ee7e2245e3eafc713083896f https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-business-...
  - drugstorecowboy 4y ago
    Thats an absolutely excellent point. Maybe the cost to start/stop fracking is too high AND/OR they don't think this will last long enough to justify getting started. Otherwise you are very correct yet I have seen no evidence of a sudden fracking boom. Very very interesting...
- dlp211 4y ago
  > and doing so by decreasing existing gas and oil production. We produce more barrels of oil today than in the previous administration. Granted, it's a marginal amount more on a daily basis, but it's still more, and by quite a bit over the year. We have actually seen nothing but upticks in oil production in the US since the Obama admin. Not because the Obama admin encouraged it, but because the world price of a barrel of oil became high enough to warrant exploiting harder to reach and extract oil deposits.

proc0 4y ago

It's explaining why here: > In general, gas is cheapest in countries that are net exporters of crude oil and refined oil products. These countries have surplus oil production that they can export and provide gas to their domestic markets at below-market, heavily subsidized costs. This suggests the U.S. recently went from being a net exporter to an importer, and I think that was done during this administration. It's no secret they are pushing for more green energy, and doing so by decreasing existing gas and oil production. This is the natural result of believing combustion engines are a huge problem for the environment. Of course we need to stop using it, so higher prices is good because people won't use it as much. Unfortunately it's a drastic change and it's affecting everything because there really is no proper alternative. The end result is that it hurts poor people the most.

V__ 4y ago
> This suggests the U.S. recently went from being a net exporter to an importer Looking at the data [1], that's probably not the reason. Sanctions on Russia, combined with the outlook of lower demand in the future, make short-term investments in increased production capacities unfeasible: [2] > the biggest firms have so far stuck with investment plans forged before prices really soared, choosing to put the windfalls primarily toward shareholder payouts, rather than extra production. > Investors are pushing companies to share profits now, instead of making long term investments, given uncertainty over demand as the world pushes to shift away from fossil fuels [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61446317 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61446317
piva00 4y ago
> and I think that was done during this administration. It's no secret they are pushing for more green energy, and doing so by decreasing existing gas and oil production. I think this is an easy statement to substantiate, and I believe it'd set a foundation as it derails to a moot point the moment a conclusion is derived from your own speculation.
- warning26 4y ago
  It's impressive how far people are willing to go to avoid looking up information in order to come to their own preordained conclusions.
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    To be fair to the original commenter, he probably didn't make this up and was fed it by a source he believes is reputable. You spend too much time in an echo chamber it's easy to be fed ideas that seem reasonably on the onset but are actually propaganda. I think media literacy is incredibly hard; and if he didn't throw in "by this administration", I wouldn't have been as skeptical of his claim either (not because I'm a Biden loyalist, but because any time anyone tries to pin a market effect on the president I'm immediately skeptical).
    - proc0 4y ago
      I try to read all kinds of sources, and I was just interpreting the article at a high level. We're clearly trying to switch over to renewable sources, except also not investing in nuclear energy, so I think we're seeing some of the consequences of pushing for something that cannot meet demand. I'll keep looking into this, however I'm sure Biden did change several energy policies and is pushing for green energy (and it's the ethical decision in the long term, but has short term consequences).
      - nemothekid 4y ago
        >however I'm sure Biden did change several energy policies and is pushing for green energy (and it's the ethical decision in the long term, but has short term consequences). For what it's worth Biden has done little of the sort. I think it's important to differentiate the media circus around AOC's wishful policies, like the green new deal, and what Biden has actually implemented. 1. The number of oil drilling/fracking permits has actually increased under Biden (despite him campaigning on banning them)[1] 2. The only "green" EO biden has passed thus far EO 14057, only mandates reaching carbon neutrality by 2035 and largely does so by buying electric vehicles.[2] 3. The rest of his energy related EOs are about sanctioning russia. Meanwhile congress has pretty much been toothless when it has come to green energy initiatives. While both major media parties make a lot of noise to make it seem like the democrats are doing something about energy, to the dismay of those of us who actually care, nothing has actually materially passed. I wish I could blame Biden for rising energy prices due to green technology; at least we would be getting something in return for $5 gas. To my earlier point, unless you can show me what those policies are, and when they passed in congress, you are just speculating. It's one thing to say the Biden is focused on green energy. To say that's the cause of our current energy woes you have to be able to point to specific EOs are laws passed that would support such a claim. AFAICT, the democrats have pretty much squandered their majority in congress with little to show for it. [1] https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/new-data-biden-slays-trumps-first-year-drilling-permitting-by-34-2022-01-21/ https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/new-da... [2] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/13/2021-27114/catalyzing-clean-energy-industries-and-jobs-through-federal-sustainability https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/13/2021-27...
soperj 4y ago
US has been a net importer since the 1950s until 2020-2021. Even then, they were barely above the threshold of being an exporter. > Total petroleum net exports were about 0.16 million b/d in 2021, and total petroleum net exports in 2020 were 0.63 million b/d.
jeffbee 4y ago
The U.S. is currently exporting a massive amount of petroleum, much more than at any time in our history. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTEXUS2&f=M https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M... We also import a lot of oil, because the nation is enormous and consists of multiple markets. But we are importing less than we were 10-20 years ago. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMUS2&f=M https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M... Whether the balance is slightly above or below zero cannot be all that important.
- proc0 4y ago
  Sure, I should have qualified that a bit more. I would think overall if production goes down it affects the price.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Sorting out EIA's data presentation is difficult, but my understanding is that given the fracking boom, a large fraction of US extraction is distillate and NGL --- very light components of petroleum which are highly volatile and not suited to vehicle fuel --- they have very low octane ratings, in the 60s or lower. (These were used as fuels early in automotive history, but higher octane and resulting higher compression ratios are more efficient). Those NGLs are sold for other uses, and in particular, for mixing with heavy tar crudes (as from Venezuela) or tar-sands oil (Canada) to improve flow qualities and lower the net weight of those fuels.
chasd00 4y ago
i was convinced fracking put in a price ceiling on a barrel of oil at around $75. Where are they?? There's been enough time to bring capacity online and there's plenty of money to be made uncorking the wells. Did opec buy all the wells and are just leaving them offline? I can't figure out why the frackers aren't pumping in full force.
- vidanay 4y ago
  "Supply chain issues" (I wish I was joking - we are going to be hearing that excuse for the next decade)
- exhilaration 4y ago
  The New York Times did an article on this: https://nyti.ms/3mFPBue https://nyti.ms/3mFPBue American energy production has only inched up because executives fear that oil and gas prices won’t stay high.
- tyrfing 4y ago
  Because the survivors are risk averse. 2 years ago people were cheering as they proclaimed the death of oil and companies with ~ 60 billion in debt went bankrupt. Now the Fed is pushing the economy into recession (lower demand) and high oil prices are policy-driven (Russia sanctions), mostly from displaced supply. Investing heavily in this environment is risky. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-business-china-middle-east-b6a90423ee7e2245e3eafc713083896f https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-business-...
- drugstorecowboy 4y ago
  Thats an absolutely excellent point. Maybe the cost to start/stop fracking is too high AND/OR they don't think this will last long enough to justify getting started. Otherwise you are very correct yet I have seen no evidence of a sudden fracking boom. Very very interesting...
dlp211 4y ago
> and doing so by decreasing existing gas and oil production. We produce more barrels of oil today than in the previous administration. Granted, it's a marginal amount more on a daily basis, but it's still more, and by quite a bit over the year. We have actually seen nothing but upticks in oil production in the US since the Obama admin. Not because the Obama admin encouraged it, but because the world price of a barrel of oil became high enough to warrant exploiting harder to reach and extract oil deposits.