5 ms·

Genius strategy by the USA to disincentivize EVs, disincentivize solar and wind, increase dependency on oil & gas, and...start a war that makes oil and gas more

by paxys 8mo ago

Genius strategy by the USA to disincentivize EVs, disincentivize solar and wind, increase dependency on oil & gas, and...start a war that makes oil and gas more expensive for everyone. Markets are now forecasting oil prices will stay above $100 a barrel for multiple years. Best of luck to the economy.

wrs 8mo ago
"Strategy", you say.
- mlinhares 8mo ago
  It is a strategy, the oil producers in the US are making bank right now. They're getting exactly what they paid for by buying this presidency.
  - paxys 8mo ago
    There's a sweet spot in oil pricing that maximizes profits for producers, and $110 a barrel is well over that. If there's a recession then nobody is buying your product.
    - maleldil 7mo ago
      Is there a world in the near future where Americans aren't buying oil or oil-derived products, regardless of the price?
morkalork 8mo ago
It IS a great strategy if you're an oligarchy or you've quasi-annexed an oil rich central American country. Just sucks for us peasants.
- stavros 8mo ago
  Secure all the oil of one country, while bombing another so prices rise dramatically. Make everyone pay higher prices while they dramatically speed up their move away from oil (buying all the equipment from your biggest enemy) and hate you in the process. It truly is a great strategy if you want to make a quick buck now before you become irrelevant in five years.
jimbokun 8mo ago
Trump is emulating the Carter presidency, except for being the exact opposite in character and temperament.
legitronics 8mo ago
Well the USA is a net exporter of all oil products since 2019, this will probably make some people very rich and has the potential to be good for parts of the us energy sector. The west coast is the only part that relies on middle eastern oil. And a spike in prices will just get them in line and connected to the rest of the shale powered system. I don’t like any of this, but I think the doom and gloom lies elsewhere.
- cogman10 8mo ago
  > this will probably make some people very rich yes > has the potential to be good for parts of the us energy sector. No way this is good for anyone other than oil producers. The only potential positive it'll have on the US energy and shipping sectors is this is going to put even more pressure on adopting renewables as fossil fuel cost spikes.
  - ambicapter 8mo ago
    Well then that's good for the US renewable energy sector, no?
    - seanmcdirmid 8mo ago
      Or the Chinese renewable energy sector.
    - nobodyandproud 8mo ago
      No, because the US has fallen so far behind in just 10 years. It’s not the knowledge and tech, but manufacturing-of and at-scale-use of renewables that matters here. We can’t just-in-time install infrastructure a across the entire country in a matter of weeks or months.
    - bigbadfeline 8mo ago
      That's good only for inflation, nothing else. Renewables are included, after inflation and tariffs they won't become more attractive compared to carbohydrates.
    - 8mo ago
milkytron 8mo ago
Where do you see these long term forecasts?
cogman10 8mo ago
> Markets are now forecasting oil prices will stay above $100 a barrel for multiple years It'll never go below $100 a barrel. It went bellow $100 a barrel for the last few years because as US shale processing came online, opec decided to also keep production high which cut oil prices from $100/barrel to ~$50/barrel where it's roughly stayed for the last decade. There's not another "new way to extract oil for cheap" technique on the horizon. Israel and Iran are both destroying oil extraction and processing facilities in the gulf region, it'll take years and a huge amount of money just to rebuild those. By the time that's finished, assuming it finishes, inflation will have firmly caused the price of oil to stay above $100. This is basically a permanent increase. We are sort of at global warming catastrophes now. It's not a question of if it will be bad, it's a question of how long and how intense. The longer this war/military operation/regime change/whatever we are doing goes forward, the worse it will be. And, unfortunately, I don't think there's any specific goal the trump admin is trying to achieve. This is such an obvious F-up and Trump will only pull out if he can somehow make a claim that it isn't.
- Pxtl 8mo ago
  I think that's the important distinction. > Israel and Iran are both destroying oil extraction and processing facilities in the gulf region This isn't like Katrina where oil infrastructure was being temporarily evacuated, shut down, and taking some water and wind damage. The oil infrastructure is being blown to smithereens. And not just pumps that are sucking oil out of a hole in the ground. Refineries. Big expensive factories that process oil. Stuff we don't even bother to build in progressive parts of the world because the combination of environmental regulations and concerns about climate change mean it's possible they'll never pay off their massive construction costs.
  - phil21 8mo ago
    > Stuff we don't even bother to build in progressive parts of the world because the combination of environmental regulations and concerns about climate change mean it's possible they'll never pay off their massive construction costs. Ignoring pollution and externalities for the sake of argument this is what is very interesting to me. It’s not clear that the capital markets if left to their own devices would even invest in rebuilding these to begin with due to concerns about being paid back. The oil industry has went from growth based investments to capturing returns on current deployed infrastructure over the past decade or so. Only very limited and calculated capital is being deployed in this sector these days. It will certainly be interesting to watch. I’m certain those countries will rebuild via government funds, but I’m wondering how profitable that will end up actually being given how expensive that’s become to build, the insane construct lead times these days, and the overall trend in oil demand. Natural gas is even more interesting since it’s firmly directly linked to renewable energy deployment. Gas usage goes up as we deploy more solar worldwide, at least in the short term.
foxglacier 8mo ago
War with Iran was inevitable - either US/Israel starts it or Iran starts it - when they get the upper hand. And that war was bound to disrupt oil supply. Don't forget their goal is death to America and Death to Israel. That's what they've been arming themselves for for decades. That's what they're trying to build nuclear bombs for. They had to be stopped eventually and that was always going to be uncomfortable for whoever did it, but the sooner the better. Why can't you just celebrate this good thing?
- throwworhtthrow 8mo ago
  I assume this is an infuriatingly subtle parody, because: > Why can't you just celebrate this good thing? reads like <font size=2> /s </font>.
  - karmakurtisaani 7mo ago
    Yep, it's a profoundly stupid thing to say. Maybe a bot comment?
  - foxglacier 7mo ago
    You seem to be unaware that the whole world doesn't share your bubble's political opinions.
- bigfatkitten 8mo ago
  Iran has been “two weeks away” from a nuclear capability for nearly 40 years, and the status quo was the best possible outcome for the US. The US getting dragged into Israel’s war does not serve anyone’s interests other than Israel’s.
  - foxglacier 7mo ago
    Preventing another country getting nuclear weapons is a very good thing. That's Trump's stated aim for this war. How can all these people replying not see the value in? Two weeks away could turn into "never" if he succeeds. I don't understand this belief that if we just leave the festering wound that is Iran's Islamic Republic alone, it'll never get any worse. Do you also think that global nuclear disarmament would be a bad thing because the Doomsday clock has been a few minutes from midnight for 40 years so the risk is obviously overblown and nuclear war will never happen?

by paxys 8mo ago

wrs 8mo ago

"Strategy", you say.

mlinhares 8mo ago
It is a strategy, the oil producers in the US are making bank right now. They're getting exactly what they paid for by buying this presidency.
- paxys 8mo ago
  There's a sweet spot in oil pricing that maximizes profits for producers, and $110 a barrel is well over that. If there's a recession then nobody is buying your product.
  - maleldil 7mo ago
    Is there a world in the near future where Americans aren't buying oil or oil-derived products, regardless of the price?

morkalork 8mo ago

It IS a great strategy if you're an oligarchy or you've quasi-annexed an oil rich central American country. Just sucks for us peasants.

stavros 8mo ago
Secure all the oil of one country, while bombing another so prices rise dramatically. Make everyone pay higher prices while they dramatically speed up their move away from oil (buying all the equipment from your biggest enemy) and hate you in the process. It truly is a great strategy if you want to make a quick buck now before you become irrelevant in five years.

jimbokun 8mo ago

Trump is emulating the Carter presidency, except for being the exact opposite in character and temperament.

legitronics 8mo ago

Well the USA is a net exporter of all oil products since 2019, this will probably make some people very rich and has the potential to be good for parts of the us energy sector. The west coast is the only part that relies on middle eastern oil. And a spike in prices will just get them in line and connected to the rest of the shale powered system. I don’t like any of this, but I think the doom and gloom lies elsewhere.

cogman10 8mo ago
> this will probably make some people very rich yes > has the potential to be good for parts of the us energy sector. No way this is good for anyone other than oil producers. The only potential positive it'll have on the US energy and shipping sectors is this is going to put even more pressure on adopting renewables as fossil fuel cost spikes.
- ambicapter 8mo ago
  Well then that's good for the US renewable energy sector, no?
  - seanmcdirmid 8mo ago
    Or the Chinese renewable energy sector.
  - nobodyandproud 8mo ago
    No, because the US has fallen so far behind in just 10 years. It’s not the knowledge and tech, but manufacturing-of and at-scale-use of renewables that matters here. We can’t just-in-time install infrastructure a across the entire country in a matter of weeks or months.
  - bigbadfeline 8mo ago
    That's good only for inflation, nothing else. Renewables are included, after inflation and tariffs they won't become more attractive compared to carbohydrates.
  - 8mo ago

milkytron 8mo ago

Where do you see these long term forecasts?

cogman10 8mo ago

> Markets are now forecasting oil prices will stay above $100 a barrel for multiple years It'll never go below $100 a barrel. It went bellow $100 a barrel for the last few years because as US shale processing came online, opec decided to also keep production high which cut oil prices from $100/barrel to ~$50/barrel where it's roughly stayed for the last decade. There's not another "new way to extract oil for cheap" technique on the horizon. Israel and Iran are both destroying oil extraction and processing facilities in the gulf region, it'll take years and a huge amount of money just to rebuild those. By the time that's finished, assuming it finishes, inflation will have firmly caused the price of oil to stay above $100. This is basically a permanent increase. We are sort of at global warming catastrophes now. It's not a question of if it will be bad, it's a question of how long and how intense. The longer this war/military operation/regime change/whatever we are doing goes forward, the worse it will be. And, unfortunately, I don't think there's any specific goal the trump admin is trying to achieve. This is such an obvious F-up and Trump will only pull out if he can somehow make a claim that it isn't.

Pxtl 8mo ago
I think that's the important distinction. > Israel and Iran are both destroying oil extraction and processing facilities in the gulf region This isn't like Katrina where oil infrastructure was being temporarily evacuated, shut down, and taking some water and wind damage. The oil infrastructure is being blown to smithereens. And not just pumps that are sucking oil out of a hole in the ground. Refineries. Big expensive factories that process oil. Stuff we don't even bother to build in progressive parts of the world because the combination of environmental regulations and concerns about climate change mean it's possible they'll never pay off their massive construction costs.
- phil21 8mo ago
  > Stuff we don't even bother to build in progressive parts of the world because the combination of environmental regulations and concerns about climate change mean it's possible they'll never pay off their massive construction costs. Ignoring pollution and externalities for the sake of argument this is what is very interesting to me. It’s not clear that the capital markets if left to their own devices would even invest in rebuilding these to begin with due to concerns about being paid back. The oil industry has went from growth based investments to capturing returns on current deployed infrastructure over the past decade or so. Only very limited and calculated capital is being deployed in this sector these days. It will certainly be interesting to watch. I’m certain those countries will rebuild via government funds, but I’m wondering how profitable that will end up actually being given how expensive that’s become to build, the insane construct lead times these days, and the overall trend in oil demand. Natural gas is even more interesting since it’s firmly directly linked to renewable energy deployment. Gas usage goes up as we deploy more solar worldwide, at least in the short term.

foxglacier 8mo ago

War with Iran was inevitable - either US/Israel starts it or Iran starts it - when they get the upper hand. And that war was bound to disrupt oil supply. Don't forget their goal is death to America and Death to Israel. That's what they've been arming themselves for for decades. That's what they're trying to build nuclear bombs for. They had to be stopped eventually and that was always going to be uncomfortable for whoever did it, but the sooner the better. Why can't you just celebrate this good thing?

throwworhtthrow 8mo ago
I assume this is an infuriatingly subtle parody, because: > Why can't you just celebrate this good thing? reads like <font size=2> /s </font>.
- karmakurtisaani 7mo ago
  Yep, it's a profoundly stupid thing to say. Maybe a bot comment?
- foxglacier 7mo ago
  You seem to be unaware that the whole world doesn't share your bubble's political opinions.
bigfatkitten 8mo ago
Iran has been “two weeks away” from a nuclear capability for nearly 40 years, and the status quo was the best possible outcome for the US. The US getting dragged into Israel’s war does not serve anyone’s interests other than Israel’s.
- foxglacier 7mo ago
  Preventing another country getting nuclear weapons is a very good thing. That's Trump's stated aim for this war. How can all these people replying not see the value in? Two weeks away could turn into "never" if he succeeds. I don't understand this belief that if we just leave the festering wound that is Iran's Islamic Republic alone, it'll never get any worse. Do you also think that global nuclear disarmament would be a bad thing because the Doomsday clock has been a few minutes from midnight for 40 years so the risk is obviously overblown and nuclear war will never happen?