JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

Depends on what you mean by "it" in that sentence: inflation or prices. I meant inflation; you apparently meant prices.

However, actual deflation (prices going down) is INCREDIBLY bad for the economy. Why buy something today, if it will be cheaper tomorrow? And why buy it tomorrow if it'll be cheaper the day after? Soon people delay all purchases that they can, and no one buys anything, and the economy falls into recession.

Managing the economy is an incredibly complex task, which is the GOP's one-size-fits-all solution (Tax cuts, tax cuts, TAX CUTS!) always fails. (Our last three Republican presidents each caused a recession)

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

You are claiming the INCREASE (month-to-month) is going down, and that may be the case; at least for July and August, and perhaps September.

OVERALL, however, the TOTAL increase in inflation is much higher than it was in 2018, 2019 or 2020.
No matter what distorted basis or twisted word-play is employed, no matter how the data is attempted to be parsed, inflation is still higher under the present administration than it was prior to FJ-Biden’s inauguration.

The only way the data you have supplied is relevant to the concept of decreasing inflation, would be if the numbers were NEGATIVE. This only occurred [your data] in two years: 2018 and 2019.

Unless history is completely wrong, the President at that time WAS NOT FJ-BIDEN.

People are still paying more, usually for less received product(s).
People are still facing increases in fuel costs.
People are still seeing electricity costs increase monthly.
People are still facing large increases in their food costs.
People are still watching vast increases in bills for medical services.

And perhaps most importantly, people are observing the obvious attempts to “buy” votes by such blatant policies as student debt “forgiveness”, or depleting the National Petroleum Reserve to save, what, ten cents a gallon? All while promoting rabid electrofukation of the entire society — with no apparent pre-existing infrastructure to support such a transition.

— No increase in Nuclear power plant licensing or construction.
— No concentrated effort to develop and promote carbon sequestration technologies for natural gas power generation stations.
— No effort at all to promote research into manners to allow an environmentally friendly, non-polluting way to use coal (America’s most abundant hydrocarbon resource).
— No investigation of the transition-cost for complete electrification.
(SOURCE: https://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/LCOE2-for-posting-9.17.2020.pdf
”Electrification is not a cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions from commercial or residential buildings nor from transportation. There are more efficient and less costly means to reduce atmospheric carbon, including a range of carbon capture approaches.”).
— And the list goes on . . . .


Frankly, people blame FJ-Biden, his administration, the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as local governments for their plight.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

Exactly. And you have perfect justification to whine about your life. BUT, there's nothing anyone can do about what happened 10 months ago; we have to deal with what's happening now. And now, we seem to have inflation under control.

And you seem to think that inflation is 100% under the control of the president, which is nonsensical. The government has little control of the economy in general, and inflation, the least of all.

Now, you might remember what happened in 2020 --- we had a little "pandemic". Many people out of work, businesses shut down, and (most importantly) no one went shopping.

Then in 2021, we opened back up. Businesses started opening back up, and commerce started to flow again (slowly), --- and suddenly everyone went back to the mall! Supply-and-demand kicks in, and prices go up. That same law says that prices will go down when there's a glut of product in the marketplace --- but there's nothing here to cause a glut; just a return to normalcy, which should maintain prices at their new higher prices. As I said, this stuff is complicated. (And I didn't even mention the war going on disrupting the oil supply, or the GOP's attempt the screw up the economy just to make Biden look bad).

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I would like to hear the Republicans and Trumpettes address 2 points:

1) Explain how Biden/Democrats are responsible for the inflation that is happening all around the globe?
2) Explain what the Republican policy to reduce inflation is, and how it will be good for all the other countries around the world.

LDB415 Loc: Houston south suburb

They are responsible for part of our inflation. Energy polices caused greater increases in prices than would otherwise have occurred had they acted differently or not at all. That worsened the effect on us. That's one, you can find others on your own.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

Nonsense. The only relevant energy policy is denying new oil field leases. BUT, the oil companies aren't using all the fields they've already leased.

Biden also canceled a pipeline, but it was years away from being complete, and the oil that would have flowed thru it neither came from nor was going to the US. It would have had no effect on the US oil supply even if it was complete.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

Oh wait... I forgot one. Biden's policy of encouraging electric vehicles --- which is actually LOWERING the demand for (and therefore PRICE) of gasoline.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

... and lowering any interest by oil companies to invest in more production.

Again, the truth is such a nasty pill to swallow... for some.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

And why would they need to increase production?
You seem you want to have it both ways. DO we have too much gasoline or too little?

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I think you misread my meaning. I believe we are on the same track. Oil companies, like cigarette companies, are going to have to find a new marketing path to remain highly profitable.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

An answer to why production increase is desirable, try these:

1. Winter is coming. People require cheaper heating fuel choices.

2. Vehicle fuel costs are still excessive. Much higher than in 2018 or 2019.

3. Electricity costs are up, and increasing. People are being urged to convert to an energy source (electricity) that is less efficient than natural gas, costs more, and has Hidden Costs of production and distribution that are not factored into the energy-equation.( https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/SynapseReport.2012-09.CSI_.Hidden-Costs.12-013.pdf ).

People appear to consider oil companies making $0.04 (four cents) per gallon an excessive cost, yet the same people have no problem with the government TAXING at $0.15 (fifteen cents) per gallon!

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Oil companies will do just fine once we get back to being a net exporter instead of bowing to the murdering prince of Saudi Arabia to beg them to pump more oil. That was just sick seeing an American President do that.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

The reasons are a bit esoteric dor here.
By using natural gas, you're not burning wood. Less to no pollution.
You can't just turn down or off a wood burning fireplace. Like a gas one.
Like we see a lot in Red regulated states, there is an alarming rise in infrastructure failures.
If the electricity goes off, he'll have a reliable cheap clean source of heat this winter.
Maybe those poor Americans still living in Texas can learn from this.
And I like reading Racmanaz' posts. Like listening to a drunk 8th grader.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

BS

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

I cry “bovine excrement” on this nonsensical post by Curran.

People should actually know somethingy about a subject prior expressing a faulty uninformed or hearsay opinion!

I may not be conversant with all details of oil exploration and production operations. I did spend twenty two years as a Field Geologist, Logging-While-Drilling (LWD) and Measured-While-Drilling (MWD) Engineer / Geologist.
And as a Staff Geologist and Log Analyst for the BLM (three years).

A good article of basic oilfield operation and leasing written for laypeople is here: https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~saxowsky/aglawtextbk/ref_topics/Oilgasproductionprocess.htm
…………………………

The only relevant energy policy by the current administration is that there IS NO “ENERGY POLICY”, there is only “ENERGY DENIAL” and “ENERGY MISDIRECTION”.

Instead of proposing a coherent gradual transition from hydrocarbon dependence, FJ-Biden imposed, essentially by decree (executive order), immediate changes in policies that have disrupted the entire energy-exploration and supply sector.

……………………

Comments on Curran’s post:

A. Firstly, leases are not for “oil fields”.
i. Lease sales are for acreage and production-rights to offshore and onshore areas managed by the government where oil may be located.
ii. Individual wells are not “fields”, and Exploration or “wildcat” wells are not in “fields”.
iii. Lease sales (auctions) are conducted by the Department of the Interior (DOI) and sub-agencies (BLM, FS,&c).

B. Biden directed Interior (DOI) to halt lease sales, but the administration was sued and had to resume sales.
(https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/environmental-groups-sue-block-biden-administration-oil-gas-auctions-2022-06-29/)
”Biden's Interior Department had attempted to suspend the federal oil and gas leasing program to study its environmental and climate impacts but was blocked by a federal judge.
The Biden administration's first sale of oil and gas drilling rights on federal land garnered thin industry interest . . . [The sales] were viewed as a test of oil industry demand for federal acreage amid soaring fuel prices and calls from President Joe Biden to increase domestic output.
A drilling industry group blamed the limited interest on policies that have made oil and gas development on federal lands more difficult, such as higher royalties on production and Biden administration efforts to stop new leasing.”

C. The Keystone XL Pipeline — Phase 4 was the ONLY portion of the pipeline that was cancelled.
Phases 1 —> 3 are completed and are moving product, and have boosted current output levels to the distribution hub in Oklahoma. (See D. below).

D. Currans comment: ”. . . the oil that would have flowed thru it neither came from nor was going to the US.” Is an out-and-out falsehood. A BLATANT LIE.

1. The pipeline (XL Pipeline phase 4) would have transported Canadian upgraded synthetic-crude (SYNCRUDE) and Diluted Bitumin-crude (DILBIT), Southward, and be joined at Baker, Montana, by output from the Bakken Formation oil shale (Williston Basin) production. Therefore, is not true.

2. The pipeline terminus of the phase-4 section was to be at Cushing, OK, where the current (Phase 1 through Phase 3) pipeline delivers oil for distribution. From Cushing, crude oil is “pipelined” to refineries in Eastern and Southern states ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-oil-cushing-factbox/factbox-infrastructure-in-and-around-cushing-oklahoma-oil-hub )

REFINERIES DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO CUSHING
Refinery Name, …State, …………...Refinery Operator, ……Capacity bpd
Tulsa East, …………Oklahoma, …….HollyFrontier Corp, .…70,300
Tulsa West, ………..Oklahoma, …….HollyFrontier Corp, ...85,000
Ardmore, ……………Oklahoma, …….Valero, …………………..…85,000
Coffeyville, ………..Kansas, ………….CVR Refining, …………..115,700
El Dorado, ………….Kansas, ………….HollyFrontier, ……………138,000
Borger, ……………….Texas, …………….Phillips 66, ……………….146,000
Ponca City, …………Oklahoma, ……..Phillips 66, ……………….198,400
Wood River, ………..Illinois, ………….Phillips 66, ………………..333,000
Whiting, ………………Indiana, ………..BP Plc., ……………………..405,000
Total 1,584,400 barrels of oil per day (BOPD).

3. From: https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2019/market-snapshot-canadian-crude-oil-is-mainly-exported-two-regions-in-united-states.html
“Figure 2 shows refineries in the U.S. lower-48 by operating capacity and by Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PADD). Over three quarters of Canada’s crude oil exports go to PADDs II and III (the U.S. Midwest and Gulf Coast) (Figure 1).
[Footnote: PADD II has 25 refineries, as well as access to multiple pipelines transporting crude oil from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). Canadian exports to PADD III–which has 53 refineries–have continued to grow despite lack of available pipeline capacity from the WCSB.]
PADD V mainly receives Canadian crude oil that is transported from British Columbia to Washington refineries. PADD I is further away from western Canada. It has limited access to Canadian crude oil, except by tankers from offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. PADD IV has less refining capacity and is partially supplied by some small pipelines exporting crude oil from western Canada.”

E. https://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/market-insights/american-appetite-canadian-crude-usage-us-refineries#:~:text=Total%20refining%20capacity%20in%20the,currently%20sits%20at%20about%2022%25.




https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/SynapseReport.2012-09.CSI_.Hidden-Costs.12-013.pdf