“Drill, Baby, Drill” 2022 Edition

Back in the more innocent days of 2010, we had Sarah Palin – “Drill, baby, drill” (more innocent because folk were just circulating doctored photos of President Obama, instead of threatening to kill elected officials).  Now, we have a new chorus of people asserting that allowing more permitting would relieve gasoline price pressures. Well, from the Dallas Fed (courtesy of Bruce Hall), some text in plain English.

Oil Producers Face Difficulties Increasing Production

Consumers and policymakers often ask what domestic oil producers can do to raise output and lower gasoline prices, especially since producers’ profitability has greatly improved in 2022. Because the price of crude oil is determined in global markets, increases in domestic oil production affect the retail price of gasoline only to the extent that they lower global oil prices.

Many observers point out that oil companies currently hold nearly 9,000 permits to drill on federal lands. But holding 9,000 permits does not equate to 9,000 well locations that are worth drilling, nor would it be possible to churn through that much inventory in a reasonable time frame.

Data provider Enersection found that since 2015, an average of 1,560 wells have been drilled on federal lands annually, but only 47 percent of federal permits issued were actually utilized. This is because companies tend to acquire permits on the acreage they lease even if they are not certain whether the location is worth developing.

The latest Dallas Fed Energy Survey shows that investor pressure to maintain capital discipline—which precludes higher investment in expanding oil production—is the primary restraint on publicly traded companies. This is not simply a case of investors being selfish, but of investors who suffered persistent losses in years past wanting compensation for the risk they take. Depriving these investors of the returns they insist on, by whatever means, would likely be counterproductive because without these investors, the industry would lack the capital to maintain—never mind, increase—crude production going forward.

Additionally, producers and service companies are constrained by labor shortages, rising input costs and supply-chain bottlenecks for vital equipment such as well casing and coiled tubing. An industry that lacks experienced staff and materials cannot on short notice substantially increase drilling and production.

Complicating matters, many shale producers are running low on top-quality drilling locations. Thus, it would be unreasonable to expect a noticeable increase in oil production before 2023 at the earliest, even if investors were to agree to higher production targets.

Higher U.S. Oil Production Might Not Lower Retail Gasoline Prices

Apart from the difficulties of expanding domestic oil production, what are the odds of higher U.S. oil production growth materially lowering the prices of crude oil and gasoline?

Even under the most optimistic view, U.S. production increases would likely add only a few hundred thousand barrels per day above current forecasts. This amounts to a proverbial drop in the bucket in the 100-million-barrel-per-day global oil market, especially relative to a looming reduction in Russian oil exports due to war-related sanctions that could easily reach 3 million barrels per day.

Placing the responsibility to lower retail gasoline prices on shale oil producers is thus unlikely to work, and additional regulation of oil producers is unlikely to lower pump prices.

There must be a term for people who cite articles that counter their main point, but I’m not sure what it is.

In any case, this sort of logic has been clear for a long time. It turns out in 2008, I noted the fallacy of drilling to drive down oil prices. Believe it or not, Bruce Hall weighed in then as well.

 

 

177 thoughts on ““Drill, Baby, Drill” 2022 Edition

  1. pgl

    There must be a term for people who cite articles that counter their main point, but I’m not sure what it is.

    Webster Dictionary has added a new term: Bruce Hall – a person who cite articles that counter their main point.

    Of course Bruce Hall never has a point – just a lot of dishonest chirping.

    Reply
  2. pgl

    “Bruce Hall
    August 17, 2008 at 6:05 pm
    Actually, the issue is beyond offshore drilling. Congress has refused to clear the way for regulations related to shale oil production which has a vastly greater potential to impact oil supply. The argument that a course of action has no value because it has no immediate results is specious and deceptive. Using that simplistic thinking… AIDS research is of little value because it may be 25 years before there is a cure and all we are doing is driving up medical costs for society [driving up environmental risks for society].”

    Well yea research today might provide benefits in the future. But what this troll forgets is that he specifically has been saying we can lower gasoline prices today by hoping some lease will provide a wee little bit of oil 20 years from now. Yes – Bruce Hall is that incredibly STUPID.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Hall

      Lucy, thanks for that 2008 memory. So, the massive increase in shale oil production after 2010 and especially after the downturn period at the end of Obama’s administration that brought the US into energy independence was done on state and private lands because, despite the eco-terrorists in the Federal government, there was still some ability to ignore the ignoramuses..
      https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart

      But you’ve got to hand it to the leftist in Biden’s Administration. They have set up so many obstacles from financing barriers to NEPA, that oil companies have decided to take the money and run… leaving the US and the rest of the world up shit creek for the future.

      Hope you have a lot of solar panels for your electric bicycle.

      Reply
      1. Barkley Rosser

        Mary,

        Thanks for that 2008 memory. Your little lamb was so good at shale oil production back then, nobody noticed when it got all over her white fleece.

        Reply
        1. pgl

          “They have set up so many obstacles from financing barriers to NEPA, that oil companies have decided to take the money and run”

          Do you have the slightest clue what this word salad means. I doubt Mary aka Bruce Hall knows as (s)he continually writes the dumbest word salad ever.

          Reply
        2. Bruce Hall

          Barkley, is that supposed to be a retort? As an economist, you should know the value of a sufficient and stable energy source for the US. You are old enough to remember what Saudi Arabia did to the US a little over 50-years ago, aren’t you? Or maybe your memory isn’t quite as good as it used to be. Well, then how about what Russia has done to Europe? Energy independence is a critical strategic requirement for this country. Oh, sure, shut off oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power and try to plug in your house and car to a windmill. Then we’ll really be talking about economic costs.

          But Biden’s war on fossil fuels goes beyond canceling some leases on federal lands. I pointed out how the Treasury Dept. has pressured banks to withhold financing for new oil exploration. And beyond that, we’ve reached the point that US refineries cannot meet fuel demands because of closures. While US refineries were closing, China was building new ones. Maybe they know something?
          https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/12/gasoline-diesel-prices-rise-to-another-record-amid-rampant-inflation.html

          3rd quarter 2022 crisis topic: Food shortages and food price inflation. How about those $7 loaves of white bread? What do you mean a shortage of fertilizer and cost of diesel fuel for farmers? Who could have anticipated that?

          Reply
          1. pgl

            Hey Barkley – none of what Bruce has written here makes any sense at all. He is writing the dumbest word salad ever. Maybe it is time to ignore this iincredibly dumb and dishonest little twit. Life is short.

          2. pgl

            You are seriously comparing this oil lease issue to OPEC? I would ask if you could be more stupid but then we know you – and you can. You are truly the dumbest troll ever. By now I would imagine your kids have starting begging you to stop embarrassing your entire family.

          3. pgl

            “But Biden’s war on fossil fuels goes beyond canceling some leases on federal lands. I pointed out how the Treasury Dept. has pressured banks to withhold financing for new oil exploration.”

            Your provided a Reuters story where the financing issue had to do with African investment not US investment. That it involved the World bank should have been a clue to anyone with any knowledge of anything. Which excludes Bruce Hall.

            Bruce – you are not even trying to have an informed discussion. This kind of bad faith arguing is trolling pure and simple. And all it shows is that you are the dumbest troll God ever created.

          4. Barkley Rosser

            Mar5y,

            Go eff yourself. I am not commenting on your idiotic comments on energy policies because other people are handling that just fine. Not going to waste my time with something others are cleaning your clock on’

            No, you infantile worthless moron, I am taking you to task for this ridiculous “Lucy” scheiss you keep drecking us with. I told, you a-hole, you want to bother us with that garbage, you get to be Mary. You do not like that and want discussions of your worthless comments on energy policy from me? Then shut the eff up with your stupid name calling. Got it?

          5. Barkley Rosser

            Bruce,

            Oh, I just noticed you dragged in food prices. What does this have to do with Biden or his policies? On another thread it was pointed out to you that this is your guy Putin all the way. There are 28 million tons of grain sitting in Ukrainian ports. The G7 nations have formally requested Putin let that stuff get exported.

            This is not about whiny Americans and their high priced white bread. This is about poor people in poor countries who normally spend half their income on food. Americans spend 6% on average. It is not even remotely a comparison. Putin is gong to cause outright starvation for millions with his awful war, but you are whining about Biden and being called “Mary.” You are seriously bad news.

          1. Barkley Rosser

            Anonymous,

            For once I agree with you. “Mary” is not even pitiful, especially with her diapers fully off and you know what all over the place stinking it all up, :-).

          2. Barkley Rosser

            Anonymous,

            Of course, as our leading candidate for an outright Russian Putin bot troll you are so pitiful you cannot even come up with a proper fake name for yourself, “Anonymous,” how incompetent.

            Yeah, we got it, having you pretend you live in New Hampshire to cover how you know almost nothing about the US beyond what you read in EIA reports, that is a good one. Hey, maybe you do live there with them sending you fairly recently. Nice cool place for a Russkie.

      2. pgl

        You cannot address the specific issue – can you? Oh right – you have been exposed for touting the dumbest lie ever. But 14 years of spewing Koch intellectual garbage. Quite a run but alas it is now over as Menzie has performed the greatest take down of a troll ever. Charles Koch is calling you Monday to tell you “you’re fired”.

        Reply
      3. CoRev

        Bruce, on your referenced link is another: https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

        When I compare the chart re: this statement: “In any case, this sort of logic has been clear for a long time. It turns out in 2008, I noted the fallacy of drilling to drive down oil prices.” Production up in ~2016 until 2020 and prices generally lower.

        Maybe Menzie has a better set of tools to analyze these data, but from a visual macro level I don’t see his 2008 statement confirmed. From this chart we know that gas prices are tightly correlated to oil https://www.macrotrends.net/2501/crude-oil-vs-gasoline-prices-chart Did Supply and Demand rules get shut down?

        Reply
        1. pgl

          Are you really THIS dumb? James Hamilton has written on this many times. His statistical analyses is much better than the drivel we routinely get from you. Try reading what Dr. Hamilton has written. Assuming you know how to read. DUH!

          Reply
        2. pgl

          CoRev must be Mr. Magoo. I took a close look at his little chart and it seems gasoline prices lately have surged much faster than the usual correlations might predict. But any one who bothered to READ that Dallas FED discussion would have realized that downstream margins are way above their normal levels. Of course Bruce Hall is so stupid he never read this discussion before he linked to it. And it seems CoRev is just as stupid as he clearly has not read it either.

          Reply
      4. pgl

        Did you look at your Macrotrends graph? Oil production did rise a lot under Obama and eventually passed 13 million barrels a day. But then came Trump’s incompetence and this production fell to only 10 million barrels a day. Now it has gone by about 15% under Biden. But wait – the facts here contradict your incessant usual chirping. But what else is new?

        BTW thanks for this chart as well as that Dallas FED discussion which completely contradicts your chirping. I doubt that was your intention Brucie but you do have this dumb habit of linking to articles you never bothered to read.

        Reply
        1. Bruce Hall

          https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/12/gasoline-diesel-prices-rise-to-another-record-amid-rampant-inflation.html

          Lucy, did you actually look at the chart. Oil production fell in 2015-16 under Obama and rose to record levels under Trump. The state governments under great leadership like Newsom, Cuomo, and Whitmer shut down the economy and travel and demand for oil was squashed along with most of the rest of the economy. Dr. Faucistein said it was necessary for a couple of weeks to “flatten the curve”. Nah, it just flattened the economy.

          Under Biden’s great leadership, oil production has yet to recover to 2019 levels. Meanwhile,
          https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/us-treasury-oppose-development-bank-financing-most-fossil-fuel-projects-2021-08-16/
          That’s Biden’s doing.

          Reply
          1. pgl

            Hey Bruce – you are once again the dog chasing its tail.

            “oil production has yet to recover to 2019 levels.” Dude – Trump was President during 2020. Now we all wished he was not but don’t let facts get in the way of dizzying attempts to mispresent everything.

          2. pgl

            “Oil production fell in 2015-16”

            I guess you had no clue that oil prices were only $30 a barrel. Thank God you do not run an oil company as you would be having them produce oil when market prices were lower than the cost of production.

            Bruce – I may have overestimated your IQ when I said it fell to the single digits. No you have managed to live off a negative IQ. Quite an achievement.

          3. pgl

            “The new guidance from the Treasury, the largest shareholder in major development banks including the World Bank Group and the African Development Bank, prioritizes financing for renewable energy options and “to only consider fossil fuels if less carbon-intensive options (are) unfeasible.”

            You are truly the dumbest troll ever. The World Bank Group and the African Development Bank do not finance US investment. They finance investment in places like Africa – duh. So when you try to use this as evidence that the Biden government is curtailing US oil investment you only show you have no effing clue what your links really have said. This seems to be a pattern with you.

            AND many thanks again for that Dalla FED paper which totally blew away your constant stupid chirping.

      5. pgl

        “They have set up so many obstacles from financing barriers to NEPA, that oil companies have decided to take the money and run… leaving the US and the rest of the world up shit creek for the future.”

        How dumb is Bruce Hall. Take this cryptic sentence as just one of many examples. He cannot be bothered to tell us what NEPA is. Try the National Environmental Policy Act signed into law by Richard Nixon. He cannot be bothered to tell us WTF NEPA has to do with “financing barriers” for the oil companies. Does this stupid troll have a clue the purposes of this important legislation? Of course not. Now I tried to find a half intelligent critique and got this:

        https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/the-national-environmental-policy-act-a-roadblock-to-infrastructure-and-how-to-fix-it

        Yes this conservative outfit applauds the Biden Administration for the Infrastructure Act but worries NEPA requirements for enviromental studies might delay projects. Of course this discussion has some helpful suggestions to address this possible issue.

        But not Bruce Hall just chirps away like the usual MAGA moron without anything helpful. Which might be fine if this lying troll just tried once to write a coherent criticism. But of course he cannot as he is beyond STUPID.

        Reply
  3. pgl

    That 2008 discussion made another important point that Bruce Hall keep ducking:

    ‘Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher — 2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.’

    All of his chirping for drill baby drill is going to have zero impact on gasoline prices today but let’s say the increase in oil production say in 2035 lowers oil prices by $0.40 way in the future (I’m being incredibly generous here). Gasoline prices would fall by about 1 cent some 13 years in the future. And this is the Republican plan to address gasoline prices. Supply side stupidity at its finest.

    Only a Village Idiot like Bruce Hall would continue to chirp away at such a worthless proposal.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Hall

      Oh, now you are using projections from 14-years ago? Kumquat.

      China is going balls to the walls to increase oil supplies sources and open new refineries and coal-fired power plants and you think their actions are for 2035? Talk about an idiot. “Oh, but we’re not China; we can’t do what they can do.” I guess you would prefer that we depend on OPEC for our oil and China for our refined petroleum products, eh? Oh, but climate change. Yeah, that doesn’t happen if China uses fossil fuel, only the US causes that. You are one myopic nutcase.

      Reply
      1. pgl

        DUMBA$$ – I was quoting that 2008 paper Dr. Chinn provided us. My God man – you are the dumbest troll in the history of the internet.

        Reply
      2. pgl

        You are now lying about what I said and what these articles have said. This is nothing more than bad faith trolling. You have never even tried to have a real discussion of this issue or any other issue.

        I get that Menzie keeps you around to mock you. Any other blog would have banned your stupid lying worthless little a$$ a long time ago.

        Reply
      3. pgl

        “China is going balls to the walls”

        Balls? Oh you are trying to get a date with some Chinese dude named Lucy now. I guess his balls are to the walls which excites you to no end.

        Reply
  4. pgl

    Does Sean Hannity know the difference between baby formula and shoes?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/sean-hannity-falsely-identifies-pallets-and-pallets-of-baby-formula-at-the-border-amid-shortage/ar-AAXheDH?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=ccdfeffbded34fdb933eb7975e23f06b

    The right wing is in an uproar that we might give baby formula to the small infants we have basically kept in capacity. Yes let Hispanic babies die. But come on Sean – those pictures were not pallets of baby formula. They were shoe boxes. Let’s hope no mother let Sean Hannity feed their infant.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      Oh gee – NIDO is not a shoe brand. It is powdered milk. My bad but I still caution mothers not to let Sean Hannity feed their baby.

      Reply
      1. pgl

        https://www.nestle.com/brands/baby-foods/nido

        I was wondering what NIDO was. It is made by Nestle a Swiss corporation. It is sold in Mexico, Asia, but not in the US except for NYC. So it has nothing to do with the infant formula issue. In fact Nestle tells parents NOT to feed it to children under the age of one.

        Sean Hannity is a known liar and he comes off as really stupid. But wow – is Sean Hannity trying to have parents poison their babies or what?

        Reply
  5. Bruce Hall

    I appreciate the nod. The Fed blog post did say that additional drilling probably would not result in more than a few 100K bpd, but isn’t that on top of the projections that in 2023 US oil production would exceed what was reached at the end of 2019? And if the US does not increase oil production while trying to supplement what Europe has lost due to Russian sanctions, doesn’t that simply make the situation worse? It’s not just future shale drilling on Federal lands that are being blunted by the Biden Administration, it is also the offshore drilling where new leases are being stopped.

    So, while pgl thinks it is stupid to take positive action to improve oil supplies, I’ll have to take issue with Menzie’s conclusion that the Fed blog post contradicts my assertion that more oil exploration is necessary in world that is increasing oil consumption … and even small increases of oil production on federal lands are helpful, though getting the Biden Administration anti-oil agenda out of the way would be much more helpful. Oil companies can see Biden’s writing on the wall.
    https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/us-treasury-oppose-development-bank-financing-most-fossil-fuel-projects-2021-08-16/

    Bad governance… for no good reason. Climate claims are meaningless if all you are attempting to do is shift the location of production and leave the US in European-style energy dependency. Europe had Russia as its main supplier; we can go back to OPEC as ours, right?
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasduesterberg/2021/08/13/bidens-plan-to-outsource-the-us-oil-and-gas-industry/?sh=6bd9b8764548

    It seems everyone here is cheering for another oil crisis ala 1970s. Fantasies about an all-electric environment aren’t really helpful and certainly economically and strategically disastrous in dealing with the present situation. But, hey, let’s hear it for Old Uncle Joe out there begging Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to “drill, baby, drill”.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      “So, while pgl thinks it is stupid to take positive action to improve oil supplies, I’ll have to take issue with Menzie’s conclusion that the Fed blog post contradicts my assertion that more oil exploration is necessary in world that is increasing oil consumption”

      You are such a little liar. I want to take effective action but the SIMPLE point is that something that will at best lower gasoline prices by 1 cent 20 years ago is just you9r usual dumb supply side silliness.

      Thanks for the nod? Menzie has totally exposed you as being the dumbest troll in the history of the internet. And yet you keep chirping?

      What do they say about being in a deep hole so maybe one should stop digging? But Brucie boy is still in his backyard digging away anyway just hoping in vein that he will discover enough oil to lower gasoline prices to $2 a gallon. Yes Bruce is THAT STUPID.

      Reply
    2. AndrewG

      “I’ll have to take issue with Menzie’s conclusion that the Fed blog post contradicts my assertion that more oil exploration is necessary in world that is increasing oil consumption … and even small increases of oil production on federal lands are helpful, though getting the Biden Administration anti-oil agenda out of the way would be much more helpful. Oil companies can see Biden’s writing on the wall.”

      9,000 permits, 47% of permits actually utilized.

      In other words, a real energy analyst wouldn’t make the (transparently partisan, irrelevant to short-term prices) claims you are making.

      The problem is that your analysis is politically motivated and ill-informed.

      If you want to argue that we are overreacting to climate change and that we should encourage more long-term oil development, fine. Reasonable people can disagree on that. But that’s got nothing to do with short-term energy prices. Now that you know this, you’ll stop making these dumb jabs at Biden for making today’s gas prices worse, right?

      Reply
      1. pgl

        “Now that you know this, you’ll stop making these dumb jabs at Biden for making today’s gas prices worse, right?”

        I think we both know Bruce Hall is an ubertroll paid by the word. He has never even tried to have an honest discussion. So why would we expect this ubertroll to stop now?

        Reply
      2. pgl

        Don’t you love this dumba$$ line:

        let’s hear it for Old Uncle Joe out there begging Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to “drill, baby, drill”.

        I guess the Village Idiot Bruce Hall does not realize that these 3 nations have lots of oil reserves already discovered and able to supply without a single bit of new drilling. Then again Brucie boy hasn’t the foggiest clue how oil is discovered, produced, and converted to gasoline. He is THAT dumb.

        Reply
          1. Ivan

            Do you really believe that my comments claimed that “only heat kills people” ????

            Even trying to communicate with you runs into a ditch of confusion before it begins.

          2. CoRev

            Ivan, blaming your misunderstanding: ”
            Do you really believe that my comments claimed that “only heat kills people” ????

            Even trying to communicate with you runs into a ditch of confusion before it begins.”
            when you said this: “Everything is big in Texas – including the lies.” but failed to answer this: “Ivan, which total was the lie?”

            A simple question could have been answered with a even simpler quote, but instead all we got was obfuscation.

      1. pgl

        You continue to duck the fact that the electricity failures during Uri came from failures in the natural gas provision of electricity. Then again – you are almost as dishonest as the troll Bruce Hall. But come on man – I suspect you can step up your dishonesty game. You need to as Bruce Hall is way ahead of you.

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Bierka, which part of the FERC, NERC, etc. Report am I to believe? the part that says ~80% of the power loss did not mention gas, or the part that said ~87% of the outages were from gas? Did you notice the apples to oranges comparison?

          This ERCOT chart for the period is fascinating. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/ERCOT_generation_2021_power_crisis_US_Energy_Information_Administration.jpg If you look at the week before the storm we could have seen articles and claims that wind and solar provided (high)% of demand. As the weather changed gas and nuclear provided the bulk/vast majority of available electricity.

          Also fascinating in the chart is the true picture of INTERMITTENCY of renewables. On a good day they can provide a significant portion of demand. It looks like wind produced ~22-23 and solar ~4 -5 gigawatts of power for a moderate period on one day. Otherwise gas provided several times the power produced by wind and solar. Even during the storm period when gas is blamed for failing, but still fulfilled several times the demand of the prior low demand period. Wind and solar provided ~10% during Sundays peak production. Luckily the remaining 90% production continued.

          And you Climate Warriors continue to demand closure of fossil fueled power plants. Stop wondering why your policies are losing voters.

          Reply
          1. pgl

            “And you Climate Warriors continue to demand closure of fossil fueled power plants.”

            Nice try but I have never demanded the immediate closure. What we are advocating is at least some effort to a gradual transition. You are the one who goes screaming incoherently whenever someone suggests we actually use market measures to have a gradual transition.

          2. CoRev

            Ivan, blaming your misunderstanding: ”
            Do you really believe that my comments claimed that “only heat kills people” ????

            Even trying to communicate with you runs into a ditch of confusion before it begins.”
            when you said this: “Everything is big in Texas – including the lies.” but failed to answer this: “Ivan, which total was the lie?”

            A simple question could have been answered with a even simpler quote, but instead all we got was obfuscation.

          3. CoRev

            Bierka, adding words to refute a claim: “…I have never demanded th immediate closure.” is lying.

            Your Pavlovian responses have gotten worse and worse.

  6. Moses Herzog

    This former pretend ESL teacher (I called myself pretend because I never got a teaching certificate) would like to make a stab at “a term for people who cite articles that counter their main point,”

    misguided: having or showing faulty judgment or reasoning.

    erroneous: wrong, incorrect.

    Please feel free to give this former pretend and currently slightly sauced “teacher” a grade/score of your choosing in the blog thread below.

    That concludes today’s bad ESL instruction from dweeb guy.

    Reply
  7. Ivan

    Exactly. I think some people have become so used to Faux news approaches that they simply conclude whatever they want to conclude from an article, regardless of its actual content.

    I think Europe is doing the right thing about the current temporary oil problem/crisis. For the short (3-12 month) timeline they are supercharging energy conservation. For the intermediate timeline (1-3 years) they are speeding up alternative energy projects already in the pipeline. Since the current problem is a temporary problem it makes no sense to do anything that will have little or no effect past the 3 year horizon – at least not as a solution to today problems.

    Reply
  8. ltr

    Even under the most optimistic view, U.S. production increases would likely add only a few hundred thousand barrels per day above current forecasts. This amounts to a proverbial drop in the bucket in the 100-million-barrel-per-day global oil market, especially relative to a looming reduction in Russian oil exports due to war-related sanctions that could easily reach 3 million barrels per day….

    [ Surely so. But given the range of sanctions, if the sanctions hold, there is serious concern about energy and food supplies for less developed countries. ]

    Reply
  9. rsm

    Today’s zerohedge reveals California’s plans: “$11.5 billion in tax refunds, including $400 checks to every registered vehicle owner in the state”; are you Californians thanking me for predicting gas cards a few months ago here? Or did Chintzie delete that, because he got trolled, amirite?

    Reply
    1. Menzie Chinn Post author

      rsm: A check through the records indicates the only comment I have deleted of yours has an [expletive] in it, and had to do with repos. I don’t know where you predicted “gas cards”, nor do I recall your comment. I’m checking for violations of the guidelines regarding foul language, misogynistic, homophobic, or racist remarks.

      Reply
      1. Moses Herzog

        Well, About right now, I’m the last person Menzie would wish to speak up for him at this moment. And yet….. Uhm, I’ve made “borderline” comments “sexist” “misogynist” comments many times before. Menzie “filtered” me. Now I’ve “had it out” with many people on this blog before. Does anyone here feel I’ve been presented in a “fashionable light” or better than reality??? WOW, I mean, REALLY, you feel you got a wrong card hand here?? Honestly??

        Reply
        1. Moses Herzog

          I’m drinking, was drinking, the above comment was directed at “rsm” if there was any confusion reading my comment. It was, in short, meant to say, Menzie gives everyone on the blog “The benefit of the doubt” on their comments. People on the blog have different feelings about the “leeway” Menzie and Prof Hamilton gives them. I feel it’s a great thing, to their credit. I bow down to them for this freedom on the blog. others dislike it. I even felt Hamilton would be “more strict” if he had the only call on it. But I also feel Menzie has “wider perspective” on it as a Chinese/Asian person who knows the evils of when the rules are more strict. I been in China 7 years. I still love the people there. take that last part for whatever it means to you as an individual.

          Reply
    2. macroduck

      There is a huge difference between gas cards and cash in the form of checks or refunds. It is the difference between offsetting the income effect of higher energy prices in one case and subsidizing energy consumption in the other.

      You are crowing about being massively, fundamentally wrong. That’s no surprise, though; It’s economics we’re talking about, after all.

      Reply
  10. rsm

    So lack of physical supply isn’t an issue, just lack of capital? Why is the Fed currently increasing the cost of capital, because it thinks there’s a demand problem it can solve by decreasing funding to shale companies?

    Doesn’t this just prove supply chains are but payment chains in reverse? If the Fed invested the money, honey, wouldn’t drillers find the time?

    Just more truth than Chinsee can handle, no?

    Reply
    1. AndrewG

      “Data provider Enersection found that since 2015, an average of 1,560 wells have been drilled on federal lands annually, but only 47 percent of federal permits issued were actually utilized. This is because companies tend to acquire permits on the acreage they lease even if they are not certain whether the location is worth developing.”

      That’s not a capital constraint.

      “The latest Dallas Fed Energy Survey shows that investor pressure to maintain capital discipline—which precludes higher investment in expanding oil production—is the primary restraint on publicly traded companies. This is not simply a case of investors being selfish, but of investors who suffered persistent losses in years past wanting compensation for the risk they take. Depriving these investors of the returns they insist on, by whatever means, would likely be counterproductive because without these investors, the industry would lack the capital to maintain—never mind, increase—crude production going forward.”

      That’s a capital constraint, but only in that investors are quite risk averse. Would you like the Fed to be more dovish right now? Is that it?

      “Just more truth than Chinsee can handle, no?”

      What the hell are you on about?

      Reply
    2. Macroduck

      You have confused physical supply with leases. I can see how that would happen…to you. You are so eager to confuse one thing with another that you are an easy mark for right-wing spin that Biden is at fault for high prices. Congratulations on being easily duped.

      Reply
      1. pgl

        You are so eager to confuse one thing with another that you are an easy mark for right-wing spin that Biden is at fault for high prices.

        Bruce Hall reads a Dallas FED analysis noting how incredibly high downstream margins have become and thinks it said some investment today that will bring a tiny amount of oil a decade for now will lead to much lower gasoline prices now. Now v. later. Tiny = huge. Downstream v. upstream. And there’s more.

        Bruce reads a discussion about how the World Bank is investing in African energy production and somehow turns that into a statement about investing in US energy production.

        The man is confused about EVERYTHING. And he just babbles on and on and on.

        Reply
  11. ltr

    https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-09-23/El-Salvador-s-Bitcoin-folly-13Nn9YBooAo/index.html

    September 23, 2021

    El Salvador’s Bitcoin folly
    By Jeffrey Frankel

    El Salvador this month became the first country to adopt a cryptocurrency – in this case, Bitcoin – as legal tender. I say the first, because others might follow. But they should think twice, because the idea is highly dubious – and likely to be economically dangerous for developing countries in particular….

    Reply
    1. ltr

      https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-06-21/PBOC-summons-institutions-for-cryptocurrency-crackdown-11hdJtr8nT2/index.html

      June 21, 2021

      China’s central bank summons financial institutions for harder cryptocurrency crackdown
      By Wang Tianyu

      China’s central bank on Monday said it had recently summoned banks and payment institutions, including top state-owned banks and Alibaba-backed Alipay, to order harder crackdowns on cryptocurrency trading.

      The institutions cannot provide crypto-related products or services, including account opening and clearing, said the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) in a statement, adding they should cut payment channels for cryptocurrency trading.

      The move came shortly after the country’s crackdown on cryptocurrency “mining” in several provinces, including the most recent one in the southwestern province of Sichuan, where the closure of 26 suspected cryptocurrency mining projects was ordered.

      Cryptocurrency has caught the eye of the Chinese government in recent years, and scrutiny over the virtual industry escalated last month when the State Council, China’s cabinet, vowed to clamp down on bitcoin mining and trading as part of measures to prevent financial risks.

      Days before the move from the State Council, three Chinese financial regulators banned financial institutions from crypto-related businesses….

      Reply
    1. Moses Herzog

      People who are INCREDIBLY stupid/UNeducated, often have no idea how offensive they are, or there’s even a world outside of themselves. I feel confident right now, that YOU are INSIDE of the world I just NOW described.

      Reply
      1. Moses Herzog

        WOW……… I can only think “AS” meant this as satire. I really can’t fathom it./

        Professor Chinn, people on the blog respect you, just imagine that tonight America isn’t the craZy place, and get some rest

        Reply
        1. AS

          Moses,
          I did not see “rsm’s” entry referring to Professor Chinn as “Chintzie”. I do not appreciate pejorative references and would consider banning a commenter using pejoratives.

          I saw “itr’s” comment about what I thought was a reference to the word, “Chintzy” which seems to have been derived as noted by the BBC with an expanded meaning of cheap imitation. I was not aware of any racial pejorative connotation, but now obviously see the nasty nature of the comment as related to Professor Chinn.

          Apologies to Professor Chinn, if it seemed that I was condoning pejorative comments.

          Reply
          1. AS

            Opps should have used the actual offending word, “Chinsee”.
            Seems we should be able to have differing opinions without being offensive or belittling. I always appreciate information from contributors who have superior knowledge.

          2. Menzie Chinn Post author

            AS: No, I understood that you were not being perjorative. rsm, on the other hand has been reduced to name calling. While this does not violate the terms of use, I do find it bad form (and — unsurprisingly to me — juvenile) to be routinely insulting the host by calling him names.

      2. Barkley Rosser

        AS,

        Thank you for letting us know that while rsm probably did not intend to, he actually complimented Menzie by comparing him with an “exotic” high quality fabric from India. The things one learns on this blog…. :-).

        Reply
    2. AndrewG

      The owner of the blog and the person toward whom the nasty terms are aimed has chosen to not do anything about it.

      Welcome to the world of free speech, ltr!

      Reply
  12. Moses Herzog

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x2Z_uamkDE

    If you’re “being” “chinntzy”….. it means you’re cheap (joke). Just today Menzie offered me Pork dumplings, noodles, and one Egg because it was my birthday. Menzie?? A cake when I asked for an egg in my noodles?? Really??? Well Wu Qiong just said “uhm T__ did you forget the cigarettes gift for my Judge Dad???” Train to Dalian!! Train to Dalian!! What??~~~ 3% beer on the train??? Doctor!!!!!! pulse!!!!

    Reply
    1. Moses Herzog

      @ Menzie

      For whatever it means to you, I find it offensive, and it scrambles up my internal feelings. It bothers me and causes me angst. They found a new “c word”. You now what I’d do to those who use it if I had the chance?? eliminate question mark. You KNOW what I would do to them if I had the chance.

      Reply
    1. pgl

      Very informative discussion – and yes that is impressive. Alas – this will likely spark another incoherent angry rant from CoRev. I hope his doctors eventually get him to take his meds.

      Reply
    2. CoRev

      Ivan misread another report: “…get 35% of their electricity from renewable and another 25% from other zero carbon sources..” We know from other sources that CA has already achieved this zero carbon goal, For an hour, on a Spring day when demand is normally lower, and when the Sun and wind production were both high.

      But what happened to the other 23 hours when these conditions were not met? This graph shows what actually happens in CA: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/07/1097376890/for-a-brief-moment-calif-fully-powered-itself-with-renewable-energy

      Those ole Grey areas are there to show how the INTERMITTENT zero carbon sources were backed up by alternative sources.

      Remember the need for these alternative sources are no included in the price comparisons. For that reason “the big lie” claims that zero carbon sources are growing cheaper than those required carbon-based sources. NO! They ALWAYS add to delivery prices to the customers.

      Reply
      1. Ivan

        “The CEC estimates that in 2020, 34.5 percent of the state’s retail electricity sales were served by Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)-eligible sources such as solar and wind. When sources of zero-carbon energy such as large hydroelectric generation and nuclear are included, 59 percent of the state’s retail electricity sales came from non-fossil fuel sources in 2020.”

        Not sure exactly what it is you failed to comprehend in this the second paragraph of that article. If you want to be taken serious you should specify your presumed divergent readings of the report rather than just contest the facts and then continue bawling about “the other 23 hours”. The question of direct and indirect costs of different sources is irrelevant to obtained production.

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Ivan, can’t be more specific when I provided a graph: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/07/1097376890/for-a-brief-moment-calif-fully-powered-itself-with-renewable-energy. On a good day CA can provide 100% of demand. Since this was a May 13, 2022 article its easy to understand that your “…35% of their electricity from renewable and another 25% from other zero carbon sources…” were part of that production.

          I read your link, but you appear to not have done so for mine. You also claim: ” The question of direct and indirect costs of different sources is irrelevant to obtained production.” Is why the big lie works. “Obtained production” is not delivered electricity to the customer. If Ca was doing so well then its electricity prices wouldn’t be some of the highest in the country.

          Reply
      2. pgl

        “But what happened to the other 23 hours when these conditions were not met? ”

        You just blatantly LIED about what that chart shows. Wind and solar provided most of the electricity for about 12 hours. And the 12 hours when most people are awake and about. Come on CoRev – at least TRY to be honest. DAMN!

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Bierka, Bierka why the need to lie? You even quoted me, then claimed: ” Wind and solar provided most of the electricity for about 12 hours. And the 12 hours when most people are awake and about” . What happened in that period when that not most electricity, or as the article said: “California just ran on 100% renewable energy,…”. The graph showed that period to be 23 hours.

          Come on Bierka – at least TRY to be honest. DAMN!

          Reply
          1. pgl

            I see. If solar and wind do not provide 100% of the energy needs for each and every hour, it provides nothing. Got it CoRev. You have gone THAT BONKERS.

      3. Ivan

        The is not, never has been and never will be a problem with “intermittency”. The problem is and always has been storage – and the technology for storage is in place and waiting to be scaled up when enough alternative energy production comes on line.

        If a completely isolated community in CA build itself sufficient solar energy production that on a sunny midsummer day it produce 500% of the energy it uses – it faces a dilemma of waste vs. storage. It shouldn’t be a problem storing enough to get through the night, but the excess would be far more than that. So they would need to have substantial storage capacity to save that excess longer term. If that community had enough solar panels that their average annual solar production matched their annual electricity consumption, they would need storage capacity to save excess on some days to be used on other days. If they were worried about fluctuations beyond the annual they could build even more capacity and storage – or they could just truck in some hydrogen, if it had been an unusually cold winter or cloudy summer.

        The only problem faced by going 100% alternative energy is storage – and that is not a big deal. We have the technologies – they are just not commercially viable, YET.

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Ivan claims: “The is not, never has been and never will be a problem with “intermittency”. The problem is and always has been storage – and the technology for storage is in place and waiting to be scaled up when enough alternative energy production comes on line.” and ” they are just not commercially viable, YET.”
          Storage is there to solve the INTERMITTENCY problem. Sheesh!

          Your example just adds more cost to the generation of electricity making price comparisons unneeded. Adding “100% alternative energy ” ALWAYS adds costs. Worse, adding 100%/doubling alternative energy might add an additional hour of surplus on good days. Do you realize there are more then 2 hours in a day when there is electricity demand? Do you realize that the slight surplus will not solve the storage problem?

          How many times will adding 100% alternative energy be needed to replace existing fossil fueled sources? How much ” not commercially viable” will be needed to replace existing fossil fueled sources?

          Who pays for these unicorn fart solutions? You wonder why the voters are turning away from Dem policies? Your (and the many others here) views and comments are examples of why it is happening.

          Reply
        2. Ivan

          Current alternative energy storage can take many forms. Although some may not be “commercially viable” at this time there are no laws of nature that humans cannot interfere with market forces – both conservatives and liberals do it all the time. If society want or need something, we can mandate or incentivize it.

          We can store excess alternative energy by:
          1. Shutting down production of power from hydroelectric and natural gas (the hydro and NG not used becomes a form of energy storage). What would normally be considered a source of energy now effectively works as storage.
          2. Direct or indirect storage as heat – as in the solar thermal plants that heat sodium to high temperatures during the day, then convert it to steam for electricity production after sunset.
          3. Direct storage in batteries
          4. Conversion to hydrogen, which can also be stored longer-term and converted back to electricity when needed.
          5. Lifting up heavy things (water, blocks of concrete, etc.), then reversing it to create electricity when needed. Pressurizing air works similarly.

          All of these approaches for storage of alternative energy are still being further developed and each have its own set of strength and weaknesses. All have gone to or past the pilot plant stage. There are still questions of commercial viability in the current market situation. However, as we all know, the term “reasonable price” is defined by how much you need or want something.

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            Ivan, and each listed, not yet commercially viable, storage attempt adds costs to the customer.

            BTW, which laws of physics allow for” Shutting down production of power from hydroelectric and natural gas (the hydro and NG not used becomes a form of energy storage). What would normally be considered a source of energy now effectively works as storage.”? Are their PRODUCTION actually shut down or is it just no longer dispatched and on stand-by? Shutting down implies their energy is being replaced not available until restarted.

            The confusion and misunderstanding of electricity production happens is obvious.

  13. ltr

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/opinion/asian-americans-racism.html

    February 18, 2021

    Anti-Asian Racism Isn’t New
    A frightening wave of attacks has Asian communities on edge. But I experienced street harassment long before the pandemic.
    By Qian Julie Wang

    One of the first English words I learned was an ethnic slur I heard whenever my parents and I walked around the city. I was 7 years old and had just moved to Brooklyn from China. One day, eager to show off, I turned to my father and declared, “We are chinks now!” in English. My father looked as if I had stabbed him. In a grave, low voice he told me to never utter that word again.

    That slur has haunted me throughout my life, cutting like a knife when I least expect it. A boy on a bike once screamed it so deep into my ear that it rang for hours afterward. The ringing eventually subsided, but the street harassment became a regular fixture in my life.

    Before the pandemic, the simple act of walking to the courthouse where I work demanded exhaustive control of my body. For a while I tried very hard to make myself look less feminine and more white. I’d pretend to be deaf when strangers addressed me with their eyes pulled back into a slant while taunting “Me love you long time” or loudly said they had “yellow fever.”

    As the coronavirus spread, I began to dread my commute to work. People made a show of keeping away from me even in crowded subway train cars. Other times, the harassment was more overt — strangers bumped their shoulders into me; someone jabbed me with the pointy metal end of a long umbrella while shouting, “Go back to China.” My parents wore hats, sunglasses and double masks whenever they left the house.

    The last time I took the train to work, in March, a man put his face inches away from mine and shouted “chink” while looking me dead in the eyes. Not one person came to my defense. The slur rang through my ears, transporting me back to my childhood. I haven’t set foot on a train or a bus since.

    I’m far from alone. The United States has had a surge in violence against Asian-Americans during the pandemic. Between March and December 2020, Stop AAPI Hate, an initiative that tracks and responds to reported incidents of violence and discrimination directed at Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders, received more than 2,800 reports of incidents against Asian-Americans. Stop AAPI Hate also found that women are twice as likely as men to report coronavirus-related harassment.

    Though Anti-Asian sentiment has increased during the pandemic, it is woven into the very fabric of this country. The Page Act of 1875 effectively barred Chinese women, who were believed to spread sexual disease and to pose a threat to white values, lives and futures, from entering the country. The Chinese Exclusion Act, which was signed into law in 1882, was the first and only enacted legislation to prohibit immigration of all individuals of a particular national origin. The exclusion laws weren’t repealed until 1943, when Congress established an immigration quota for China of about 105 visas per year.

    The country’s legal framework dehumanized Asian immigrants, and in turn emboldened Americans to brutalize us. In the Chinese Massacre of 1871, a white mob hanged nearly 20 Chinese immigrants in makeshift gallows in Los Angeles. In 1930, hundreds of white men roamed the streets of Watsonville, Calif., terrorizing Filipino farmworkers for days before killing a man. After Pearl Harbor, an angry nation used Japanese-Americans as a scapegoat. After the Vietnam War, the Ku Klux Klan tried to drive Vietnamese-Americans out of Texas by burning their houses and boats — a symptom of anti-Vietnamese sentiment across the country.

    The recent spate of attacks is targeting the most vulnerable members of our community….

    Reply
    1. AndrewG

      Anti-Asian attitudes in America are terrible.

      But:

      a) Criticizing the Chinese government is not racist, and

      b) Have you noticed the stuff the Chinese government does to its ethnic minorities?

      “China GOOD, America BAD” is propaganda better suited to Twitter.

      Reply
  14. ltr

    https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-05-15/Chinese-mainland-records-239-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-1a330NftxcI/index.html

    May 15, 2022

    Chinese mainland records 239 new confirmed COVID-19 cases

    The Chinese mainland recorded 239 new confirmed COVID-19 cases on Saturday, with 226 linked to local transmissions and 13 from overseas, data from the National Health Commission showed on Sunday.

    A total of 1,550 new asymptomatic cases were also recorded on Saturday, and 58,878 asymptomatic patients remain under medical observation.

    Confirmed cases on the Chinese mainland now number 221,804, with the total death toll from COVID-19 at 5,209.

    Chinese mainland new locally transmitted cases

    https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-05-15/Chinese-mainland-records-239-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-1a330NftxcI/img/886683b42fac41aeaf05bacf8106f41f/886683b42fac41aeaf05bacf8106f41f.jpeg

    Chinese mainland new imported cases

    https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-05-15/Chinese-mainland-records-239-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-1a330NftxcI/img/db4235073a584ee4a6a0b51d3dfb2e36/db4235073a584ee4a6a0b51d3dfb2e36.jpeg

    Chinese mainland new asymptomatic cases

    https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-05-15/Chinese-mainland-records-239-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-1a330NftxcI/img/beb4d59ac0dc4ba998119ecb010d44c6/beb4d59ac0dc4ba998119ecb010d44c6.jpeg

    Reply
  15. pgl

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/buffalo-shooting-is-an-ugly-culmination-of-california-s-great-replacement-theory/ar-AAXhZKn?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=4473953ebefb42a68ee0255138a443f6

    Peyton Gendron is your standard MAGA hat wearing 18 year old racist punk. He drove 200 miles to target a grocery store in Buffalo where most of the shoppers were black and decided to live stream his murderous rage. Thankfully he is in custody where he explains his actions as he believes in the Great Replacement theory, which this terrorist learned by watching Tucker Carlson and the other racists who appear on the evening shows of Faux News.

    Reply
  16. ltr

    The repeated use of “chintzy” for a name of an Asian-American or for any Asian is offensive, purposely offensive. Such an offense must not be repeated again.

    Reply
    1. AndrewG

      I agree it’s offensive. I hate it personally. But declaring that it must not be repeated isn’t going to do anything. It’s not your blog to moderate.

      Perhaps you might *ask* the blog owner to do something about it?

      And ultimately, it is up to the blog owner, not commenters.

      Reply
  17. Macroduck

    India deals with wheat shortage with export contrls:

    https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-bans-wheat-exports-with-immediate-effect-2974812

    China deals with capital flight through “export controls”:

    https://asiatimes.com/2022/05/china-restricts-travel-abroad-to-keep-money-at-home/

    India’s wheat farmers, already angry over Modi’s agricultural policies, are even angier now. This is urban elites against rural traditional groups. China’s neighbors were hoping and end to travel bans would boost tourism – Sri Lanka high on the list – but no luck.

    Reply
  18. pgl

    More on the domestic terrorism in East Buffalo where some MAGA nut ball kid murdered 10 black people who were just grocery shopping:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/it-was-by-design-black-residents-try-to-come-to-terms-with-horror-of-shooting/ar-AAXiCLX?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=d2e4fb3107ae467fbdecaebef83b72fa

    The square where the shooting took placed, surrounded by vacant lots that residents said were the result of decades of segregation and systemic racism, is the community’s center, with Tops Friendly functioning as the only grocery store for the immediate area. In striking Tops Friendly, the shooter – an 18-year-old self-confessed white supremacist – was not just hitting at a supermarket, but also a place where locals gathered as a community.

    Tops Friendly is now closed as it is police crime scene. Uber and Lyft to their credit is telling residents that they will give free rides to residents who need to go grocery shopping elsewhere for the next few days. It is time for all New Yorkers to step up and help this people out.

    Reply
    1. ltr

      https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/14/nyregion/east-side-buffalo-shooting.html

      May 14, 2022

      Gunman targeted Black neighborhood shaped by decades of segregation.
      By Anushka Patil

      The high concentration of Black residents on Buffalo’s East Side — which the suspect in Saturday’s mass shooting said was his reason for targeting the area — is a direct result of decades of segregation and systemic racism, according to decades of research.

      One analysis from the University of Michigan, based on data from the 2010 census, found that the Buffalo-Niagara Falls metro area was the nation’s sixth most segregated when ranked specifically by the distribution of Black and white residents.

      Segregation is also a root cause, according to experts, of why efforts to bring an economic renaissance to Buffalo have done little for Black residents. A University of Buffalo report in 2021 found that living conditions for Black residents of the city, across measures of health, housing, income and education, had improved little and in some cases had declined over the preceding 30 years.

      India B. Walton, a nurse and community activist who nearly unseated Buffalo’s four-term Democratic mayor last year, called the city “segregated by design” as she reacted to the shooting on Twitter.

      “Our government can’t prevent things that they actually cause,” she wrote.

      Indeed, like many major American cities, Buffalo bears a tell-tale scar of long-standing segregation, a highway built in the 1950s and 1960s that cut directly through a Black neighborhood, severing those communities and stifling economic development for decades to come.

      That highway, the Kensington Expressway, is about two blocks from the Tops supermarket, where at least 10 people were shot and killed on Saturday. (Also near the scene of the shooting is City Honors High School, a magnet high school regularly ranked as one of the best in the country that has struggled to improve its disproportionately low Black enrollment.)

      The destruction caused by the Kensington Expressway’s construction included the razing of Humboldt Parkway, a tree-lined public space designed by the legendary architect Frederick Law Olmsted. It has been described as the “spine” of the Black middle-class neighborhood that was emerging at the time….

      Reply
    2. Ivan

      Replacement theory plays on some of the most powerful ancient monkey reflexes we have. It digs into existential threat fears, that turns off reasoning and conjures up hate.

      Fox and Tucker have used it for commercial purpose because they know how great those existential panics and fears are at gaining and retaining the attention of their marks – so they can sell them vitamins, pillows and shampoo in the commercial breaks.

      The fact that a few weak minded, of those marks, break and go on a killing spree is a cost that Fox and Tucker are more than willing to pay – after all it is not they themselves that are targets of those killings.

      Reply
  19. Max Rockbin

    Increased drilling might lower oil futures though. And what impact would lower futures prices have on current oil prices?

    Reply
    1. Menzie Chinn Post author

      Max Rockbin: Increased drilling in the future should affect the expected price relative to counterfactual in the future. If futures markets are efficient, but risk averse, then futures prices should fall relative to what they otherwise would have been. But for US drilling to affect the price in the future, you’d need substantial inelasticity of demand, high elasticity of supply. I tried to provide some quantitative guidance in my 2008 post. Do you really think a small drop in say 5 year futures means a drop of measurable quantity today?

      Reply
  20. pgl

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-takes-shot-at-rand-paul-after-meeting-with-ukraine-s-zelenskyy/ar-AAXiGHi?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=042f8ca9223042f08192a18ba28696e5

    McConnell v. MAGA over aid to Ukraine. It is good that the senior Senator from Kentucky is working with the bipartisan efforts to put down Putin’s war crimes but it seems the junior Senator from Kentucky will be one of 6 Senators who vote the way Putin wants them to vote.

    Reply
      1. AndrewG

        Just to clarify for other readers:

        “mainstream ww iii screed” = support for Ukraine’s defense of their homeland against Russian invaders

        You’re all class, Anonymous!

        Reply
      1. Barkley Rosser

        So, Anonymous, now that the Azov battalion has surrendered, the only actual semi-Nazis in the Ukrainian military or government, will your boss VVPutin decide that he has achieved his goal of “de-nazification” of Ukraine and so declare an end to his war?

        Reply
  21. pgl

    There are so many lies and downright stupid statements ala Bruce Hall, I have decided to narrow my latest to two incredible whoopers. First of all this moron thought Obama was suppressing US oil production back in 2015. The problem was that oil prices were a mere $30 a barrel back then. So it was the market. Besides the cost of US oil production is generally around $50 a barrel. I guess Bruce would produce oil anyway which would likely get a shareholder lawsuit as his incompetent management would bankrupt his oil company.

    And then there is his pathetic chirping about the US imported oil from China:

    https://www.worldometers.info/oil/china-oil/

    China is #4 at oil production after all producing almost 5 million barrels per day. But the fact that EVERYONE except dumba$$ Bruce knows is that China consumes almost 13 million barrels per day so it is on net importing 8 million barrels per day. Like I said – EVERYONE knows this except our favorite Village Idiot.

    Reply
  22. Gregory Bott

    Prices aren’t going back to normal until Russian crude is reentered into the global supply chain. It was Russia more than the Saudi’s why the 2014-15 price war got going because exports from the USA were hurting their economy as oil exports literally financed the entire financial system of Russia.

    US oil is dirty and expensive to refine. It could be used to end all foreign oil imports(for a while) but the fields, system would have to be nationalized, refinement controlled for this oil and it would cost the government a lot of money. Turning China against Putin’s regime is the key to rebalancing supply chains. The coo would be rather swift then. The Russian system outside Putin’s inner circle never wanted this war. They just wanted territories that supported Russian annexation after the end of the Soviet. I see China giving Putin his shot to control grain and black sea ports. It didn’t work. Time to move on.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      “US oil is dirty and expensive to refine.”

      Another excellent reason why relying on US oil to lower gasoline prices is nothing more than supply side silliness. After all – downstream margins are really high right now. But trust me – Bruce Hall has no clue what we mean by downstream v. upstream. He even thinks that if the Chinese open more refineries, that mean they produce more oil. Yes – he is THAT STUPID.

      Reply
      1. Bruce Hall

        He even thinks that if the Chinese open more refineries, that mean they produce more oil. Yes – he is THAT STUPID.

        Another stupid non sequitur from the king of non sequitur.

        The Chinese obviously have more awareness than pgl and the Biden Administration. They will go after Russian oil supplies and have the ability to refine it.

        But no issue here in the US, right?
        https://news.yahoo.com/inflation-soaring-gas-prices-forced-124656569.html
        https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/16/business/ben-bernanke-predicts-stagflation.html

        Reply
        1. pgl

          “They will go after Russian oil supplies and have the ability to refine it.”

          I see you have no clue where China buys its oil. Try from the Middle East, Australia, Africa. If you think China needs Russian oil – then you are even dumber than we give you credit for. BTW moron – do you have any clue what normal refinery margins even are? Didn’t think so.

          Reply
  23. ltr

    Setting aside the politics, which I do not understand, why not set aside all sanctions on Venezuelan oil? Venezuela evidently has richer reserves than Saudi Arabia, and these drilled reserves could be added to the international market in quick order.

    Reply
  24. Steven Kopits

    This piece is written by Garrett Golding and Lutz Killian, both of whom I know and hold in high regard. While I think their analysis is generally sound, the spin here mischaracterizes the situation.

    First, let’s be clear: ‘Drill, baby, drill’ was wildly successful, surpassing the expectations of even its most optimistic proponents. It reduced the price of oil by nearly half and kept it there for seven years. It ended the US trade deficit in oil, bolstered the US exchange rate, ended secular stagnation, ended the fascist period, and increased the US growth rate. It was incredibly successful, by any measure.

    Second, US production is not forecast to increase only marginally. In its latest STEO, the EIA sees US crude and condensate production rising by 0.9 mbpd Dec 2022 / Dec. 2021, and petroleum liquids rising by 1.2 mbpd for the same period, ie, during 2022. This is a historically large increase by any producer, and, under ordinary circumstances, should be enough to keep prices in check.

    Having said that, global demand continues to rebound from covid, and, more importantly, about 1 mbpd of Russian production is missing from the market. This has pushed up oil prices, with WTI now typically hovering in the $100-110 range, about $20 more than it should be otherwise.

    Moreover, the EIA has posted material revisions to historical production over the last three or four months, marking down US output by 200-250 kbpd in as little as 2-3 months. In other words, US production is seeing short term shortfalls compared to recent EIA forecasts. Such misses can result from a change in forecasting methodology or a simple estimation error, but they can also signal an inflection point. As readers know, I use forecasts as a lagging indicator; that is, when actuals deviate from forecasts, that often signals a change of regime. In this case, it may signal that US production has less resilience than the EIA earlier assumed. This in turn would mean that production to year end and beyond may be less than anticipated, possibly materially so.

    As I have noted, US production growth is the sole check on oil prices. I have earlier and often stated that as soon as the Permian was no longer able to materially meet incremental, global oil demand, oil prices would return to their cartel-set level, figure $110-125 / barrel Brent, which is pretty much where we are now. It is quite possible that the Permian can no longer carry the entire global oil system on its back, if not now, then within 2-3 years.

    Leasing incremental land for drilling is certainly both helpful and necessary. Failing to do so will signal the Biden administration as tone-deaf to public needs. To note a personal example: Last week I put 150 gallons into our oil tank — about 60% of its capacity — at a cost of $1000. Little over a year ago, I was paying $600 for a full tank. It’s painful, not only for me but for literally millions of Americans. If the Biden administration is insensitive to this, it will absolutely certainly be crushed at the polls.

    Reply
    1. AndrewG

      “As I have noted, US production growth is the sole check on oil prices. ”

      That’s not what the authors are saying. Quite the opposite.

      “Leasing incremental land for drilling is certainly both helpful and necessary.”

      For short-term prices? How so? What in your inferred change in regime (Biden’s policy towards energy development) will affect short-term prices?

      What of labor shortages and risk-averse investors, two big issues mentioned in the article?

      Reply
      1. Steven Kopits

        I am telling you that Permian output growth is the only check on oil prices on the supply side. Lutz and Garrett are saying that US production may not rise that much. Well, yes and no.

        Russian oil production is down 1 mbpd at last count. US production cannot rise fast enough to offset that loss, at least for a year.

        At the same time, the EIA’s forecast for US production increases is quite substantial in barrel terms. On the other hand, the EIA’s recent, material downward revisions suggests supply growth may prove less than they think. I don’t have an independent view here beyond saying ‘could be’.

        Supply chain bottlenecks appear to be material. For example, rig counts are not rising nearly as fast as oil prices would suggest. Investors may be risk averse, but no investor is risk averse to big profits, which means more production at higher prices. Investors have no convictions beyond fear and greed. High oil prices motivate greed, ie, more production.

        More leasing in the short term will not yield more production. But the signaling element is huge in political terms.

        Reply
        1. pgl

          “More leasing in the short term will not yield more production.”

          After all of your babble which had zero to do with the post at hand, you finally admitted the key point of the Dallas FED paper and Dr. Chinn’s post. But of course you had to clutter this discussion with a bunch of other stuff that is not material to the discussion. Damn – is this how you treat every issue?

          Reply
        2. AndrewG

          You could be lot clearer about this, Steve. First read of your post makes it sound like you think leasing now –> prices down soon. You could have just come out and said that’s not the case, but the optics are bad, etc.

          Reply
      2. pgl

        When Stevie and others talk about the increase in US oil production some 10 plus years ago – there are talking about shale oil and NOT the drill baby drill
        BS noted in Menzie’s 2008 informative post. And that Dallas FED paper Stevie seems to endorse clearly provides a very different message than either Stevie or Brucie put forth. OK – Brucie never read the paper (obviously). Maybe Stevie did but he needs to carefully re-read it.

        Reply
    2. pgl

      “Drill, baby, drill’ was wildly successful, surpassing the expectations of even its most optimistic proponents. It reduced the price of oil by nearly half and kept it there for seven years. It ended the US trade deficit in oil, bolstered the US exchange rate, ended secular stagnation, ended the fascist period, and increased the US growth rate. It was incredibly successful, by any measure.”

      You of all people should know the difference between the shale oil revolution and drilling off the shore of Cook Inlet. I guess you have not followed the conservation at all too busy touting your very questionable credentials.

      Reply
    3. Barkley Rosser

      Steven,

      I am assuming that everything in your post after the first paragraph is by these other two people. I have mixed views on their analysis of the oil industry/market, but there is one comment in their part that just jumps out as totally bizarre. It is the claim that somehow the “drill, baby, drill” period they aee as starting seven years ago “ended the fascist period..” What? This is a frankly completely insane remark. Who are these people that they would drop something that off-the-wall into an otherwise not completely unreasonable discussion of the oil industry?

      Reply
      1. pgl

        Maybe he defines having Pelosi as Speaker of the House = fascism. That is what one gets when one learns all of his political science from watching Fox and Friends.

        Reply
      2. Steven Kopits

        I have read the analysis again, and it’s fine, just as I would expect from Garrett and Lutz. Big brains, both of them, and very sound technically.

        Reply
        1. Barkley Rosser

          Steven,

          Their discussion of the supposed “end of the fascist period” is a sign of them having “big brain” and also being “very sound technically”? Again, this bit looks like a sign of completely drooling insanity.

          Reply
  25. pgl

    Thou who knows nothing even as he acts like a know it all Princeton Steve butts into a conversation over offshore drilling (drill baby drill) and gets confused as he touts the shale oil boom. Any real energy consultant would make a clear distinction between the two but not Princeton Steve. But wait – can we lean on shale oil to save the day? Well any real consultant (which excludes Stevie of course) would be comparing the cost of exploration and production of shale oil to the market price of oil. And it seems these costs currently are quite high:

    https://www.chron.com/business/oil/article/Drilling-for-Shale-Oil-Is-Getting-More-Expensive-17154657.php

    I guess Stevie did not know that as he never mentioned that. Of course this pretend know it all failed to grasp the actual conversation he butted into with his worthless 2 cents.

    Reply
      1. pgl

        “I know quite a bit about offshore oil.”

        Yea we get it. You are THE EXPERT on everything. Then how in hell did you confused offshore drilling with shale oil? No – you are a complete looney tune.

        Reply
    1. Steven Kopits

      The turn-around time for a new onshore lease in the Lower 48 — from leasing to production — is probably on the order of two years, maybe a little less if it’s expressed through. The turn-around time for an offshore lease in the GoM would ordinarily be in the 5-10 year range, at least for deepwater parcels. The turn-around time for a lease in Alaska can be several years to never, frankly. It is hard to develop acreage in Alaska and it can be highly price sensitive.

      Reply
      1. pgl

        Yes but did you not follow the illogic from Bruce Hall who pretends this turnaround is a couple of days? Look you butted into a conversation appearing to support Bruce Hall’s stupidity but at the end of the day even you realized the fatal flaws in the serial garbage he has been spewing. Next time at least try to grasp the debate before offering your worthless 2 cents.

        Reply
  26. pgl

    Now we get the fact that Bruce Hall never gave a rat’s a$$ about the negative externalities from either crude oil production or shale oil production but I would have hoped we would have heard some concern from the self styled energy expert of all times – Princeton Steve. But note not a peep from this heartless fool over any concerns regarding the shale oil boom. Thankfully people who are respected in the energy sector do get it as in this discussion:

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/The-Biggest-Problem-Behind-The-US-Shale-Boom.html

    BTW the word methane is something we know Bruce Hall never heard about but I would hope Princeton Steve has.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Hall

      Oooo, methane. Sure it does seep out of oil wells. Next crisis….

      You want to live in your Knob Hill sanctuary and let the rest of society struggle. Quite the liberal elitist.

      Reply
          1. Menzie Chinn Post author

            Bruce Hall: Not by a long shot. I am compiling a list, now that I’ve finished grading exams. I will call it “Bruce Hall’s Reign of Error”, since you seem to be undeterred by your innumerable errors and reading incomprehensions (of your own links) no less.

          2. Barkley Rosser

            Bruce,

            What you wanted to say was “Snob Hill.” Of course, another problem with your mischaracterization is that the actual Nob Hill is in San Francisco, while pgl lives in New York.. But, hey, won’t be first time you have been sort of off about something.

            Anyway, have fun back in Snob Creek.

        1. pgl

          Barkley Rosser
          May 17, 2022 at 11:38 pm

          Barkley should note I did live on Nob Hill back in the late 1990’s. A wonderful neighborhood.

          Reply
  27. CoRev

    After reading all the renewables-warriors comments this story just can not be true: https://dailycaller.com/2022/05/15/greenpeace-solar-farm-india-cattle-shed-renewable-energy/
    FROM SOLAR GRID TO CATTLE SHED: How Greenpeace’s Dream Of A Solar-Powered Village Fell Apart In Just A Few Years

    The article explains: “When this solar farm went defunct, it was primarily because of two reasons,” said Vijay Jayaraj, an India-based researcher. “One, is the cost of the power and the second is reliability.”

    What was the catalyst for withdrawing use: “In 2016 and 2017, when the village was finally connected to the grid — and the grid was powered by coal power plants — they understood that coal power is much more reliable,” he continued.
    Who knew RELIABILITY and COST were important? Actually most thinking people knew.

    This comment from an actual user explains the withdrawal from the solar grid: “We left solar connection after using it for one year. How can poor people like us pay such amounts of money?” an anonymous local told Nalanda University. “They used to give electricity only for two hours. During rain, they do not use to give electric supply and so does during the fog in the winter.”

    It was declared a success as a demonstration project: “Ramapati Kumar, the CEO of the Center for Environment and Energy Development which helped fund the project with Greenpeace, told Mongabay-India. “It was for demonstration purpose and suffered later due to upkeep issues.””
    Success is due to high costs, maintenance requirements, limited availability (~2 hours per day), limited supply when available (high use appliances restricted from hook up), use of other peoples’ funding, and ultra-short life cycle. Yup! These success factors are still in place nearly every solar installation today.

    Reply
  28. Bruce Hall

    Lucy thinks that the US should not produce more oil and not worry about refineries shutting down.

    Okay, then… https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/07/diesel-fuel-is-in-short-supply-as-prices-surge-heres-what-that-means-for-inflation.html
    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-World-Is-Facing-A-Critical-Diesel-Shortage.html

    Coming up for the summer: hurricane season and refineries shutting down. No problem, right?

    But Biden will do whatever he can to lower fuel prices, right?
    https://www.afpm.org/newsroom/blog/rins-disappear-2021-rfs-compliance-could-hit-30-billion

    No problems, right Lucy? Just gnash teeth over methane. Keep bitch slapping drillers and refiners.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      “Lucy thinks that the US should not produce more oil and not worry about refineries shutting down.”

      You are repeating this bald faced lie again. Look – you do not have the right to whine that we call you a blatant liar when all you ever do is lie 24/7.

      Reply
    2. pgl

      There are two aspects of your 1st link worth noting:

      (1) “The problem is especially acute on the East Coast, where prices have become “unhinged,” according to one analyst.” UNHINGED is a great description for each and every one of your really stupid posts.

      (2) The article kept referring to refineries which is part of the downstream part of producing oil and converting it to fuel to be sold to consumers. Remember that Dallas FED article you provided us that you thought was talking about oil prices and gasoline prices. But the moron that you truly are forget to read it which gave Dr. Chinn the opening for a post that totally mocked your incessant stupidity. Downstream v. upstream? Oh wait you have no idea what that means!

      Reply
    3. Barkley Rosser

      Uh oh, Mary Mary quite contrary is going all gaseous with massive methane emissions. Even her little lamb will not want to be around her.

      Reply
  29. Steven Kopits

    Oil and Fascism

    To Barkley’s comment:

    Governments have two functions wrt prosperity. The first is growing the economy — typically assuming to be the core function of policy for economists — and collecting and redistributing the joint resources of society — to be cynical, the core function of policy for politicians. The economic welfare of the average voter is therefore, at some aggregate level, f(GDP growth, redistribution). If the economy is growing, then the average voter can anticipate that life will get better through, typically, liberal policies emphasizing efficiency and effectiveness of government spending. On the other hand, if the public loses faith in growth, then increased incomes must arise from a reallocation of existing resources towards the given voter. This is very much the mentality in, say, Argentina. Put another way, in a low / no growth society, policy may come to focus on redistribution / theft. In any event, a no-growth society, it seems to be, is more prone to seeing the world as a zero-sum game. Such a world may be more prone to both populism and fascism.

    Fascism sets teams against each other. The key is to win control over resources to re-direct them to the group in power. It doesn’t matter if your team is right or wrong, as long as it is providing patronage in one form or another. (Very much Hungary under Orban.)

    By contrast, populism is more of a Marxist construct, that is, directing money from capital to the lower and lower middle classes, typically. Populism implies, I think, that finances are unsound, that is, the redistribution is often occurring though debt or money-printing, or debt and then money-printing. That’s Argentina.

    Until shale oil allowed the oil supply to catch up with demand, the advanced economies struggled with ‘secular stagnation’. Such privation breeds discontent, which may show up as populism or fascism nowadays. Indeed, we have seen that secular declines in oil consumption rarely occur outside the context of a recession, with the 2012-2104 period in the US a notable exception, that period when shale oil production was coming on strong.

    So: I think fascism is a reaction to depressions, notably because central banks rely upon policy for recessions (interest rate reductions) rather than measures to fix compromised collateral in depressions (unsterilized money printing). As a result, a recovery from a depression under current central bank thinking takes forever, typically seven to ten years, and in that period, voters will try every alternative, from left to right and downright goofy. Notwithstanding, they will be susceptible to blandishments of charlatans and autocrats who promise to take care of the public if only given enough power.

    That’s my basic working hypothesis.

    More here: https://www.princetonpolicy.com/ppa-blog/2018/12/12/italy-oil-euro-and-populism

    Reply
    1. pgl

      Another long winded worthless rant that has NOTHING to do with the current discussion. Pardon us for not reading this as you always are a total waste of time.

      Reply
    2. pgl

      I did endure your pathetic writing and came across this sentence:

      ‘Put another way, in a low / no growth society, policy may come to focus on redistribution / theft. In any event, a no-growth society, it seems to be, is more prone to seeing the world as a zero-sum game. Such a world may be more prone to both populism and fascism.’

      So a more equitable distribution of income is “theft” leading to fascism? Maybe this kind of nonsense drives Mitch McConnell but it has to rate up there with the dumbest thing I have ever read.

      Everyone else – please ignore this troll as reading his garbage is a total waste of your time.

      Reply
    3. Barkley Rosser

      Steven,

      So, is this your reply to my question regarding Golding and Killian claiming that increased shale oil production in the US was bringing “an end to fascism”? It still looks to me that prior to that we were not remotely in a fascist period, which means that their claim remains bizarre gibberish.

      The problem with oil and fascism is quite different than what you pose, I think. Indeed, increasing oil production in a nation may lead it towards fascism, not away from it. with Russia just a blazing example. The “resource curse” is a serious problem and especially so in connection with oil. Inceasing oil production tends to depress other sectors due to the “Dutch disease” effect operating by raising the value of a nation’s currency, thus reducing international competitiveness of other sectors. What makes this especially bad is that the oil industry does not employ much labor, so one sees labor-employing manufacturing and services declining while oil increases.

      We see in so many countries that small elites get control of those oil incomes, with them then supporting authoritarian leaders who may appeal to nationalism and racism to stay in power, classic fascism. Again, Russia is just a poster boy for this, with only a few exceptions out there avoiding it, e.g. Norway. Nations with no oil like Japan manage to have labor-employing sectors doing well, making it much easier to have income distributed more widely without extraordinary actions by governments.

      Anyway, looks like you have missed the main boat on this one, Steven. I would think you would know this stuff better. Oh, and of course some of these authoritatian governments are nominally leftist socialist, while exhibiting most of the syndrome, with Venezuela such an example.

      Reply
    1. AndrewG

      Did you actually read the article? The author is exaggerating the CEO’s words. It’s a bad opinion piece dressed up like hard news.

      Reply
      1. CoRev

        AG, where is the author exaggerating? I see quotes throughput the article followe3d with interpretation. Which is exaggerated? A timely example: “Finally, Tavares touched on one of the other huge choke points for EVs: how they’re charged. “Where is the clean energy?” he asked. “Where is the charging infrastructure?”

        The interpretation: “Yes, indeed, why are these things not being resolved rapidly if governments are going to essentially legislate everyone buy EVs? This is a train wreck happening in slow motion. I think many officials will have to walk back the rash regulations put in place by their predecessors who’ve used them to get re-elected and gain breathless adoration from unquestioning journalists acting more as cheerleaders than truth seekers.”

        This is a train wreck happening in slow motion. Voters recognize this. Not only about the EV and EV battery issue, but of nearly the entirety of the liberal policy mix. A ~75% poll rating of wrong direction does not bode well for this Fall’s elections.

        Reply
        1. pgl

          My Lord – all that word salad and not one insight on the market or the economics. I guess you are the dumber version of Princeton Steve.

          Reply
    2. pgl

      Gee Brucie boy has just figured out we need lithium to produce those batteries. Congratulation “genius: (snicker) for figuring out what everyone else has known for many years. But me thinks your CEO is a bit confused who the major suppliers of lithium even are. Hint – China is a distant third. Once again the dumbest troll in the history of the internet shows his incompetence at basic research:

      https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-top-lithium-producing-countries-in-the-
      world.html#:~:text=The%20Top%20Lithium%20Producing%20Countries%20In%20The%20World,%20%202%2C900%20%203%20more%20rows%20

      Australia and Chile combined provides more than five times what China provides.

      Way to go Brucie – you have a PERFECT record. With your hundreds of posts per day you would think you might make a real point just once. But to date – EVERYONE of you comments are truly beyond dumb.

      Reply
    3. pgl

      https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-top-lithium-producing-countries-in-the-world.html#:~:text=The%20Top%20Lithium%20Producing%20Countries%20In%20The%20World,%20%202%2C900%20%203%20more%20rows%20

      is a 2014 picture. Let’s try this recent picture:

      https://www.kitco.com/news/2022-02-01/Global-lithium-production-up-21-in-2021-as-Australia-solidifies-its-top-lithium-producer-status.html#:~:text=With%2055%2C000%20tonnes%20of%20mined%20lithium%20content%2C%20Australia,tonnes%20of%20Li%20content.%202021%2A%20-%20preliminary%20data.

      Note how Australia’s and Chile’s production have soared. But Bruce Hall’s CEO guru thinks we have to rely on China?

      I need to stop reading the incessant stupidity from Bruce Hall and pay more attention to simple Google searches as the more facts we get – the more we realize how incredibly dumb Bruce Hall is.

      Reply
      1. pgl

        According to the preliminary data released by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), estimated global mine production of lithium in 2021 was 100,000 tonnes of lithium content (excluding USA), a 21% increase over 2020 (82,500 tonnes). USGS said that global lithium production increased in response to strong demand from the lithium-ion battery market and increased prices of lithium. Global consumption of lithium in 2021 was estimated to be 93,000 tonnes, a 33% increase from 70,000 tonnes in 2020. USGS said that four mineral operations in Australia, two brine operations each in Argentina and Chile, and two brine and one mineral operation in China accounted for the majority of world lithium production. Additionally, smaller operations in Brazil, China, Portugal, the United States, and Zimbabwe also contributed to world lithium production. According to the report, owing to the resurgence in demand and increased prices of lithium in 2021, established lithium operations worldwide resumed capacity expansion plans, which were postponed in 2020 in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic.

        The market in action! Bruce Hall wants us to believe he is a conservative, which is weird since he has zero faith or even understanding of how markets work. No he actually thinks the head of a government can just wave a magic wand and make needed goods appear or disappear. Which is why he is routinely mocked by people who actually READ economic blogs!

        Reply
  30. Expat

    Margins are at record highs. Runs are maxed out. Adding more crude won’t change the price of products. Crude oil prices are determined by the price of products, not by production of crude. I got bored reading comments but i assume someone brilliantly suggested that the US should stop exporting its “good” crude. Please, leave this debate to experts.

    Reply
      1. Steven Kopits

        Yeah, okay. I threw a bunch of stuff out there, some of it more along the lines of a hypothesis than some assertion of theory. I think some of it is pretty interesting at the discussion level, not that we have too much in the way of intellectual arguments here nowadays.

        Reply
    1. pgl

      You mean this intellectual garbage:

      “Put another way, in a low / no growth society, policy may come to focus on redistribution / theft. In any event, a no-growth society, it seems to be, is more prone to seeing the world as a zero-sum game. Such a world may be more prone to both populism and fascism.”

      See my brief reply. You are not worthy to comment on anything if this elitist trash is your basic political philosophy.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.