I HEREBY STEP DOWN FOR NOW

[Markk]

First of all Res was referring to “wind and sun”…not “wind,sun,and natural gas”… so pleas keep our conversation is context. Secondly, the current administration want to reduce and cut natural gas (NG)…so like myself, one who is moving towards solar and NG, what good is having gas if it is phasing out?

This is not about Trump, it is about common sense Aand dealing with the fact that the world is dependent on oil and gas. Without oil and gas there is not electricity. You can’t manufacture the parts and pieces and delivery the them without oil, you can’t mine, process, refine the parts and pieces needed for solar and wind with out oil. We can’t mass farm and deliver foods and feeds without oil. I’m sorry but you need to think this through.

No, it's you who isn't thinking this through. You claimed you wanted energy independence. Well, you actually don't. You want to keep us energy dependent. That's my point. Now you're acting like I'm proposing to stop using fossil fuels this second, which I'm obviously not. That's a straw man.

You're not using common sense. You're just cheering for your team.

LoL…My team? I am going solar, there is about a one year waiting list for Tesla panels in my area. I will buy a electric car/truck at some point…I want NG in that I think is is practical and renewable, and it is stupid in my opinion not to expand it. What I said is to just ignore that oil is the life blood of our modern existence, is just sticking ones head in the sand. Where are you going to get asphalt? or mine and process concrete, get tires and roofing….you are just not thinking this out or being the least bit pragmatic.

In so cal you can't even hardly get concrete right now because there is a shortage of powder (cement)…there is like a 3 week to a month waiting list, and once you lock it in if you are not ready you have to start all over again.

Well over 50% of all rubber is synthetic, oil is the primary ingredient for synthetic rubber. rubber and plastics, natural gas is required for plastics, insulates copper and aluminum conductors, which as we move towards electric will require miles upon miles of insulation.

It is common sense if you want to look at the reality of oil and just how integrated into our life’s and economy it is.

Do you have solar, do you drive electric, do you have a all electric home? If so great, but if not are your converting?

[Chap]

... over 50% of all rubber is synthetic, oil is the primary ingredient for synthetic rubber. rubber and plastics, natural gas is required for plastics, insulates copper and aluminum conductors, which as we move towards electric will require miles upon miles of insulation.

Given what is already happening to the life support system of the only planet we have, stopping burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible is (as they say) a no-brainer. In the long term, it also makes huge economic sense to switch to energy sources (solar, wind, tide) that work that harvest all the free power generated by the huge fusion reactor 93 million miles away.

Having said that, why shouldn't one use fossil resources to make useful stuff like synthetic rubber - so long as it doesn't end up getting burned of course? I have not noticed any major pressure groups objecting to that with anything like the same force as the (hyper-reasonable) objections to burning fossil resources as fuels. Recycling methods can certainly be developed that will stop the waste becoming a pollutant.

[canpakes]

First of all Res was referring to “wind and sun”…not “wind,sun,and natural gas”… so pleas keep our conversation is context.

Sure. Likewise, for your consideration, I don’t see that Res is advocating for dumping all fossil fuels use immediately.

Fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere any time soon. Nothing truly compares against their energy content versus cost proposition at this point. But, that situation is changing quickly, and part of being energy independent is that ‘energy’ isn’t restricted to fossil fuels.

Actively and aggressively placing alternatives into the mix now is smart; it allows us to better manage our domestic supplies, and it makes sense from a strategic/security standpoint, as well. I think that you can see how Putin would have much less leverage over Europe if Europe wasn’t so dependent upon Russian oil and LNG. Same for the US and its entanglements with Middle East regimes and socialist South American entities. Those realities add greatly to the real economic and political cost of fossil fuel use. So why not move ahead with alternatives that eventually strengthen our economy, security and values?

This country spent massively to put in place an automotive-friendly infrastructure during the previous century. There were excellent reasons for that investment. I’d note that we didn’t wait for all of the horses to die before doing so. Overlap is a thing. : D

Secondly, the current administration want to reduce and cut natural gas (NG)…so like myself, one who is moving towards solar and NG, what good is having gas if it is phasing out?

Again - NG isn’t going anywhere. But I’d rather have it in ample supply and therefore less subject to the whims of international market effects, rather than foster more dependency on it, especially given that it’s a finite resource. The less we use, the better that situation becomes from a management and security standpoint.

I’ve always wondered why folks who claim to be on the right-hand side of the political fence are so keen to maintain such a high dependency on fuel sources that stand to threaten our economy, security and eventual standard of living.

[Res Ipsa]

... over 50% of all rubber is synthetic, oil is the primary ingredient for synthetic rubber. rubber and plastics, natural gas is required for plastics, insulates copper and aluminum conductors, which as we move towards electric will require miles upon miles of insulation.

Given what is already happening to the life support system of the only planet we have, stopping burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible is (as they say) a no-brainer. In the long term, it also makes huge economic sense to switch to energy sources (solar, wind, tide) that work that harvest all the free power generated by the huge fusion reactor 93 million miles away.

Having said that, why shouldn't one use fossil resources to make useful stuff like synthetic rubber - so long as it doesn't end up getting burned of course? I have not noticed any major pressure groups objecting to that with anything like the same force as the (hyper-reasonable) objections to burning fossil resources as fuels. Recycling methods can certainly be developed that will stop the waste becoming a pollutant.

Agreed. I’m addressing only the burning of fossil fuels as an energy source.

[Doctor Steuss]

Energy independence means that we export more energy than we import. So your assertion is baseless. We were energy independent under Trump.

I've looked at the numbers from a few sources (EIA, Statista, AGI), and all of them indicate that we imported about 3 times more oil than we exported each year under the Trump admin.

Doing some quick sloppy math of the energy potential of a ton of coal and how much we exported each year, that makes a decent dent, but doesn't make up for even half the gap. What significant type of energy export am I overlooking, that makes up for the approximate 1.5 billion barrels of oil energy gap each year under Trump?

Or am I just looking in the wrong place for exports/imports?

[canpakes]

Energy independence means that we export more energy than we import. So your assertion is baseless. We were energy independent under Trump.

I've looked at the numbers from a few sources (EIA, Statista, AGI), and all of them indicate that we imported about 3 times more oil than we exported each year under the Trump admin.

Doing some quick sloppy math of the energy potential of a ton of coal and how much we exported each year, that makes a decent dent, but doesn't make up for even half the gap. What significant type of energy export am I overlooking, that makes up for the approximate 1.5 billion barrels of oil energy gap each year under Trump?

I think that the ‘independent’ scenario was primarily the result of markets adjusting to the initial COVID hit. It wasn’t present in all of the years of the prior Admin.

Interesting observation about the numbers. I wonder if the EIA site can shed light on this.

[Res Ipsa]

The graph that accompanies the article explains it:



As I said, in general, we don't refine our own oil. We import foreign crude oil, refine it, and then use and export refined products.

[Markk]

Energy independence means that we export more energy than we import. So your assertion is baseless. We were energy independent under Trump.

I've looked at the numbers from a few sources (EIA, Statista, AGI), and all of them indicate that we imported about 3 times more oil than we exported each year under the Trump admin.

Doing some quick sloppy math of the energy potential of a ton of coal and how much we exported each year, that makes a decent dent, but doesn't make up for even half the gap. What significant type of energy export am I overlooking, that makes up for the approximate 1.5 billion barrels of oil energy gap each year under Trump?

Or am I just looking in the wrong place for exports/imports?

Maybe, but I think counting everything we were independent or close to it. I would think it factors in NG also. I read somewhere that we like Saudi oil because it is high in sulfur which is conducive with our refinery regulations. Let me know what you find I’ll look closer tonight.

[Gadianton]

And to add to what Res, 'pakes, Honor, and probably somebody else is saying about oil, I will repeat; you can't be a net exporter of oil and be rooting for falling oil prices.

If you want complete oil independence so that you can have low oil prices for everyone, that's totally different. You have to be isolationist also, and not allow exporting, which will drive prices up. At that point, what you're saying is that you want communism.

Yes, right-wingers for communism is not just about Putin / dictator envy.

I'd tell certain people to "think it through" but that won't work without a basic education in economics, which isn't ever going to happen for 3 individuals in particular on this board.

[Doctor Steuss]

As a quasi-aside, it looks like US “Field Production” of crude grew under Obama to levels that hadn’t been seen since the early 70’s, and overall grew more than it did during Trump (granted it was 8 years, vs. 4 years). Under Biden’s first year, production was higher than it was in Trump’s first or second year (but less than Trump’s 4th). Trump’s final year in office saw a decline in production.

Which naturally brings me around to something I always feel the need to say with these conversations. Us exporting our oil (or drilling our own oil at all for that matter) is trading our long-term security for short-term gain.

Each barrel we take from the ground is a barrel we won't have if/when global supplies reach a point (maybe not until my great-grandchildren are around) to where producing/exporting countries start to pump the brakes on their exports.