We reduced our oil production before the invasion. Gas prices were multiplying before the invasion.
Putin did not force the reduction of our own supply. The current administration did.
The invasion may have been the consequence of the reduction of our production and amplified the "price hikes", but it wasn't the cause of the "price hikes", the initial action of reducing production and relying on foreign imports was.
Please point to something that supports your theory that "covid did it" and oil companies are "dragging their feet".
- edit, at my post limit -
@vel0city: Banning new leases two years ago hurt our production output. Banning new subscribers and preventing renewals would hurt your revenue, why would you think it wouldn't apply here?
It seems you're trying to rationalize away the obvious change in policy and its effects because of some reason unknown to me.
Would you support retracting this policy decision since in your mind it has little effect and in my mind it's the leading cause of our loss of net export status?
@deeg: the article says offshore leases may not show declines for 10 years as the leases are longer, but onshore could "conceivably show up faster".
Your point seems to be this policy hasn't hit us fully yet? Are you for it? How confident are you that it didn't cause the loss of our net export status?
First, the title is not the quote, the quote was "Whether it’s $150 oil, $200 oil, or $100 oil, we’re not going to change our growth plans".
Second, that has nothing to do with our production capacity, doesn't prove that "covid" caused us to drop our net export status, or that the industry is unwilling to fill production.
It's one misconstrued quote from an exec. He was talking about not collapsing the price when we overproduced for a brief period during our time of net exporting.
@vel0city: the "if" was contingent on the federal ban on new leases, which happened... two years ago.
We are seeing these predictions play out. Tech support using the covid excuse is annoying, but when government leaders use it to hide behind poor policies, it's dangerous.
Your link constantly uses the term "if", as in "if a federal leasing and development ban is enacted". Its not pointing out reality of today, its a projection on if some kind of ban (not exactly specified) were to be enacted.
You're pointing to theoretical projections and acting as if that's the ground truth today. These aren't the results of a current policy but are the theoretical projections of a theoretical policy decision that hasn't been enacted yet.
That is what you requested and that is what I provided. There are other articles if you would like to research them yourself.
The full quote is "“Whether it’s $150 oil, $200 oil, or $100 oil, we’re not going to change our growth plans,’’ Pioneer Chief Executive Officer Scott Sheffield said during a Bloomberg Television interview. “If the president wants us to grow, I just don’t think the industry can grow anyway.’’"
>Now that I've addressed your article, would you like to address the above administration policy decision I linked?
"Federal land accounts for about 24 percent of oil and gas production in the United States, mainly in the offshore Gulf of Mexico. But since companies with existing leases will not be affected, the near-term impact on exploration and production as well as royalties to states will be limited. With more than 26 million onshore acres and 12 million offshore acres already under lease, there is a deep inventory of exploration opportunities. "
> But since companies with existing leases will not be affected, the near-term impact on exploration and production as well as royalties to states will be limited.
> A more permanent leasing ban would have a significant impact, although visible offshore production declines may not materialize for up to 10 years, given the typical timeframe for planning, exploration, appraisal, and development.
My source pointing that the current admin's actions haven't significantly changed things today is your own article.
"At the beginning of 2021, 129 refineries were either operating or idle in the United States (excluding U.S. territories), down from 135 operable refineries listed at the beginning of 2020. The additional refinery closures in the 2021 Refinery Capacity Report largely reflect the impact of responses to COVID-19 on the U.S. refining sector."
Claims below that leases reduced production is a canard. It takes years to develop a lease. In 3 or 4 years you could blame Biden, but unless Exxon produces by time machines it has nothing to do with production issues in 2021. Domestic oil producers are sitting on 1000's of leases.
Companies constantly need to lease land, leases expire, new land is needed.
That's like shutting down new user registrations and pausing all subscriptions and saying there will be no revenue impact because people have paid you in the past.
Those existing users can't resubscribe when their cycle runs out and new users can't enroll at all.
I suggest you research how leases work. They cover ranges, not a single well. There are tens of thousands of leases which have volume for additional wells. The industry is sitting on 9000 untapped leases.
Again, this has nothing to do with production today. It has nothing to do with prices today. I've provided links on Covid impacts and 141 oil executives dragging their feet. Am not going to make more effort.
And still do, today. None of those leases has been closed. If you're making some claim that Biden shut down existing leases in production, please provide a citation.
"Executives at 141 oil companies surveyed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in mid-March offered several reasons that they weren’t pumping more oil. They said they were short of workers and sand, which is used to fracture shale fields to coax oil out of rock. But the most salient reason — the one offered by 60 percent of respondents — was that investors don’t want companies to produce a lot more oil, fearing that it will hasten the end of high oil prices."
