US hit record oil production of 13.1M - Thanks Biden!

production ramped up in Texas because they have the pipeline capacity to the export terminals and better geology for production. You drill where the oil is and where it is least expensive to produce. That is Texas and NM right now. Deepwater offshore is long term investment that very few are spending any money on worldwide right now as the 20 - 30 year horizon those projects rely on are uncertain. It is why there are so many undrilled permits for so many tracts in the GOM.

and fyi, production in NM is increasing for the same reason.

and oil production being up has nothing to do with Biden or any other potus. drilling/geotech advances and opec curbing supply driving up prices (ie market forces) are the key drivers to increased oil production. Push oil back to $50 per barrel and us production will drop even if Exxon is potus.

 

Another way to read that is “despite best efforts by the WH to destroy them, oil industry is able to shift resources and the free market was able to find a way to survive”.

Your right wing narrative per direct Biden quote in AP article below

In intimate moment, Biden vows to 'end fossil fuel'


6:49 PM EST, September 6, 2019
NEW CASTLE, N.H. (AP) — Joe Biden is looking voters in the eye and promising to “end fossil fuel.”

The former vice president and Democratic presidential candidate made the comment Friday after a New Hampshire environmental activist challenged him for accepting donations from the co-founder of liquified natural gas firm.

Biden denied the donor’s association to the fossil fuel industry before calling the young woman “kiddo” and taking her hand. He said, “I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you. I guarantee you. We’re going to end fossil fuel.”

 

Of course the goal is to end fossil fuel. It’s really about the time frame however. Nobody thinks, including Biden that fossil fuels will end by 2024 or 2028.

The narrative that Obama and Biden tried to kill fossil fuel was massively overstated. Neither did a lot to discourage short term fossil fuel usage, apart with the exception of coal. The hyping of fossil fuel production under Biden is just a reaction to the exaggerated claims that Biden and previously Obama caused energy production to decrease.

 

I am consistent in saying the president gets to much credit and to much blame. It has always been thus. If you give trump credit for things that happened during his presidency don’t you have to give Biden the credit now?

 

You are free to apply whatever time range you want to the giving credit. I was merely pointing out that taking credit for an uptick in production when the industry operates on a much longer cycle than just months or even a year or two doesn't recognize the reality of how complex our system is. I also think that our current policies that appear to me (I'd certainlywelcome others pointing out how I err on this point) to put too many eggs in the basket of renewables and fails to recognize or encourage a more balanced approach that doesn't leave us largely dependent on renewables ignores market and economic realities. As one Congressman my wife worked for explained a misguided policy to his constituents, a policy he felt was ignoring and seeking to interfere with market forces, it's a bit like a doctor prescribing a blood transfusion, and then taking blood from the patient's right arm, spilling a third or more of it on the floor, and infusing the rest in the patient's left arm.

 

So publicly encouraging more renewables while saying we need more renewables in the mix while allowing the exploitation of our oil reserves is not a good policy?

 

Is Obama making an exaggerated claim ? Some of us believe Obama and Biden. Those are not conspiracies or narratives or exaggerations. Just taking them at their word

2008 interview with San Fran chronicle

“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” Obama said, responding to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

meanwhile

 

Did you miss where I said the exception of coal?

 

Iran pumping up exports along with US is cutting KSA market share and decreasing their exports. I expect the $2 per barrel cut announced yesterday to be jsut the first salvo in a oil price war that will hopefully drive energy prices even lower.

Record U.S. oil production sparks battle for market share with Saudi Arabia and OPEC+ (msn.com)

U.S. oil production exceeded expectations in 2023 as efficiency and productivity gains surprised the market and offset some of the OPEC+ output cuts, said Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth U.S. At its meeting in November, OPEC+ announced additional voluntary cuts totaling 2.2 million barrels a day to the end of March 2024.

U.S. output, however, was not the only surprise story of 2023, said Babin.

Iran, which is an OPEC member but not subject to production quotas, also materially increased output, she said. Iranian Oil Minister Javad Owji said in November that Iran’s oil production had climbed to 3.3 million bpd, up 50% since August 2021, according to SHANA, the Iranian oil ministry’s news agency.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia may have more than one reason behind its decision to lower prices for buyers of its oil — and one of them may be to regain some of the market share it’s lost to rivals.

 

coal was just the low hanging fruit. West Virginia doesn’t have many electoral
Votes. It’s an absurd strategy that hurts the people it’s supposed to help…..when their energy prices ‘necessarily skyrocket’. And he was right. He said it and they did it and exactly what they said would happen did happen. The least able now spend a bigger portion of their pay toward energy as they ever have. We shut down one coal plant and china builds 12. Laughing all the way while we spend money to build green energy main battle tanks. If it wasn’t so serious, it would be pure comedy

Nato chief suggests battle tanks with solar panels as militaries go green

 

I don't see any harm in "publicly encouraging" more renewables. My concern is massive government spending through subsidies for clean energy such as billions of dollars for tax credits for "green energy" sources such as hyrogen fuel, av fuel that is a blend of cooking greases and ethanol, and direct funding of projects to create giant vacuums to suck carbon dioxide out of the sky. My concerns extend to mandates (such as in California) where only zero emission vehicles can be sold after 2035. Creating tax credits for the purchase of certain types of vehicles is another intrusion into the marketplace. I have little confidence in political engineering, through tax policy and spending, of decisions that I think are best left to market forces. Solindra and other projects come to mind as reminders that many of these political decisions which are strongly influenced by climate control agendas have proven to be folly. I'm not interested in trading insults but certainly welcome concrete criticism and for the sake of my grandchildren, who are being educated with a bias towards government intervention and solutions, willing to listen and learn.

 

Why should we build more coal power plants when new solar (utility scale, even with storage) and new wind (onshore, even with storage) are cheaper than new coal?

U.S. levelized energy costs by source 2023 | Statista

 

My son-in-law is an engineer. His company has develped a new technolocy and designed it to operate in remote locations where electricity isn't readily available. It relies also on wireless communications and is very efficient from an economic standpoint. Big win in the marketplace over the last year or so. But then they began to experience problems in November and December in certain parts of North America where they had installed systems. Bad weather created constantly cloudy conditions. The solar panels were useless. They had batteries but they'd only designed the batteries for a seven day absence of solar energy. Result, their systems went down and customers were irate. They had to quickly redesign their systems with propane backups powering generators that will recharge the batteries and keep the systems running in bad weather. Now they are integrating into their design programming based on 30 day weather forecasts. That programing will automatically signal propane suppliers to deliver new propane tanks (the big kind) when needed. It's working and clients are happy again. But I doubt tank crews can implement a propane solution. But hey, that's what the engineers get paid the big bucks for and clearly the Pentagon has lots of money to waste.

 

Fossil fuel had decades of massive government subsidization given all the money spent on Middle East defense and other excursions as well as in other ways.

Your grandchildren will likely live in a much cleaner world with less air pollution due to green energy, and hopefully will be less likely fighting a war in the Middle East over oil.

 

I am not sure why the hard on for coal. It is more expensive and it is dirty, even ignoring climate impacts. While China is building a lot of coal plants they are ahead of us in terms of renewable energy in some respects.

China Invests $546 Billion in Clean Energy, Far Surpassing the U.S. | Scientific American

https://www.reuters.com/sustainabil...hind-chinas-renewable-energy-boom-2023-11-15/

 

EIA Says 40 Percent of US Electricity Is Now Emission-Free for the First Time

 

I've never been a fan of Big Oil....and it is Big Oil, the Exxons, Chevrons, Phillips, and Amoco (and their gobbled up sisters such as Mobil, Gulf, Texaco) and Shell, although Shell is really a Dutch and British behomoth, that have been the beneficiaries of the "massive government subsidization" through years spent protecting their interests in the Middle East. I worked exclusively for that rare breed known as independents and wildcatters. Big Oil lives off the ingenuity and daring of the independents and wildcatters. It's a parallel to Big Pharma and the Biotech industry.

When I asked one of my Wyoming clients what was his longest streak of dry holes, he confessed he had drilled 101 consecutive dry holes before he brought in his most recent gusher. Now in those days exploration wasn't as sophisticated as it is today where the geophysicists can do a much better job of identifying almost can't miss targets. In those days the drilling success ratio was about 10%. Normally, you expected to drill 9 dry holes for every producer. But technology and environmental consciousness has deeply transformed the oil and gas industry. Today from what I understand some companies in the Permian and other prolific fields are drilling perhaps a 100 producing wells to every dry hole. That's probably an exaggeration but perhaps someone from Texas can correct me.

The Biden Administration has signed death warrants for the coal industry. Sadly, we are on the edge or breakthroughs in "clean coal" technologies. If the current administration might have had the courage to wait on killing coal and poured as much money into clean coal technology they might have been able to deliver a truly cheap and clean fuel source that relies on our most plentiful fuel source in the U.S.

I do have hope and a strong belief that if we'll let market forces do their thing that science will eventually pave the way to cleaner energy, but I don't think we have to kill all of the fossil fuel industries in the process. They'll eventually go their way just as whale oil did. In the meantime we should be grateful that in America we are blessed with an abundance of energy sources. We should be doing more with natural gas. It could help create a dynamic balanced energy policy that doesn't threaten our economic well-being. Cheap energy is the lifeblood of a modern economy whether it's electricity, created through nuclear, wind and solar (both with a healthy, wise back-up system powered by natural gas), and perhaps even clean coal if we'd could approach energy policy rationally.

 

not sure I would describe it as a hard on. I find it interesting that it’s always pointed out that solar is an evolving energy source and becoming more efficient and then it’s compared to coal as if the coal industry and technology is/ was stagnant. There were generational leaps in technology in coal and other energy sources but that is rarely mentioned in comparison. It’s like this ever lasting comparison of what solar MAY be one day compared to what coal was 25 years ago. It’s just dishonest. It’s really hard to compare costs of production of an industry who has been under draconian regulation for decades. Of course companies aren’t going to pour resources in to increase efficiencies when regulators are telling them to expect to close their doors shortly. In contrast you have an industry that takes huge subsidies. Often times the companies produce garbage products that are already obsolete and then they close. Wasting a ton of resources while getting an atta boy for their noble Effort alone. In addition, you rarely hear the availability and reliability comparison. We have already seen skyrocketing energy costs, just expect more. Lastly, I would happily have the free market invest in renewables if that same free market was permitted to even exist with coal or other energy industries. As far as Chinese investment in renewables. I would be skeptical to believe anything that comes from there as anything other than a talking point to say they are doing that part for ‘climate change’. Pretending it’s accurate…..then I’d say their energy policy of building 12 coal plants while simultaneously working on technology for renewable makes sense. Our energy policy of prematurely shutting down what is currently the most abundant and reliable source of energy does not. And yes I have a hard on for abundant and inexpensive energy sources plural