Politicizing Petroleum Policy

The Putin Russia invasion of Ukraine has exposed the tender underbelly where oil intersects public policy and where war intersects climate. But the Left simply forgets that oil and energy is a national security issue.

It is fruitless to even talk about hypocrisy anymore. But in the hearings with the big oil companies, it has gone further than just hypocrisy. Democrats want it both ways. They want immediate increased production but they make no bones they want to cut the oil market completely. Last year, they wanted massive cuts in oil and fossil fuel production. All to appease their radical left, climatology political agenda. 

Democrats don’t want to cut production, they want to eliminate it. Wipe it forever off the face of the earth. So while they cry now demanding more, they actually want zero.

But consumers know the basic fact very well of a market relying on supply and demand. They know that ultra high prices require more production to alleviate those high costs. Prices may appear out of control but the industry is increasingly more controlled by government and radical politicians.

The Democrats don’t mind begging from unfriendly dictators who don’t like us much. Actually, they gave them all that leverage over us for free.

The problem is there are environmental impacts of so-called renewables. They require minerals, mining and indeed have an affect on environment. Calling them “clean renewables” is an oxymoron. Plastics are another example of endless oil products. How many plastics are incorporated into their green-dream products? And you will have the same hoarding potential and environmental difficulties in ramping up renewable markets. We already see it around the world. The same departments that control and obfuscate the oil sector will plague the renewable sector. Government control does that.

For years, people railed against a government command economy — not to be confused with supply and demand markets –for exactly that reason. It sort of takes market problems out of the equation.

At one time maybe Democrats only lusted for full control of the oil industry, the way Putin controls it in Russia. Now they simply want to eliminate it altogether. Once upon a time we called it a war on coal, then it became a war on fossil fuels and evolved into a full-blown war on energy. They claimed that was not so, but now they  boast about a war against all fossil fuel energy.

Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouths; they want it both ways.

I listened to the hearings just to come away with one conclusion. If Democrats wanted to be lobbyists against big oil — for renewables — they could do that. But they are elected to Congress to represent the interests of the country. And if Joe Biden wanted to be a union organizer, like Obama, he could have been one. But that is not the job of the president.

Things that have made this country run and improved our lives for years, creating millions of jobs, are now preferred targets of society. They simply have no respect for how we got here. In fact, there is an effort to erase the entire roadmap. Well, there is always satire.

Paul Revere’s Ride

“Listen, my children, and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-Five:
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow – 1807-1882

But when Paul Revere rode out to alarm fellow countrymen, his horse emitted large amounts of waste in the process. Shouldn’t we factor in the age of the horse, with how much gas and waste it produced over its lifetime? Or how many people – white, black or Native Americans — who were negatively affected by these equestrian contributions? Must not we calibrate all those numbers into a new formula? Surely, based on a quick summary, we could see that the horse negatively impacted the environment, and humans, more than it benefited us all.

So it is long past time to take some retributive actions against these equestrian terrorists of the environment. Sure, the horse might have  made Paul Revere’s trip possible but at what calamitous cost to the earth? If we only knew or realized then what we now know , we could have prevented all that pain.

Paul — the meddling silversmith and industrialist he was — did not need to make his dumb trip for starters. And that asinine horse did not need to contribute to the “equitable” decay of our environment and climate, even for generations to come. This we can see clearly now because we have been awakened to the accumulative catastrophe of our deeds. 

We did all that. Why the hell were horses not taxed for their environmental impact? No, instead we encouraged their use. This only compounded the problems. So based on any summary analysis on the subject, I can therefore say the entire horse industry contributed to the decline in our climate. That’s just a fact. Anything we can do to eliminate it, and nip the damage in the tail, would only benefit our clean American future.

Revere should have relaxed, stayed home, euthanized the damn horse, and saved us all from our current fate. What a selfish bastard he turned out to be. Well, at least they could have increased the cost of horses to an unaffordable level so no idiot would have a chance to consider such a stunt, or misguided trip. ~~ Not so satirical end.


However, even more egregious with oil, they don’t want to just eliminate the industry, they want to politicize the entire industry. We’ve seen this in every government agency. Now they want to do the same thing to virtually every company, especially big oil.

How that shakes out is demonstrated in the hearings themselves. Democrats bring CEOs in to rip them apart and demand they do this or that. So it automatically pairs Republicans with oil companies. After all, we are the only ones who believe they should exist.

Democrats have accused the oil companies of manipulating the market prices and profiteering, taking advantage of crises and current events. Democrats’ answer to those charges and high prices is to release the SPRO to manipulate market prices.

The other obvious conclusion is this shows why we do not ever want government in complete control of our energy, or companies who provide it. One day they want to cut supply and the next they want it increased, based primarily on their political objectives. That’s the way they run everything else they control, immigration for instance.

So then, what would it take to get rid of exorbitant high fuel prices? Get rid of half of Congress that has a fatwa against the industry. Then replace a radicalized president who cares more about his family’s lucrative income than America’s national security.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

Oil illusions and/or delusions – pt 2

(Part 2)
What is interesting is that for years we heard the Mid East production level adjustments, such as OPEC’s or Saudis’, had little to do with the price we were paying for refined goods. When we complained in general about high oil prices, we were told their decisions and production had really no effect on overall prices. We are always reminded that supply and demand are driving those prices. It’s the hidden hand of the economy.

But now we have a situation where Saudis are actively flooding the market with their oil to drive oil prices down, which makes it hard for others to do business. So are they now admitting Saudis’ production control has an effect on prices? Yes, they are. Flashback to all those times we were told it was only consumer demand, no foul. We were imagining things. Remember, they said the free market was setting those prices. Which is it?

Apparently, someone woke them up and told them the power they have over oil prices. Who let that out of the bag? Do you think it took them all these years to realize it? And took our domestic fracking ability and development to show them? Anyway, now they know the dirty little secret and are using it against us to curb our ability to produce.

Here is a newer article examining the issue that Saudis are at war with our domestic production. He compares this reaction to the subprime bubble, and presumably meltdown, as the perfect analogy.

As soon as oil’s price headed in the undesired direction in this highly leveraged market, the dreams evaporated, just as they did in the highly leveraged housing market. The debt of the most indebted producers, now losing money, is worth less than face value. Their creditors will eventually recognize losses. As previously noted, the one wrinkle is that so many producers are governments. They have not, in most cases, explicitly backed their debt with oil revenues, but they had assumed those revenues and based their future spending plans on them. Call it “soft” debt. — Robert Gore; straightlinelogic

Long ago I figured if Saudis’ had real fear about Iran, they could put pressure on the market and oil prices, which Iran is dependent on. This would have the effect of sanctions. Maybe this is what they did, or maybe they are only reacting to us? If we listen to these economists, Saudis are responding namely to us.

I admit having a bias that I prefer to buy gas below 3.00 to paying about 4.00 per/gallon. (or at 2.00) At 4.00 per/gallon, the fracking is more profitable. So am I supposed to be happy knowing they are producing and growing, and just pay 4 dollars and shut up?

I realize how much high prices affect the whole economy. So that works in favor of my bias for lower prices. Am I to say: our economy is sputtering and people can’t afford the high costs… but at least we are producing more oil, thank goodness? I’m not there yet.

On the other hand, should I worry prices will decline so far the market will collapse to where no drilling is profitable? Well, I already heard one person put it this way: ‘you have to produce something before it is consumed.’ IOW, oil must be profitable to be produced, so we can consume it — in all its forms. If it is not, we will not have it available.

But in that case, prices would go up due to lacking supply, per supply and demand.

Here is an interesting article about the scoreboard

Biggest Winners and Losers of International Oil Price Crash

By Isaac Arnsdorf Dec 4, 2014 | Bloomberg

Oil prices around the world have fallen more than 38 percent since the year’s high in June.

Among the winners are airlines, which are saving on fuel and not reducing fares for customers. Bank of America Corp. predicts earnings will gain 73 percent in 2015.

Saudi Arabia flexed its muscle at November’s OPEC meeting by overruling other members, showing that it’s still the dominant producer. The desert kingdom needs oil at $83.60 a barrel to balance its budget, according to the International Monetary Fund, but it’s got $736 billion in reserves.

Apollo Global Management LLC, the New York buyout firm run by billionaire Leon Black, announced the sale of shale driller Athlon Energy Inc. on Sept. 29 — before oil dropped 29 percent.

More on Bloomberg

See the list of winners and losers. Saudis need 83.60 and currently it is below that, though they have substantial revenues.(they should) Iran needs 117. And we know that OPEC members cheat on quotas anyway. They probably want to sell what they can even at a lower price. But I don’t see articles about the negative effects to them.

I know it’s a complex issue. Yes, lower prices are hurting the producers, like fracking and development. It is in Saudis interest that we decrease our production.I understand the price declines are undermining fracking. Hey, there’s an angle for the enviro-gurus. They should favor lower prices. Though judging market effects as either good or bad is tougher. And motives can be almost as hard.

[My past article]

RightRing | Bullright