This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Mostly in spite of his policies. 2010-2014 was the technologically-driven shale boom period, followed by the crash in 2014-15. The leases that facilitated this expansion were created under Bush who was a wee bit more energy industry friendly than Obama/Biden.
US oil production continued to expand under Trump, though more slowly than it did during the Shale boom and peaked in late 2019-2020 before COVID nearly bankrupted 1/3 of the US regional producers by briefly making oil prices go negative. It has taken three years for US production to get back to 95% of the peak production because it isn't just like turning on a spigot again.
Prices are slowly normalizing, but are still historically high, even adjusting for inflation. This makes very little sense to me because U.S. demand has fallen almost 10% from 2019 and almost 20% from 2005 despite returning to high production rates. I'll have to look into what is going on with global production in that time period, but that data is harder to track down and less reliable.
This analysis seems apt to me, with the exception of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve publicity stunts. Tapping the reserves to increase supply temporarily to help lower prices was nothing more than a headline generator, and was a poor decision strategically. It's selling cheap gas now to buy expensive gas in the future.
I do appreciate that the messaging from the Biden administration has moved away from "Evil Oil Companies™" to focusing pretty much exclusively on culture warring in the runup to the election. I don't think campaigning against big oil is a winning strategy when prices are still 50% higher than they were under the last Republican administration.
No it's the exact opposite, they sold when prices were high in order drive them down then bought when prices are low again. They made a cool $4 Billion on the deal.
The key phrase in your link is "For now, that translates into an almost $4 billion gain," with emphasis on "for now". The SPR is currently depleted to levels not seen since 1983, around 350M barrels. This is from a peak of about 750M barrels. There are at least another 160M barrels earmarked for sale by congress over the next 5 years. DoE regulations permit (but don't require) replenishment of the reserves when WTI crude is at or below $72/barrel. It has been at that price point multiple times over the last two years, including last month, but no effort has been made to replenish the reserves, at all. Secretary Granholm has said that DoE might start replenishment in Q4, assuming oil prices are consistently below the repurchase price point. That level of commitment does not inspire me with confidence.
At some point, that bill is going to come due, either in the form of expensive oil going into the SPR instead of cheap oil coming out of it, or really wishing we had some expensive oil to get past a supply disruption. It's all short-sighted to the point of absurdity.
My (from eg @IrvingSwisher on twitter) understanding was that the short-sightedness is exclusively on the part of the DoE for not aggressively repurchasing? It would've directly been a 'good trade' without the DoE being slow.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Best financial decision the government has made in a while, huh?
Probably. I don't know if the government should be playing as a commodity trader in general but price smoothing to blunt the pain of embargos seems like a legitimate foreign policy aim. Especially when the low cost producers are foreign and the high cost producers are domestic keeping a ceiling and a floor on oil prices doesn't seem like a bad idea.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link