Oil prices

Elizabeth Warren Says the Solution to High Gas Prices Is Higher Taxes on Oil Companies

A windfall profit tax on oil companies didn't work in the 1970s and it won't work today.

|

"Putin's war is causing gas prices to rise, but this is no excuse for large oil companies to pad their bottom line with war-fueled profits," tweeted Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) along with an MSNBC video of her explaining her stance. "Senate Democrats are watching closely—and already working on a windfall profits tax." Warren also said that she gets "supply and demand—that prices go up" but that "profit margins should not go up, that's just oil companies gouging."

What she calls "gouging" is actually demand adjusting to supply. She also forgets that higher profit margins strongly incentivize entrepreneurs to supply more of a good to the market thus eventually driving down prices through competition.

Leaving aside the fact that the senator has evidently never met a corporate tax she didn't want to hike, history shows that imposing a windfall profits tax on oil is particularly shortsighted. As part his administration's response to the Iran oil shock that tripled the price of petroleum in 1979, President Jimmy Carter championed the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax of 1980.

"The main purpose of the tax was to recoup for the federal government much of the revenue that would have otherwise gone to the oil industry as a result of the decontrol of oil prices," noted a 2009 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. That report found that the windfall profits tax (WPT) raised far less money than projected by the Carter administration while simultaneously reducing the amount of domestic oil that would have  otherwise been supplied:

The $80 billion in gross revenues generated by the WPT between 1980 and 1988 was significantly less than the $393 billion projected. Due to the deductibility of the WPT against the income tax, cumulative net WPT revenues were about $38 billion, significantly less than the $175 billion projected. This report presents estimates of the amount of foregone oil production from 1980-1986 due to the WPT under three alternative supply price responses, reflecting three different assumptions about the price elasticity of the domestic oil supply function, a critical factor (statistic) in estimating lost oil output and increased import dependence. From 1980 to 1988, the WPT may have reduced domestic oil production anywhere from 1.2% to 8.0% (320 to 1,269 million barrels). Dependence on imported oil grew from between 3% and 13%.

Warren's proposal would doubtlessly achieve the same results: Less domestic production, more dependence on foreign oil, higher prices at the pump, and negligible tax revenue.

In the short run, consumers are going to feel the pain at the pump as gasoline prices soar. In the longer run, higher prices will draw forth more investments in production capacity and supplies will increase.

The prospect of higher profit margins is already encouraging investment in domestic oil production. As a minor example of this dynamic, The New York Times today reports:

"Everything I've got is on and going at full speed," said Darlene Wallace, chief executive of Columbus Oil Company, an Oklahoma operator with 25 oil wells. Ms. Wallace said she had been holding back an investment of $100,000 to fix one well, but that is about to change.

"When oil is at $60, I'm not going to do that, but I'm just about ready to put the work in it," she said. "At $100 a barrel, I can put that sucker back to work."

If Warren's tax were enacted, Wallace would most likely keep that $100,000 in her pockets or find more profitable opportunities in which to invest.

NEXT: Congress Plans To Spend $1.5 Trillion This Year, Continues To Pretend the Deficit Doesn’t Matter

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is anyone in this country allowed to make money?

    1. As long as you earn your money frivolously instead of supplying important goods for everyone the left will never attack your earnings. See: Kardashians, LeBron James.

      1. Also Twitter and Facebook.

        1. [JOIN NOW] I really make A LOT OF MONEY ($200-$300/hour) online from my laptop. Last month I received almost $50,000. this line work is simple and straightforward. You don’t need to go to the office, it’s online work from home. ggh You become independent after joining this position. I really appreciate my friend who pointed it out to me SITE….., http://extradollars3.blogspot.com/

        2. Also Elizabeth Warren, nee Red Herring.

          1. Howz bout taxing CONgress critters making millions off insider trading?

            Or just seizing it all.

            Liawatha big horses ass.

            1. That takes a civil war.

              1. OK... the Left want it. Fine by me.

      2. Also, democrats who write books about racism.

        1. How-to manuals.

        1. Are you referring to Leonardo DaBiden?

    2. Not without giving the mob their cut.

    3. Yes... the government is allowed to make money.

      >"Putin's war is causing gas prices to rise, but this is no excuse for large oil companies to pad their bottom line with war-fueled profits," ... But it's a GREAT excuse for the government to pad its bottom line with war-fueled profits. In fact, it's a great excuse for the government to do any damn thing it wants.... cuz everything except the southern border is a CRISIS!

      1. That's from creating dollars from nothing. The better question is how wealth is created

        1. By eliminating debt.

    4. Politicians, especially with Ds after their names.

    5. Just our government overlords.

    6. Look at Warren’s net worth. That’ll answer your question.

      1. Heap big hypocrite has much wampum..

        Want everyone elses wampum.

        Shes just a shit stirrer trying to overcome irrelevance.

    7. Yes, but just so long as you give the Democrats their cut. If you do that and mouth a few vapid platitudes for agendas they like you too can "earn" $60 million dollars just by following a few simple steps.

    8. It's based upon your social credit score, so if you're a straight, white male, working in a production industry not related to social media, technology or green energy (unless you happen to be massively rich and born in South Africa, then the green energy credit doesn't apply) then no.

      1. I am considering identifying as an underprivileged minority of mixed ethnicity come tax season.

    9. "When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed." - Ayn Rand

    10. The bidens, clintons, and obamas.

    11. Didn't they already say their goal is bankrupting the oil, gas, and coal industries, so high prices, with even higher taxes, and not letting them drill for more oil is the Democratic sweet spot

      Problem is people aren't buying it, and come November they will be screwed, a well deserved screwing.

    12. Only Senators and Congressmen thru insider trading.

    13. Indian casinos?

    14. What Warren is saying is that it's unfair to the people for gas companies to make a profit and the moral solution is for the government to make that profit instead. Only politicians, and friends of politicians can make money morally, anyone else who does it is just stealing. And like the rest of this administration they're now claiming that the Russian invasion is solely responsible for the massive gas price increases and inflation that started when Biden took office. It's all Russia's fault, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and the democrats enabling him.

      1. Socialism in it's purest form.

    15. "Billionaires Made $3.9 Trillion During the Pandemic
      https://www.businessinsider.com › Economy
      Jan 26, 2021 — An Oxfam report found billionaires' wealth increased by $3.9 trillion between March 18 and December 30, 2020. ·"

    16. Billionaires Made $3.9 Trillion During the Pandemic
      https://www.businessinsider.com › Economy
      Jan 26, 2021 — An Oxfam report found billionaires' wealth increased by $3.9 trillion between March 18 and December 30, 2020. ·

      1. if there's a villain here, it's the govt forced shutdowns of small businesses, and the subsidizing of the "essential" big players...the grants, transfers etc

    17. Warren doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground. Does this moron of a politician not realize that what she eats, drinks, buys ANYWHERE comes by trucks, ships, rail, etc? You can't get food over the internet dumb ass, you can only ASK for it online, and then it will come by truck, railroads, or ships you moron of a woman?????

    18. the gubmint, doing their best in the last 40 yrs with the inflation rate

    19. Big, dumb, ugly cunt warren is a stupid, crocked, dumb politician who without her crook of a husband would be cleaning toilets for a living

  2. "She also forgets that higher profit margins strongly incentivize entrepreneurs to supply more of a good to the market thus eventually driving down prices through competition."

    This is one of the things I don't comprehend about the liberal/progressive argument about how:

    1. We supposedly produced more petroleum domestically in Biden's first year than in Trump's last year

    2. US Oil companies allegedly have approximately 9,000 available / current / active permits to drill, and are just sitting on their collective hands.

    First of all, the two things do seem to contradict each other just to start. But I can't help but notice that the admin wants to compare their first year to Trump's first, not his last. This could easily be explained if the previous administrations policies had an enhancing effect on the amount produced, but took some time to have an effect. Similarly, the current administration's policies clearly have a negative impact on production, but could have taken some time to ramp down.

    Second, if the oil companies are so greedy, and the price of gasoline is at a record high, why on earth would they be sitting on 9,000 permits, if they could take advantage of that? There must be some other explanation.

    https://notthebee.com/article/reminder-the-us-is-sitting-on-roughly-a-third-of-a-trillion-barrels-of-oil-and-about-3000-trillion-cubic-feet-of-natural-gas

    1. "1. We supposedly produced more petroleum domestically in Biden's first year than in Trump's last year"

      That should read 'first year'. Sorry.

      1. Which means that in Trump's first year, the oil industry largely operated under the Obama Administration's policies, and this year largely operated under the Trump Administration's policies. It is a rhetorical sleight of hand.

        1. And most of the increase in oil production during the Trump years occurred after crude prices cratered in 2016. So the industry grew, despite prices being low.

        2. Stopping Keystone, stopping federal land leases and closing ANWR happened literally on day one so no we haven't had Trump's policies this last year.

    2. Those stats are deliberately misleading.

      1]This is just a flat-out lie, so I presume it was just offered up as pablum for the sycophants to repeat to each other.

      2] 9000 leases... not drilling permits, which are different. Leases are purchased in bundles, so you might buy 100 of them knowing statistically that 80% of them are worthless and 10% have such low production it isn't worth it. It's the game you play to get the worthwhile leases. But With this administration, there's also no confidence that they will be letting out more leases for at least the next 3 years and a strong risk that if you drill, your lease might be revoked. You better bank your capacity or deal with a real concern that you'll run out of inventory. Again, Psaki quickly threw this out and then ran off the stage before it could be challenged.

      1. Again, Psaki quickly threw this out and then ran off the stage before it could be challenged.

        https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/07/jen-psaki-is-a-lying-liar-who-lies-insane-gas-prices-edition/

      2. Also permits for site access. Pipelines, etc. Are all being held up.

        1. Great Reset wing “EcoNoMists” are, I kid you not, spinning to vertigo the disinvestment in fossil fuels as the fault of energy corporations dividends.

          Gee, it wouldn’t have anything to do with Paris Climate accords, Climate Jihad or the financial press- along with western Global Banks, all but threatening to stop any and all investment firms or loans from fossil fuel investment-or-endless lawsuits on climate change to fossil fuel corporations.

      3. And you don't just get an oil lease and start producing oil the next day. They know this, but they're counting on idiot progressives to parrot it.

        1. Exactly Cronut, which why complaining about no new federal oil leases has nothing to do with current and recent past oil production.

          1. It DOES provide an explanation for past numbers, Joe. Why are you so stubborn?

            1. Did you expect otherwise?

            2. You misspelled "STUPID"

      4. "2] 9000 leases... not drilling permits, which are different. Leases are purchased in bundles, so you might buy 100 of them knowing statistically that 80% of them are worthless and 10% have such low production it isn't worth it. It's the game you play to get the worthwhile leases. But With this administration, there's also no confidence that they will be letting out more leases for at least the next 3 years and a strong risk that if you drill, your lease might be revoked. You better bank your capacity or deal with a real concern that you'll run out of inventory. Again, Psaki quickly threw this out and then ran off the stage before it could be challenged."

        This is the sort of facts ignored by turd when he lies about the economy resulting from Trump's or Biden's activities; markets discount the future.
        The day Biden was elected, the petroleum market foresaw increasing restrictions just based on his history.

          1. On the wiki piece: 39 trillion investment dollars are committed to divestment of fossil fuels as of 2015!!!

        1. I may be wrong -would not be a first, but if memory serves, one can hold a lease, but not the permit to drill/mine. This is not uncommon, depending on the industry, I think.

    3. First, a little bitchy comment; why is it that oil companies are only greedy when democrats are in charge?

      OK, now I feel better.

      Of those 9,000 leases, how many have already been proven barren?
      How many have "infrastructure" available to deliver what oil may be found?
      How many are waiting for one or more "approvals" from one or more federal agencies with special desks for sitting on?
      How many have proven oil or gas and a way to get that oil or gas to market?
      How many are owned by Ellis Wyatt?

      1. Based on statistics, about 99% hold deposits that aren't currently economically viable. Also, as one drilling company executive (which are generally separate entities from oil companies like Shell and BP) "why would I invest millions into developing a well, if I don't have pipelines to transport it to my customers?".

      2. And it's not just barren, but many contain deposits that require more investment to develop, so the drilling companies will keep the lease, and just do enough work to maintain the lease, but not enough to develop it, so that they don't have to rebid on it when prices make developing the wells viable. Not a small number of the 9,000 leases are in this category. Up here on the Bakken Oil patch drilling companies have been sitting on leases since 2015, because prices are just now high enough to tempt well companies to buy the leases once the drilling companies develop them, but the shutdown of pipeline construction has made many of those buyers hesitant. Getting it out of the ground is one thing, getting it to storage and refining is a whole different thing.

        1. The petroleum industry isn't much vertically integrated domestically, which I didn't realize. Offshore drilling is much more integrated because the cost of offshore development is so high that only the big guys really have the resources, but even then most of the drilling and developing is still done by another company working under contract for the big guys. Roughnecks are fucking nomads. I didn't realize this until I lived in Anchorage and even then didn't quite understand it, because there wasn't much new drilling and developing going on at the time, so it wasn't really until I moved to Eastern Montana in 2015 that I really got educated on it.

          There also is quite a bit of shenanigans that go on. A drilling company will develop the well, getting paid by investors to develop it, and then not be able to sell it for what development costs were, skip town in the middle of the night, declare bankruptcy and the well gets auctioned off. Or a company will be formed, by leases, even ones that others have turned down because of the low expectations of success, bilk investors, and then skip town in the middle of the night after declaring bankruptcy. This happened a lot in the last boom that ended in 2015, and in the 1980s boom, so investors are more leery of investing in new drilling companies and even in existing drilling companies. The other thing was in 2015 the priced cratered with little warnings meaning even the straight companies ended up taking a loss on developing the wells.

          Like any commodities markets, the risks are huge, but the payoffs can be huge too. Wildcatters are no different than gold prospectors back in the frontier days (and for the most part even today) most never make it rich. Even if they do strike it big, rarely ever do they make much money off of their discoveries, because they lack the resources to develop it and exploit it.

          1. Soldier, read my link below. The oil industry is not trying to increase production significantly for it's own - legitimate - business purposes. They anticipate high demand going forward but prefer high dividends to stock holders.

            1. Read bevis's reply to your link below.

            2. I see Blue Anon has been handed their talking points.

    4. They are comparing bidens first year to trumps FIRST year. They want you to not see growth through 2018.

      1. Yes, I corrected myself.

        I accidentally typed the thing that would be a legitimate comparison, rather than what they are actually doing, which is the most favorable to their talking points and least relevant.

    5. The rate of dry holes or economically unrealistic deposits is about 99%. This was pointed out when Obama was using the same bullshit line to make excuses for his high gas prices.

      The other part is the opposition to pipelines reduced the incentive for drilling in many areas, as they are remote and transportation costs results in their oil selling for much less. Pipeline costs aren't free but they are much cheaper than truck or rail, which both also have higher accident and spill rates than pipelines and both require more energy per ton transported.

      1. As noted in my link below, fracking is not providing the same yields to inputs as earlier. Biden has nothing to do with oil production right now, nor did Trump when in office. Production peaked in 2019 at something like 12.2 billion barrels. 2020 (Trump and covid) dropped by about 1 billion and in 2021 it rebound slightly and is predicted to be a little more this year.

        Y'all are barking up the wrong tree. Yes, you can disagree about future leases on federal land and Keystone, but they have nothing to do with current and recent prices and output.

        1. Yes, they do. Even the news of future changes in supply and demand factor into pricing today. That’s how commodities markets work. Oil actually fell today on news that the UAE was looking at expanding drilling in the near future. These things are priced in ahead of time.

          1. ^^ this. All markets are speculative.

        2. This is flagrantly dishonest or ignorant.

          Keystone was projected to deliver 850,000 barrels/day to Texas refineries and was originally slated for completion 12 years ago. The green nazis have done everything in their power to delay completion.

          A lack of understanding commodities markets would lead one to say "this has nothing to do with today".

    6. It's all explained here MInadin:

      "...In Colorado and beyond, large oil companies currently reporting their 2021 financial results and 2022 outlooks to shareholders are pledging to continue holding back on new production as they prioritize positive cash flows and capital returns for investors.

      The increased dividends and stock buybacks are part of what executives at PDC, Colorado’s third-largest oil producer, called its “new return of capital framework,” and the company is far from alone. Occidental Petroleum, the state’s top producer, also detailed its “new shareholder return framework” in a January earnings call, while the newly-formed Civitas Resources has touted an “updated stockholder distribution strategy.”

      After plummeting amid a demand shock in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. oil production is rising again — but slowly. A forecast last month from the federal Energy Information Administration projected that daily domestic production wouldn’t return to pre-pandemic levels until late 2023.

      In its 2022 financial guidance this week, PDC projected that its oil production in Colorado would dip by 7% in the first quarter and grow at an overall rate of zero to 5% for the next two years. PDC assured investors, however, that “under the company’s enhanced return of capital framework … cumulative shareholder returns in 2022 and 2023 are expected to exceed $1.7 billion.”

      ‘We’re not going to change our growth plans’
      Beginning in the late 2000s, the U.S. oil and gas industry underwent what was dubbed the “shale revolution” — a dramatic production boost enabled by new technologies like horizontal drilling and advanced hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking.

      In Colorado, the shale revolution brought a staggering six-fold increase in oil production between 2010 and 2019, nearly all of which came in the Denver-Julesburg Basin in the northeast quarter of the state. The drilling boom in Colorado and elsewhere helped drive down gas prices throughout much of the decade, and in 2018 made the U.S. the world’s top oil producer for the first time since 1973.

      But independent financial analysts had long questioned the sustainability of shale drilling, also known as “unconventional” production. The new drilling techniques were expensive, requiring large capital and operating expenditures and tight margins that made producers vulnerable to price volatility. Wall Street investors funneled large amounts of cash into the fracking boom in the early 2010s, but gradually soured on the industry as many operators racked up debt and unconventional wells struggled to produce enough oil and gas to be profitable.

      While COVID-19’s impact on the oil and gas sector was what made headlines, a financial reckoning was already well underway in early 2020, reshaping the industry through a wave of bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions that began before the onset of the pandemic and has continued long after....

      PDC’s end-of-year report Monday noted its extensive stockpile of hundreds of approved permits and drilled but uncompleted wells, which it said “represents an inventory life of more than ten years at the current development pace” — and plenty of additional drilling permits for approved surface locations are on their way, including for the locations that the company plans to acquire from Great Western.

      In response to a question from an investor, David Lillo, PDC’s senior vice president of operations, said during the company’s earnings call that obtaining subsurface permits from the state “hasn’t really been a big problem in the previous years, even under the new rules.”"

      https://coloradonewsline.com/2022/03/03/colorado-drillers-oil-russia-ukraine-crisis/

      1. This is bullshit Joe. The shitty economics that you describe were in a time of much lower oil prices. I was in the middle of it trying to convince the C -suite where I worked that the hz economics weren’t what they believed and that the US industry was about to swamp demand with all the production we were adding. I was right but got tired of it and retired in 2016. Back in that period companies were telling Wall Street that their “breakeven” price for their program (whatever the hell that actually is) was $40 or $50 WTI which is bullshit. Prices collapsed to the $20s.

        And since all these geniuses borrowed a bunch of money and diluted their shareholders to drill marginally economic wells. BK, consolidation, etc.

        But that was then. At current prices these wells are fantastically economic. Production could be ramped up in a few months if they started today, but it’s gonna require a bunch of mothballed equipment to be brought back to working condition and people to be added to check title and plan well paths and completion plans and so on. That will require spending a bunch of money up front. But if there was simply a series of announcements that things were going to ramp up it would knock a decent chunk off of futures prices. But you’ve got an administration that is openly hostile to hydrocarbons because of their ridiculous obsession with panicking over the climate.

        I know you want to defend your guy, but this is still pathetic stupidity and incompetence on the part of the administration. They won’t encourage the US industry to ramp it up to save the climate but they’ll encourage Vz and Saudi - places that torture their own citizens - to do so. Their oil doesn’t contain carbon? It’s no fucking difference.

        Jen Paski was so stupid with her “let me explain” because my children understand this better than she does. Stupid people that think they’re smart just screwing everything up. As bad as Trump was these guys make him seem like the greatest statesman ever.

        1. bevis, the date on the article is March 3, 6 days ago. That's right now. Oil companies don't want to ramp up production. Again from the article:

          "PDC’s end-of-year report Monday noted its extensive stockpile of hundreds of approved permits and drilled but uncompleted wells, which it said “represents an inventory life of more than ten years at the current development pace” — and plenty of additional drilling permits for approved surface locations are on their way, including for the locations that the company plans to acquire from Great Western."

          How then are Biden's not granting new oil leases on federal land impacting today's production and gas prices? It isn't.

          1. Yes it is. I explain this above.

            1. Don't bother, he doesn't understand anything more complicated than what MSNBC spoon feeds him.

            2. He also doesn't understand how commodity prices today are impacted by futures, which are based upon projections, months and years in advance.

              1. And it's obvious that Biden and his administration are relying on idiots like Joe that don't understand how futures impact spot pricing. Or how that impacts business decision and budgeting projections. Anyone who lives and breaths commodities understands that the worse thing for making long term planning is uncertainty, especially government inflicted uncertainty and hostility, and how this can cause massive spikes in futures, and thus in spot pricing, or massive crashes in both those pricing.

                1. soldier, this isn't from MSNBC, it's from an oil company's end of year report:

                  ""PDC’s end-of-year report Monday noted its extensive stockpile of hundreds of approved permits and drilled but uncompleted wells, which it said “represents an inventory life of more than ten years at the current development pace” — and plenty of additional drilling permits for approved surface locations are on their way, including for the locations that the company plans to acquire from Great Western."

                  By the way, I've survived in business for myself and been making weekly payrolls for over 40 years. How about you?

                  1. You couldn’t run a hotdog stand.

            3. Vexatious, no you didn't. If you can read, the article and quote I posted explained clearly from the mouths of oil company reports and executives that they are making decisions based on having 10 years of permits and leases in their pockets - with only 8% of 2018 US oil coming from federal leases - increasing fracking costs relative to yield, and their own business decisions. Prove your claims. I just did mine.

              1. Defend your master!

          2. Joe, I know what’s happening today. Although retired, I am a degreed engineer who worked in e&p for 35 years. I know how the senior execs at oil companies think because I was one of them for maybe 25 of those years.

            This shit is so complex that I can’t exploit to a layperson on a message board. Today’s prices and old permits (many of which have probably expired) are the cartoon version of the decision process. For one, take a look at the futures curve - nobody expects any permanence to this spike. WTI is back under $90 by YE 22 and is still screaming downward going forward.

            Back during the shake boom there was recognition that the US e&p companies had displaced OPEC as the “so called” swing producers. That’s the case today, but there is no incentive for these guys to put their ass on the line over a short term energy spike

            Biden would need to incentivize them somehow but he’s surrounded by New Green Deal foolishness. Instead, he’s going to incentivize Venezuela for Christ’s sake. Which subsidizes a vicious regime and is probably worse from a carbon standpoint than the US would be. And he’s going to have his surrogates tell people to ride out the inflation by buying electric cars they can’t afford and won’t be able to charge and oh, yeah, that electricity doesn’t come from a magic box. It’s generated using mostly hydrocarbon.

            All of that demonstrates just how doctrinaire this administration is on energy. Don’t use our own resources to cripple people like Putin, instead let’s prop up a different dictator. And let’s give the people insulting advice about replacing their cars which won’t help and they’re already struggling to buy food anyway. The smug incompetence of this bunch is really something. I thought Trump was the upper limit on smug incompetence, but these guys are much much worse.

            1. All due respect for your experience bevis, but my link and posted quotes FROM OIL COMPANIES confounds what you are saying.

              ""PDC’s end-of-year report Monday noted its extensive stockpile of hundreds of approved permits and drilled but uncompleted wells, which it said “represents an inventory life of more than ten years at the current development pace” — and plenty of additional drilling permits for approved surface locations are on their way, including for the locations that the company plans to acquire from Great Western."

              The administrations long term energy strategy is based on a threat which all the world's Academies of Science and relevant associations of scientists and engineers recognize as the consensus science. You may or may not agree with that, but I'm taking the word of that overwhelming number of scientists and scientific institutions in the world, and it takes a special kind of hubris - or something else - to decide they're all wrong based on political calculations, not science. However, there is no evidence - show me if you have it - that our gas prices and production now are based on a future of fewer federal land oil leases when those type were 8% of all US production and when oil execs are saying they have 10 years worth of leases in the bank now, with more on the way. You do know I hope that US oil production dropped about 1 billion barrels from 2019 to 2020. That had nothing to do with either Trump or Biden. Production is now slowly rebounding from that, again having nothing to do with those guys.

              1. So more global warming horseshit. Goddamn you are dumb.

              2. PDC does a lot of exploration, hence the mention of uncompleted wells.

                This isn't saying they have 10 years of natural gas inventory.

                This is saying they have enough leases to spend 10 years exploring. Ie, they aren't going to run out of land to explore for at least 10 years.

                That does not mean they have 10 years worth of pumpable natural gas on those leases.

            2. Indeed. people need to take into consideration the Green New Deal that describes how Americans will be weaned off their own private transportation and instead forced into public transport by high fuel prices, ever increasing safety and emissions mandates and an all out total war of private transport ie: automobiles.
              In short, your movements will be regulated and observed. Only public transport will be allowed and when and where you may be allowed to travel.
              This is part of the Great Reset.

          3. That's right now. Oil companies don't want to ramp up production.

            Of course not. Why would oil companies ramp up production in the US given that half of Congress and the president have already made their destruction their long term goal?

            Investors are going to invest in industries that don't have the Eye of Sauron-Biden upon them.

        2. "Stupid people that think they’re smart' make up the vast majority of government at all levels, they are career administrators, working making policy without input everywhere.

  3. Good lord, could that woman get any more stupid?

    1. Well, to be fair, some of it is the lack of blood to the brain caused by a perennially-furrowed brow.

    2. I'd call her a one trick pony, but no one could look at that scowl and want even the first trick.

      1. One trick pony was exactly the phrase that came to my mind. It is a shitty trick. It is the equivalent of a dog humping your leg regardless of what you tell them to do.

        1. Except it's a pony knocking you down and raping you. Named Elizabeth Warren.

          1. Zoo - the movie staring Elizabeth as the horse.

        2. Thanks you posted my thoughts exactly

    3. I think she hit peak stupid when she "had a beer" in a campaign commercial, and practically had to look for opening instructions on the label.

      1. That clip was sooo incredibly cringe.

    4. I'm shocked that she has the brain activity to keep her own heart beating.

    5. Good lord, could that woman get any more stupid?

      In Massachusetts? probably not.

      1. Ayana Pressley would like a word.

      2. "Joy Reid today said through a spokesperson that any attempt to declare anyone else, including any black person, stupider than her, is racism. As is going to work and breathing."

    6. Well if you read the Bell Curve, I know that's considered racist, Amerindians have some of the lowest mean IQs, and she is a proud Amerindian...

      1. Yeah, it's racist soldier, Congrats. Environmental factors are generally accepted to amount to about 1/2 of IQ differences.

        1. Environment certainly doesn't contribute to Warren's stupidity. At least you admit that 1/2 of your stupidity is entirely on you. Admission is the first step to recovery.

        2. 1/2, because IQ is a fucking phenotype you fucking moron. A phenotype is a combination of genotype plus environment plus some randomness. Randomness is generally discounted, as it is incalculable. So Phenotype is 1.0. So if environment is 0.5 that means genotype is approximately 0.5 also. So, it isn't fucking racist, because genotype has as much fucking influence as environment. So the fucking it's environment argument is fucking scientifically illiterate, you dumb fucker.

          Once again you fucking open your mouth and show how fucking scientifically illiterate and above economically illiterate you are. Just shut up you fucking moron. You also probably aren't fucking aware of what race has the highest mean IQ is either, hint it ain't Caucasians. So if it is racist, it must be fucking Asian racists, as they have the highest fucking IQs. Dumbfuck.

          1. Also, how do you explain white IQs compared to Amerindian IQs when both were raised on the reservation, even amongst two person household's. My IQ is 136. I was consistently the top scorer on standardized tests, going to the same public school on the reservation as my Amerindian classmates. I even beat out Amerindian students whose families were wealthier, and whose parents had University degrees (neither of my parents had University degrees or any college at all until after I graduated, my mother was a high school drop out). Despite this my father's IQ is in the upper 120s, my mother's father, who didn't graduate 8th grade, had an IQ in the upper 120s. Sure sounds like there is at least equal genetic influence as environmental, which only fucking makes sense, as as I said above IQ is a phenotype, which is the expressed trait and is the combination of environment plus genotype, plus randomness.
            .Mathematically stated P=G+E+r. r is incalculable, so you take it to zero for calculations, P always equals 1.0, so you have 1.0=G+E. If E = 0.5 then you have 1.0 = G + 0.5, simple algebra to solve for G results in G = 0.5, the exact same level of influence as environment.

            The biggest issue in the Bell Curve isn't the racial means, and attributing some of that mean to genotype. No, it's the assumption that intelligence is normally distributed. Also, the assumption that IQ is anything more than the ease at which you can learn cerebral tasks. Finally the other problem is people focus on the mean, and don't understand that the mean is simply the average and that isn't necessarily the same as the median, or that most people fall either to the right or left of the mean. So there are geniuses in every race, and there are clinical imbeciles in every race. The mean doesn't define anything other than the average. Also, my remark about the Bell Curve was meant totally as sarcasm, referring to her claims about her Amerindian heritage.

            I can learn advanced subjects pretty easily, and can even understand mechanical and vocational tasks, but struggle to perform manual tasks more than most (I actually am diagnosed as clinically clutsy). I lack fine motor skills especially.

            I also struggle with interpersonal communication, reading non-verbal clues, struggle communicating technical subjects in an easily understood form, struggle to teach others concepts that seem intuitive to me. I also struggled learning how to study, because I never needed it growing up. I still am not good at studying, I can read something once or twice and remember it. I do much better in classes that are heavy on theory and concept, because I grasp concepts very easily. So, History, Government and Sciences were always my best subjects. I was good at math, but struggled with it more (my favorite part of math is most people's least favorite, proofs). I am an avid reader and love to write. But was indifferent to English and Grammer. Many of those who struggled in school, who I was "smarter" than are far more successful than I ever will be, because they have different skills, leadership, communication, teamwork and personal skills. I absolutely suck at teamwork, because I get impatient, and generally just take over and do it myself. I absolutely always have hated group projects. I also struggle with writing condensed writing, short sentences, focus on cramming as much detail as I feel is needed (generally much more than most people feel is needed). I also have the bad habit of jumping ahead, so I will say stuff that a lot of people don't understand where I'm coming from. Basically I've extrapolated multiple steps ahead in the conversation and I expect everyone else to have made those same leaps and connections. So, I have to go back and explain my entire thought process that got me to that point. It frustrates me, because it's just logical and common sense in my opinion, and it irritates others, because they don't understand what or how I came up with it, and when I explain, I come off as condescending (which I really don't mean to).

            A perfect example of this is helping my kids with their math homework. I absolutely suck at this, because to me the concept is so obvious that I can't explain it. I usually end up, without meaning to, doing the problem myself. I also struggled, as do my sons, with showing our work when working out a problem, because I can do so much of it in my head. I absolutely hate the way they teach math today, because it's all focused on the process as opposed to getting the answer. I look at it, and think 90% of the work is completely unnecessary. Also, the new processes seem unnecessarily more complicated and lengthy compared to the old processes. Draw a number line and break out the tens, hundreds thousands etc. Fuck, long division just seems fucking simpler and more intuitive to me. Fuck all that extra shit.

            1. Well, enough about me soldier, let's talk about you.

              Environmental factors are generally accepted to amount to about 1/2 of IQ differences.

              1. And genetic factors are then accepted to be responsible for about 1/2 of IQ differences.

                YOU. ARE. MAKING. SOLDIERMEDICS. POINT.

                Did you need training to become such a fucking moron?

                1. If I had to guess, 1/2 comes naturally and the other 1/2 is due to environmental factors.

                  1. If the environmental factors are currently provided by in-group biases and media sources that dovetail with those biases, then you've hit it, I suspect.

            2. Brother from another mother

          2. It might explain why Asians have been targeted and assaulted by blacks .

      2. Two things: first, distributions say nothing about individuals and second, she’s less “Amerindian” than the average American.

        1. It was a fucking joke.

        2. And if you read the replies to Joe you would have known it was a joke and I already stated that was the major problem with the bell Curve.

    7. I want to know who is smarter... mother-in-law-morning-star-wood, or Ronald bailey-me-out-of-this-pandemic.

  4. We're all better off when government takes the money, because then it belongs to us!

    1. Reads like a direct quote from that stupid bitch

  5. The metaphor of windfall is quite apt, and people forget that windfalls are bad things in general.
    Fruit knocked from the tree unexpectedly, and without a process in place to carefully harvest, especially trying to recapture bruised or damaged fruit is an apt metaphor indeed for most market disruptions.
    Much of the price of gasoline is what happens to it after it is harvested from the wellhead. And much of that is both direct as well as indirect taxes. California has at the pump taxes (fed,state) about 45 cents higher than the lowest states. But pump prices are more than a dollar higher than those same comparative states. The difference is state imposed costs to the distributors, and stations in the form of indirect (indirect at least to gasoline as the product) taxes such as wages, income taxes, property taxes, and anything else the state manages to extract dollars from along the way.

    Let her tax the petroleum products of Massachusetts as an experiment in whether that would bring down prices for her constituents. No wonder even her own state did not want her as president. They know what she would do.

    1. California has problems with custom blends and no new refineries, actually. It's not really taxes on the distribution side so much as overregulation stopping any new competition on the supply side.

      Basically, since nobody else can make the Ca summer blend, the existing refineries are all maxed out. And if any one of them goes off line for anything from planned maintenance to switching from winter to summer blend to an unscheduled disruption, the state can end up without enough supply.

      In a healthy market, if you could generate another quarter a gallon over normal profits by making the California summer blend, you'd totally do it. Guaranteed customers at higher margins, right? But the hurdles to bringing another refinery online are so massive that none have been built in 40 years.

      1. Just to be clear, gasman is not wrong that costs everywhere in the distribution chain are higher. It's just even worse and more pernicious than he described.

      2. Refineries are a major problem period, nationwide. Montana, Alaska and North Dakota each have one small refinery each, despite major oil fields. Mainly because whenever you propose building a new one, or expanding existing ones, the environmentalist come out of the woodwork throwing a fit, and the EPA, not to mention some state regulations, make the process functionally impossible.

        I know North Dakota was trying to build one, and even had cleared the EPA hurdles, but last I heard it was delayed because environmental groups sued because it was close to Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

        1. As a result, well our prices are below national averages, they aren't that much lower, because we have to ship in the majority of our refined gas and diesel. Additionally, most the Bakken Oil is not light sweet crude, and most refineries are only designed to refine light sweet crude, so it gets transported to seaports and shipped overseas.

      3. Dude, you need to do what every cli jackass does. Lie on the emissions and slip the dude a benji

      4. Going off the example of the high-speed rail project, the COULD build a refinery...but it would take 20 years, run 3X advertised budget and turn out lawn chairs and wiper blades.

  6. Face meet palm

  7. When the only tool you have is a hammer...

    1. Ahem... it's called a tomahawk.

  8. Fuck, what are Democrats going to do next? Try to bring back disco? They seem to really love the '70s.

    1. Maybe Joe B thinks it is, actually the 70's. Senator Joe is acting accordingly.

      1. Lots of coke and beltway skanks. Plus lots of waitress sandwiches back in the day.

      2. That's why they keep bringing up his corvette. It keeps his dementia grounded.

    2. Bringing back a 55 mph national speed limit seems pretty obvious. And then allow an exception for people with electric cars

      1. How about we dump you in a river instead?

    3. The Dems want 1917.

  9. "Putin's war is causing gas prices to rise, but this is no excuse for large oil companies to pad their bottom line with war-fueled profits."

    "Biden's Green New Deal is causing gas prices to rise, but this is no excuse for large oil companies to pad their bottom line with environmentalism-fueled profits."

  10. ten off the top for Big Papa. also, Liz Warren is an idiot.

    1. There's no need to insult idiots.

      Which bring up a great song - The Idiot, by Stan Rogers.

      "I like being free, and that makes me, an idiot, I suppose"

      1. lol I basically used that exact line on a friend-thread who was all in my business about masks 2 years ago

  11. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail to be beaten on the head with the hammer of self-righteousness.

    All Warren has in her tool box of solutions is a big tax hammer. So every problem looks like she needs to impose more taxes on people with the big tax hammer. If you object to getting hit over the head with a big ass hammer, then fuck you because you're a racist against 1/64th Cherokee wannabes.

    1. I believe it was 1/1024th... with a big maybe on that.

      I actually don't really mind her being around and it probably beats having whoever Mass would choose to replace her. At this time she's such a joke and has so much baggage that only the school-marm sycophants take her seriously, precisely for the reason you mention. Yes, a lot of progs would likely agree with her in principles of "equity" but like Harris, it's just hard getting behind her.

      1. I'm just being generous with my estimation of her Cherokee-ness. In all probability I have more Cherokee in me due to a rumor that great great great grandma might have fooled some.

        1. Its possible I do also, as my mom's father's family is scotch-irish from Eastern Tennessee and my great great grandfather's family was wiped out while emigrating through Missouri and he and his siblings were sent to an orphanage that he ran away from, so we don't even know if the name he used was actually his real name.

          1. The Scotch-irish intermarried with the southeast tribes and Appalachian tribes quite a bit, especially when these areas were the edge of the frontier.

      2. Get behind Harris, hard?
        We could as Willie Brown.

    2. She has a second hammer that’s all the regulations she’s desperate to inflict on everyone.

  12. Of course, the fact that the tax will drive the price of gas even higher is not an accident on Warren's part, just as it isn't on Biden's. Their purpose is to bring in more money for the billionaires that are the Democrats' only true constituents. We need to hammer on that fact in this year's campaigns.

    1. They also want to get the poors out of their individual vehicles. What's the point of even having poors if they can just go wherever they want?

  13. Economically the Dems are retard-level stupid. I mean damn. “Profit margins should not go up”. WTF are they supposed to do with the incremental cashflow? Pile the cash up and burn it? No, that would be bad for the climate.

    They could, of course, spend it on ginormous bonuses for their senior execs. That would wipe out the increased margins. Think Liz would be cool with that?

    1. It's amazing how many politicians, especially Democrats, seemingly have no idea how free market economies work. Warren seems to act as if U.S. oil and gas companies operate in a space that is immune from economic pressures inherent to the pricing mechanism of competitive markets. It is patently unreasonable for the United States to expect oil and gas companies to sell oil to the U.S. at a discount. If Elizabeth Warren wants to find someone to blame, she should start by taking a hard look at her party and it's priorities vis-a-vis energy policy.

      1. Obviously the oil companies can make prices whatever they want. That’s why they drove prices down from the $100s to the $20s in 2014-15. They felt like suffering for a while.

      2. They understand exactly how the free market economy works. Why do you think they are so opposed to it?

      3. Just to play the Both Sides card, I once ran against a GOP politician that had no idea who Milton Friedman was. Absolutely clueless dude, but was the perennial GOP congressional candidate in a nearby district. Okay, sure, maybe you prefer supply side over monetarist, but how the heck can one claim to be for markets and not know how Uncle Milton is?

        The overall ignorance of politicians is astonishing. It's like their only skill is campaigning and raising funds. We voters need to do a better job holding their feet to the fire.

        p.s. Granted, I've met even dumber Democrat politicians...

        1. Oh I didn’t mean to imply that there were many candidates for Mensa among those on the right. Their Dear Leader can’t spell or capitalize or punctuate very well.

          It’s just that the combination of ignorance and arrogance shown by Warren and Biden and his press secretary is really unappealing.

    2. How much are those execs going to put into the coffers of the DNC?

  14. I vote that Elizabeth Warren, aka Chief Sitting Bullshit, gets demoted to a position where she will do no more harm.

    I just can't think of anything she wouldn't, like Joe Biden, foul up.

    1. Fertilizer?

      1. She'd kill the plants.

        1. Bullshits biggest use as a fertilizer is as a nitrogen source, but to much nitrogen damages plants (it's called nitrogen burn). So, I suspect given how full of bullshit she is, you're likely right about that.

    2. Fire watcher?

    3. Actually it's mother-in-law-morning-star-wood

  15. Who taxes the government windfalls?

  16. I worked in an oil refinery in 1980. The company built a new cafeteria, some new research buildings, and gave us all bonus checks - all to spend the 'excess profits' before the government could seize it.

    1. Those bastards, plotting to keep Lizzie Warren from collecting her fair share through underhanded tactics like improving working conditions and paying the employees more! No Democrat would stand for that! Fuck the workers, more taxes for DC!

      1. And investing in upgrading production efficiency.

  17. It's war on the middle and working class.
    They are trying to destroy us.
    They don't even really hide that this is their goal.
    Just look up Build Back Better and The Great Reset.

    1. The driving principle seems to be to drive you into a level of poverty that you welcome getting your government stipend in credits that they can then direct you how to spend.

    2. They don't even bother hiding their contempt for the wrench-turning blue-collar middle class.

      1. Contempt is a two way street.

  18. Any politician that thinks a corporate tax isn't passed on to the customer is completely unfit for office.

  19. this stupid cunt.

      1. Some of my best friends are cunts.

        Honestly don’t what I’d of done without them.

  20. One solution to Warren's burning desire to ruin the economy of the USA is to tax oil companies.
    The democrat platform is a plan to destroy the US economy to create another excuse to impose fascism on us. The Communist Chinese Virus scare was just a trial run. Now that Canada has opened the door to bank takeovers, there are no limits to what they can try.

    1. And yet the economy historically and almost universally flounders under GOP rule and expands under Democratic rule. It turns that low tax rates for the wealthy and low wages for working Americans isn't a good formula for a consumer economy. Go figure.

      By the way, I've been making payroll weekly for 40+ years. How about you guys?

      1. "And yet the economy historically ... expands under Democratic rule"

        Have you been in hibernation for the last 13.5 months? Get a fucking clue.

        1. Renegade, despite the hot check written for the 2017 tax cut, GDP under Trump had that one good year with GDP and then back where they were under Obama. Need I remind you of the economy Obama inherited and which he then passed on to Trump? Since Covid, the world's economy has controlled, not US policy, and while 2020 wasn't Trump's fault, neither are current inflation rates uniquely US.

          I agree with you on Citizen's United.

          Today, by the way:

          "The major U.S. stock indexes, led by the tech-heavy Nasdaq, posted strong across-the-board gains as oil prices retreated sharply from recent highs.

          The Dow Jones industrial average added 653.61 points, or 2 percent, to close at 33,286.25. The broader S&P 500 index advanced 107.18 points, or 2.6 percent, to settle at 4,277.88. And the tech-heavy Nasdaq soared 459.99 points, or 3.6 percent, to land at 13,255.55.

          The stock rally coincided with a double-digit pullback in oil, with Brent crude, the international benchmark, tumbling 11.8 percent to nearly $113 a barrel. West Texas Intermediate crude, the U.S. benchmark, fell 10.7 percent to about $110 a barrel..."

          1. Oil fell on news from the UAE on future increases in production.

            1. Joe still showing he doesn't understand futures pricing, I see by your remark, since I've fucking muted the Twitter head awhile ago, even though, I did break done and unmuted him briefly today and then spent way to much time responding to him.

            2. Also, Joe seems unaware that processors and producers of commodities aren't price makers, they're price takers, for the most part. The price is set by traders and competitive bidding. Shell et al domestic oil companies are bidding against every other oil country in the world. When supply is loose and demand is steady or down, bidding is less intense and prices go down. When demand is steady or increasing, while supply is tight or decreasing, bidding goes up, and so do spot prices.

              Anyone who has been to an auction understands this concept. I've overpaid at farm auctions, but usually if it's a want, not a need, I will have a set price, and am pretty good at stopping when I get to that price. If it's a need I don't buy it at an auction because that's when I overpay.

              If you've ever been to a farm auction or an estate auction, there are usually friends and family who will bid if bidding is slow to try and work the price up. I've seen it at youth 4-H and FFA auctions too. There's bidders who bid just to help drive up the price, especially if no one is bidding or bidding is slow. Also, bidding at an auction is fun. When I go to farm auctions I usually identify one or two small lots, doesn't have to be anything big, last time it was some 250 gallon plastic stock tanks, that I'll bid on. I could find a use for them, I know their value new, so I set a price half of what new was, and stopped bidding when we got to that price. They went for only $10 more than my set price, but I didn't need them. If I had needed them, I would have likely kept bidding, and I doubt I would have gotten them for just $10 more a piece than what I was willing to bid. There were three other bidders bidding.

              I've been to plenty of cattle auctions, and have seen small lots go for outrageous prices. Generally buyers like large lots, because the calves are from the same herd usually, similar age, and similar weights and genetics. But at the end of the day sales, when they're looking for just a couple head to round out a truck load, they start bidding on those small lots, and there is generally a couple buyers from different feedlots all looking for the same thing, so the bidding starts getting intense. Sometimes one guy is representing multiple buyers and he'll be on the phone with all of them at once and bidding against himself. They have orders they need to fill and trucks that they need to fill, so they start getting competitive on those small lots.

              For me, because I sell smaller lots, I like to be at later in the afternoon. Maybe not close to the end of the sale, but about 3/4 of the way through the sales order. Because that's when they are getting desperate to fill orders, and round out truck loads. And they supply is dwindling, and they don't need more big lots, just a couple head here and there. The big guys, with the big lots, are usually in the first half of the order, and the buyers know them and when they're selling, and how many they're selling, so they've already factored what they are going to spend on those. And each buyer generally has an idea of which big guy they're wanting to buy from, and which they'll pass on. They get good prices, usually some of the best prices, but there tends to be less action, maybe one or two bidders at once, and bidding tends to be in bigger increments because they want them, and they know what they want them for. The real action is when the big guys have sold, and supply is constrained by remaining sellers, but demand for the smaller lots to round out the bigger lots, that's when bidding action takes off. My calves weighed average of 550 when I sold, buyers where looking for calves between 450 and 600. They filled most their orders from big groups in that range, it was about 4 pm, they had been there since 7 am, walking the pens before the sale opened at 8, and having coffee with the ranchers they knew to see what they were selling and how much they were selling (relationships and reputation are important in the cattle market). These were the first calves I sold under my brand (I've sold some culls that carried the brand of the guy I bought them from when I started). So I didn't have much reputation, but I was known from my work in Extension, and the genetics came from my friend who has a solid reputation.

              As it was, I got better prices then he did when he sold a month earlier, because supply was projected to keep tightening when I sold, and it was tighter than it was the month before, even though supply was tight at that time. More guys were selling at that time because they didn't have feed for the calves for that extra month. I calculated I did have enough feed. I also gambled a little bit that I could start feeding three weeks later than most did and got away with it. My cows did look a little rougher and conditioning was decreased a bit more than I like, but I know mid gestation cows need less. So I could make up for it in late gestation as long as winter remained somewhat mild. Based on long term weather projections, I made that gamble and it worked for me. If the models were all screwed up, I would be hurting a bit, probably breaking the bank to buy more hay (and hay is always more expensive in late winter, because supply is low and demand is high). As it is, I've managed to put conditions back on a bit. I know you can generally change body condition score by half a point during pregnancy without impacting calving and breeding, if you do it slowly. I was able to increase feed quality without buying higher quality feed by buying a lick tub, and I saved my best feed until last Sunday. I'll be right down to May, but I will turn out as long as all the calves are born by no later than May 15th, they may have to eat old grass for a few weeks, but I can make up for it with protein and mineral licks, which while expensive, are cheaper than hay this year. I'll be sweating the last weeks in April, but the snow is melted, for the most part, so I'm pushing them a little harder, making them graze a bit before I put more feed out. They have protein and mineral free choice, and are getting higher quality feed, so I'm not to worried about hurting birth weights or lactation. And all of these decisions are based on projected weather three months from now and six months from now. See I wandered a little bit but was able to bring it back around to the bigger picture. I'm basing management decisions on what's projected to happen six months from now, combined with current conditions, and shading my decisions on worst case conditions.

  21. I predict odd-even gas days by June.

  22. So, increase costs for producers to reduce costs for consumers. Sounds legit.

  23. Christ, what stupid mendacious cunt.

  24. This ridiculous woman's answer to everything is to tax it. And if it keeps moving, tax it some more. We are governed by the least qualified for the task.

  25. If the last sixty years have taught us anything, it's that it should be a Federal crime for a resident of Massachusetts to cast a vote.

  26. Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Corporations *collect* taxes. Fauxcahontas wants us to pay more on top of the looting she and her cronies are already doing to us.

    Fuck off, Liawatha.

    -jcr

    1. +

    2. I always thought she was a sacagawea.

  27. I am continually amazed at the people on these type of comment threads that side with big business and oil companies. They have rigged the system so that what we have is not capitalism, but corporatism. I realize that companies don't pay taxes, consumers do, and I am not saying that a corporate windfall tax is the answer, but when oil companies are making giant profits and then complain they have no choice but to raise gas prices, I call B.S. If Exxon was really in competition with Shell, then they would sell gas at a lower price and sell more gas, not raise prices in lock step.

    1. Government makes more on every gallon of gas than the oil companies do.

    2. Here's a quote from someone who actually works in the petroleum industry. Seems to me he has a few cogent points to share -
      Collin McLelland
      Cofounder at Digital Wildcatters

      I have seen so much misunderstanding of how oil works online this week.

      1) You don’t just “open a valve” to increase oil production.

      It is extremely capital & time-intensive to extract hydrocarbons.

      You have to get permits approved, construct locations, drill the well, frac the well, build production infrastructure etc.

      You are talking a 6-month cycle at best.

      Then you layer other constraints on top of that:

      -labor shortages cause a limited supply of oilfield services so you can’t bring wells on as quickly

      -steel shortages make sourcing pipe difficult

      2) Now you’re asking O&G companies to ramp up capex to increase production.

      It’s a very tough ask when the feds have created so much uncertainty from a regulatory perspective with rhetoric and actions such as banning drilling on federal lands, pulling pipeline permits, etc.

      Essentially the message is:

      “There isn’t a place for oil and gas in this world, you’re being phased out.”

      It’s hard to make investments with those headwinds, but now that’s what’s being asked.

      3) Americans have become addicted to cheap oil and gas.

      That was enabled by investors subsidizing the costs over the last decade and incinerating their capital.

      Now investors want O&G companies to focus on sustainable free cashflow and return capital.

      Shocker.

      This has caused O&G companies to go into maintenance mode and limit production growth.

      4) Activists have been pushing for the divestment of fossil fuels.

      Countless endowment funds, institutions, banks and other entities have announced their withdrawal from O&G.

      (Preventing the ability to finance energy and support humans isn’t looking so noble now)

      5) Now oil and gas companies are being painted as the bad guys for not producing enough oil.

      Despite years of capital being sucked out of the space, increasing hurdles to build infrastructure and activists attacking the industry, it’s now the O&G companies who are at fault.

      They are at fault for something that they can not physically do in such a short amount of time.

      They operate at low prices and give Americans an extremely prosperous life, the response:

      “You’re killing the planet, we’re going to end you, leave it in the ground”

      They stop chasing production growth and leave it in the ground, the response:

      “Greedy oil companies only care about profits, they don’t care about human suffering or else they would increase production”

      People in the O&G industry have every right to be upset right now.

      They wake up and work hard to power the world and support human flourishing, just to be told by critics on twitter that they’re evil.

      Now those critics are in desperate need of help and the only people that can save them are the ones they have been demonizing for the last 10 years.

      Bad energy policy and misguided activists have led to this problem.

      Full stop.

      People are getting a hard dose of reality on energy production and realizing how critical it is to society.

      The oil companies didn’t cause this.

      1. ^THIS.... It's hilarious how Nazi's monopolize industries by government dictation then blame the industries for their own effects.

        Ya know; JUST LIKE Nazi's do... PROJECTS everything they are doing onto anything and everything else but themselves.

    3. The big companies aren't the ones actually producing oil. The drillers are different companies, because the risk is to big for large corporations that are beholden to stockholders. The wells are also largely operated by separate companies also. So one company take the risk of drilling the well, then sell the productive well to another company, that likely then sells it to the big oil companies we think of when we hear oil companies. These companies store it and or refine it depending on the economic environment. Drilling is down, because of a variety of factors, not the least of which is uncertainty related to the Biden policies. As one drilling company CEO put it 'why would I invest millions of dollars into developing a well, if there is no pipeline to transport it?' He was directly referring to the decision to shut down construction of Keystone, which would have transported Bakken crude to the larger refiners in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. Currently, Bakken crude is mostly transported by rail and truck, which means buyers are not willing to pay the same price for it as Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma produced oil, and mostly the rail in the area is limited to delivery to the west coast. Rail is cheaper than truck, but you can't just adjust where it's delivered, without building more rail.

      The construction of new pipelines, and the reopening of Dakota Access, which was suspended due to a lawsuit pending yet another NEPA, which the Biden administration has also been slow walking, there isn't much planned new drilling in this region and most of the drilling companies are shifting focus to southern plains shale deposits. Many of the unused leases are up here, not on the Southern plains, as the southern plains states don't have much federal land. So almost all the drilling on the Southern plains will be on private land.

    4. "I am continually amazed at the people on these type of comment threads that side with big business and oil companies. They have rigged the system so that what we have is not capitalism, but corporatism."

      U.S. oil and gas companies do not have a monopoly on the global oil supply. In a competitive market, prices for goods and services are determined by supply and demand, not any individual supplier. Of course, oil companies do not literally have to raise their prices, they could give their oil away for free if they wanted. It's not a charity though, it's a business. The purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits for their shareholders, and it would be a borderline breach of fiduciary duty to deliberately sell oil for less than the market price.

      As far as your second point about the incestuous nature of big business and Washington, I could not agree more. What I will never understand though is how people can place the blame for this development at the feet of corporate America alone. At the end of the day, corporations are supposed to represent the interests of their shareholders, and our politicians are supposed to represent the interests of the people. As far as I'm concerned, the former is fulfilling its obligations to a far greater extent than the latter. I fear that the symbiotic relationship that emerged after Citizens United between corporate America and Washington will persist until we completely get rid of money in politics.

      1. Yeah, another person who doesn't understand the commodities markets. They're global, based on current supply and demand and projected supply and demand. We're the largest oil producer in the world. When our supply is constrained, or projected to be constrained it impacts the whole worlds prices. That is where we are now. Just a small announcement that Qatar is considering raising supply in the near future sent futures $13 dollars lower, and the stock market rallied to close up $168 after weeks off sell off. Imagine what would happen if Biden announced reopening of the Keystone Pipeline, resumption of lease sales, streamlining construction of other pipelines, reissued the NEPA on Dakota Access (which is currently suspended operations due to a judge ordering another NEPA with the inclusion of an environmental impact statement) and announced that they won't shut down the pipeline in Michigan. Yes, quite a few of those things would take months or even years to complete, but the markets would react immediately. And not just in the US but globally. That's what the oh none of those would help today because none of them would impact current supply. It's the impact of future supply projections that would decrease spot prices.

        There's another part of that, when projections are tight, producers and manufacturers will store more, so that they have a steady supply to process. When projections are for growing supply, they store less and process more of what they have stored. Basically refineries, like almost all commodities processors, have to maintain a base production level, which requires a steady supply of raw commodity. When projections are supply will remain tight or decrease, they store more to have available for future processing. When supply is projected to increase in the future, they process more and store less, because they don't need stored commodities to maintain production. Storage costs money, so there isn't an incentive to store to maintain processing if supplies are steady or increasing.

        1. soldier confuses "projected supply and demand" and "near futures" with the supposed impact of new federal land leases (8% of our oil production) when current oil company reports state they possess permoits and leases which “represents an inventory life of more than ten years at the current development pace” — and plenty of additional drilling permits for approved surface locations are on their way..."

          Of course oil companies will cry in public and claim they are oppressed and some gullible souls like soldier will believe them - or they just want to believe the bullshit for political reasons. Either way, this obviously has nothing of any significance to do with current oil production and pricing.

  28. Thanks, Brandon. I've never seen gas prices go up while people were in the middle of filling their tanks.

    https://gettr.com/post/pz1icad098

  29. Elizabeth Warren Says the Solution to Prices On Everything Is Higher Taxes on Everything

    With the one exception of her personal wealth and income!

    1. This is just standard-issue "progressive" dogma, and part of why that wing of the political establishment opposes encouraging students to persue STEM education (where they'll learn about math, including concepts of higher-order calculation beyond straight lines).

      In this case, just knowing straight lines is all that's needed to debunk the ideology though.

      As far as I can figure, the underlying concept is that there's a point at which the costs of operating a business which provides goods and services to the public can be increased to a level that will reduce prices at the consumer level. There's a corollary here which is the one situation where many "progressives" profess a belief in markets, and that's the idea that somehow "competition" will prevent the passing-along of costs which are imposed on every competitor (high taxes, high minimum wages, expensive regulatory compliance) in the market. I've actually discussed this with a "true believer" who couldn't process the idea that the only way for competition to prevent those costs from being passed along is by one or more of the competitors figuring out how to evade those additional costs (offshoring production, for example vs keeping jobs domestic).

  30. You lost me at, "Elizabeth Warren says..." Unless she's putting on a seminar about how to exploit cultural appropriation, she's got nothing insightful to say.

  31. with Elizabeth Warren as Wesley Mouch

    People love to hate Ayn Rand these days, but damn if she didn't know how to write a villain.

  32. She and those she conspires with are just evil.

  33. Virtually every politician, no matter how ghastly even by the dismal standards of the politico class, has at least one normal, generally agreeable quote under his/her belt. Does Lizzy? I’ve yet to see one. At least once she must have said something along the lines of:”Isn’t it a nice day out here? A cool breeze on a warm afternoon sure is refreshing!” Something like that is about the best I’d expect from her in terms of an observation I’d agree with.

  34. "What she calls "gouging" is actually demand adjusting to supply. " How do you mean? people buying less as prices rise? I ask, because "gouging" is usually used to disparage actions of producers, the people on the supply side of the equation, not the consumers, the people on the demand side of the equation.

  35. The ignorance on oil production here seems unanimous. Here, read this and smarten the fuck up:

    New federal land oil leases would not produce anything for years and there are currently 9000 permits for drilling on them right now not being used. Oil companies are holding back US production for their own business reasons and part of it is fracking is becoming more costly.

    "...In Colorado and beyond, large oil companies currently reporting their 2021 financial results and 2022 outlooks to shareholders are pledging to continue holding back on new production as they prioritize positive cash flows and capital returns for investors.

    The increased dividends and stock buybacks are part of what executives at PDC, Colorado’s third-largest oil producer, called its “new return of capital framework,” and the company is far from alone. Occidental Petroleum, the state’s top producer, also detailed its “new shareholder return framework” in a January earnings call, while the newly-formed Civitas Resources has touted an “updated stockholder distribution strategy.”

    After plummeting amid a demand shock in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. oil production is rising again — but slowly. A forecast last month from the federal Energy Information Administration projected that daily domestic production wouldn’t return to pre-pandemic levels until late 2023.

    In its 2022 financial guidance this week, PDC projected that its oil production in Colorado would dip by 7% in the first quarter and grow at an overall rate of zero to 5% for the next two years. PDC assured investors, however, that “under the company’s enhanced return of capital framework … cumulative shareholder returns in 2022 and 2023 are expected to exceed $1.7 billion.”

    ‘We’re not going to change our growth plans’
    Beginning in the late 2000s, the U.S. oil and gas industry underwent what was dubbed the “shale revolution” — a dramatic production boost enabled by new technologies like horizontal drilling and advanced hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking.

    In Colorado, the shale revolution brought a staggering six-fold increase in oil production between 2010 and 2019, nearly all of which came in the Denver-Julesburg Basin in the northeast quarter of the state. The drilling boom in Colorado and elsewhere helped drive down gas prices throughout much of the decade, and in 2018 made the U.S. the world’s top oil producer for the first time since 1973.

    But independent financial analysts had long questioned the sustainability of shale drilling, also known as “unconventional” production. The new drilling techniques were expensive, requiring large capital and operating expenditures and tight margins that made producers vulnerable to price volatility. Wall Street investors funneled large amounts of cash into the fracking boom in the early 2010s, but gradually soured on the industry as many operators racked up debt and unconventional wells struggled to produce enough oil and gas to be profitable.

    While COVID-19’s impact on the oil and gas sector was what made headlines, a financial reckoning was already well underway in early 2020, reshaping the industry through a wave of bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions that began before the onset of the pandemic and has continued long after....

    PDC’s end-of-year report Monday noted its extensive stockpile of hundreds of approved permits and drilled but uncompleted wells, which it said “represents an inventory life of more than ten years at the current development pace” — and plenty of additional drilling permits for approved surface locations are on their way, including for the locations that the company plans to acquire from Great Western.

    In response to a question from an investor, David Lillo, PDC’s senior vice president of operations, said during the company’s earnings call that obtaining subsurface permits from the state “hasn’t really been a big problem in the previous years, even under the new rules.”"

    https://coloradonewsline.com/2022/03/03/colorado-drillers-oil-russia-ukraine-crisis/

    1. Read bevis's reply to your link above.

      1. Been there, done that, and replied. In sum he can't explain how current oil production and pricing is based on Biden policy which affects the long term future of about 8% of our current production.

        "PDC’s end-of-year report Monday noted its extensive stockpile of hundreds of approved permits and drilled but uncompleted wells, which it said “represents an inventory life of more than ten years at the current development pace” — and plenty of additional drilling permits for approved surface locations are on their way, including for the locations that the company plans to acquire from Great Western."

        1. In sum he can't explain how current oil production and pricing is based on Biden policy which affects the long term future of about 8% of our current production.

          Producers base their investment decisions on the current and future regulatory and political climate.

          "PDC’s end-of-year report Monday noted its extensive stockpile of hundreds of approved permits and drilled but uncompleted wells, which it said “represents an inventory life of more than ten years at the current development pace” — and plenty of additional drilling permits for approved surface locations are on their way, including for the locations that the company plans to acquire from Great Western."

          Yes, and given that one of the two major parties has proposed a "green new deal" and committed to a carbon neutral future, only a fool would invest another dime in those leases and wells.

          Given that control of government flips every few years, ONLY if BOTH parties are committed to leaving the US oil and gas industry alone does it make sense for the oil and gas industry to invest in exploration and facilities.

    2. I think we've got the main points by now:
      1. You constantly copy/pasting from the same article over and over again means you're a genius on the subject.
      2. Your Dear Leader Gibberin' Joe is not at fault.

      That's all very fine but it doesn't mean much to the average person. It's amusing to argue over who's fault it is but what we normals want to know is: what's the plan going forward? Is there one? I see no signs of one. It's a shame; this situation seems tailor-made for you folks to prove the superiority of your central planning.

    3. 50 center. I suspect you get your talking points from DU

    4. Oil companies are holding back US production for their own business reasons and part of it is fracking is becoming more costly.

      The main reason is that the administration and Democrats want to make the US carbon neutral and are adopting policies towards that end. Obviously, there is no point in investing in long term exploration and extraction in the US: the demand may not be there, and the risk is too high.

      In response to a question from an investor, David Lillo, PDC’s senior vice president of operations, said during the company’s earnings call that obtaining subsurface permits from the state “hasn’t really been a big problem in the previous years, even under the new rules.”"

      Odd that the SHTF pretty much the day Biden took office.

      Tell us, Joe, are you actually a paid operative, or do you just swallow government propaganda hook line and sinker?

      1. NOYB, I haven't posted any government statements of any kind. I have posted oil company reports and statements where they say they are good for leases for 10 years and beyond, and I also have posted facts like:

        - oil leases on federal lands represent 8% of our production.
        - oil production was about 12.2 billion barrels in 2019. In 2020 it was about 11.2, in 2021 about 11.5 and 2022 is projected to be about 11.8.

        So, federal leases are a distant and fairly small problem for oil companies and oil production has gone up - not down - since Biden became president. Those are facts.

        If you have some facts, let's see tham.

        1. PS Mostly I've gotten insults - even from hi IQ posters like soldier - and theories about how problems which may occur in 10 years - even though it is not a given that Biden or other democrats will still be in power to enforce the federal lease ban - are making oil companies pull their heads in like turtles. I'm in business and I don't let the possibility of price increases - for instance - make me stay home. You must think business people have no guts.

          1. You have gotten insults because you are a blind uninformed partisan. You deserve those insults

          2. You beloved article only highlights the fact that oil companies are not going to invest in expansion when there is an administration that is hostile to their industry. Why spend the money when Joe has vowed to cut the legs out from under you? Maybe you forgot some of his campaign promises, everyone else didn't.

        2. BIden is doing exactly what he promised: a broad attack on the US fossil fuel sector, making fossil fuel economically infeasible. And he is recommending switching to alternative energy and electric cars. And he is succeeding.

          You can’t have your cake and eat it too: this is what Biden ran on and he got it. If voters hate it, Biden we’ll have to live with it.

          (Your data is false, but let’s not even get into that.)

      2. I recall not too long ago , maybe ten years or so when the price of a barrel dropped down to around $28. when oil hit below $53 fracking came to a halt as investors would not see any profit from it.
        It was only a couple years ago when I bought gas at $1.18/gallon.
        I also remember the oil embargo of the 1970s that was a sham through and through.
        I was working at a construction site in Northern Michigan building a refining plant for natural gas and had talks with many of the roustabouts working there who lived in Texas. They told me there were so many oil tanker lined up in the harbor they couldn't unload them fast enough.

  36. She is as much of an expert on the oil industry as she is on Native Americans. When you tax something you get less of it.

    1. Could we try taxing stupid?

      1. That much government would be very, very inflationary.

      2. That would bankrupt the DNC.

    2. And you think that's not her intention?

  37. How about a 'windfall contribution tax' on all political donations over $5.00? Say start at 150%, and raise it until there are no more donations.

    1. Naw. Shoot all Politicians and keep the donations.

  38. Listening to Sen. Warren's economic theories is like listening to blind men describing an elephant.
    This near literate female has no clue about economics nor about supply and demand nor has she any clue how taxes effect supply.
    I would like to see her profit and loss spread sheet for the past year, her and fellow communist bernie Sanders have no problem making money , but then neither does Anthony Fauci...where is he by the way?
    " Fauci under witness protection program.".. Gov. Ron DeSantis.

  39. Warren's proposal would doubtlessly achieve the same results: Less domestic production, more dependence on foreign oil, higher prices at the pump, and negligible tax revenue

    That's the point, isn't it? If you want globalism and carbon neutrality, these are the steps you need to take.

    1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, otherwise known as one world government millennial MMT economists will kill us all. It’s always been about rationing and it always will be.

      Now they’re talking about giving a certain percentage of median income cash to pay for higher energy prices. Obamacare for everything

  40. There is already a solution that will put a ceiling on what oil companies will charge… electric cars.

    1. Said electric cars running on electricity from oil companies.

      1. Electricity comes from outlets!
        Where you plug in your Tezla.

    2. A Lie.

      Changing forms of energy DOES NOT make frer energy.

      WASTING more of it across power lines and in chargers DOES NOT MAKE MORE

    3. Yeah, spend an extra $30000 to save $1000/year on gas! Brilliant! And become dependent on China for the rare earth metals to boot! Biden level brilliance!

    4. Are there enough electric cars to replace the gas-powered vehicles on the road now?
      No.
      Are there enough semi-conductors to build said electric vehicles?
      No.
      Can the average American afford to just run out and buy a new electric car.
      No.
      Is there a magical source of energy in existence that can charge all these wokemobiles other than fossil fuels or nuclear energy?
      No.
      You haven't really thought this through have you

      1. “Let then east cake!”

      2. “Let them eat cake.”

  41. Another thought, Biden administration has said that increasing production won't impact prices today, because of lag time. Leaving aside the impact on futures markets of such an announcement, let's look at his solution and how long it will take.
    He wants us to wean off of oil, by switching to electric vehicles. The average cost of electric vehicles, even if we don't consider range issues and reliability issues, is $50,000, most costs far more than that, and only the smallest commuter cars costs less. The base electric F-150 costs $11,000 more than the base gas F-150, has lower GVW and towing (7700 lbs standard can be upped to 10,000 with additional batteries and price), and range is halved when towing, towing is limited to 400 miles. On the plus side better torque, and off-road handling. Availability, however, is even worse than the availability of gas counterparts, as it is even more technology reliant than the already technology gas powered model, and thus more susceptible to the supply chain problems.

    Availability is the next issue, electric vehicle production has been hindered worse than conventional production, as I stated previously. Additionally, there are very few used electric vehicles, as they are still new to the market and have only managed to capture far less than 1% of sales (last year 2 million out of 270 million vehicles were electric in the US, they were projected to reach 30 million within a decade last year, sales have risen dramatically but remain dwarfed by conventional). This doesn't appear to be likely to change. Europe went in to electric vehicles years before the US, and their production has dwarfed us, despite that, electric vehicles finally surpassed the 1% of licensed vehicles mark last year.

    Let's look at fleet turnover, e.g. the time it takes new vehicle technology to take over from older technology. There is a lot of factors, but one of the main ones is most middle class purchasers buy used due to the astronomical prices of new vehicles. On average, it will take ten years for vehicles manufactured today and beyond, to replace 50% of the vehicles manufactured before this date. Given the lack of used electric vehicles, the small level and slow manufacturing and thus low availability of new electric vehicles, the higher cost of new electric vehicles, the inferior performance as a work vehicle, the lack of electric versions of 3/4 ton and higher vehicles used for work vehicles (I reference work vehicles, because one of the largest purchasers of new vehicles are corporate fleet buyers, and not an insignificant portion of those are construction, oil field, agricultural support corporations, etc) and consumer unease in regards to range and reliability issues, mainly in suburbs and rural, where those two factors are bigger issues, we can expect that the ten year figure is likely longer. Leaving that aside, if none of these conditions were in place, the prediction is electrical vehicles would be 50% of the privately owned licensed vehicles by 2032.

    The final hurdle is infrastructure. Currently the availability of charging stations is pretty spotty, especially in suburban, exurban and rural areas. The infrastructure bill did find the construction of 50,000 charging station (leaving aside that if demand was high, the markets would have responded with private investments) construction has only started in a very few areas. More northerly locations construction is likely not to start until this summer, with a better than average possibility that they will not be built until next summer. This is a real hindrance to purchasers who don't live in urban areas, and immediate urban adjacent areas. Additionally, 50,000 sounds like a large number but in comparison, there are an estimated 110,000 gas stations in the US, so even if they are all constructed, gas availability will remain double of electric charging capability.

    There is also the issue of our aging grid. Our current electric grid was mostly built between 1930-1950. And while there has been continued maintenance and upgrades, the national grid remains older and outdated. The number of blackouts and brownouts has been skyrocketing the past decade. Experts warn that we are already stretched to far on our grid. Electric vehicles will only further this problem. It's going to take massive investment and time to update our grid. The conversion to wind and solar has only exacerbated the deficiencies in our aging grid. Alternative electricity production is much more location intensive (not to mention much more land area intensive) than fossil fuel generated electricity. Many of the best areas for large scale wind and solar are far from the urban areas, and the electric infrastructure to transport it from site of production to consumers is lacking. Due to the long distance of transmission, the difference between electricity produced at the plant to the electricity delivered to the consumer is far greater (magnitudes greater) than conventional power plants. Not to mention some of the best places to harvest wind mostly, but solar also to a lesser extent, is on public land, which face hurdles and protest from the environmental lobby. The same lobby that is pushing alternatives.

    There is a lot more factors in play (safety during crashes is a major one, and safety of first responders responding to crashes), but to summarize, the Biden administration push to address oil shortages, and several left pundits, likely won't have any impact for at least ten years, and even that is only if all the issues are addressed soon. Oil drilling might take a year to ramp up, but electric vehicles will most likely take decades, not years.

    1. I had read that the number of proposed charging stations was 500,000 but even that number strikes me as insufficient, and it seems to me that it will be several years before my apartment complex has even a few of them. That doesn't solve the problem for me.

      1. Enjoy the crashing power grids.

        New game - "Brown out/ Blackout..".
        Which will it be?

        Guess correctly, drink.

        Cause with grids crashed you wont be able to do much but drink.

        1. Approx 5.6 x 10 ^ 24 KWh to power JUST PASSENGER CAR traffic in the US.

          No Freakin Way. And thats based on underpowered EVs at 45 mph and 8000 miles per year.

          Dont even ask about trucks and busses.

  42. Due to inflation last week several forecasters increased their predictions for a recession this year by an average of 10% points. While most still placed that at under 50%, this week some forecasters have increased that projection again.
    Everyone is focused on oil, but outside of grain growing regions and beef producing regions, few in the public have realized the impact of the war on global grain supplies until recently. And this situation is even less flexible to address. Input costs have risen dramatically, fuel prices have risen dramatically, most of the US grain producing regions remain under drought conditions with no forecast for those to resolve in the next three months, or in other words during planting season, and summer forecasts are rated neutral for precipitation and warm for temperatures on the northern plains. The Palouse and intermountain west is predicted to have lessening drought, but at this point they have been in drought almost as long as we have, so it would take a lot to break their drought. They've already started planting. Ukraine should be planting now, but for obvious reasons aren't. The sanctions against Russia has dramatically curtailed exports of their grain, as has the crash of the ruble, and most of the major shipping companies have announced voluntary embargoes of Russian ports, which further hinders their efforts to export grains. Note: not saying we shouldn't punish Putin, just pointing out how this is impacting global grain. Many poorer countries were already struggling with acquiring adequate grains to feed their population, the forecast for the southern hemisphere harvests have mostly been downgraded, as we have moved into harvest in those regions. The Southern plains have been in drought longer than we have, and while many of them operate under pivot, drought still decreased yield, even under pivot, so the forecast for their winter wheat harvests doesn't look promising. We'll know more in a month and a half, when they start harvesting.

    Add in swine flu outbreaks last fall, and avian flu outbreaks this winter, pork and poultry aren't doing well right now, luckily they can recover quicker than beef can, due to their fast reproduction and growth rates. Beef inventories remain tight and will likely tighten more, as the drought persists, and operating costs remain high, or go higher.

    All in all, food prices are predicted to become an even bigger driver of inflation in the near and long term. Rather than subsiding, inflation appears to be speeding up, and is predicted to continue to rise month over month, until late fall at the earliest barring some other force, such as a recession. Increasing velocity of inflation will likely trigger faster rate increases, and probably more frequent rate increases, by the fed, which increases the risk for recession.

    January consumer reports were positive, and December's were revised up, so at that time, inflation seems not to have curtailed buying significantly. Although, some of this increase is attributed to buyers paying more for the same product than the same time last year, and may not reflect increased purchasing volume. Shrinkflation, i.e. manufacturers shrinking the size of their goods, so they don't have to raise prices, getting less for the same price, appears to be accelerating and spreading also. Consumer purchasing trends also show buyers are buying store brands and generics rather than name brands, at a much higher rate than in historical norms. These are all short term strategies to deal with inflation and have only a very limited ability to deal with it. Given the underlying conditions, and the fact that the budget agreement increases the federal budget by an additional $1.5 trillion, with the largest across the board non-defense increases in decades, inflation is likely to increase, and consumers unlikely to adjust much longer to it. I actually think the models are underestimating the chance for a recession by the end of the year. Unless things change quickly, I suspect we'll see consumer spending stagnate by May (income tax returns should boost it for a little while longer, but those will mostly be spent by the end of April if historical trends are followed). Increased debt if this budget passes will further weaken the dollar. And increasing taxes will only make things worse, by decreasing purchasing power that's already tight. My prediction is recession by August. I think the markets remain bearish at least through the second quarter, further eroding investing.

    1. I have also heard that Russia is a major producer of at least some types of fertilizer so the price of that is going up too, which will cascade into food prices.

      1. No.

        Bc were at record yields. Less can be used.

        250 bu. / ac corn. Insane production levels.

        Corn to Ethanol.
        Natural gas to fertilizer.

        Easy. Peasy.

        Joe Biden to a nursing home. That works too.

        1. It didn't even come close to 250 bpa, those would be extraordinary numbers under irrigation. No way you get those on dry land. The average last year wasn't a record, in fact it was 177 bpa, which was an increase from 2020, but as I've told you, for every acre of corn produced, that's one less acre planted for other crops. Farmland is finite, and has actually been fairly steady,with a slight decrease. I'm not sure where you got that 250 bpa number, but wherever you got it, it's full of shit.
          https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2022/01-12-2022.php

      2. Most commercial fertilizers are made from petroleum as well. So get ready for even higher food prices, and shortages as farms start to go under.

        1. Yeah I've addressed that in other posts this week, Fertilizer was 300% year over year prices this January. And I see Daveca is one again talking about corn yields, without and ethanol. I've told him multiple times why his understanding of ag is completely fucked up. Last year's average was 177 bpa, not 250 like he stated, and yield was up from 2020, but wasn't a record harvest.
          Here is the actual NASS report, probably the most accurate report as by law you have to fill out your National AG statistics survey (I just remembered I haven't filled mine out yet, fuck not sure where I put it).
          https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2022/01-12-2022.php
          250 bpa are irrigated numbers and high at that, and considering the huge number of dry land acres, it would be fucking amazing to get 250 bpa national averages.

    2. The avian flu won't help food prices either.
      I suspect this was deliberately planted.
      Another hit to the food supply.
      The Great Reset

  43. /takes a peek.

    Yup. Warren is still insane as are the Democrats.

    As you were.

  44. Being wrong has never stopped Warren from promoting bad, ineffective policy. That's the only flavor of policy Warren and the entire Democratic Party have right now.

    1. Their policies work!

      They make them.
      They Fail.
      They get re- elected.

      See, works!

      Fucking grifters...

  45. Sorry all, I vote against her every chance I get.

  46. Are all women in Ukraine that hot?

    Chicks with AK's !

  47. There was NO windfall profits tax on oil in the 70's. There were price controls. "The U.S. Government set maximum prices for gasoline in 1973 and 1979 in response to the decrease in the supply of gasoline by OPEC."
    The Windfall Profits tax (a very different concept) was enacted in 1980 and it was, if your goal was to reduce the price of gas, very successful. In 1980, the price of gas peaked at $2.95; after the Windfall Profits Tax, it rapidly fell to $1.60. https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-915-march-7-2016-average-historical-annual-gasoline-pump-price-1929-2015

    It's only failure was due to the rapid decline in gas prices, as it failed to produce the revenues expected.

    1. Bullshit Alert.

      We do not get gasoline from OPEC.

      They supply crude oil, not refined products.

  48. Nazi-Regime politicians practicing price-fixing of the energy industry?? Wait; What nation are we in again?

  49. Pitched roof is a pitched roof is a type of roof that slopes down generally as two halves with an angle to the central ridge however, sometimes it is in one area that extends from one edge to one edge.

  50. Do it. Do it now, before the mid-terms. Tax the SHIT out of oil companies, and we can be done with you idiots. Next level idiots... please line up in the sights.

  51. What is necessary is a fundamental change in American culture and behavior. We Americans are the greediest, most wasteful and most inconsiderate people on the face of the planet. WE have five percent of the world's population but are responsible for twenty percent of the world's oil consumption.
    In addition to being a moral travesty, this is dangerous. We ARE currently being gouged big time by the oil companies, but our refusal to change our destructive short-sighted behavior is primarily responsible. I addition to enacting higher taxes, we also need to eliminate he oversized pickup trucks that never get used for work, reduce our use of plastic, and get out of our cars and go in to get our food instead of waiting in drive thru lines with our engines idling.
    We have met the enemy, and it is US.

    1. Speaks the Nazi; making Nazi-Plans of dictation sales pitches....
      Bow down and worship your Nazi's for only the Nazi's can save us. /s

      How's this for getting a F'en clue on your pathetic worship-#metoo existence; SUPPLY and DEMAND will will set the proper standards instead of your GREEDY manipulative Power-Mad dictator program who's 'real' intent is to take-over and monopolize all resources and starve those not Nazi-Plan aligned???

      It baffles me you leftards don't even realize how sick in the head your indoctrination really is.

  52. Elizabeth Warren's net worth is approximately $15 Million dollars. Maybe she can afford the taxes she craves.

  53. I have a better idea: how about cutting the salaries of everyone working in D.C.including congress. Since they make so much more insider trading, they can afford a cut in pay. Any pay raises should be commensurate with job performance just as any job in the private sector.
    People like the Bidens, Pelosi and Fauci have used their positions in government to enrich themselves all the while drawing a check from the people.
    They have no shame what so ever, only avarice and arrogance.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.