By on May 13, 2022

Despite the United States confronting some of the highest energy prices in its history, the Biden administration has canceled oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska’s Cook Inlet.

According to the American Automobile Association (AAA), national fuel prices are averaging out to a whopping $4.43 per gallon of regular gasoline. Diesel is much higher at $5.56 and is speculated to endure mass shortages in the coming months as reports from the Northeast have indicated there are already seeing record-low inventories. Over the past twelve months, fuel prices have risen by nearly $1.50 per gallon and most market analysts expect rates to continue moving upwards through the summer. Though they’re not all in agreement as to who should be blamed for our current predicament. 

That’s because there are a plethora of likely suspects.

As the government agency officially responsible for canceling the leases, the Department of the Interior claimed it was actually the energy sector that didn’t want to drill in Alaska.

“Due to lack of industry interest in leasing in the area, the Department will not move forward with the proposed Cook Inlet OCS oil and gas lease sale 258,” a DOI spokesperson told Fox Business in a statement on Thursday.

“The Department also will not move forward with lease sales 259 and 261 in the Gulf of Mexico region, as a result of delays due to factors including conflicting court rulings that impacted work on these proposed lease sales.”

Lease sale 257 (also located along the Gulf) was similarly invalidated in January.

Meanwhile, the oil industry is currently enjoying record profits as energy prices skyrocket. The New Yorker even went so far as to suggest that the industry was actively engaged in war profiteering — citing ExxonMobil having made $5.5 billion (after taxes) within the first three months of 2022, Chevron’s $6.3 billion, and ConocoPhillips’ $5.8 billion. Here, we have the common excuse that the war in Ukraine is the true culprit behind surging oil prices and that the situation has been made immeasurably worse by greedy energy companies.

It’s a hard position to disagree with, especially since we know wars always tend to drive up the cost of raw materials. Russia is also an important oil-production nation with its actions directly influencing the global market. Though your author would argue that the brunt of the burden is being placed upon neighboring states, especially Germany. While the situation in Ukraine has undoubtedly contributed to today’s energy problems, crude prices spiked dramatically in late 2020 as oil futures began trading on the assumption that Joe Biden would soon be in the White House.

Some of the speculative action was the result of rebounding prices after demand cratered at the start of the pandemic. However, the Biden administration had expressed a strong interest in transitioning the United States toward all-electric vehicles and what it said would become a more environmentally conscious economy. Unfortunately, just about every nation that’s done likewise has endured rising energy costs as penance for the alleged progress.

One of Biden’s very first actions as president was an executive order to suspend federal oil and gas leases. While this was immediately challenged by Republican-led states challenged the ban, and a federal judge ruled in their favor overcoming the suspension and opening a lease sale for more than 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling, environmental groups sued to stop the leases in the courts and ultimately succeeded. Last year also saw the White House calling for an end to tax benefits for oil and gas production. Though the most contentious decision was Biden’s cancellation of the Keystone XL’s cross-border permit — effectively ending the 12-year project to funnel affordable fuels down from Canada and into American refineries.

Last month, the Interior Department stated that would be restarting the sale of oil and gas leases on federal land. However, the agency reduced the amount of land under consideration by 80 percent and increased the sum of royalties energy companies would be required to pay the government if they extracted anything of real value.

Despite the Biden administration having asked the industry to produce more oil to help lower costs, it has repeatedly taken actions that stifled domestic production. But its current position is to blame the war in Ukraine for the high cost of energy and the swelling inflation that’s making everything worse.

Inflation is also part of the problem and it’s not one limited to either party. Years of relatively unfettered government spending were placed into overdrive during the pandemic, only to be followed by massive spending bills. The United States is currently confronting currency devaluation on a scale not witnessed in decades and it’s only expected to worsen into the fall of 2022. This creates a snowball effect on all commodities, including those reliant on petroleum extraction.

The reality of the matter now hinges largely on which news outlets you consume and what their particular bias happens to be. A majority of legacy media sources and the Democratic Party have decided to focus on Ukraine and oil companies. Meanwhile, independent media, Fox News, and the Republican Party have zeroed in on decisions made by the White House and an inability (or unwillingness) to spur production — suggesting it’s at odds with the green agenda.

They’re all correct in their criticisms. However, the U.S. government only has direct control over its own spending and how it decides to regulate industries that have long since abandoned the free market to become intertwined with political action. If the price of gasoline is to come down, there are only a handful of realistic solutions. Government can attempt to strongarm the industry into increased oil production or deregulate it in the hopes that competition will eventually emerge to help tamp down prices. While the latter option would take years to yield any results, the former could see changes within a matter of months. But the core issue of supply and demand is what’s at play here and nobody should assume a monopoly of ultra-massive oil concerns is going to increase output while profits are so high.

Perhaps Alaska was indeed too expensive for them to survey and tap.

Even Donald Trump had a hard time getting more than a handful of interested parties when he opened the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling in August of 2020. Climate activists also made the plan look unsavory on the national scene, despite local residents being broadly in favor of the prospect of the oil industry adding new jobs. The state itself was interested. But there’s little incentive for oil concerns to invest when they’re likely to make more sitting back and letting high prices do the hard work for them. And the timing of opening ANWR coincided with regional lockdowns that discouraged oil consumption to a point where per barrel prices had pitched into the negative.

The Alaskan argument is harder to attach to the canceled Keystone XL or the suspended leases based around the Gulf of Mexico, however.

While I’m inclined to agree that today’s oil prices are influenced by a multitude of factors, tough decisions need to be made if the economy is ever to return to normal. Tragically, what few actions have been taken by the White House and Congress to address fueling seem wholly designed to worsen the matter. Whether that’s coincidental, part of advancing the Biden administration’s green agenda, or simply the result of U.S. leadership being woefully out of touch with the plight of the common man is anybody’s guess. But it’s becoming increasingly ridiculous to suggest that our present course of action is somehow the correct one as evidence to the contrary continues mounting on a near-daily basis.

[Image: evgenii mitroshin/Shutterstock]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

188 Comments on “U.S. Government Cancels Oil and Gas Leases Amid Record Fuel Prices...”


  • avatar
    Fred

    the oil companies could pump more oil if they wanted to, but why should they? Making record profits doing less work.

    • 0 avatar
      RangerM

      Let’s assume you’re correct.

      But, how does cancelling leases help?

      • 0 avatar
        SoCalMikester

        they dont want them. they dont want to be stuck with overcapacity when theyre fine with the current raping.

        windfall profits tax maybe

      • 0 avatar
        WalterRohrl

        Nobody is cancelling any leases. They are cancelling the issuance of more leases. There is a huge difference.

        The primary reason seems to be that there are already over 9000 actual leases not actually being used/explored/drilled by oil companies, the lack of demand for more leases would reduce the price of any further leases so it makes no sense to just basically give them away at this time. Nobody in the oil industry is actually clamoring to pay for a lease and committing to develop it in order to produce more oil.

        • 0 avatar
          RangerM

          @Walter

          Leases are required by law to be given back if they go unused (with the original price and all the rent paid lost by the company that won it). The fact that no new leases are being sold only reduces supply in the future, because when they are (eventually) sold it will still take time to develop them.

          So, I return to my original question…..

          How does cancelling lease (sales) help?

          None of the three replies answered my question, outside of the preposterous assertion that oil companies don’t want to sell more oil.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            Very true you cannot have a mineral lease into perpetuity if you have not exercised the option to extract the resource you are leasing it for. The State of Louisiana limits the ownership of mineral rights to if you sell the surface and reserve the minerals the minerals will then pass to the current surface owner after ten (10) years of “non-use” of the servitude. The drilling of a well (even a dry hole) is a “use” that starts the running of another ten year prescriptive period. If you do not own the surface you must make some good faith effort to use your servitude (drill a well) every ten (10) years in order to maintain ownership of your mineral servitude. https://www.theuslaw.com/basic-mineral-law-for-louisiana-landowners/

      • 0 avatar
        probert

        It has no impact on the current situation. There would be quite some time before any oil, if found, would be pumped and distributed. There about 9000 permitted leases currently not being exercised.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      Citation needed.

      (Also, you do know that most of the world’s oil production is by … governments, right?

      And that profit per barrel is not the same as net profit – selling more fuel at a lower price can be more profitable than selling less fuel at a higher price.

      And of course, all these oil producers, government or private, are competing against *each other*; OPEC can’t even get its members to not cheat on their targets, and OPEC is a deliberate and open *cartel*.

      Shell and Saudi Aramco don’t have any reason to not undercut the other and laugh about it.

      And, well, the other question is … if they can do this anytime they want, *why weren’t they always doing it*?

      None of this works for your thesis.)

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        (Though, okay, yes, it’s also trivially true that some to most oil companies “could pump more oil”.

        At production prices that make it *not worth doing*, or actively loss-making, and often not in any great quantity, at least not rapidly.

        “Not worth it at these prices”, with current prices, is not the same as “it would be cheap and easy, but it might make prices drop and we also believe that profit is fueled only by high prices, not cheap production or net demand”, the original implication.)

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          The oil corporations like most US based corporations are looking at earnings per share because that is what their stockholders are looking at. There is a lot more cost to drilling a new well over using recovery methods such as injecting a well with water or with natural gas to increase production in an existing well. Not to say that no new wells will ever be drilled but it is more cost effective to increase production at an existing well. Additionally drilling requires a lot less leasing than it use to because you can drill at different angles on one well to capture more oil. At some point these might become available again if there is a renewed interest in drilling in these areas.

      • 0 avatar
        Fred

        Oil companies are capitulating to Wall Street, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oil-production-prices-us-companies-wont-increase-2022-dallas-fed-survey/

    • 0 avatar
      deanst

      Yes – if I had something that cost me $5 and could sell for $10, I too would just stop when I had “enough” profits. Especially when the future value of my product was highly uncertain. (Sarcasm off)

      • 0 avatar
        Daniel J

        Oil companies would love to work on those margins. Walmart runs on 30 percent, Amazon close to 50 percent, and oil companies around 10 to 15 percent.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    I was wondering when the weekly “keep em’ posting through the weekend” article would hit.

    Look, anyone that doesn’t like gas prices is free to start their own gas company or buy one and charge what they want.

  • avatar
    slap

    It takes years to turn a lease into an active oil well. So cancelling leases now will have zero effect on near term oil production and therefore the price of gas.

    • 0 avatar
      Imagefont

      Correct.

    • 0 avatar
      joetz

      That’s not how the markets work. If speculators think the price will go up in the future, that effect prices NOW.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        That’s because speculation is based on just that: speculation. I have a less kind word for it: bulls**t.

        • 0 avatar
          jkross22

          It doesn’t matter that you think it’s bs. Your opinion doesn’t sway markets. Belief in the future does.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I believe the future involves us making first contact with Vulcans next week.

            Prove me wrong. You can’t, because that’s bulls**t, just like “canceling oil leases that no one wanted will send oil prices through the roof” is bulls**t. It’s like betting in May on whether the Cardinals win their division this year. Who the f*ck knows?

            This is a scene from a movie, but it sums up the whole “markets” thing nicely:

            youtube.com/watch?v=hAQA_29Htts

            The only thing that will fix this is competition for petroleum. Until that happens, these guys have us by the balls.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            It doesn’t matter that you don’t like it.

            It’s terrible that my credit card company charges near 30% interest, but the bank they run pays .5% on savings accounts. My opinion doesn’t matter either, nor does it move markets.

            Can’t disagree with your last statement, though.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “It’s terrible that my credit card company charges near 30% interest, but the bank they run pays .5% on savings accounts.”

            If Credit Card Company A wants to raise its’ rates by 30-40%, then there will be plenty of other companies out there who will be happy to take their customers.

            If Bank XYZ wants to reduce its’ savings interest rate by 30-40%, plenty of other banks will be out there to welcome their customers with open arms.

            And if banks want to raise rates like that, they have to do it based on the actual cost of money, not “well, we bet that the Fed raises rates by half a point in December, 2023”.

            Both products are examples of a market with real competition.

            But if you want to run a car, a truck, a train, an airplane, a ship, or pretty much anything else used to transport people or stuff, you’re stuck with petroleum. It’s the only game in town. And that’s why the people who make petroleum can get away with charging 30-40% more for it based on relatively small shifts in demand.

            I think you just illustrated my point.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            “Both products are examples of a market with real competition.”

            Depends on what you mean by real competition. If you mean a rigged system with a thin veneer of what appears to be competition, I would agree.

            Why do you believe trading was halted this week several times on Carvana stock?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Banking is actually HIGHLY regulated, jk. I work in the industry. Banks would not be able to simply jack rates up 40% because…ahem…we think that the supply of money may or may not be less in three years. And there are laws limiting rates in every state. Zero chance my industry would be able to do what the fuel industry has.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Imagine working in the banking industry that bought us 2008 and crying about the oil industry lol.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Hmmm…rates going up 40% didn’t cause what happened in 2008. In fact, rates went down.

            Lack of oversight on lending practices caused the problem.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            We know. If they don’t watch you guys like hawks you’ll drive the economy into a ditch for a few bucks…but have you seen the oil industry and those aobscene 7 percent margins?

            The word you are looking for to describe the industry which you are a part of would be greed by the way. Yes it’s the same when you do it as some faceless.oil company.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            BTW, what’s the banking industry’s margin on student loans?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Let me know when rates on every single loan go up 40%.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Their margins are thinner than those in your own industry. Be less greedy

    • 0 avatar
      deanst

      That’s what people said a few years ago – which got us where we are today.

    • 0 avatar
      KevinB

      Exactly. This is the point some ‘news’ outlets fail to report. Zero effect on the current environment.

  • avatar
    Imagefont

    Well, prices were low and everyone went out and bought a 500HO pickup truck. Now they’re all whining about his prices. I do t like high prices either but you can’t drill your way out of every problem. Some people will see this as another opportunity to blames democrats, but they do t really need a special excuse – and excuse will do. It just might be the case that oil companies are already in possession of leases they’re not exploiting NOW. And that happens to be the case. Oil companies do not respond over night to price fluctuations, they strategically plan for the future. Long term planning does not solve short term problems induced by a worldwide pandemic and some people on this board still deny.
    I noticed my governor (Greg Abbott of Texas) is now blaming the Biden administration for sending baby formula to detained immigrants at the border and decrying this as a terrible thing. We should obviously let those immigrate children starve to death before depriving our own of a tight supply. And then if the administration had diverted supply from the border, Abbott would have accused Biden of genocide. But hey, you can watch whatever channel you want and enjoy your own personal conformation bias to your hearts content.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Where can I buy this mythical 500HO pickup? Sounds like something I might want.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      Jeez, this argument again??

      It’s a good thing that the grocery fairy brings all the food to the store powered by unicorn farts and solar powered wings. Good thing people get to work just by wishing on a star.

      At least have opinions you can map back to some truths. I get the distaste for every politician because they’re basically all sociopaths, but don’t lose the line back to reality.

      You can’t think the working poor and those barely hanging on – 60-65% is a good gestimate – are driving 500hp brodozers, can you?

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Bit harsh, imagefont…are YOU driving the vehicle that gets the highest possible MPG? If not, then you’re part of the problem too. Lord knows I am. I drive something that goes fast and gets around 25 mpg – about half as efficient as the most fuel efficient stuff out there.

      But we don’t need to wear a hairshirt, because the problem isn’t solvable by everyone driving something more fuel efficient – the problem is the system, i.e., the market, itself. More specifically, the market for fueling our transportation systems has no competition. If we could run the stuff we use for transportation on different fuels, then this wouldn’t be happening – guaranteed. But the people who supply these fuels have us by the balls, and they know it.

      And worse? These folks have paid off politicians all around the world to make sure they can continue to game the system.

      Given that, we could all drive a Prius and this would still be happening.

      If you want to change things, stop blaming other drivers and start calling for us to figure out new ways to fuel the vehicles we use to get people and stuff around.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        There in lies the problem we have the best Government money can buy but in the meantime we have to go about our daily lives. We do have a choice in that we can drive more efficient vehicles and yes we should develop new types of vehicles and alternate sources of energy. EVs still have a ways to go to become more affordable and we need an improved infrastructure to support EVs. But we now have a shortage of vehicles for sale, homes, baby formula, appliances, and building materials which has contributed to our rising inflation. To put it simple too many dollars and too few goods. We have faced shortages and inflation in the past and economic booms and busts and we will face these as well in the future. Not making light of current situation it is painful but it will pass.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          No, the problem is that currently internal combustion is the best way to move people and stuff around. Quit making arguments as to why people should accept the shortfalls of EVs and get rid of the shortfalls.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            “No, the problem is that currently internal combustion is the best way to move people and stuff around. Quit making arguments as to why people should accept the shortfalls of EVs and get rid of the shortfalls.”

            Who is making an argument for EVs? I merely stated that if you are concerned about the price of fuel then you have a choice to either pay the price, drive something more efficient, or as you stated before take a bus. Eventually EVs will get better and many of the shortfalls will disappear but not all just like there are pros and cons for ICE nothing is perfect unless you think you are. I have 1 vehicle that is a hybrid and one that is ICE. Drive what you like but if you are complaining about the price of fuel and you are driving a gas hog then I have little sympathy for you. Stop complaining.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “Who is making an argument for EVs?”

            It’s hilarious how you just type things with seemingly no awareness to what you have posted in the past or current/recent past legislation or comments made by our dear “leaders”.

            What is it like being completely detached from reality?

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            EBFlex–Not making an argument for EVs as much as seeing the handwriting on the wall. ICE will not be around forever as horses and buggies were not except for the Amish. Eventually we will all be driving either EVs or some form of other alternative fuel but that might be decades away. With as many ICE vehicles around we will still have them on the road for decades. The price of gasoline and small turbo 3s and 4s will be enough to drive many into EVs. Not saying I want to force EVs on to anyone but it will happen despite what the Government does as more affordable EVs with better range come on the market and the infrastructure expands. Burying your head in the sand is not going to stop EVs nor any other changes. You can choose to adapt to change or live in the past. If you are really upset about change then maybe you should adopt a simpler life style and give up all modern conveniences and live like the Amish. You can also decide to keep your old vehicle running longer by taking care of it and not worry so much about what changes will happen in the future. With proper maintenance most ICE vehicles will go for 100s of thousands of miles especially Toyotas and Hondas. I am not advocating for any vehicle but it appears that you are afraid of any change. Humans lived for centuries without cars and trucks and most of our species have adapted to changes.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      For the record, my F150 Supercrew has seen more track time (a couple of drag strip runs when a torched a clutch in the car I bought to run and a couple of autocross runs just because) then the 3 BMW “competition” models.my coworkers drive. It hauls more too.

      What does that mean? Maybe commuters should stick to Toyotas, but I don’t hear you crying. Do trucks intimidate you or something?

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Sort of like borrowing a bunch of money for a useless degree eh imagefromt? But you have no issue asking us to pay that off for you.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Did he say he wanted you to pay off his student loan or if he even has one? Did he say student loans should be forgiven?

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        @Art–I paid for my own degree did you? I stated in a prior comment I did not believe in paying student loans off. I have not read any comment on this article advocating for paying off student loans. You are just trying to deflect from the topic of oil which I worked in the industry for several years in the drilling, production, and oil refining end. No politician can promise cheap oil unless they regulate the price of oil and that has been done before. You know the difference between a prostitute and a politician–one makes their living honestly.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          Why have tuition fees increased astronomically over the past few decades? Do politicians prefer to have a population that is undereducated, lacks research and critical thinking skills, and has little knowledge of history? Historically dictators/autocrats eliminate the highly educated when taking control of a country.

          Better to have only ‘worker drones’.

          The middle class and social mobility were largely the result of first ‘free public education’ and then the WWII G.I. Bill which allowed working class veterans to attend university, creating for the first time a large group of highly educated citizens. Which allowed the USA to dominate the global economy for decades.

          Currently India is demonstrating how educating the masses can create a middle class, a viable infrastructure and a manufacturing segment that can complete globally.

          The astronomical increase in tuition and the anti-education backlash that we see in the ‘far right’ have only damaged American society.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            @Arthur Dailey–Ever since the Vietnam War protesters there has been a dumbing down of American society so the answer is yes much better to have a less educated society.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @Arthur:

            “Why have tuition fees increased astronomically over the past few decades?”

            A) People want to make a good living without having to do manual labor to get it. It became unfashionable to be a blue collar guy at some point. Well, if you want to be a successful white collar guy, you need the sheepskin, even if you don’t really need it to do your job.

            B) Competition for students is actually fierce as hell. Thus, colleges build ridiculous facilities that cost outrageous sums of money, driving costs up.

            C) And conservatives have a point when they say that loans make it possible for colleges to charge these inflated prices.

            I’d say the solution here is to re-think the education that’s actually needed for a job.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “greedy energy companies”

    That charge has been leveled since the 1973 oil crisis. It held water prior to the Sun Oil breakup in 1911.

    Price/supply collusion between oil companies has been investigated and disproven countless times.

    People complain when it costs $120 to fill their truck, but nobody complains when the energy fund in their 401k goes up.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      It goes beyond greed – the root issue is that we never bothered to develop any real competition for petroleum. Part of that can be explainable by basic business – alternatives are expensive to develop. And part of that is explainable by politics – the petroleum industry has paid off politicians worldwide to make sure competition never happens.

      It’s the lack of competition that makes the greed possible.

      • 0 avatar
        Urlik

        Tell me an alternative that is as energy dense as petroleum that can be economically obtained and used. If it was out there it would be used.

        • 0 avatar
          Master Baiter

          “Tell me an alternative that is as energy dense as petroleum that can be economically obtained and used. If it was out there it would be used.”

          Stop trying to reach FreedMike. He’s a ranting ignoramus who’s impervious to facts and logic.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “ Stop trying to reach FreedMike. He’s a ranting ignoramus who’s impervious to facts and logic.”

            Truer words have never been typed in these comments.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            So…someone who is saying more competition in an industry would help keep prices in line is now a ranting ignoramus.

            Derp

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Start a gas company then. I am guessing you will quickly learn that producing energy is expensive and risky. Or cry some more.

          • 0 avatar
            redapple

            Truth meter keeps going up for
            EB and the one who likes to masturbate.

            Freed is a leftie and lefties have their own facts.

            Econ 201 or 301: Oil is priced on a FUTURES MARKET. Price now is dictated by predicted FUTURE AVAILABILITY. Fewer leases = less future availability = more upwards price pressure.

            its simple really.

            Xiden is INCREASING Oil pricing at a time when the folks are getting hurt. He hates you smelly walmart MAGA people.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “ Truth meter keeps going up for EB and the one who likes to masturbate.”

            I mean technically both of those refer to me.

            Anyway at this point I’ve pretty much broken the truth meter. Hard to go past 100% but here we are.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @redapple:

            So this lease move cuts supply by 40%?

            Futures explain fluctuations. But a 40% jump isn’t a fluctuation. That’s a disruption in supply. And yet oil supply is actually up right now.

            It doesn’t compute. And my political leanings don’t change that.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Maybe those oil companies think that our current strategy of arming Ukraine and hoping the Russians don’t get mad enough to take action against us directly might cause some issues in the future. Oil is a global market and the world is a bit of a mess right now. Pity we haven’t had strong leadership for some time now as we could really use it right about now and maybe the oil futures market would in turn be a little more optimistic. Why should they be though…most individuals aren’t.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Russia accounts for 10% of global oil supply. How does that explain 40% increases in fuel prices? It doesn’t.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “ Russia accounts for 10% of global oil supply. How does that explain 40% increases in fuel prices? It doesn’t.”

            Yet we have the hashtag created by the White House #putinpricehike

            Hmmmm………

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Because a war that expanded into NATO territory and dragged us in would have far reaching effects beyond Russia’s contributions to the global market and those companies likely see a lack of strategy to prevent that. Just a lot of “gee…I hope they don’t do anything.”

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          “Tell me an alternative that is as energy dense as petroleum that can be economically obtained and used. If it was out there it would be used.”

          Could have used the same argument for keeping the horse and buggy at the dawn of the 20th Century. Tell me an alternative that is as inexpensive and efficient as the horse and buggy. The horseless carriage is for the rich. Answer 1903 Model T. I guess we should stop technology and not go any further.

          For now oil is the best answer for most of our needs but should we just stop and not develop any alternatives? Seems very backward thinking.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            ““Tell me an alternative that is as energy dense as petroleum that can be economically obtained and used. If it was out there it would be used.”

            “Could have used the same argument for keeping the horse and buggy at the dawn of the 20th Century.”

            Really? How so? I’ll wait for you spell out that argument.

            The ICE engine was superior to the horse in *every* conceivable metric.

            A more appropriate analogy would be going from the horse (gold standard at the time) to a donkey (an animal I’m sure people like you and Freedmike are familiar with).

            Sure the donkey is smaller and less capable but it eats less and doesn’t pollute as much.

            The problem you and others have, is you view EVs on the same level as the literal invention of the automobile and that’s absurd. There wasn’t an area where an ICE powered automobile was inferior to the horse. There are numerous areas where EVs are inferior to ICE vehicles and that is before the lies we are told about how EVs are better for the environment, etc.

            If oil trule is “the best answer” (which nobody believes you actually think that), then we should be investing heavily in hybrids and plug-in hybrids. That way, EVs can be brought up to par and then sold to the public. But selling them now, as vastly inferior forms of transportation compared to ICE vehicles is just stupid.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            @EBFlex–Again you are looking for an argument I said the car was not feasible until the Model T. Early cars were not affordable for the masses. Maybe you should study the history of the first cars to educate yourself. People were actually afraid of early cars and thought horses and buggies were safer. As with all technology cars evolved over decades. Maybe you don’t understand the word evolution or think it is an evil word but that is what usually happens when something has been around for a while it changes. I own a hybrid so I am far from being opposed to them as you allege that I am. As for electric cars they were around before ICE but the battery technology has vastly changed over the last decade. Why don’t you argue with yourself I am not opposed to hybrids I own one and love it.

          • 0 avatar
            Matt Posky

            Electric vehicles existed in tandem with gasoline and steam powered ones during the late 1800s and early 1900s. EV were actually highly competitive at the time because they were less work to start up, drive and maintain than gasoline or steam powered automobiles.

            Electrics became extremely popular in cities in fact and were the preferred mode of transport for women. However gasoline vehicles had become substantially more practical by the 1920s and could be purchased for far less money. That, combined with their superior ranges (due to limitations with charging time and battery storage) made EVs gradually less popular.

            So the car killed the horse and then the gasoline-driven variant then killed its electric and steam-powered rivals.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    “If the price of gasoline is to come down, there are only a handful of realistic solutions. Government can attempt to strongarm the industry into increased oil production or deregulate it in the hopes that competition will eventually emerge to help tamp down prices. ”

    Lack of political courage is usually the answer about as often as MIATA. For example, congress could threaten to temporarily suspend tax incentives/breaks unless gas prices drop by, say, $1.50/gallon nationwide. ExxonMobile and Shell could help…

    https://www.freep.com/story/money/2022/04/30/exxon-profits-2022-double-first-quarter/9598018002/

    https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/2022/05/07/shell-record-proft-oil-prices-soar/9686569002/

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      A windfall profit tax on oil producers would be politically popular and the Democrats should be able to pass it through reconciliation if the Republicans tried blocking it.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        @ajla–The Republicans would block a Windfall Profit Tax. I don’t think a Windfall Profit Tax in the long run would be the answer. Developing alternative sources of energy and making them more competitive in price would be the ultimate solution.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Do we really want the government manipulating gas prices? That sword cuts both ways.

      • 0 avatar
        bullnuke

        SCE – Agreed. I remember the wage and price controls that were in place in the early ’70s when I was early in my Navy career. A total mess – the government still owes me my “deferred” military pay from that period…

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          The Government was regulating the price of oil until Regan became President in 1981. There was the Entitlement Program where the price of oil was fixed at a certain price and the companies with cheaper oil payed an entitlement to the Government and those who payed the higher price were paid an entitlement. This program was established after the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo to address rising prices and the monopoly of the large oil companies and OPEC. Early in my career I worked for a smaller company that bought the higher priced oil and took the entitlement money. I do not see that this program will ever come back despite the rising price of oil. https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2494&context=lawreview

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      The most realistic solution is simple: encourage development of competitors to petroleum.

      But the petroleum industry doesn’t want that, and has spent ungodly sums of money paying off politicians to make sure that doesn’t happen. Why do you think they are Defcon 1 about doing something about climate change? It has nothing to do with global warming – it has everything to do with alternative energy, which is the answer to climate change, being a threat to their business model, which is clearly monopolistic.

      Given that, we can tax them into oblivion and it won’t make a bit of difference. Competition will.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        There is that one guy over at Tesla that has probably done.more than anyone to make.non petroleum powered vehicles not only viable, but desirable…but you guys don’t like his politics or tweets so…

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Democrats, once again, showing how they care more about the middle and lower class than any other group. It’s nice seeing them out there working hard for the little guy.

    As opposed to the last guy who was only concerned about the ultra rich and burdened the middle and lower class with cheap gas, low inflation, higher wages, and didn’t send $40 billion to a corrupt country to fund their war while our shelves sit empty with no baby formula.

    Brandon and his ilk of America destroying cronies need to voted out ASAP. How much more destruction can this country take?

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      “As opposed to the last guy who was only concerned about the ultra rich and burdened the middle and lower class with cheap gas, low inflation, higher wages, and didn’t send $40 billion to a corrupt country to fund their war while our shelves sit empty with no baby formula.”

      We can assume from your statement that you support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Do you also support Putin’s plan to put back together the former USSR? Countries that want to self govern themselves should be invaded? Ukraine didn’t start the war they were invaded by Russia and Ukraine’s population was targeted by missile attacks. Do you support the bombing of Ukrainian schools and the execution of innocent citizens on streets by the Russian military?

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        How can you assume that? Following your logic if you didn’t support Reagan back in the day you were pro USSR.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          @Art–Who started the war? Was it Putin or was it Ukraine? Reagan did not invade a country but Putin did. Art do you believe that Ukraine was the aggressor?

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            If course Russia started it. That doesn’t magically prevent it from escalating and involving us.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “ We can assume from your statement that you support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Do you also support Putin’s plan to put back together the former USSR? Countries that want to self govern themselves should be invaded? Ukraine didn’t start the war they were invaded by Russia and Ukraine’s population was targeted by missile attacks. Do you support the bombing of Ukrainian schools and the execution of innocent citizens on streets by the Russian military?”

        My God. I thought I was in a scarecrow factory for a second with all the straw man around me.

        I honestly have no idea how pointing out that we had far cheaper gasoline, lower inflation, etc is somehow a vote of support for invading Ukraine. Please explain how that links?

        Further, how does opposing sending $40 billion to Ukraine indicate that I support the bombing of schools? Please explain how that links as well.

        You really need a new act dude. This whole charade where someone says something very reasonable and then you use it as a window to accuse people of simply outlandish things.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          EBFlex–Do you think that Putin will stop at Ukraine? Putin has already threatened Finland and Sweden for saying that they were going to join NATO. Putin has already stated previously that he plans to put the Soviet Union back together. Naive to think he will stop at Ukraine. You are either extremely naive or you support Putin. Most of us don’t want a war but appeasing Putin is like Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler. Following World War II we as a country made a commitment to the NATO countries because of what Hitler did to Europe.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “Do you think that Putin will stop at Ukraine? Putin has already threatened Finland and Sweden for saying that they were going to join NATO. Putin has already stated previously that he plans to put the Soviet Union back together.”

            Considering Finland was never part of the USSR, yes, I think Putin is full of it.

            Finland declared its independence at the end of 1917. The USSR was created in 1922. Likewise, Sweden was never part of the USSR either.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            @EBFlex–Now we both agree on something that Putin is full of it. See there is some room for reasonableness.

    • 0 avatar
      Dartdude

      No they need to take a flight to Europe on a electric jet with a hundred mile range!

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      Let’s blame Democrats for all your problems and blame others for your own issues. At least we have the freedom to complain. I would rather spend the rest of my life living than complaining about how bad things are and using that as an excuse to not live my life. Problems have existed thru out humans existence and thru the ages people have complained. Politicians come and go and political parties and there power change.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    But, hey, let’s not develop any alternatives to this fuel delivery system that is clearly, obviously rigged so that the people in charge of it can jack up prices whenever they feel like it. These guys don’t need competition. Absolutely not.

    We are being played for fools, folks.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “But, hey, let’s not develop any alternatives to this fuel delivery system that is clearly, obviously rigged so that the people in charge of it can jack up prices whenever they feel like it.”

      You realize nobody is saying that correct?

    • 0 avatar
      Dartdude

      Don’t you know that democratic elite has a vested interest in alternate energy and are trying to drive up the cost of energy to make theirs viable

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      “Hey, Mr. President, let’s talk to those that are building EVs and see what we can do to encourage that”

      “Sure, but don’t call that Musk guy. I know he sells more EVs than anyone and we’re it not for him almost single handedly making them viable we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, but I don’t like his politics or tweets so instead let’s discuss the matter with the companies that can’t build batteries that don’t catch on fire and required our intervention to make payroll. And bring Stelantis too. I know while everyone else was getting rolling on EVs they were Hellcatting all the things but they are UAW.”

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        @Art–Biden has talked to Elon Musk.
        “Yahoo Finance’s Rick Newman details President Biden’s administration meeting with Elon Musk and other EV executives, the EV space, and discussions surrounding EV charging infrastructure.

        Video Transcript
        – But the only place where Elon Musk has not been to this point invited is the White house, until now. Musk was part of a powerhouse group to meet with the Transportation Secretary, the Energy Secretary, among others, and the CEO of GM as well. Rick Newman, hopefully we’ll get to the opening of a Tesla factory at some point. You’re cool enough, Rick.” https://finance.yahoo.com/video/evs-biden-admin-holds-meeting-195024069.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIqBESKn4UboqC02MA2tWHj8WvMM80WGAHYCFLmpzPTnA9qWjdOuQH-dGzUSVPK0TzuJ1adxF9tjfX-dVPRhO-4uIf5rDxd9f3As5–NiGMlDZrpZGuBgZ4zrTmarwKwxqzdaBuK2y9f437iDWZuxKHUJzOz1p3jCuYP-S9x6haX

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “@Art–Biden has talked to Elon Musk.”

        Um no he hasn’t. It’s literally detailed in the article you linked:

        “But Elon Musk was also included. That’s unusual because President Biden has been talking a lot about electric vehicles, but most of the time he talks about Ford and GM and he almost never mentions Tesla, even though Tesla is by far the leading EV manufacturer here in the United States.

        …At any rate, I don’t think Biden was involved in this meeting yesterday, but the auto CEOs were.”

        Lets read that last line again:

        “At any rate, I don’t think Biden was involved in this meeting yesterday, but the auto CEOs were.”

        Huh…weird. It’s almost what Art said is 100% true.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      @FreedMike–Many of these comments are from those who fear change and want things to remain the same. There is a comfort level in having things remain the same. True that the price of oil is based on the commodity market but also the oil companies do see that eventually oil will become less of a factor in our energy needs and continual expansion into producing more will not maximize profits. Oil companies are in the business to make money and are accountable to their shareholders. Too much oil results in a decline of profitability especially when refinery capacity is limited and if you run out of storage oil becomes worthless like the negative price 2 years ago. No politician can ensure the availability and price of oil and gas unless they regulate it. Opening up more oil and gas leases will not increase production and make prices cheaper if no company wants the additional leases. Many on this site are afraid that they will be forced to drive an EV but it will take decades before EVs make a huge impact on the market and by then they will be more competitive in price to ICE and the infrastructure will be there to support them and this will be in spite of any Government action. Most of us that are reading this will either be dead or too old to drive and even the newest of today’s ICE vehicles will most likely still be on the road 20 years from now especially with the shortage and price of new vehicles people will keep their vehicles longer. Let the EBFlexes on this site fret about the future what will and might happen despite their rantings. I remember when I started my career people feared technology especially computers and said that they would never use them. I myself choose to adapt and not spend my life fearing change and fret over the future.

  • avatar
    mcs

    Well, they are resuming leases on Federal lands:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/15/biden-administration-to-resume-leasing-for-oil-and-gas-drilling-on-federal-lands.html

    From what I understand, Keystone XL was mainly for exports. Here’s an alternative. The Canadians could always build their own refineries rather than use US refineries. If they want to ship their oil overseas, they have two or three coasts to pick from. They don’t need Keystone XL. also, isn’t Keystone in operation?

    • 0 avatar
      WalterRohrl

      You understand correctly but nobody on Fox News will point out that virtually none of the product that was to use KXL was for intended use by the USA, all to be shipped overseas. Keystone (non XL) is and has been in operation and while using a different route (more across Canada), eventually turns and ends up in the same place as XL would have.

      The distance from Alberta, Canada to Steele City, Nebraska is about 2600km, where XL would feed into a different existing pipeline to the Gulf.

      The distance from Alberta, Canada to Victoria or Vancouver, BC is less than half that.

      Why aren’t the Canadians simply building their own refineries on their West Coast and shipping from there rather than wanting to build another large pipeline across the US for product that is not for the benefit of the US beyond mainly some construction jobs initially?

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “You understand correctly but nobody on Fox News will point out that virtually none of the product that was to use KXL was for intended use by the USA, all to be shipped overseas.”

        What does Fox NEws have to do with the Brandon administration working hard to make gas prices as high as possible?

        And you do realize that there are many benefits to KXL other than lowering gas prices right?

        You realize that a pipeline is FAR safer than moving oil via rail right?

        Look up Lac-Mégantic Canada. Perhaps you want that in your town so that you can prove Fox News wrong about something but a pipeline is much safer.

        • 0 avatar
          WalterRohrl

          I wouldn’t see a benefit to moving oil by rail across the US when that volume of oil is not intended to be used by Americans either.

          What’s the other benefit you reference of a pipeline that moves oil from Canada across the US to an American port to be shipped across the world? Certainly not lower gasoline prices for the US as it adds zero volume to what’s being sold here.

          If Canada wants to ship their oil to somewhere else in the world, why won’t they just build a pipeline across their own land to their own ports? Try to connect the dots instead of parroting Fox and assuming everything is merely about Biden trying to raise prices on gasoline. Why are you pushing Canada’s agenda? There is zero upside to the USA with KXL or rail merely to transport oil from Canada to an American port to then ship it away from here for the benefit of others.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          Maybe he is reacting to your MAGA position especially since Trump’s biggest supporter is Fox News and you continually call President Biden Brandon which is the name of a race car driver who happened to be interviewed during a protest and people mistook his cheering fans after his winning the race to Biden “Lets Go Brandon”. Fox News picked up on this and as a result that race car driver lost his sponsors despite not having anything to do with politics.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      True most of the Keystone pipeline oil is not for the US market it is exported. If the price of oil stays high for long enough there might be alternatives but what could happen is the price of oil will drop just enough to make alternatives not competitive.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      Yes there was an existing Keystone pipeline the proposed Keystone was an expansion of this pipeline. The Keystone XL pipeline extension, proposed by TC Energy (then TransCanada) in 2008, was initially designed to transport the planet’s dirtiest fossil fuel, tar sands oil, to market—and fast. “As an expansion of the company’s existing Keystone Pipeline System, which has been operating since 2010 (and continues to send Canadian tar sands crude oil from Alberta to various processing hubs in the middle of the United States), the pipeline promised to dramatically increase capacity to process the 168 billion barrels of crude oil locked up under Canada’s boreal forest. It was expected to transport 830,000 barrels of Alberta tar sands oil per day to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. From the refineries, the oil would be sent chiefly overseas—not to gasoline pumps in the United States.”
      “Some three million miles of oil and gas pipelines already run through our country, but KXL wasn’t your average pipeline, and tar sands oil isn’t your average crude. It’s derived from a sludgy, sticky deposit found beneath the wilds of northern Alberta’s boreal forest. These sands contain bitumen, a gooey type of petroleum that can be converted into fuel. It’s no small feat extracting oil from tar sands, and doing so comes with steep environmental and economic costs. Nevertheless, in the mid-2000s, with gas prices on the rise, oil companies ramped up production and sought additional ways to move their product from Canada’s remote tar sands fields to midwestern and Gulf Coast refineries.” https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline

  • avatar
    gregtwelve

    This is all planned by our potato head leaders. Everyone’s standard of living and net worth is going down and will continue to go down. Except of course for the Elite Class. The U.S. as the land of plenty will be gone. We all have to get used to it.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “This is all planned by our potato head leaders.”

      Why would lowering the prosperity of your nation be advantageous?

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        I have it on good authority it has to do with three factors: 1) water flouridation, 2) Area 51, and 3) the Trilateral Commission. Some say Elvis is the fourth factor…but I think that’s silly talk.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        ajla,

        Owning provides opportunity for asset appreciation (housing) or slowing the frequency of replacement (appliances). The lack of affordable housing has benefited a small number of very wealthy organizations and people. More renters = more recurring revenue in perpetuity. See Microsoft 365 for everything.

        It’s why I’m a right to repair enthusiast. It benefits everyone but the people screwing the consumer.

  • avatar
    BEPLA

    Here I was reading thinking that this was a fairly balanced article – then Matt just had to throw in the last paragraph about how awful the current administration is about dealing with issues that affect the middle and lower classes. As if the last guy did any better (between rallies, golf games, grifting, twitter feuds, ivermectin, etc)
    Fact is we all pay for the fuel subsidies via our middle-class tax dollars that keeps petroleum relatively cheap in this country, compared to costs which are passed along directly to consumers in other countries where 500hp bro-dozers aren’t a thing. You have it right that revoking leases which aren’t being used isn’t the cause of current fuel prices or inflation at large (12 paragraphs condensed to a single line) But when you say that the current administration is doing the wrong thing – What is the correct thing? Do you have any solutions – or just more oh-so-helpful-but-not-really double-edged criticisms?

    • 0 avatar
      WalterRohrl

      No of course it isn’t, it’s typical Posky scammer clickbait. Compare the headline to the first paragraph. Headline states that leases are being cancelled. First paragraph states that the issuance of new leases is being cancelled. There is a world of difference in those statements and I believe even Posky can understand that difference.

      Nobody is cancelling existing leases as the headline states. They are though cancelling the offering and sale of new leases as there appears to be little interest in bidding for them and then actually developing them. Why should the government give away an asset at a low price as would result when there are few to no bidders for the lease?

      The oil industry is sitting on over 9000 existing leases that it has not developed or done anything with. Since these are already in existence presumably oil to market time would be less for them than any new not yet begun leases. So why aren’t they developing those 9000 leases? Matt doesn’t point out that there is no actual demand for new leases from the oil companies irrespective of what their mouthpiece might put forth.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        Agree the leases were cancelled because of lack of demand and the oil companies are sitting on more leases than they will drill but that is the nature of the business. Not all leases are feasible to drill and produce and the cost to drill a well and bring it into production have risen astronomically. Drilling pipes, the cost of building and leasing a drill rig, and the labor cost to operate a drilling rig have all gone up significantly and there are no guarantees of striking oil or even having enough production to be profitable.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “how awful the current administration is about dealing with issues that affect the middle and lower classes. As if the last guy did any better (between rallies, golf games, grifting, twitter feuds, ivermectin, etc)”

      Well, if history is any indication, the last year would very much prove how awful this administration has been to the middle and lower classes.

      President Trump worked 24/7 for the people of this country. Yes he would tweet (those super scary mean tweets) and yes he played golf but all presidents do. And he still was getting things done.

      Brandon sleeps more than he does anything else and it shows. But please continue berating the guy who burdened the middle and lower class with cheap gas, low inflation, higher wages, and didn’t send $40 billion to a corrupt country to fund their war while our shelves sit empty with no baby formula.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        “President Trump worked 24/7 for the people of this country. Yes he would tweet (those super scary mean tweets) and yes he played golf but all presidents do. And he still was getting things done.”

        Wished that was all Trump did was play golf. He has plenty of time for golf at Mar a Lago.

  • avatar
    gregtwelve

    “Why would lowering the prosperity of your nation be advantageous?”

    Ordinarily it would not be. As a tool to bring down a system that some despise it makes perfect sense.

  • avatar
    Urlik

    Always amused when media harps over total profits and completely ignores profit as a percent of sales. Exxonmobil’s profit margin for that $5.5B was only 6.23%. Hardly profiteering. The average profit margin for US companies is 7.9%. Apple’s profit margin is 25%.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      True, but people don’t have to buy Apple products.

      • 0 avatar
        Urlik

        Are you sure? Try telling an Apple user they have to move to Android now.

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “ Are you sure? Try telling an Apple user they have to move to Android now.”

          Yeah I’m not moving to an off brand phone that costs just as much is far inferior.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            You don’t like a 2 year replacement cycle on Android when Apple.was still updating the iPhone 6 until recently? And they blame the lightning connector for e-waste lol. How many 2-3 year old Android handsets are in landfills because they are no longer supported? I think only the pixel 6 has 5 years and that is a new thing. The most popular stuff is done at 2.

            And yeah, used to be Android flagships were cheaper. Not souch nowadays.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            People choose to buy Apple products no one is forcing them to. Preference is a choice.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        And you don’t have to buy gas either. Ask Stephen Colbert…just getcha a Tesla!

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          Don’t recall Stephen Colbert saying anything about buying a Tesla especially since he drives a Volvo. No one is forcing you to buy gas and as you said if you don’t like what you are paying for gas then start your own oil company. You can also buy shares in Exxon Mobil or Chevron and at least participate in any profits.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            He said 8n his monologue that he wasn’t worried about gas prices because he drives a Tesla.

            https://youtu.be/UbfMUcgxHtY

            Happy to assist you

            BTW, I have an EV in addition to my ICE vehicles, though my daily is typically my Corvette. No need to start a gas company. I’m good, thanks

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            Colbert was driving a Volvo but now he is driving a Tesla. I might not like the rise in gasoline but I buy it but then where I live the price of gasoline is just slightly above $4 a gallon so I am not going to complain. I also drive a hybrid Maverick which I have being averaging 45 mpg so the price of gas is not exactly breaking my back. And I do own some oil stocks so I do get some benefit from higher gas prices. I do have some direct knowledge of how the oil and gas industry works having worked in the industry for years.

  • avatar

    Oil production must be outsourced to underdeveloped countries. Developed countries must develop advanced methods of generating renewable clean energy. It is 21st century folks. Fuel prices will help to kill ICE vehicles. Isn’t that what we wanted? To get rid of ICE? Europeans got lucky – gas and oil shortages will force them to switch to renewable and nuclear energy ASAP. I hope they do not turn back to coal.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      The eventual outcome will be to kill ICE but that might not be a bad thing if we develop cleaner energy that is cost effective and plentiful. I don’t believe that just solar and wind alone will replace coal and fossil fuel but safer nuclear energy could contribute a large amount of our energy needs. This will take decades but we have to start somewhere because energy prices and shortages will just continue to rise. We need a cleaner more consistent and stable energy source.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      True more and more it is being outsourced to other countries even the refining end. Mega refineries are being built in places like India and not just for their market.

  • avatar
    BSttac

    The worst president of all time
    What a disaster. This is only the beginning

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      Documentation backing that up? Going back through all 46 US Presidents, of course.

      Or just a knee-jerk “I hate the guy” reaction?

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “Documentation backing that up?”

        You must live under a rock. By just about every measurement the federal government has, this are worse and it’s barely been a year.

        Inflation, gas prices, spending, border security, Covid deaths, crime, etc.

        Not one single thing is better under Brandon. The man is an Alzheimer’s ridden empty suit. He doesn’t know what he’s doing, where he is, or even who he is. They’ve tucked him and the cackling hen away because everything they do and say makes things worse.

        $40 BILLION more to Ukraine while our shelves sit empty and have no baby formula. Baby formula for the illegals coming over but not American mothers. Of course, maybe all the men out there that can get pregnant can begin lactating.

        For reference, the EU just approved an aid package of $500 million to Ukraine. Doesn’t seem right that we are spending $40 billion but nothing this installed administration does makes sense.

        #FJB

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Nah, I’d give that award to Buchanan.

    • 0 avatar

      “The worst president of all time”

      Source?

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    what is funny is that Branden says blame oil company profit taking for high gas prices. Ignoring from the day he walked into office he limited oil supply, keystone, many limitations on drilling in Alaska, new mexico, everywhere. He ignore his role in destroying our oil industry and doing everything to limit our friends in Canada and mexico to help America. This is the most incompetent president I have ever witnessed.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      Exactly. He’s done just about everything he can to push this EV agenda. Never mind that EVs are nowhere near ready to be a legitimate form of transportation, the agenda must move forward.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    High gasoline prices are all part of the brilliant plan to transition us to alternative forms of energy that are not yet affordable at scale. Hold on to your wallet.

    Did all the ignorant soccer moms and girly men who voted to combat “climate change” think it was going to be free?

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      It’s not even about the environment. Although all these smooth brain libs think that if a car doesn’t have a little bit of exhaust it’s not doing any damage to the planet.

      However reality is a tad different. EV production is astoundingly harmful to the planet and the majority of electricity comes from fossil fuels.

      It’s all a scam that the libs have, through legislation, forced the automakers into developing very inferior products under the guise of the massive lie that is “man made global warming”.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      “High gasoline prices are all part of the brilliant plan to transition us to alternative forms of energy that are not yet affordable at scale. Hold on to your wallet.

      Did all the ignorant soccer moms and girly men who voted to combat “climate change” think it was going to be free?”

      Nothing is free especially the gas you put in your vehicle. Since I don’t have any children I shouldn’t be concerned about climate change and the effect it will have on our species. If we eventually eliminate our species the Earth will heal itself and other species will emerge and live. Nature has a way of dealing with imbalance.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “I shouldn’t be concerned about climate change and the effect it will have on our species.”

        The climate has been changing for billions of years. Tell me, how many ICE vehicles were being used when the glaciers melted thousands of years ago

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          Again if you have children then why should I care especially if you don’t care about your children and grandchildren. The Earth its self will survive and eventually heal itself when we as a species become extinct. Mother Nature has the last laugh. True the climate has changed over billions of years but man has sped up the changes and there is more of a threat to humans survival but then we as a species will eventually either evolve or become extinct but that will happen long after we are gone. I’ll leave that up to you to fret about what will happen and for you to blame others instead of actually doing something. Much easier to criticize and complain than be part of the solution.

  • avatar
    Dartdude

    Brandon said on the campaign trail that he wanted to shut down all oil and gas production here. He and his elite donors want the US taxpayers and consumers to paid for the green new deal.

  • avatar
    kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh

    “””crude prices spiked dramatically in late 2020 as oil futures began trading on the assumption that Joe Biden would soon be in the White House.

    Some of the speculative action was the result of rebounding prices after demand cratered at the start of the pandemic.”””

    As long as we participate in a speculative market .. this is what you get. /golfclap/ … gj repubs.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Yawn. Get good. I love how republicans complaining about gas prices are somehow bad, but me paying off your college loan debt because you can’t read or can’t do Math that your degree isn’t worth what you paid is fine.

      Eff off and get good. If you can’t afford gas, I don’t care…take the freaking bus and leave me alone chump.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    Yawn. Get a bus pass if you can’t swing gas prices. You get the government you deserve. Maybe use that 10 grand Uncle Joe is going to knock off your student loans…or maybe sell that iPhome. Don’t care. Best of luck to you. Get good.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      Those complaining about the price of gas and diesel either should park their big pickups and suvs and take the bus or drive a more efficient vehicle. I don’t have much sympathy for those who drive these guzzlers especially those driving down the road at 80 plus mph and no I do not want to pay off someone’s student loan. It is your right to drive anything you want as long as it is safe but don’t belly ache about the high price of gas and diesel you are not entitled to cheap energy if you choose an inefficient vehicle especially if you do not use that vehicle in your business or line of work. There is a happy medium which both political parties do not address–extremes either way are not healthy. Most of us are not disciples of Fox News or MSNBC and are just trying to live our lives the best we can. We have one political party that is more interested in passing Federal laws to make abortions illegal but is taking money from big pharma with no intentions of doing anything about the price of drugs and another party that wants to redistribute wealth. A former narcissictic President that has taken billions of dollars in loans from Russian oligarchs and declares the election was stolen and a current President who seems to be losing his grip.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “ We have one political party that is more interested in passing Federal laws to make abortions illegal”

        What federal laws?

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          “What federal laws?”
          The proposed law by the House Republicans to make abortions illegal in all states.”Leading antiabortion groups and their allies in Congress have been meeting behind the scenes to plan a national strategy that would kick in if the Supreme Court rolls back abortion rights this summer, including a push for a strict nationwide ban on the procedure if Republicans retake power in Washington.

          The effort, activists say, is designed to bring a fight that has been playing out largely in the courts and state legislatures to the national political stage — rallying conservatives around the issue in the midterms and pressuring potential 2024 GOP presidential candidates to take a stand.

          The discussions reflect what activists describe as an emerging consensus in some corners of the antiabortion movement to push for hard-line measures that will truly end a practice they see as murder while rejecting any proposals seen as half-measures.

          Activists say their confidence stems from progress on two fronts: At the Supreme Court, a conservative majority appears ready to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that has protected abortion rights for nearly 50 years — an outcome that was previewed late Monday when Politico published a draft opinion saying it was time to strike the precedent and “return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” And activists argue that in Texas, Republicans have paid no apparent political price for banning abortion after cardiac activity is detected, around six weeks of pregnancy.

          While a number of states have recently approved laws to ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy — the limit established in the Mississippi legislation at the heart of the case pending before the high court — some activists and Republican lawmakers now say those laws are not ambitious enough for the next phase of the antiabortion movement. Instead, they now see the six-week limit — which they call “heartbeat” legislation — as the preferred strategy because it would prevent far more abortions.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ban-roe-supreme-court-mississippi/

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Maybe since one party has the congress and white house they could put out a common sense law that mirrors what other western democracies do with respect to abortion (severely limits it after 15 weeks). No, instead they propose no restrictions up to the due date. Yeah, your side is as much a slave to their own vocal minority as the right. Maybe time for you to sit down and let the adults handle this. You’ve had 50 years to pass a.law, yet here we are.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            @Art–Agree that any laws allowing abortions should limit the time period similar to Europe’s but there is no side for me. You assume because I don’t follow Trump and Fox News that I am a liberal Democrat. I am an independent and a former Republican that has been alienated by the current Republican Party and its Trump ism. As for me I am not personally affected by abortions so for me I don’t care but the total hypocrisy of the current Republicans and their use of abortion to distract us from actually coming out with a platform and actions that will affect the average citizen. I do hear from many Republicans about cutting Social Security a program I have contributed to for over 50 years and nothing about controlling prescription drug prices. Such representatives as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Mat Gaetz don’t inspire confidence.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    Ran across this video last week and it seems like a fairly reasonable explanation to me:

    https://youtu.be/AQbmpecxS2w

    (If you disagree, please understand that I spent the afternoon inhaling petroleum fumes from my newest plastic welder.)

  • avatar

    When I came to US in 2000 I filled the car (14 Gallons) for about $20. Today I did it for $90. It is 450% inflation.

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      @ILO, please don’t complain about ‘total cost of one tank of fuel’ — when vehicle manufacturers see this, they will reduce the size of the fuel tank to address this concern — and then we have no range. :-)

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “ when vehicle manufacturers see this, they will reduce the size of the fuel tank to address this concern — and then we have no range. ”

        We have those now. They’re called electric vehicles

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      “Back in my day sonny you could buy a house for 5 thousand dollars”

      -ILO (probably)

      Sometimes prices go up.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        True and you could buy a 10 cent cigar, a nickle for a bottle of pop, less than 2k for a new car, and 20 cents a gallon for gas and you didn’t have to pump your own. Also when a President didn’t support and praise dictators, didn’t claim an election was stolen, and to encourage supporters to beat the hell out of demonstrators and he would pay their legal bills. Agree things have changed.

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “ Also when a President didn’t support and praise dictators”

          -Never happened.

          “didn’t claim an election was stolen”

          -Absolutely was.

          “and to encourage supporters to beat the hell out of demonstrators and he would pay their legal bills.”

          -Also never happened

          “Agree things have changed”

          -Sure have. They have violently gone in a direction that is very much hurting everyone. In a little over a year the libs abs the empty suit that has effectively turn the Whit House into a nursing home have destroyed a wonderful trajectory this country was on. Gas prices were low, wholesale prices were low, the border was much more secure, life was good. And one single year later we can’t even get baby formula at the store.

          But hey at least we have $40 billion to send to Ukraine.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            Trump has praised Putin and other dictators.
            https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/politics/donald-trump-dictators-kim-jong-un-vladimir-putin/index.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOfoejs__BE&ab_channel=MSNBC https://www.npr.org/2017/05/02/526520042/6-strongmen-trumps-praised-and-the-conflicts-it-presents https://www.thewrap.com/10-dictators-strongmen-donald-trump-praised/

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            Now do Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton etc.

            You realize that praising people and saying they get along isn’t exactly the worst thing in the world right?

            4 years of no war is proof that it, you know, worked. You can be on friendly terms with an enemy.

            You continue to fail to understand that yes these dictators are quite intelligent. When you have an unintelligent buffoon running a country, you won’t be in power long (as we are seeing with Xiden).

            You also continue to ignore how soft in China Xiden has been. China literally released Covid on the world and Xiden, his media, and that elf Fauci, have defended China to no end. So don’t bring up who supports dictators. You’re being a hypocrite.

            Still waiting where President Trump encouraged supporters to “beat the hell out of demonstrators”.

            Also, never use CNN or NPR as a source. You couldn’t find more biased drivel.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Well you’ve got Jimmy Carter level inflation and crazy gas prices as well as the threat of war with the Russians. You should be happy…the good old Jimmy Carter days are back!

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Mar 13, 2016 — When Donald Trump said Sunday that he might pay the legal fees of a man charged with hitting a protester in the face at one of his rallies, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      You are aware he is out of office, right? What is the current guy doing about things that actually matter to people now like inflation, energy prices, WWIII looming…you know, the current and actual issues effecting folks.

      Your inability to move on and to confront those issues go a long way to explaining why, in spite of the crapshow that was Trump’s 4 years Democrats are looking at a dismal midterm only 2 years later.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        @Art–Are you aware that Trump is planning to run again for President in 2024? Your inability or lack of ability to admit that he is a guiding force in the current Republican Party. Yes I cannot move on when the influence and threat of Trump is still there. Maybe you are one of those Trumpers.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    So many $#!+heads

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Translation: people who disagree with me are shi$heads.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “people who disagree with me are shi$heads.”

        Nice that you finally admit it.

        Also there’s no indication that Art censored the word sh*t. Way to reveal your true colors.

        Now get back to comparing automotive sales in the most obviously biased way possible.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          @EB Flex–I believe FreedMike was saying that about you since you seem to believe you have all the answers. Anyone who doesn’t completely agree with you is in your mind a shi$heads. That is your opinion and we will take it for what it is worth.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Naa. Many I disagree with are fine. But if the shoe fits…and I mean fits like that slipper on Cinderella’s foot in your case, wear it.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Sorry you feel that way, Art…I used to like talking to you before you decided to be a jerk. The only thing I can’t figure out is if you decided to be a jerk to everyone who disagrees with you, or just me.

          If it was me, it must have made quite an impact. My apologies.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Honestly @freedmike it was around the time you and the usual band spent a few a few threads regaling in the deaths of those that were unvaccinated

            That’s fine, people make choices. I just decided to cease being civil as well and take every opportunity possible to remind you that most poor people are poor because of choices as well and that I feel no particular urge to remedy that..

            I am sick and tired of people on your side of the aisle constantly belittling my own politics and taking every opportunity to remind us all 9f how smart they are while simultaneously attempting to vote themselves more of the fruits of my labor.

            Don’t care anymore. Get good and leave me out of your decisions…I pay enough already thank you.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            So…because some people on “my side” were a-holes to you, and now you need to be an a-hole to everyone on “my side,” me included.

            If I did that, I wouldn’t have a family…I’m the lone f**king Democrat ranger in my clan.

            Food for thought.

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      De-Nazify Alabama!

      https://www.timesofisrael.com/apollos-legacy-a-quiet-corner-of-alabama-haunted-by-nazi-germany/

  • avatar
    probert

    “Though the most contentious decision was Biden’s cancellation of the Keystone XL’s cross-border permit — effectively ending the 12-year project to funnel affordable fuels down from Canada and into American refineries.” Not quite:

    Keystone was going to transport tar sand oil. This stuff is only viable when prices go up – so not cheap. The liquid – once sand tar oil is thinned for pipeline transport it is legally not oil – was going to texas refineries, but for export.
    There was no benefit for the US apart from construction work, and maybe 10-15 full time jobs.

    The risks involved, and the turmoil it created, are “contentious”. Police forces working directly for corporate interests, laws passed to enable attacks on protesters by private security forces – not pretty . Also, because the fluid is so diluted, it is construed by oil companies as “not oil”, for the purposes of avoiding clean-up costs for inevitable leaks.

    Kind of boondoggle all around. But I’m sure a few people were set to make a killing – they wanted it so bad.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Somebody please explain how an ICE vehicle is superior.

    Performance? No.
    Reliability? No.
    Ease of maintenance? No.
    NVH? No.

    Range anxiety? It is like running out of gas never happened to anyone on this board or any of their friends/family.

    Ease of refueling. So you have to drive to a gas station. Hoping that it is open and has fuel. You have to stand outside in the wind, rain, snow, while you pump the fuel into your vehicle. How many of you got into trouble when driving a parents car for not returning it fueled? Or got upset with a partner child for the same? How often have you not refueled going home then white knuckled it in the morning? Or when on a long drive/trip in unknown territories. As opposed to when you park at home, at work or at the shopping mall/plaza you can ‘plug your vehicle in’ and it refuels why you go about your business, or sleep.

    Ecology/environment (for those who want to try that argument). Exploring for oil, drilling, transporting it to the refinery, refining it, transporting it to the distribution centres, pumping it into tanker trucks, driving the trucks to the ‘gas’ stations, pumping it from the tanker into large drums stored underground. The drums often rust and/or leak making it very expensive to remove them/replace them/clean the soil. The ‘gas’ stations take up expensive real estate, often being located at crucial intersections. The gas stations use electricity. Oh and if there is a power failure then you can’t pump your gas into your ICE vehicle. Whereas with an EV the electrical transmission grid is up and in place. Yes the materials for batteries have to be mined and disposed of. But overall is there a significant environmental advantage for either.

    Sorry but the arguments for ICE replicate the arguments against electrical lighting that the ‘oil’ industry used at the turn of the 20th century. Or that the coal industry used when the British Navy converted to oil.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      @Arthur:

      I don’t think EVs or ICEs are “superior” or “inferior.” Clearly each vehicle type is better suited for some people and not for others. If you tow, take long highway trips, or don’t have a place to charge up, an ICE vehicle IS superior. If you are after high performance that’s not as damaging to the environment, or just want the “the latest thing,” EVs are clearly the way to go.

      As far a the reliability stuff you mention, I’d like to see more data across a wider spectrum vehicles, but it’d make sense that EVs do seem to have an edge there.

      I see nothing wrong with either of those automotive priorities. I see no reason why these two car types can’t live together. And I have no idea why some people are so damn triggered by this whole thing.

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      @Arthur Dailey, yours is a thoughtful post.

      When I commuted to work in a series of EV’s starting 10 years ago, here are the advantages and disadvantages I saw:
      • I very much enjoyed the instantaneous and useable torque (but there was no top end to it)
      • Reliability was great
      • I very much enjoyed no oil changes (but long-term the battery is deteriorating a little whether you use it or not)
      • I got spoiled by the lack of noise/vibration/harshness, to the point where almost every ICE vehicle I sat in at idle after that felt primitive and unrefined
      • The low center of gravity made it relatively zippy for a heavy vehicle
      • The money savings on fuel was significant for me at the time and was worth some trade-offs (also electricity cost was much less volatile and it was nice to have a predictable expense vs. fuel prices bouncing around)
      • The range at the time for the vehicles I had was adequate in ideal conditions but absolutely miserable in cold weather. The range got progressively better with each new model year and I put up with it due to the other advantages.
      • While appreciating the real-world functionality of some of the design elements, I didn’t enjoy the styling overall
      • Charging at home was great – only problem was if I got home with low range and needed to quickly go someplace else
      • I was generally disappointed in the availability and uptime of chargers away from home
      • Getting instant heat in the winter to clear the windshield is hugely convenient – you get spoiled
      • I definitely started to resent it every time I needed to fuel up an internal-combustion vehicle at a fuel station (expensive, messy, dangerous)

      A lot has changed in 10 years and EV’s (and hopefully the charging network) continue to get better. *Many* EV’s available today would have completely addressed the range concerns I had back then.

      But there are definitely use cases where I would still pick ICE (or hybrid) today.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • Queen: I’m honestly mystified when people say 100000 miles means a car is reliable… my daily driver has 350000+ and...
  • Queen: Lol I guess Elon’s a massive thumb on the scale
  • dal20402: Ride height has conquered all. Ask the average consumer and they will tell you the Kicks is a “neat...
  • Corey Lewis: At no point have I claimed to be the first person to discuss an automotive topic. Anything older than...
  • Mustangfast: “It’s almost impossible to find a stripper” I know, I checked both the club and the street and none were...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber