Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2109474)

This topic is about the price of gas, not about climate change.

The price of gas is reduced when there's less of a demand/reliance on it. The oil companies charge more, because they CAN. Because so far, no one has said "nope - we'll just not use gas as much anymore, but thanks for playing."

When we increase renewables and alternatives to petroleum, we decrease the demand for petroleum. And the price of petroleum will go down. That's just basic economics.

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2109574)

So, inflation hasn't affected the oil companies and they're only raising prices because they want to?

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2109482)

The Keystone XL, is that the spigot he turned off? That wasn't a spigot at all.

You note that 4000-5000 people lost their jobs that day. Were those refinery workers processing the oil from that pipeline? Were they truckers transporting the fuel products that came out of the refinery? No.

The people who lost their jobs that day were the construction workers who would have been building the pipeline. No spigot was shut off; there was no spigot to shut off.

The Keystone XL pipeline expansion would have transported tar sands oil to refineries in the gulf. The output of those refineries would then be sported overseas, not a drop of fuel would be sent to US pumps.

Again, no spigot was shut off; there was no spigot to shut off. Got it?

Originally Posted by Topspinmo (Post 2109475)

Water in southwest drying up, too many lawns and golf courses in desert, not to mention overpopulated. They had to create new intake on Hoover dam to supply Las Vegas, cause the one the built way back when sticking out of water by several feet. Even Denver trying to steal water from plat river form Nebraska water rights. If the had any brains in southwest desert They would outlaw grass lawns and plush golf courses.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2109496)

As long as the oil companies have control over the conversation, there will be resistance to even trying. "Why bother trying if oil will just win anyway" is a defeatist attitude. There are already alternatives to SOME petroleum products, and SOME gasoline-powered vehicles.

Popularity of them is increasing. You can think locally on this, without even looking at the national picture. More electric golf carts. More re-usable grocery bags. More people choosing refillable household products rather than single-use ones. More water filters, fewer disposable water bottles.

All of these things are alternatives that *reduce* rather than replace petroleum consumption. And it's already happening right here in the Villages. We could set the standard. Or we can say "nah...we don't care" and pretend we're not already shifting our attitude so younger generations don't bother even trying to follow the example.

I don't have kids or grandkids. I have no horse in that race. Your mileage may vary. Ironic quip intended.

Originally Posted by Tvflguy (Post 2109523)

I rcvd an infraction for what I believe was a very mild comment. Mod considered it political. I’m quite new here and very confused how they may pick and choose what is and not.

Trying to tread lightly here. Are they biased or selective. I kinda feel violated. I look thru this thread, and think “Why me”?!!

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC (Post 2109575)

Economics should be a required class in all schools

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2109578)

The golf courses out there use reclaimed and recycled water...

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2109584)

Please explain your response to my comment...

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2109576)

Off shore and Alaska leases were cancelled...

Leases and permits to drill on Federal land have not been approved...

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2109609)

Still, no spigots were shut off. Potential future production was prevented, and that likely had an effect on price, but there was no spigot shut off that could immediately be turned back on.

Originally Posted by TrapX (Post 2109662)

Not correct. Fracking leases were cancelled in Jan 2021. New leases were blocked. That immediately reduced the supply of natural gas. Those sites were scuttled, and cannot simply be "turned back on" without a lot of work and investment. Since the previous investment in those sites was trashed, and threats to further restrict fracking leases were made, the energy companies would not invest in that area again.

So with less natural gas, oil was needed to fill the previous demand. But oil drilling leases were also not renewed. New leases were blocked. Same story as fracking - less production.

Now the US is no longer a net exporter of oil and gas. We need to buy it on the global market. That means any one of many countries can raise prices and the US pays it. No choice there.

Russia raises prices for energy and the world has to pay it. That's how the current administration's energy policy has given Russia and the Arabs control over part of our economy.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2109676)

"New leases were blocked" means new "spigots" were not turned on. The supply of natural gas was not reduced, it simply was not increased. (Yes, also not replaced when existing sources dried up).

Note that the US was a net exporter in 2021. If the "spigot" was shut off in January then it would have had immediate effect on production yet 2021 production was greater than 2020.

Look, I have no argument with the idea that petroleum sources have not expanded at the rate they had in the past. My argument is with the idea that current production was immediately diminished in January 2021. The current situation is not a result of decreased US production. The current situation is a result of a continuing increase in demand and, to a far greater extent, the threat of a decrease in the world supply, largely due to Russia.

Again, I have not seen any 2022 numbers for US production but the 2021 numbers showed an increase, not a decline.