[Outcast_Searcher]

Energy independence by the US? LOL, thats funny. 20MBPD? Good luck with that

I didn't say it would be fast or easy. But it sure as hell seems a lot smarter than burning all we can possibly afford with abandon, and doing almost nothing (as far as official strategic policy) about preparing for when it's much more expensive. Oh, and meanwhile spending $trillions on various military equipment and misadventures "protecting our interests" in oil.

In my world, where I exited college in '81 having recently witnessed the third large spike in prices in a single decade, it seemed to me that this was getting to be enough of a "thing" and a threat, that we ought to start doing something about it.

The obvious solution was to start gradually taxing it, and encouraging the natural economic reaction to conserve and seek alternatives which would ensue. Given that we had time back then nothing radical or fast was needed -- just persistent and determined.

A quarter or so for a gallon of gasoline or diesel to wake people up, and then adding a dime a year EVERY YEAR for a couple/few decades, IMO, would have produced a very different set of decisions as far as behavior for both US citizens and government.

But that kind of thing doesn't happen in the US because someone might not be re-elected in the short term, and the masses are largely incapable of mid-term thinking, much less strategic thinking. So there's that.

That was until global warming became so obvious. Since then I just want a $20 or so tax per gallon on gasoline on fossil fuel equivalents (to try and pay for all the social costs, more or less) -- but this tends to just get almost everyone upset.

So we'll just continue on as is, apparently. And then when bad things happen, as they surely will, it will, of course, be everyone ELSE's fault.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude- ... tory-chart

[Tanada]

Energy independence by the US? LOL, thats funny. 20MBPD? Good luck with that

I didn't say it would be fast or easy. But it sure as hell seems a lot smarter than burning all we can possibly afford with abandon, and doing almost nothing (as far as official strategic policy) about preparing for when it's much more expensive. Oh, and meanwhile spending $trillions on various military equipment and misadventures "protecting our interests" in oil.

In my world, where I exited college in '81 having recently witnessed the third large spike in prices in a single decade, it seemed to me that this was getting to be enough of a "thing" and a threat, that we ought to start doing something about it.

The obvious solution was to start gradually taxing it, and encouraging the natural economic reaction to conserve and seek alternatives which would ensue. Given that we had time back then nothing radical or fast was needed -- just persistent and determined.

A quarter or so for a gallon of gasoline or diesel to wake people up, and then adding a dime a year EVERY YEAR for a couple/few decades, IMO, would have produced a very different set of decisions as far as behavior for both US citizens and government.

But that kind of thing doesn't happen in the US because someone might not be re-elected in the short term, and the masses are largely incapable of mid-term thinking, much less strategic thinking. So there's that.

That was until global warming became so obvious. Since then I just want a $20 or so tax per gallon on gasoline on fossil fuel equivalents (to try and pay for all the social costs, more or less) -- but this tends to just get almost everyone upset.

So we'll just continue on as is, apparently. And then when bad things happen, as they surely will, it will, of course, be everyone ELSE's fault.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude- ... tory-chart

Your plan closely resembles the Penny Plan I used to advocate for before I gave up trying to get laws changed. The first Monday of each month fuel tax would be increased 1 penny aka $0.12/year until such time that the USA fuel taxes were economically indistinguishable from the Western European average fuel tax rates. Such a sustained and gradual tax increase would encourage innovation and adaptation without slamming people with a massive overnight tax increase. It would pay for a complete infrastructure replacement and upgrade of alternative transport modes to offset the increased difficulty of using semi-trucks to deliver things across country that would be much more fuel efficient to ship by rail or barge. If not for the madness of the interstate highway system created in the 1950's we would still be using the alternatives much more heavily. Does anyone else remember the vast shift back to rail cargo transport we experienced from 2011-2014 when road diesel was well over $4.00/gallon? At those prices a rail unit costs about 1/3rd the cost of using a semi and a barge transit costs about 1/6th the cost of semi transport. We taxpayers invested billions in upgrading water transport routes with dams and locks to get barges from New Orleans to Pittsburgh up the Ohio, South Dakota up the Missouri, or Minnesota/Chicago up the Mississippi. After the Interstate Highway system and cheap diesel replaced common sense with single unit shipments via semi truck traffic on both rail and barge collapsed and a lot of cargo rail went bankrupt in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

[kublikhan]

A - Not that I think we'll actually get there but we're not nearly as far off as you imply. First, we've hit 10.7 mm bopd domestic production. Amazes even me. But more important: US consumers are not buying 20 mm bopd...they don't buy oil, they buy refinery products. And US refineries are not selling to US consumers refinery products made from 20 mm bopd...it's closer to 15 mm bopd. The products made from almost 5 mm bopd are being sold to foreign consumers. US consumers don't need that 5 mm bopd. In fact, exporting those products only puts upward pressure on prices our consumers pay.

So the US consumers is ctually only importing about 4.3 mm bopd our consumers require. That's still a very big gap to fill. Probably too big IMHO. But not nearly as big as that "20 mm bopd" number you threw out. Also might be good to use "oil independence" instead on "energy independence" as you do. Two very different metrics.

Agreed. And net imports are falling fast:

U.S. NET OIL IMPORTS are projected to drop by nearly 60 percent next year compared to 2017, falling to their lowest levels since 1958. Net imports are expected to fall from an average of 3.7 million barrels per day last year[2017] to 2.4 million bpd this year[2018] and 1.6 million bpd next year[2019] – "a pretty staggering number."

The reduction in net imports of foreign oil – a measure of the amount of oil imported versus the amount of oil exported – is being driven by record-setting production that is poised to see U.S. producers extract more oil per day next year than the last record set in 1970.

EIA: U.S. Net Oil Imports to Drop to Lowest Levels in 60 Years

Not to mention the US is a net exporter of coal and natural gas. I expect the US will be net energy breakeven or better on imports/exports by 2020.

The United States exported 97.0 million short tons (MMst) of coal in 2017, a 61% (36.7 MMst) increase from the 2016 level.

U.S. coal exports increased by 61% in 2017 as exports to Asia more than doubled

97 million short tons of coal = 1.3 million BPDoe.

[ROCKMAN]

k - What folks who brag about coal consumption a few years don't want to acknowledge is that booming coal prices played a major roll in that decrease. Especially for third world countries. Then prices fell a simple supply/demand dynamics would predict. Why US coal exports boomed. Even hitting a record during the term of the "greenest" POTUS of all time...President Obama. With much of those exports coming from federal lands.

[kublikhan]

What are you talking about Rockman? My post didn't mention anything about Obama being the greenest president of all time or coal consumption levels. I was talking about the US becoming energy break even in 2020, which would be on Trump's watch, not Obama's. And I was talking about the US being a net coal exporter. Which has been true for decades, long before Obama.

[vtsnowedin]

This on Bloomberg today. What happens if oil hits $100/b?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ld-economy.

5. What does it mean for the the world’s biggest economy?

A run-up in oil prices poses a lot less of a risk to the U.S. than it used to, thanks to the boom in shale oil production. The old rule of thumb among economists was that a sustained $10 per barrel increase would shave about 0.3 percent off of U.S. output the following year. But tallies now, including that of Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, pencil in a hit of around 0.1 percent.

While the diminishing American reliance on imported oil has positive economic consequences at the industry level, poorer households would feel the weight of higher prices at the pump. They spend about 8 percent of their pre-tax income on gasoline, compared to about one percent for the top fifth of earners.

As usual the poor take it in the shorts.