Former BP Exec "Biden not in war against oil" . . Really ?

[Roch + 537]

Could have fooled me.

The answer: Tough to be an oil company if you do not have oil.  

BP used to produce 2 mm bbls/day not long ago.  But that included over 1 mm bbls/day from their investment Russia's TNK oil company.  They sold that.  So now they produce around 1 mm bbls/day and 400k to 500K of that is from the U.S.

Around 5 to 10 years ago there were about 14 refineries in England. That has been cut in half to now 7 refineries in England. The producer countries (OPEC , etc) have been integrating vertically.  Oil producing countries aren't satisfied with selling you their Crude.  They want to refine and produce the fuel and the petrochemicals.  

Of course BP wants to transition to "clean energy" ASAP.  Just like France, just like Germany, etc.  You see there are not many oil and gas fields in Great Britain (North Sea depleted) , France or Germany (Germany wants a Hydrogen Economy).

So they want U.S. to spend ten's of Trillions to force fit renewable energy today .   .   .    instead of letting it play out over the next 10 to 15 years. 

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Roch

[surrept33 + 609]

Nobody is 'killing oil'. People and companies respond to incentives. Large majors are worried about 'stranded assets' and how they report reserves to their shareholders. 

It's best to think about the fungibility of oil as a source of energy. This is roughly, how easy is it to replace something with something else, especially if you count the discounted cash flows of carbon (right now, in many places, fossil fuels are effectively 'free' because the carbon isn't taxed*) or other byproducts of some economic activity. That tends to turn around what is 'economically viable' especially at the multidecade planning stage that most large energy companies must plan for.

* Keep in mind that more and more economists disagree with the 'free carbon' loophole: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/carbon-tax-latter-gop-economists-endorse-surprisingly-robust-plan.html

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

1 hour ago, surrept33 said:

Nobody is 'killing oil'. People and companies respond to incentives. Large majors are worried about 'stranded assets' and how they report reserves to their shareholders. 

It's best to think about the fungibility of oil as a source of energy. This is roughly, how easy is it to replace something with something else, especially if you count the discounted cash flows of carbon (right now, in many places, fossil fuels are effectively 'free' because the carbon isn't taxed*) or other byproducts of some economic activity. That tends to turn around what is 'economically viable' especially at the multidecade planning stage that most large energy companies must plan for.

* Keep in mind that more and more economists disagree with the 'free carbon' loophole: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/carbon-tax-latter-gop-economists-endorse-surprisingly-robust-plan.html

 

 

A question if i may, who or what act of congress ever made US oil consumption subject to a tax?

https://www.carbontax.org/u-s-states/state-carbon-taxes-overview/

No U.S. state has a carbon tax. This fall, carbon tax proponents in the state of Washington are seeking to break through with Initiative-1631, a state tax on carbon emissions, which you can read about here. For a deep dive into the factors that defeated Washington’s 2016 carbon-tax ballot initiative I-732, click here.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Well, a carbon tax should first be levied against vanity vessels and airships. I have nothing against spending money for whatever one wants to spend money on, but private jets and yachts have ballooned. Richard Branson used to brag that he flew in his private jet over one million miles a year at the same time that he lectured the rest of us about the fact that fossil fuels were ruining the world. Bill Gates, Al Gore, Larry Ellison, Elon Musk and John Kerry very likely emit as much carbon from their private vessels as one-hundred-thousand of your normal pudknockers. 

Carbon tax? Well, maybe if it's fair. 

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

4 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Well, a carbon tax should first be levied against vanity vessels and airships. I have nothing against spending money for whatever one wants to spend money on, but private jets and yachts have ballooned. Richard Branson used to brag that he flew in his private jet over one million miles a year at the same time that he lectured the rest of us about the fact that fossil fuels were ruining the world. Bill Gates, Al Gore, Larry Ellison, Elon Musk and John Kerry very likely emit as much carbon from their private vessels as one-hundred-thousand of your normal pudknockers. 

Carbon tax? Well, maybe if it's fair. 

 

Actually i take great issue with such liberty's. Liberty's defined as how i feel in the moment, taxes can only be leveled by acts of congress, any other vehicle undermines the constitution, there is plenty of that going around as of late. Notice a little discord as of late.

I would suggest a Gofundmecarbontax...if you feel so obliged.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

^

Well said!

[surrept33 + 609]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

A question if i may, who or what act of congress ever made US oil consumption subject to a tax?

Interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper clause (it depends on how you interpret it however). This lets the federal government regulate the "commons". Taxes are thought to be the most direct/transparent mechanism to regulate things by a lot of economists. These two clauses have usually been interpreted by most courts to justify taxes. They are small parts of the constitution, but a large portion of why the constitution replaced the articles of confederation in the first place! 

These clauses also allowed, for example, Congress to pass:

Clean Air Act - 1970 - the new agency, the EPA can set limits to pollutants in the "ambient air". 

Clean Water Act - 1972 - EPA can also regulate pollutants released into waters, streams, etc.

During this time, of course, a lot of cities had smog in the air (the extreme cases being places like LA because of the San Gabriel mnts). The term "London Fog" actually was a thing because of the usage of coal stoves everywhere. 

Usually things like (indirect) consumption would be assessed in terms of scope3 emissions by the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-3-inventory-guidance

usually set by guidance from this office, which publishes into the federal register all the time:

https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-air-and-radiation-oar

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by surrept33

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

4 hours ago, surrept33 said:

Interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper clause (it depends on how you interpret it however). This lets the federal government regulate the "commons". Taxes are thought to be the most direct/transparent mechanism to regulate things by a lot of economists. These two clauses have usually been interpreted by most courts to justify taxes. They are small parts of the constitution, but a large portion of why the constitution replaced the articles of confederation in the first place! 

These clauses also allowed, for example, Congress to pass:

Clean Air Act - 1970 - the new agency, the EPA can set limits to pollutants in the "ambient air". 

Clean Water Act - 1972 - EPA can also regulate pollutants released into waters, streams, etc.

During this time, of course, a lot of cities had smog in the air (the extreme cases being places like LA because of the San Gabriel mnts). The term "London Fog" actually was a thing because of the usage of coal stoves everywhere. 

Usually things like (indirect) consumption would be assessed in terms of scope3 emissions by the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-3-inventory-guidance

usually set by guidance from this office, which publishes into the federal register all the time:

https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-air-and-radiation-oar

 

Im not quite sure just why you put your energy into a post that describes old historical govt regulations and then seem to assume bureaucrats and or govt attorney's can either pass a tax or fine any carbon producing editey. Save your energy.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Im not quite sure just why you put your energy into a post that describes old historical govt regulations and then seem to assume bureaucrats and or govt attorney's can either pass a tax or fine any carbon producing editey

He's an English-Lit major.