Posted on 05/28/2016 8:50:29 PM PDT by Innovative
In his pledge to aggressively expand American oil and gas production, and his framing of that push as a salvation for the nation’s economic and fiscal health, Donald J. Trump is following in the footsteps of decades of Republican politicians.
But in a market where domestic oil production is already higher than it has been in 40 years, and natural gas production is at a historic high, those proposals have run up against a major problem: the global economy.
As the presumptive Republican nominee spoke in Bismarck, N.D., this week, in the booming Bakken oil fields not far away, oil and gas workers were actually being laid off, victims of their own success and the global energy glut they have helped produce. Plunging oil and gas prices have pointed to a fundamental flaw in Mr. Trump’s argument: At a certain point, production of oil and gas will push prices too low to justify even more production.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Even if energy prices are lower, it still makes sense to develop our energy at home, rather than give that money to other countries. The economy is supported by energy.
Obama, Hillary and the Dems want to kill our economy, using the bogus excuse of global warming, while other countries like China happily are developing their industries.
“I think the premise of the article is wrong.”
Seeing as it is from the NYT it has a 95% chance of being wrong. I agree with your premise. Every now and then they do print something that is right, but that is a rarity.
When gas prices go astronomically high, and people demand our oil independence, the Dems insist that achieving that independence would take ten years. They’ve been saying that for 40 years now.
The New York Times strikes again!!
If President Trump can make us energy independent, there should not be any down side.
And while were at it, lets build a lot more electrical generation plants and upgrade our electrical power infrastructure. Lets get back to affordable electrical rates again.
Thirty-five years ago I was mining coal and there was oil drilling going on. I stopped and asked why they were capping off the wells. The boss told me that the oil and gas would stay in the ground till the price justified building a pipeline. Far as I know it still hasn’t been built. You can drill anywhere in Eastern Ky. and hit methane, nat gas, or oil or all three. I wouldn’t worry about running out too soon, it is the same in W. Virginia, southwest Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
What was that argument against new oil production that demRATs use to make about it taking 9 to 11 years to bring new sites on line? This could be the latest version of that fable.
These newspaper pukes don't understand business strategic planning.
The paper is myopic and short sighted.
Exactly. The goal is to become energy independent and not buy energy producing fuel from another country. In fact, while we develop other forms of energy production, sell fossil fuel to other countries to start paying down our debt.
95%? Surely you jest!
Let’s try 100%.
Much more likely on target!
CA....
Nah, NYT is just doing what Carlos Slims wants and going after Trump all day every day.
Here’s how it works, NY Times.. We remove much of the NIMBY regulations that are forbidding energy exploration and exploitation, and the MARKET determines how much of it is developed.
See how that works? The MARKET decides, not some suited bureaucrat who has nothing to do with the market.
So yes, with the present global economy, companies might decide that right now isn’t a good time to go start a new oil rig.
Under the present system, the only ones making decisions are sitting in offices in Washington DC, and their sole concern is how many votes they can buy their candidate.
I know you won’t see anything wrong with that system. That’s part of the problem.
Energy independence does not have to mean that we produce all the energy we consume, but that we have the capacity to do that if supply and demand made it necessary. Obviously that’s not the case at present, but it could become necessary in a matter of a year or less.
In other news, the New York Times asks the penetrating question, why should America increase its economic output when Americans don’t earn enough income to buy any of it?
Yes, that is the goal. The pint of the article is that if America produces so much oil i doesn’t need to import any, then the glut on the world market will make oil $10 a barrel. Or less.
In a free market oil refineries would not buy American oil for more than it could buy foreign oil. This means that American oil drillers must be able to make a profit at $10 a barrel. Or less. Those workers cannot make good wages if oil is at $10 a barrel.
The only way the world oil price doesn’t go to $10 a barrel is if imports are banned unless American oil goes above $50 a barrel or something. This would amount to federal price supports for the American oil industry at the cost of the consumer.
I personally think that is fine. I can live with $3 gas if it means complete oil independence, even if the rest of the world has cheaper gas and enjoys the glut.
Apparently everyone at the NYT is a lefty but are they also brain dead?
Some 75 days ago crude touched $25 bbl; this week it touched $50 bbl. What price collapse are these clowns talking about?
Apparently everyone at the NYT is a lefty but are they also brain dead?
Some 75 days ago crude touched $25 bbl; this week it touched $50 bbl. What price collapse are these clowns talking about?
The New York Times and “Economic Reality” have never met.
“Coral, you ignorant slut.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.