If oil is going to be severely restricted and hard to get wouldn’t that force the price up and be good for investors? Nothing producers like better than a little shortage. Contrived or real. Unless we’re talking about oil being so unavailable we’ll be burning socks and used bandaids next Christmas.
Just trying to sort out this capitalismo kobble-dee-kook. (Guess which word they didn’t let me use?)
I thought high gas prices are bad, do you mean now they are good?
That’s sort of the nature of the question. There is a profit maximizing price for this and every other thing. And for oil of course it’s not $00.00 Price goes up?=Good. Price goes down?=Good It actually works both ways but has to stay within a range.
What I’m more concerned with is just how much oil are we going to be not having? I can’t see any significant prolonged shortage. More PR than anything else. I could be wrong but again, that’s why I posted. I read people discussing in William F Buckley-ish tones but it sounds more like a script meeting for a TV movie
I do not see a shortage we have enough oil if we produce. What I do not like seeing is us bullying a friend to the North. It isn’t necessary and just is bad policy.
On balance, the US is a net exporter of some 1.6Mbpd. So, yes, TIG could cut off imports from Canada entirely, and USian production entirely fill the void. The only issue is how much US refining capacity can be quickly adjusted to the lighter feedstock. I posted a link to an article about that issue last week, discussing how several US refiners are already considering shifting, due to the tariffs being imposed on imported heavy. Of course, if the US did need to buy some heavy, after embargoing Canadian, the Saudis would probably oblige, as TIG and MBS are such kissy face buddies.
Steve
During the Bush #43 regime, which took Iraqi production off-line, I put my entire IRA in oil every January-February, then sold around Memorial Day. I couldn’t do anything about the manipulation of oil and gas prices, so I made more than enough off that trade to compensate for paying $4/gallon, in my 40mpg Civic, several times over.
Steve
As I have noted before, to Wendy’s discomfort, that is how many “JCs” operate, in my experience: bully, verbally abuse, and threaten. There was a conversation with Fiona Hill posted this evening, where she notes how TIG likes to beat up on people, if he thinks he can get away with it, just like a “JC” beating up on a Prole in the office. As I said elsewhere, I could get behind some of the stated policy objectives of this administration, but the way they are doing it is toxic.
Steve
So exactly right, but is it a mafia movie or an 3 stooges movie starring prez, vice prez, and elon prez.….?
How about this one from 1982? Unfortunately, seems no-one uploaded the last bit, with Rock Hudson agonizing over which decision to make.
Steve
Oh lord, how utterly perfect. Happily I had walked out of the theater after 20 minutes back in 1982 (hey, I was being a Hollywood boy), but watched long enough to see Rock Hudson being heroically awful in his role….
I saw it on TV, broadcast on NBC. Quick outline: US has responded to Soviet adventures by cutting off grain shipments. The USSR is staring at famine. Soviet troops attack the Alaska oil pipeline to put the squeeze on the US, to lift the grain embargo. Things get out of hand as each side escalates.
In the present context, Hudson would be the Canadian PM, watching his economy crumble as the US blocks all exports to the US, and enforces naval blockade of both Canadian coasts, so they can’t export or import from anywhere else. If the PM holds fast, his citizens suffer, a lot. Or, he surrenders to the US.
Steve
After he takes the Canal. First things first in the master plan.
Yup. Profit first. Take control of the canal, then require every country’s head of state genuflect, or see their ships banned from using the canal. The ones that are allowed through are charged a toll equal to the cost of going around the Horn, the “market clearing price” they will be told.
Steve