The administration did not cut production. Covid did. The oil industry is dragging their feet.
This is the policy the current admin enacted that cut our production:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/biden-makes-sweeping-changes-o...
Please point to something that supports your theory that "covid did it" and oil companies are "dragging their feet".
- edit, at my post limit -
@vel0city: Banning new leases two years ago hurt our production output. Banning new subscribers and preventing renewals would hurt your revenue, why would you think it wouldn't apply here?
It seems you're trying to rationalize away the obvious change in policy and its effects because of some reason unknown to me.
Would you support retracting this policy decision since in your mind it has little effect and in my mind it's the leading cause of our loss of net export status?
@deeg: the article says offshore leases may not show declines for 10 years as the leases are longer, but onshore could "conceivably show up faster".
Your point seems to be this policy hasn't hit us fully yet? Are you for it? How confident are you that it didn't cause the loss of our net export status?
[1] https://energynow.com/2022/02/not-even-at-200-a-barrel-shale...
Second, that has nothing to do with our production capacity, doesn't prove that "covid" caused us to drop our net export status, or that the industry is unwilling to fill production.
It's one misconstrued quote from an exec. He was talking about not collapsing the price when we overproduced for a brief period during our time of net exporting.
This is the REAL response from the oil & gas industry and it's concerning the federal lease bans: https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/exploration-and-p...
When you're looking for the perspective of the oil & gas industry, API statements are a lot more reliable than an EnergyNow article.
Now that I've addressed your article, would you like to address the administration policy decision I linked above?
-- edit, at my post limit --
In short, this is the effect of the federal leasing ban:
https://www.api.org/-/media/Files/Policy/Exploration/2020/fe...
-- edit2 --
@vel0city: the "if" was contingent on the federal ban on new leases, which happened... two years ago.
We are seeing these predictions play out. Tech support using the covid excuse is annoying, but when government leaders use it to hide behind poor policies, it's dangerous.
That is what you requested and that is what I provided. There are other articles if you would like to research them yourself.
The full quote is "“Whether it’s $150 oil, $200 oil, or $100 oil, we’re not going to change our growth plans,’’ Pioneer Chief Executive Officer Scott Sheffield said during a Bloomberg Television interview. “If the president wants us to grow, I just don’t think the industry can grow anyway.’’"
>Now that I've addressed your article, would you like to address the above administration policy decision I linked?
"Federal land accounts for about 24 percent of oil and gas production in the United States, mainly in the offshore Gulf of Mexico. But since companies with existing leases will not be affected, the near-term impact on exploration and production as well as royalties to states will be limited. With more than 26 million onshore acres and 12 million offshore acres already under lease, there is a deep inventory of exploration opportunities. "
You're pointing to theoretical projections and acting as if that's the ground truth today. These aren't the results of a current policy but are the theoretical projections of a theoretical policy decision that hasn't been enacted yet.
> A more permanent leasing ban would have a significant impact, although visible offshore production declines may not materialize for up to 10 years, given the typical timeframe for planning, exploration, appraisal, and development.
My source pointing that the current admin's actions haven't significantly changed things today is your own article.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/biden-makes-sweeping-changes-o...