Former President Donald Trump had bragged about his success in opening the region to oil production after decades of political fighting over the resources locked under the tundra there.

  • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    75
    ·
    1 year ago

    Heck yeah it is. I moved a bunch of money into oil when it bottomed out at the start of covid and its more than trippled. The only thing that would have been a better investment was big pharma. That being said, I’d rather that profit stay with US companies and investors than go to Russians, Iranians, and Saudis.

    • Saneless
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’d rather the “profits” stay in the pockets of every American citizen

      See, that’s where we’re different. You pretend to be upset about Americans paying more at the pump, but are actually selfish and only care about a handful of Americans getting richer

        • DanglingFury@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you invest in oil, then you should want higher gas prices. If you want lower gas prices, then i recommend not investing in oil. If you want energy independance, then you should be championing green energy initiatives and electric cars as much as drilling new claims, even if you yourself dont plan on getting an ev it reduces national dependance.

          Oil companies got crushed under trump with the insanely low gas prices of 2016 2017 (i think it was saudi selling at a loss to take market share that time), then again under covids reduced demand and more opec suppliers flooding the market and stealing market share (also under trump). Then they cut production to match demand and cut costs. You can’t just turn a well off and back on, so when demand rose gobally post covid and foreign suppliers cut back production at the same time to reap the profits, the US lagged in ramping up production, and their record profits (under biden) didnt incen tivise them ramping it up. Those 5$ gas prices made the stock go up.

          The president does influence gas prices, but not much. Here’s a decent video on gas prices.

          https://youtu.be/QnBqAzJXVGo?si=rdfQFVneqaOtf9u9

          • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Gas prices don’t bother me personally as long as government isn’t unnecessarily hamstringing the domestic industry. The people who should be most upset about $5 gas are the ones financially struggling to buy it.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Translation: I don’t give a fuck as long as the rich people who own the industry get richer. People with less money than me should join me in protecting those poor billionaires and hectomillionaires from only becoming 45% richer every year or two.

              Here in reality, the US is the number one oil producer in the world and exports much more than it uses. Prices are not affected by production anywhere near as much as by commodities trading, cartel price fixing and good old fashioned profiteering.

        • Saneless
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Stupid deflection and “most” is wildly inaccurate, unless you’re talking about boomers, who by your standards, should be thanking Biden then

          • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fine, not “most” then. Practically all mature adults who are a net benefit to society have 401k’s.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              Define “net benefit to society.” Does that include the entire service industry, much of which does not offer 401(k) plans? I’d like to see what you would do without all the people who pamper you.

              • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                net tax payer, depending on where you live that’s something like 60-80k per year. and 401k is just the most common of many ways to save for retirement. The biggest loss would be the house cleaners for sure.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You think house cleaners would be the biggest loss? How about waiters? How about cooks? How about fucking janitors?

                  None of them are a net benefit to society? Well then why even have those jobs? They’re a net loss to society.

            • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s the Republican moral compass. Unless you’re giving corporations extra spending cash, you’re a detriment to society.

              • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                ooh boy, you need to hear this. Social security will NOT provide you enough to live in retirement. You really should learn about and invest in a 401k or some sort of retirement account.

      • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep, that’s because the major oil buying nations realized they couldn’t survive without buying some Russian oil, and signed an agreement to only buy it for I think it was exactly 25% under current market value. So if this war ever ends I’m sure Russian oil will rebound. If countries had stuck to their promise to never buy Russian oil it would be way lower than that.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          So if this war ever ends I’m sure Russian oil will rebound

          This is a bold claim to actually bet money on. Too risky for my blood but do you. If you believe it, this is definitely the dip to buy in at.

          • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh i’m not in Russian oil, I’m in US companies. I think BP has done just as well though. Investing in dictator run countries is certainly too risky for me too.

    • ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you’re trying to make money invested in US oil and hoping to keep money in the US, you need the price to be > $3/gal. During the pandemic Russia killed us and our fracking oil fields with the cheap gas. Many US fields had to close, many permanently because damage is done to the fracked wells when operations stop. Below $3/gal it’s cheaper to import and we’re sending our money to the Saudis and elsewhere.

      High gas prices makes the US oil fields competitive. Low prices sends US money over seas.

      • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right, and gas prices are high now, so we should be expanding domestic production right now. I don’t mind $1 gas from importer oil either, but when in rome…