• dan1101@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    11 hours ago

    The only mystery in all this is how Trump expects to continue profiting from it. Insider trading? Relying that higher pump prices also mean higher profits for oil companies?

    • tal@lemmy.todayOPEnglish
      15·
      18 hours ago

      For oil, I’d guess so. With COVID-19, there was a substantial reduction.

      Though a wrinkle is that it’s also disrupting LNG shipments. Coal power generation is a substitute good for natural gas power generation. One way that countries in Europe offset reduced natural gas availability when Russia cut supply was to increase (more-carbon-intensive) coal use, and I assume that the same thing will happen again now, so that might cause emissions from electrical power generation to rise, even if supply of a fossil fuel falls.

      I expect that as we see what happens on the policy front and with consumer choice in response, that there will be people going off and modeling the impact.

  • tal@lemmy.todayOPEnglish
    20·
    19 hours ago

    The title is a bit clickbaity — the actual article text is “damaged or destroyed” — but it does give an idea for how much output could be immediately resumed if all hostilities were stopped immediately.

    • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      11·
      18 hours ago

      Damaged is as good as destroyed for the short term market. Much of this oil field equipment is pretty specialized and considering the widespread damage, both materials and skilled labor for repairs will be in short supply. Even if hostilities ended tomorrow, it will probably take 9-12 months to restore output from all damaged facilities, and outright destroyed ones may never ever come back online.

    • gnutrino@programming.devEnglish
      6·
      16 hours ago

      It also specifies “refining capacity” which is really not the same thing as “energy infrastructure” in a region that exports so much crude…