This doesn’t sound good!

[Straight Arrow]

3. Understand what a discussion is. It is sharing of perspectives, information, and stories that help. A discussion is not an effort to make sure everyone agrees with you.

Yes. However, it is not appropriate for me to opine about NE Montana since I have little to no experience and/or knowledge of that area. (agreement or not) Likely someone from up there might be miffed at my conjecturing in a state of unknowing. Conversely, I was just sayin' ...

But thanks for chiming in as the "appropriate" police.

 

[Eric Albus]

Experience and on-the-ground information regarding NE Montana is often shared by you on this forum. Thank-you for that.
However, opining about SW Montana is way out of your wheelhouse. Please just read and learn without having to jump.

I didn’t “jump”….

 

[Eric Albus]

Here’s the deal where people like myself come from on oil/gas exploration. I don’t have a job/lifestyle where burning diesel is an option. For most people in the U.S. travel(other than to and from work) is optional. You don’t “have” to go hunting/fishing/vacationing. discretionary spending on fuel is up to the individual.
4 short years ago I could’ve bought a tanker(10k gallons) of gas @ .77 a gallon(yes, seventy-seven cents). I didn’t cause we did not have enough storage. We filled up with diesel. If memory serves correct, was a little over $1.25 for farm fuel. Fuel was not a major expense in our operation, unlike today. We will burn in an average year 20-30,000 gallons of diesel planting/spraying/harvesting.
Then there is the slight problem of hauling wheat all winter (when we raise a crop) burning high dollar clear fuel in semi’s. This year we’ll put on 40-50,000 miles hauling our own hay/grain/cattle. 4 MPG loaded, 5.5 empty, with 5 dollar diesel. I figure our hard cost in trucking right now will run $3.45-3.48 per mile. This isn’t taking into account repairs or oil changes. If I was hiring the trucking done it’d cost close to $7 a mile. Does anybody have any questions as to why the farmer and rancher want to see more drilling and cheap fuel? Electric cars/tractors ain’t an option.

 

[Big Fin]

As if any of this really matters to what we pay for gas and diesel. Raw material supply in the US is not the constraining factor that is driving prices in the US. It is refinery capacity that is 5-10% lower today than it was in 2019, depending upon the refined product being measured.

What @Eric Albus has written is almost a mirror of my brother's logging business. The input costs for fuel make it impossible for him to turn a profit. Mostly, he operates at break-even or a loss to keep his employees in work. It sucks.

What sucks more is that the media sources and political parties want to make it an issue of domestic crude oil supply. The constraint in the supply-demand equation is not domestic crude supply, at least not at this time. It is other factors.

- The US has not replaced refinery capacity for many reasons. Mostly, refineries are built based on 50 year useful lives and the capital markets don't see the demand for gas, diesel, and jet fuel to be at the current levels for the next 50 years. They may be wrong in their assessment, but raising the billions to build another refinery and taking the permitting risk is hardly a safe bet if you are a CEO or on the Board of Directors. This is the largest hit/constraint to US market prices of refined products.

- Putin and his stupid invasion of Ukraine has shortened worldwide crude supply. And that war has resulted in a shift of some refined products that normally would be available to US markets at lower prices to be delivered to overseas markets that will pay more as a result of Putin's fiasco.

- The Saudis (and OPEC) who claim to be our friends when they need us have used the Putin invasion as a mechanism of leverage to maximize their profits and drive up market prices for crude, though the US is a huge producer and is somewhat insulated from that Saudi stunt.

We are lucky China's economy is in the shitter. If they were booming and adding even more demand to the limited refinery capacity, global and domestic prices would be way higher.

Rather than focus on the true issues that are causing the pain, we have politicians, parties, and their hyper-flagrant supporters making it an issue of domestic crude production. None of those folks give a shit about the real problem. Until the Administration is willing to take some steps that might piss off some of their regulars, and Congress gets their head out of their collective ass that argues about fringe social issues, the logger, rancher, farmer, the truck driver, and the average American is going to get bent over the barrel.

To the groups who hold levers that could make some improvements, this is just another field on which to play their political games, and it takes two for the game to be played.

Carry on.......

P.S. - If you want good information about refinery capacity and its influence on market prices of refined petro products, this is a good one. Way more useful than an article by CNN, FOX, or some of the other junk sources that get tagged, linked, and quoted. Link here - https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_dcu_nus_a.htm

 

[Eric Albus]

Agreed, refinery capacity is what’s killing us. The empowerment of the EPA has made new refineries near impossible to build.

 

[noharleyyet]

Thanks Randy...

 

[SAJ-99]

Agreed, refinery capacity is what’s killing us. The empowerment of the EPA has made new refineries near impossible to build.

Apparently the EPA doesn't operate in Texas? It's not the EPA stopping most new refineries. It is NIMBY. Capacity is a factor of more being taken offline than being built. We lost almost 750k BPD capacity in 2020. The large gap in building anything new from 1998 to 2015 is being felt today.

 

[SixPoint]

Perhaps our AG shouldn't be so surprised that he wasn't notified about this project when he has been publicly recorded as saying he opposes conservation easements because the transplants moving to MT would like to buy some acreage and not a lot in town. Essentially he's saying we need these private lands to develop into subdivisions for more people to move to MT. We will never stop folks from moving here but we can certainly help to protect the remaining landscapes that are so critical. The hypocrisy of the anti easement folks is getting really old. It's their land to do with what they please. He needs to mind his own damn business. These groups, who are about as far from an "eco-group" as you can get, have been meeting with stakeholders on the ground for months. There is tremendous support to see our remaining working ranches protected and hopefully kept with the same hard working families before they are gobbled up. Our AG is about as anti Montana values as they come and will damn sure not be getting my vote.

 

[Point Creep]

Memes | Culture | Comedy on Instagram: "WHO MADE THIS 🤣🤣🤣"

3,792 likes, 39 comments - mouth on August 6, 2023: "WHO MADE THIS 🤣🤣🤣"

www.instagram.com

 

[Nameless Range]

In the last week or two I have heard a lot of weird claims about this. Citizens for Balanced Use and the Montana Trappers Association put out a release where, when they refer to these CEs as voluntary, the put the word voluntary in quotes. I asked em why and have yet to receive an answer. They say it's a "taking", but when asked how something 100% voluntary is a taking they can't seem to come up with an answer. They say it will "drastically transform the landscape", when asked about how it seems it would actually do the opposite, they don't have an answer. The amount of BS that gets thrown out into the ether, never to be justified, is the tactic du jour. I think unserious claims, and people, being taken seriously, is one of the great risky behaviors of our time.

In a landscape measured in the millions of acres, this, on its best day, would put CEs on 250,000 of those - a fraction. And let's be real, most landowners will want nothing to do with it and that is their perfectly fine prerogative. I'm in favor of it though. The march of the subdivision is the greatest threat to Montana's landscape and wildlife in existence.

Proposed Missouri Headwaters Conservation Area | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

UPDATE: Based on the comments received during the official scoping period and subsequent conversations with community leaders and landowners, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has decided to no longer pursue the establishment of the proposed Missouri Headwaters Conservation Area.

www.fws.gov

 

[Deleted member 16864]

Oh my God. We're going to have to use gold bullets on national wildlife refuges?!?!

Silver for da woofs.