Paasha Mahdavi
@paashamahdavi.com
UCSB prof, researching climate politics and the oil industry. EGAPE Lab Director and co-founder of https://www.2035initiative.com/. Working to transition from the fossil fuel era. Posts expire after 30 days.
No no those are surely just decorative Flame LEDs. Very festive folks in the Bakken I hear
November 2, 2025 at 2:51 AM
No no those are surely just decorative Flame LEDs. Very festive folks in the Bakken I hear
It really is! And it's important context that our lawmakers aren't quite grasping -- especially in how future demand can be met with existing refinery capacity and imports (even after closures + outages). See, e.g., this graph from a report I did for CA legislators:
October 3, 2025 at 10:23 PM
It really is! And it's important context that our lawmakers aren't quite grasping -- especially in how future demand can be met with existing refinery capacity and imports (even after closures + outages). See, e.g., this graph from a report I did for CA legislators:
That’s a good comparison but my big issue with SB 237 on timing though is the 10-year sunset
September 14, 2025 at 1:45 AM
That’s a good comparison but my big issue with SB 237 on timing though is the 10-year sunset
Yes, though Gunda’s letter stressed the other levers (imports and efficiency/transition), rather than prioritizing opening up leasing in Kern. His testimony yesterday backtracked on the latter, perhaps feeling the pressure.
September 14, 2025 at 1:42 AM
Yes, though Gunda’s letter stressed the other levers (imports and efficiency/transition), rather than prioritizing opening up leasing in Kern. His testimony yesterday backtracked on the latter, perhaps feeling the pressure.
I hate to disagree with you @michaelwara.bsky.social but this was a raw deal. Unnecessary given projected refinery capacity (see below, based on CEC data), not to mention the minimal relationship between in-state production and gas prices.
Let’s call this bill what it is: a deal with the devil
Let’s call this bill what it is: a deal with the devil
September 13, 2025 at 11:36 PM
I hate to disagree with you @michaelwara.bsky.social but this was a raw deal. Unnecessary given projected refinery capacity (see below, based on CEC data), not to mention the minimal relationship between in-state production and gas prices.
Let’s call this bill what it is: a deal with the devil
Let’s call this bill what it is: a deal with the devil
For a new well, that would require a much higher price given the higher drilling costs involved now. I’m not so sure about $80/barrel though, that really depends on the field and asset. Here’s a good analysis from the Dallas Fed: www.dallasfed.org/research/ene...
Energy Indicators, May 2025
Energy executives surveyed by the Dallas Fed reported an increase in the price of oil needed to justify drilling, as economic uncertainty and planned production increases from OPEC+ nations pushed oil...
www.dallasfed.org
September 12, 2025 at 12:40 AM
For a new well, that would require a much higher price given the higher drilling costs involved now. I’m not so sure about $80/barrel though, that really depends on the field and asset. Here’s a good analysis from the Dallas Fed: www.dallasfed.org/research/ene...
Breakeven depends on lots of financial factors, so it’s very company-specific. Sable for example is roughly $44/barrel, so it’d need prices above that.
But to outcompete most foreign imports you’d have to be well below $30/barrel in lifting costs.
But to outcompete most foreign imports you’d have to be well below $30/barrel in lifting costs.
September 11, 2025 at 11:57 PM
Breakeven depends on lots of financial factors, so it’s very company-specific. Sable for example is roughly $44/barrel, so it’d need prices above that.
But to outcompete most foreign imports you’d have to be well below $30/barrel in lifting costs.
But to outcompete most foreign imports you’d have to be well below $30/barrel in lifting costs.