Not knowing of a President Idiot, I cannot answer the question.
However, price controls would have the opposite effect of that
intended, they would make gasoline scarce by removing the incentive to
produce more oil.
In the early 80s, I was a drill stem tester on oil and gas rigs. That
meant I actually went out and made the flow and pressure measurements
that would determine if a oil or gas well would be completed or plugged
and abandonded. The price controls on gas meant that most wells I
tested had to be plugged because there was no way to make them
economical. Today, most oil in the USA comes from "stripper" wells
producing less than 10 barrels/day. Thousands of such stripper wells
are pluggedand abandonded each year not because the oil ran out but
because it cannot be economically produced. Price controls will force
the abandoning of even more. Once abandonded, it is as expensive to
re-open them as it is to drill new wells so the they would not be
re-drilled because the operator would never recover his cost. Price
controls are thus a really bad idea that will force us to use even more
foreign oil. Even small increases in the price of oil can make it
feasible to keep a stripper well running so I welcome increases in the
price of oil by reasonable amounts.
I estimate that a price of $3.50/gal would be enough (for gas) to
re-plumb some older stripper wells to be economical. The greatest cost
of such wells is that of the energy to keep them running. Most of them
produce more water than oil and any method that reduces the ratio of
water to oil pumped greatly increases the probability of keeping these
wells running.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Not knowing of a President Idiot, I cannot answer the question.
However, price controls would have the opposite effect of that
intended, they would make gasoline scarce by removing the incentive to
produce more oil.

Nice theory, but the recent price hikes are in no way connected with
"incentives to produce more". You know that.

wrote:

Not knowing of a President Idiot, I cannot answer the question.
However, price controls would have the opposite effect of that
intended, they would make gasoline scarce by removing the incentive to
produce more oil.
In the early 80s, I was a drill stem tester on oil and gas rigs. That
meant I actually went out and made the flow and pressure measurements
that would determine if a oil or gas well would be completed or plugged
and abandonded. The price controls on gas meant that most wells I
tested had to be plugged because there was no way to make them
economical.

Don't you mean "maximally profitable?"
-tk

Today, most oil in the USA comes from "stripper" wells
producing less than 10 barrels/day. Thousands of such stripper wells
are pluggedand abandonded each year not because the oil ran out but
because it cannot be economically produced.

Until they get a rest, and a jolt of steam. The oil is free at that
point, or cost only what the pump consumes in energy. The oil is too
valuable to burn is where it's really at.

Price controls will force
the abandoning of even more. Once abandonded, it is as expensive to
re-open them as it is to drill new wells so the they would not be
re-drilled because the operator would never recover his cost. Price
controls are thus a really bad idea that will force us to use even more
foreign oil. Even small increases in the price of oil can make it
feasible to keep a stripper well running so I welcome increases in the
price of oil by reasonable amounts.
I estimate that a price of $3.50/gal would be enough (for gas) to
re-plumb some older stripper wells to be economical. The greatest cost
of such wells is that of the energy to keep them running. Most of them
produce more water than oil and any method that reduces the ratio of
water to oil pumped greatly increases the probability of keeping these
wells running.

Oh, yeah, the water is without value, right?

It's a dollar a litre in the supermarket. That's 200 bucks a barrel,
retail.

Terry K