this post was submitted on 03 May 2026
193 points (98.5% liked)

News

37538 readers
1248 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Chevron’s CEO has warned that he isn’t sure how high gas prices could get as Donald Trump continues to try to bring an end to the two-month-long Iran war. Mike Wirth was interviewed on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday and said that the war had exposed the relative futility of some measures taken to avert price shocks for consumers while warning that gas prices were not done rising, at least for now. Gas prices are nationally averaged at $4.46 for a gallon of low-grade fuel. Wirth said it was “very hard to say” that gas prices had peaked, as some administration officials have hurriedly insisted over the past month. Now, negotiations over a ceasefire deal have collapsed and Iran’s grip over the Strait of Hormuz has so far proved impossible for the U.S. to shake loose.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Here’s the thing. They don’t want it this high. People start looking at alternatives. Buying electric cars. That sorta thing. They want oil between like $60-90 a barrel. Not $120. He’s not happy. At least not long term.

[–] ChokingHazard@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Nah man that’s multiple quarters in the future and every drop the US can produce and sell will get out there meaning maximum profits. For long term you’re right. Which longterm it’s probably the right direction. It should have stayed $4-$5 from back when Bush/Obama was in office. Alternatives would already be here.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Actually, US oil is pretty much junk from a gasoline perspective. You can squeeze gas out of it, but you can't really get DIESEL, which is the big driver of fuel costs thanks to our entire modern delivery system, and in turn most of our manufacturing capability, relying entirely on it. You used to be able to do it by sending it through alkylation, but the last plant that handled that in the US blew up a couple years ago and it was never fixed, because why would anything need to be fixed ever.

[–] Freeposity@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Right. The oil we produce is not suitable for the refineries we have. Most people don't understand this at all.

One thing I find funny is when "conservatives" say that we should not import or export oil, but only use our own. They don't realize that this is a very anti-capitalistic idea. It also flies in the face of their laissez faire capitalistic notions.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Yeah that’s the flip side for sure. High gas prices would have caused some much needed change.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago (5 children)

We had oil crises in the 80s and gas over $4 in 2008. I don't see this having any significant long-term impact. Existing efforts will continue, but most people will just go right back to their old habits.

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

The major long lasting effects was the introduction and adoption of Japanese autos because of their better gas mileage.

For close to 2 decades fuel economy was an important selling point. At the time there was no viable alternative to gasoline engines. Today there is so whole markets are likely to change-over to majority electric.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 week ago

I'm pretty sure that electric vehicles didn't really exist in a remotely viable form in 2008, because my Dad was a relatively early adopter with the Nissan Lead, and I remember it took an inordinate amount of effort to plan charging stops for a long distance journey.

A lot of people will just go back to their old habits, but for many others, this could be the thing that kicks them out of their inertial rut.

The embargo in the 70s pushed towards smaller cars, energy conservation but mainly towards exploring in areas outside of the middle east.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I know. I was there. How many land yachts do you see now? Because there were lots before that.

When oil gets this high it’s disruptive. People start buying less because everything is more expensive. Going to get it. All the products oil is used in ..plastics, synthetic fabrics, cosmetics,etc. Shipping it. Everything. Whether we like it not this entire country’s economy is based on the price of oil.

So yes we will recover eventually. But it will be different.

[–] Freeposity@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The difference is that now there are viable alternatives. Countries around the world are stepping up their renewables and embracing EVs. Trump's stupid war could very well end up being the catalyst for the rest of the world ditching oil.

In many countries EV sales are higher than ICE sales.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZRTntfabOA

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

Not the US though.

In the US the Trump Administration is just doubling on making sure America's Future is the early XX century (in more ways than one, even).