Fracking has been going on for decades, just that with the shale oil and horizontal drilling, it came to prominence. Pumping CO2 into old wells can also help get another 10% or so of crude out of that "salt dome" formation, from what I've read.
I remember the late '70s 3/4 and 1-ton pickups that did good to get 8mpg running down the road empty. Cars that usually didn't get past 20mpg with OD automatics, on the road, too. Even with all of the fancy electronics and such, most SUVs now get fuel economy of a mid-'70s car on the road, although their ratings are higher. Driving style and cruising speed are contributing factors. Most cars will get past 27mpg on the road, using the cruise control, I believe.
The last two Charger R/Ts I rented from National, averaged 29+mpg on an Interstate road trip to east Texas. Cylinder deactivation worked well and seamlessly!
My observation is that as these new engine technologies are in production longer, they get better and knowledge of them becomes more wide-spread at the same time. Internet forums help a good bit, too, for exchanging information.
Vehicle prices have gotten too high, as have the ride height of pickup trucks! When GMC comes out with a multi-step tailgate, that's ONE signal the ride height is too high! I priced a Chevy work truck the other day, online. With some options and a 5.3L V-8, it was right at $35K. Yet the sales of regular 4-drs is more like $45K? And with a 4-dr top-of-the-line diesel HD2500, it gets to $60K+ really quick! Add on the front bumper replacements, took boxes, step bars, etc., and it gets terribly close to $100K! Payments more than a house payment a few decades ago! AND it hasn't ended yet!
There was an article about how that taking all of the CAFE regulations "off" could cost the average consumer about $3K+/year in added fuel costs from lower fuel economy.
Locally, E85 is about 40 cents/gallon less than E10. E0 is 30cents/gallon more than E10. E15 is 7 cents/gallon less than E10. E10 means about 6% less fuel economy, with greater amounts of "E" in gasoline getting progressively worse fuel economy, although the fuel gets less expensive. I don't believe there's a good trade-off in this mix.
There's still oil underground that hasn't been discovered yet. The Permian Basin is turning out to be like a lasagna pan of oil layers.
ONE key thing is that no matter how many regulations might be weakened/removed, the producers will NOT flood the market with crude oil if it will make the barrel price decrease so much they lose money!
No new refineries? Correct, it's more cost efficient to expand what's already there, for many reasons. Refinery shut-downs for yearly maintenance and seasonal change-overs? It's been that way for a very long time. It's to the refinery's advantage to make it as short is possible as "no product out the pipes, NO $$$$$ for the refinery.
Refinery capacity? That's easily trackable if you know where to look. I believe it usually runs about 88-92% most of the time. Obviously, some efficiencies might be lost if more production capacity was used, or possible atmospheric emissions exceedances?
It's been interesting when a big oil company looks to shutdown an old refinery and local jobs will be lost. Usually, some smaller gasoline seller will purchase it, re-do it, and make it a profitable venture once again, saving local jobs at the same time.
I suspect that oil company subsidies come in the form of tax breaks. There's an ad running on local radio about 100% tax write-off for oil well drilling investments, if you pay over $50K(?) in federal income taxes each year. Of course, that's presuming no "dry holes".
As other local/regional operatives have determined, which probably will NOT be affected by any possible reduction in regulations or enforcement of same, they aren't going to change their existing operations as in a few years, they might have to "make up for lost ground". Many are carrying on with their Paris Climate Accord orientations, too, regardless of what a US President might desire. They want to be "the good guys" when it all settles out in the future.
Many CAFE non-advocates claim it should have been consumer-mandated rather than government-mandated. BUT we all know how consumers go. Until their backs are against the wall, they usually won't do what's good for themselves. Until it's too late. By then, the adaptation costs will have soared a good bit. Better to have the government incrementally mandate these things to help decrease costs and such, in a mutually-beneficial manner.
Middle 1950s consumers would pay for more chrome and other things that were visible, but not improved Triple-Turbine Flight Pitch DynaFlow automatic transmission in Buicks (which GM/Buick spent millions to develop. Rather have two-tone paint, whitewalls, and CHROME instead. Getting them to spend several hundred dollars for electronic/mechanical fuel injection for better fuel economy and performance, compared to a 4bbl carb, even with a few more mpg in the mix, would have sold simimlarly "slow". Rely upon consumers to make a choice that doesn't really benefit them? Rather than the future environment for their grand-kids? Doesn't usually happen for very long, historically. (Simple/cheapest way to do things) = BEST, typically.
People keep buying "lifted" pickup trucks, with "submarine-spec" metal in the bed, rather than a pickup that has 16" wheels and a better step-in height for shorter people. The "Hot Wheels" generation wants their larger-diameter wheels and the "Monster Truck" generation want their "lifted" pickups. Their "dream trucks" from their younger years? But when the base trucks get too tall for me, I'm not a buyer. Yet I have to get in one of those every day at work, no matter what! Step bars can get in the way, too!
CBODY67
Or dumber, haven't figured it out yet.
