Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

If step 1 is completely fuck our independent energy and cripple the average American, then what is step 2 to enable step 3 where everyone drives EVs, there’s green mass transit available for everyone, power grids support these without major issue, etc.

All for advancing energy tech and making it better, but these people are out of their fucking minds on the how part. I don’t care what party you affiliate with, the current approach should boil your blood. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 7:57 PM, Majestik Møøse said:

This is a sweeping generalization: 50s Baby Boomers > 60s protestors > 70s decadents > 80s yuppies > today’s old liberals.  They never lived up to their WW2 vet parents’ accomplishments, so they’ve always felt the need to “do something” even if there’s nothing to do. Combine that with the white guilt from becoming millionaires for doing nothing other than buying a house in the 80s and living off the economic foundations built by the Greatest Generation, and you get a lot of the current Democrat politicians that are striving to accomplish something before they die.

For boomers like Warren, Sanders, Biden, etc, the overturning of Roe v Wade - the single most important social political issue - is absolutely devastating to their self-perceived legacy. From their viewpoint, after a lifetime of comfortable counter-culturalism, seeing the world turning back to that of their war-winning, company-founding, golf-playing dads is absolutely devastating.

That and the glorious socialist revolution that many of them have dreamed since college was ever so close to coming to fruition before Trump and the flyover rubes came along and screwed it up.  Now they realize it might not come to pass before they die and that has many of them in a panic. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2022 at 9:34 PM, Sim said:

WTF.png.9318158e852607b5361c3f46c1818205.png

 

But what about 

 

Brian Deese referring to international relations theory, aka liberal vs realism vs constructivism. Not the same as American politics liberal vs conservative. He’s a career international politics and economics guy.

This is a case of an academic being too smart for the audience rather than a vision of Drag Queen Story Time being mandated globally.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/26/one-world-rival-theories/

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the meat bag in the Oval Office decided to release oil from the U.S. Strategic Reserve to help ease prices here at home (not the intent of the reserves).  5 Million Barrels of that oil was then sent to Europe and CHINA!  I know I know...at least we don't have mean tweets from the orange man.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-us-reserves-head-overseas-gasoline-prices-stay-high-2022-07-05/

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Prozac said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-23/mucho-del-crudo-liberado-por-biden-terminar-an-en-china-india
 

It’s sour crude that US refiners don’t want. But, as always, don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story. #Hunter’s laptop. Standing by for “edgy” meme response in 3….2….

No "edgy" meme just a COME ON MAN...of course U.S. based refineries will shy away from sour crude, but in an EMERGENCY the U.S. could still use it...that was supposed to be the purpose of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to provide for U.S. energy needs in emergencies and to protect against import issues.  In the history of the SPR it has never been used as a tool to garner votes until our dear leader took over. 

You know very well that petroleum prices rely on a series of factors some of them being emotional and perception, Joe's release from the SPR was an attempt to sway the emotional variable and calm his poll numbers.  Even if your argument had merit and we couldn't use this oil in the U.S. during an emergency, why would you make things easier for China?  It makes ZERO sense, it was a political play with a strategic asset and it is failing.  And I guess you don't great irony in the fact that the oil went to the same Chinese company Hunter had a sake in, I can only imagine the coverage if any member of the Trump family had ownership.

The bottomline is we have a completely disconnected energy policy driven by the extremists in the DNC, "Do not drill here in the U.S., that will solve climate change"....instead, release from the SPR, go to Saudi hat in hand to increase production, work with Iran behind the scenes so they can get more oil on the world market and kibitz with Venezuela to do the same.  In short, surrender U.S. oil self-sufficiency because the oil that comes from overseas doesn't count towards climate change.  Come on Man.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

No "edgy" meme just a COME ON MAN...of course U.S. based refineries will shy away from sour crude, but in an EMERGENCY the U.S. could still use it...that was supposed to be the purpose of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to provide for U.S. energy needs in emergencies and to protect against import issues.  In the history of the SPR it has never been used as a tool to garner votes until our dear leader took over. 

You know very well that petroleum prices rely on a series of factors some of them being emotional and perception, Joe's release from the SPR was an attempt to sway the emotional variable and calm his poll numbers.  Even if your argument had merit and we couldn't use this oil in the U.S. during an emergency, why would you make things easier for China?  It makes ZERO sense, it was a political play with a strategic asset and it is failing.  And I guess you don't great irony in the fact that the oil went to the same Chinese company Hunter had a sake in, I can only imagine the coverage if any member of the Trump family had ownership.

The bottomline is we have a completely disconnected energy policy driven by the extremists in the DNC, "Do not drill here in the U.S., that will solve climate change"....instead, release from the SPR, go to Saudi hat in hand to increase production, work with Iran behind the scenes so they can get more oil on the world market and kibitz with Venezuela to do the same.  In short, surrender U.S. oil self-sufficiency because the oil that comes from overseas doesn't count towards climate change.  Come on Man.

You do make some fair points but I have a question: can the government force refineries to take crude they don’t want? Despite constant cries from some that we’ve become a socialist country, afik refineries are still not nationalized in the United States. If our refiners don’t want it, why not sell to those who do? Remember, oil is a global commodity and price pressures in Europe and Asia affect prices here. Was there some sweet deal involving Hunter? I have my doubts but if there is, in fact, a story there, I’m sure it will make it to outlets like the WSJ who will do some due diligence before publishing such bold claims.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, busdriver said:

Ironically, US refiners used to specialize in shit oil. Not so much after shale and Venezuela collapsing.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 

Yeah not true.  If a refinery has a coker plant they can process sour crude.  Sour crude is a fraction of hte price as Sweet crude therefore yields a much higher crack spread.  I know every refinery that purchases sour.  The Keystone PL supplies Cushing OK (Worlds largest storage center) with millions of Sour from the tar sands in Canada.  Keystone is not to be confused with the yet to be built Keystone XL.

 

What is your experience in O&G btw?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ecugringo said:

What is your experience in O&G btw?

Zilch.  I just remember reading some stuff years ago about how Venezuelan oil was so gross that they were essentially reliant on US refiners to buy it, since no one else was willing to re-tool to deal with it.  Not saying the Texas refineries can't deal with it (they obviously refine Canadian tar sands oil), just that my understanding of the business model shifted a bit after the US went from net oil importer to exporter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, busdriver said:

Zilch.  I just remember reading some stuff years ago about how Venezuelan oil was so gross that they were essentially reliant on US refiners to buy it, since no one else was willing to re-tool to deal with it.  Not saying the Texas refineries can't deal with it (they obviously refine Canadian tar sands oil), just that my understanding of the business model shifted a bit after the US went from net oil importer to exporter.

Its still traded as a global commodity since they are part of OPEC but since the whole dictatorship deal ppl try to shy away.  They do have the most known reserves of anyone.

Most refineries can and will process sour.  The East and West coast shy away but keep in mind embridge is a Canadian company that has dozens of lines crossing the MN area to directly feed the mid west.  Line 5 runs under Lake Michigan and a lot of ppl cry about it.

The Crude from the Bakken in ND is mostly shipped by Rail to the coasts because thats safer for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ecugringo said:

Most refineries can and will process sour. 

Question for you then:  Peter Zeihan has made a point about refineries and setup/re-tool costs and timeline when switching from one crude formulation to another.

How much of an impact is it to go from refining light/sweet from a shale field to a heavy/sour crude from where-ever?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, busdriver said:

Question for you then:  Peter Zeihan has made a point about refineries and setup/re-tool costs and timeline when switching from one crude formulation to another.

How much of an impact is it to go from refining light/sweet from a shale field to a heavy/sour crude from where-ever?  

It's a massive expense.  Depends on the volume you want to process a day as well.  If you are set up for sweet and want to undertake sour, its a decision that the C level with very high level long term plans consider.  Its not just a flip of a switch.

Sour you need a coker plant which is a mini refinery inside the refinery itself.  A coker is what makes your diesel, gasoline, Jet.  If you dont have a coker you can make those products from a reformer.  If you have a coker you also are heavily dependent on hydrogen as well.  Refining is similar to distallation.  Making Vodka is 1 thing, being able to make whiskey from corn mash and tequilla from agave is something else altogether.

For perspective on costs:  P66 Bell Chase in New Orleans flooded last year in a hurricane.  They shut it down for repairs.  The startup est was over $1bl.  Its now just a storage facility.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Prozac said:

You do make some fair points but I have a question: can the government force refineries to take crude they don’t want? Despite constant cries from some that we’ve become a socialist country, afik refineries are still not nationalized in the United States. If our refiners don’t want it, why not sell to those who do? Remember, oil is a global commodity and price pressures in Europe and Asia affect prices here.

100% you can't force U.S. refineries to take it but it never should have been released because it is for emergencies, not correcting poll numbers.  Also, 100% oil is a global commodity, but releasing that small amount had no impact on the market, it was simply a gift to China because it was sold at a discount.  Regardless, the bigger point is the moronic policy that says taking oil from other countries somehow helps global warming? 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it really matter? Neither of them are the actual decision makers, so really it’ll just be a symbolic gesture to kick him out. It also won’t hurt the optics helping the GOP - Kamala is just as much a train wreck in public as Biden, and that’s the curveball they never saw coming when they hatched this plan to get a woman in the WH. 

Edited by brabus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brabus said:

Does it really matter? Neither of them are the actual decision makers, so really it’ll just be a symbolic gesture to kick him out. It also won’t hurt the optics helping the GOP - Kamala is just as much a train wreck in public as Biden, and that’s the curveball they never saw coming when they hatched this plan to get a woman in the WH. 

No it doesn’t, people get upset when you point out the obvious that the handlers behind the scenes are really running the country.

As for the train wreck and lack of competence, it seems lately that more on the left are more concerned with optics (intersectionality, social justice and identity politics) than anything…so much so that competence and meritocracy be damned.  
 

How do CNN, MSNBC etc portray these two? Do they hide the gaffes and missteps (yes). That’s all that matters. 

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...