Oil Profits - Edumacate me

Brandon has the best and brightest working on this issue.

New Biden Dept. of Energy hire is a nonbinary drag queen — 'an asset,' say queer activists

FLUy8sTWYAETFNi
 
Last edited:
OUBubba said:
Also, this:

If accurate, something's afoot at the Circle K.
Click to expand...

It is almost as if people like you don't realize that COSTS related to refining that oil have increased substantially...you know...wages, transportation, dealing with over-regulation of the industry Biden is trying to destroy, and even things like insurance on the storage and transportation.
 
mb227 said:
It is almost as if people like you don't realize that COSTS related to refining that oil have increased substantially...you know...wages, transportation, dealing with over-regulation of the industry Biden is trying to destroy, and even things like insurance on the storage and transportation.
Click to expand...
Why is transportation so high?
 
What the heck is “gender fluid”? Sorry to admit it but that article makes me a bit sick to my stomach, and yes I know what that says about me.
 
OUBubba said:
Why is transportation so high?
Click to expand...
wages, fuel, insurance...add in dock fees that many jurisdictions charge as well as costs related to the nonsensical envirowhacko rules implemented in parts of the world designed specifically to drive costs up.

Transportation is ALSO covered under the insipid ESG umbrella that the libtiles and other activists insist on cramming down the throat of corporate entities...
 
Interesting article. All good steps. My thoughts:

  1. Yes
  2. Doesn't go far enough. Streamline all projects, if not eliminate permitting requirements
  3. Maybe 3 is part of helping all projects, but would like to see how far they could go to remove constraints from the process
  4. Sure. On principle but the stated purpose is beside the point.
  5. This is eliminating ESG investment guidance without saying it. Yes please.
  6. Another good point, but Trump Republicans won't like it. It's basically reducing trade protectionism on several levels
  7. Bunk. This is why the Right loses. Also have to throw something to the Marxists. It's essentially an apology or a way to ask permission for the other things they are requesting. Cowardly.
  8. Good, but status quo. Need to lower constraints for building new refineries not just simply asking permission to keep current refineries open in the future.
  9. Sure. Asking the government to quit expanding their power.
  10. Bunk. Just had to through in some diversity BS huh? How about standing firm for liberty which means funding your own activity, not asking for government handouts and complying with woke ideology.
All in all this is a good plan. But oil producers need to become more brave and independent.
 
Monahorns said:
7. Bunk. This is why the Right loses. Also have to throw something to the Marxists. It's essentially an apology or a way to ask permission for the other things they are requesting. Cowardly.
Click to expand...
There's a little more Method to this than Madness. Oil companies would be very much in favor of tax credits for hydrogen and CCUS. They would make more money.

Almost all hydrogen is produced from natural gas through a process called Steam Methane Reforming (SMR). Ironically, hydrogen production actually increases consumption of natural gas which is great for oil & gas companies (don't tell your liberal friends). In fact, the only way SMR hydrogen can lower CO2 is if the exhaust is captured and sequestered (or utilized). Green hydrogen is produced from renewable energy but is still a very small part of the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top