Despite Biden’s Groveling, OPEC Set To Cut Production.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

you just exposed the left for their over-regulation. it's the democrats and their love of salamanders and toad frogs that over-regulate every industry they can. it's the same general reason why a new nuclear power plant hasn't been built in decades.



we have plenty of refinery capacity for all types of crude. the left just doesn't want the US to produce it.



thank you valued poster

Who do they want to produce gasoline?

Oil is a world wide commodity...it does not make a fuck what price the left wants it to be.

Let me ask you a simple question...Do you think big oil wants 20 dollar a barrel oil?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

Who do they want to produce gasoline?


Not America


Oil is a world wide commodity...it does not make a fuck what price the left wants it to be.


yes it does



Let me ask you a simple question...Do you think big oil wants 20 dollar a barrel oil?

let me ask you a simple question .. if the US can produce enough oil to be energy independent regardless of the price per barrel why is that a bad thing? for the US at least.



thank you valued poster.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

really? we are producing more oil under Biden? explain why gas prices are higher.

Did you ever figure out why gas prices are higher?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

let me ask you a simple question .. if the US can produce enough oil to be energy independent regardless of the price per barrel why is that a bad thing? for the US at least.



thank you valued poster.

Can't see what WTF posted because I'm not interested in his opinion but I am interested in hearing from other Liberals on this question because it just doesn't make a bit of sense.


It would seem like these Liberals think getting some other country to produce fossil fuels wouldn't hurt the planet as much as our producing it but surely they know that isn't true. Fact is, what we produce is cleaner than anything we can buy on the world market.


So why this obsession that we must make this sacrifice even though we know China and India will not? And why try to convince the American people that are concerned about the planet, that us not producing but buying the same amount of fossil fuels that we absolutely need and will need for a minimum of another decade, I believe it will be a minimum of 2 decades, possible more, before we can even consider reducing the need for fossil fuels.



Somebody, anybody not on my ignore list, please explain why we need to buy what we are capable of producing.

[HedonistForever]

Suppose you had a business that produced wickits and the new President of the United States says he is going to make it his top priority to stop the manufacturing of wickits. Would you invest in another wickit manufacturing planet? Not if you had an ounce of sense you wouldn't and on top of that, this new President realizes that the US needs a few more wickits because the supply chain from China has reduced the supply of wickits and we need more. Would that convince you to start a new factory to get us over the wickit hump and the President goes right back to bad mouthing wickits.


This is just stunning ignorance but not all that surprising. Mark Kelley knows it. He knows the people of Arizona know it which is why he is saying he told Biden that his new energy policy was "wrong" and would hurt the US.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Can't see what WTF posted because I'm not interested in his opinion but I am interested in hearing from other Liberals on this question because it just doesn't make a bit of sense.


It would seem like these Liberals think getting some other country to produce fossil fuels wouldn't hurt the planet as much as our producing it but surely they know that isn't true. Fact is, what we produce is cleaner than anything we can buy on the world market.


So why this obsession that we must make this sacrifice even though we know China and India will not? And why try to convince the American people that are concerned about the planet, that us not producing but buying the same amount of fossil fuels that we absolutely need and will need for a minimum of another decade, I believe it will be a minimum of 2 decades, possible more, before we can even consider reducing the need for fossil fuels.



Somebody, anybody not on my ignore list, please explain why we need to buy what we are capable of producing.

the reason is simple and clear. the radical left and their "climate change" assholes want the US to suffer for the good of the "shithole" nations. while they continue to pollute rampantly. that's the real problem.



it's all part of the plan to destroy America. but you know that already.

[Jackie S]

Reality.
Under Trump, Gas was about $1.85 a gallon.
Unemployment was below 3%.
Inflation was not even noticeable.
America was respected

Under Biden, Gas is $4.50 a gallon
Unemployment numbers as weed because nobody wants to work.
Real inflation is over 10%.
The World is not only laughing at us, they are snickering because the know what an idiot Biden is.

Remember that very first week when that stupid piece of shit sat down and signed away everything that President Trump had built?

Our Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Democrat friends can revise all of the history they want. The voters know the truth.

[eccieuser9500]

Just saw this. Will read after sharing. (Using Italics way too much)

California Assembly GOP leader James Gallagher and Vince Fong, the Assembly Budget Committee vice chair argued in a letter Friday for Newsom to not call the special session.

They said that if Newsom does take that action, lawmakers should suspend the state’s gas tax instead.

Newsom’s latest policy push comes after California’s Energy Commission demanded answers from the state’s major oil companies in response to spiking gas prices. Oil groups have said the latest spike in the state is the result of supply and demand issues.

https://www.kcra.com/article/gov-new...anies/41560952


E-conomics: . . . , that's it.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Reality.
Under Trump, Gas was about $1.85 a gallon.
Unemployment was below 3%.
Inflation was not even noticeable.
America was respected

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

Did you ever figure out why gas prices are higher?

Biden

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Can't see what WTF posted because I'm not interested in his opinion but I am interested in hearing from other Liberals on this question because it just doesn't make a bit of sense.


It would seem like these Liberals think getting some other country to produce fossil fuels wouldn't hurt the planet as much as our producing it but surely they know that isn't true. Fact is, what we produce is cleaner than anything we can buy on the world market.


So why this obsession that we must make this sacrifice even though we know China and India will not? And why try to convince the American people that are concerned about the planet, that us not producing but buying the same amount of fossil fuels that we absolutely need and will need for a minimum of another decade, I believe it will be a minimum of 2 decades, possible more, before we can even consider reducing the need for fossil fuels.



Somebody, anybody not on my ignore list, please explain why we need to buy what we are capable of producing.

A proud circle jerk, FOX-hole forever, thin-skinned echo chamber octogenarian.

Damn shame he can't handle life in retirement. Hashtag sad.

At least his writing is more than comprehensive. Unlike Corny. But both need to work on punctuation.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Just saw this. Will read after sharing. (Using Italics way too much)





https://www.kcra.com/article/gov-new...anies/41560952


E-conomics: . . . , that's it.

I'd say welcome back amigo, except I'm kind of on sabbatical right now.

Gallagher and Wong make more sense. I looked into this not long ago. I'm too lazy to look up the links. But from memory, California only produces about 29% of the oil it consumes. The majority is imported from other countries and some comes from Alaska. Production is California is way down from the mid 1980's, from around 1 million BOPD to 350,000 BOPD at present. Part of this is because of state regulatory restrictions. Right now, there's a ban on fracking for example.

So what I'm getting at is that they're not going to raise much money from a tax on the California oil producers, because California is no longer a big oil producer. And some kind of windfall profits tax would just discourage the companies from investing money to maintain or increase production.

So then the other option is to look to raise money from the refiners. For the entire USA, the longer term, after tax profit margin for independent refiners and marketers is about 2.2%. However, the margin in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of this year, was double that, about 4.4%. So say California puts a tax on refiners, equal to, say, 2% of revenues, which would bring margins back closer to long term levels. That wouldn't raise much money. 2% of $5.00 a gallon is only $0.10 a gallon, which doesn't make much of a difference in what the consumer has to pay.

California charges total taxes and fees on gasoline of about $1.00 a gallon. So, like Gallagher and Wong say, dropping that back is probably about the only way California has of making a significant dent in the price at the pump. Another thing it could do is remove the restrictions on the type of gasoline that can be sold at the pump. California has special formulations to reduce smog that aren't required in the rest of the USA and the world. So, when you have refinery shutdowns for maintenance in California, which I understand is part of the problem right now, you can't simply import gasoline from other places to meet demand and lower prices.

If you do lower the gasoline tax and lift restrictions on reformulated gasoline, you could reasonably argue those moves should be temporary, to help people who are having problems coping with the higher cost of gasoline right now. A higher gasoline price should reduce consumption and thus reduce carbon emissions, and the special formulations do help with air quality. While as you know I'm not a fan of higher taxes, you do have to tax something. And a gasoline tax IMHO makes more sense than mandates, like for example California's move to go entirely to EV's. Let the market work.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

let me ask you a simple question .. if the US can produce enough oil to be energy independent regardless of the price per barrel why is that a bad thing? for the US at least.



thank you valued poster.

We are energy independent but that means nothing except to those invested in energy companies!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier...h=13cb5483657e

Do you think our oil companies want low oil prices?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

the reason is simple and clear. the radical left and their "climate change" assholes want the US to suffer for the good of the "shithole" nations. while they continue to pollute rampantly. that's the real problem.



it's all part of the plan to destroy America. but you know that already.

And the woke assholes want smart students to suffer for EQUITY, for the dumb shits.


The proof abounds that Democrats want to dumb down the curriculum so that there is not so much "disparity" between the hard working smart kids and the dummies that say they can't learn because everything is racists.