[AdamB]

Biden said just last week that the high prices we are seeing now are helping us transition to the glorious future where everyone will be driving a $100,000 EV.....and thats a good thing!

I paid $8G's for my EV. And I'm betting you didn't pay $100G's for yours. Troll. Just go join Social Truth network or whatever and be happy already.

[vtsnowedin]

Biden said just last week that the high prices we are seeing now are helping us transition to the glorious future where everyone will be driving a $100,000 EV.....and thats a good thing!

I paid $8G's for my EV. And I'm betting you didn't pay $100G's for yours. Troll. Just go join Social Truth network or whatever and be happy already.

While you and the other early adopters can save on gas with your EVs you cannot escape the higher prices caused by high fossil fuel prices which impact every sector of the economy. There is just not enough renewable energy available in the US to transition to it quickly if ever. So you can smugly drive your EV to the store only to find the shelves empty or prices too high for even you to pay, and those accumulated high prices for real necessities will amount to much more then you save on gas.

[AdamB]

Biden said just last week that the high prices we are seeing now are helping us transition to the glorious future where everyone will be driving a $100,000 EV.....and thats a good thing!

I paid $8G's for my EV. And I'm betting you didn't pay $100G's for yours. Troll. Just go join Social Truth network or whatever and be happy already.

While you and the other early adopters can save on gas with your EVs you cannot escape the higher prices caused by high fossil fuel prices which impact every sector of the economy.

But unlike you and fossil fuelers, I don't get hit with the costs both times, driving to pick up turnips, and the increased costs of turnips. Plus, go talk to an early adopter if you want to wave around a flag like that, I've got 167K on the first one, had it since 2015. Maybe you are fooled by your neighborss thinking about all the new fangledness of driving on batteries, you live in podunk. Modern suburbs to big metro areas? I parked beside my first Tesla Roadster while the kids were in grade school.

There is just not enough renewable energy available in the US to transition to it quickly if ever.

Good thing renewable only isn't required. Seems like when we run out of sun and wind and tide we could, oh, I don't know, maybe head to fissionables? Silly idea...I know...but still...I figure we'd rather do that than become...you know...Venezuela.

So you can smugly drive your EV to the store only to find the shelves empty or prices too high for even you to pay, and those accumulated high prices for real necessities will amount to much more then you save on gas.

Besides being the world's largest producer or oil and natural gas, with plenty of coal, and sitting beside another major crude oil producer, turns out the US is the world's largest exporter of agricultural products. Amazing, isn't it? If we run low on turnips, want to bet we will export less of them to feed our folks (American's are rich, and can afford higher prices compared to say, Venezuela)?

Dunno there VT...you sound a bit paranoid when I am just reviewing run of the mill facts on what America is (today anyway, and without seditionists running the joint), and what it can do. You seem to focus on military quite a bit, but being all those other things I've mentioned is far more useful than just having big bombs we use occasionally to bomb others into democracy.

[vtsnowedin]

Good thing renewable only isn't required. Seems like when we run out of sun and wind and tide we could, oh, I don't know, maybe head to fissionables? Silly idea...I know...but still...I figure we'd rather do that than become...you know...Venezuela.

But that is what the Green new deal demands and we could not build a tenth of the new nuclear plants needed to achieve that stupid goal.

Besides being the world's largest producer or oil and natural gas, with plenty of coal, and sitting beside another major crude oil producer, turns out the US is the world's largest exporter of agricultural products. Amazing, isn't it? If we run low on turnips, want to bet we will export less of them to feed our folks (American's are rich, and can afford higher prices compared to say, Venezuela)?

Being capable of being the worlds largest producer of fuel and food does not work if the government refuses to let us do it.

Dunno there VT...you sound a bit paranoid ...

One persons paranoia is another persons cynicism and another's clear eyed grasp of the facts.

[AdamB]

Good thing renewable only isn't required. Seems like when we run out of sun and wind and tide we could, oh, I don't know, maybe head to fissionables? Silly idea...I know...but still...I figure we'd rather do that than become...you know...Venezuela.

But that is what the Green new deal demands and we could not build a tenth of the new nuclear plants needed to achieve that stupid goal.

Here is House Resolution 109, aka called something like a resolution to create the Green New Deal.

Are you just struck silly this Memorial Day? Do you now know the difference between some half witted Congresscritter doing a resolution and like...LAWS and stuff?

So point to the law that says nuke power is limited to a tenth of something. You know...something real. Otherwise, how about we talk about other idiot resolutions?

How about House Resolution 489, you think that's real because Congresscritters passed a resolution? I'm good with the intent, but I'm not silly enough to think it is a law that resulted in actions on the part of the named halfwit involved.

When you were thinking surveying was all cool and all, didn't you get a civics class somewhere along the way?

Being capable of being the worlds largest producer of fuel and food does not work if the government refuses to let us do it.

Now what nonsense are you talking about? You might not have noticed, but the government hasn't REFUSED to let E&Ps produce. Or is this just your ignorance on basic leasing rights again? Are you confused between regulatory shutdowns for operational issues or something? How about I don't pretend to know much about maple syrup production, and you let us native born Texans handle real production, like oil and gas.

Dunno there VT...you sound a bit paranoid ...

One persons paranoia is another persons cynicism and another's clear eyed grasp of the facts.

Then point out the government refusing to allow operators to produce. Just a fact or statement from the appropriate federal regulatory body will do, issuing a cease and desist order of some sort. You get extra points if on the shutdown order they reference Green New Deal Law.

[vtsnowedin]

Dunno there VT...you sound a bit paranoid ...

One persons paranoia is another persons cynicism and another's clear eyed grasp of the facts.[/quote]

Then point out the government refusing to allow operators to produce. Just a fact or statement from the appropriate federal regulatory body will do, issuing a cease and desist order of some sort. You get extra points if on the shutdown order they reference Green New Deal Law.[/quote]
Here you go.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/time ... priorities
Long piece but here is the first salvo:

*January 20, 2021: One of Biden’s first actions was to revoke approval for the Keystone XL pipeline and impose a moratorium on oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters. Roughly 25% of U.S. production comes from federal areas. The Keystone XL cancellation confirmed to many policy-watchers Biden’s willingness to use one of climate activists’ favorite tactics – blocking "midstream" pipelines – to restrict "upstream" production. The moves were part of Biden’s broader climate agenda and target to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

Followed by:

* February 26, 2021: Biden updates the "social cost of greenhouse gas emissions," dramatically altering the way the U.S. government calculates the real-world costs of climate change. The move could reshape a range of consequences, from whether to allow new fossil fuel leasing on federal lands and waters to what sort of steel is used in taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects. The administration plans to boost the figure it will use to assess greenhouse gas pollution's damage inflicts on society to $51 per ton of carbon dioxide – a rate more than seven times higher than that used by former president Donald Trump. But experts say it could reach as high as $125 per ton once the administration conducts a more thorough analysis. This would apply to any new oil and gas lease sale, raising producers’ costs to deliver new supplies.

DEMOCRATS PROPOSE BILLS TO SEND GAS PAYMENTS TO AMERICANS, SOME FUNDED BY TAXING OIL COMPANIES

* June 1, 2021: Biden proposed eliminating a slew of tax benefits for oil, gas and coal producers in favor of electric vehicles and other low-carbon energy alternatives as part of his $6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year. It proposed repealing: the pass-through exemption from corporate income tax for partnerships that derive at least 90% of gross income from natural resources; use of percentage depletion for oil and gas wells; expensing of intangible drilling costs; capital gains treatment for royalties; enhanced oil recovery credit; $3.90 per barrel credit for marginal oil wells; expensing of exploration and development costs, and other tax incentives. Eliminating these tax provisions imperils U.S. energy security by raising costs for domestic producers and would increase America’s reliance on foreign energy supplies.

[AdamB]

Then point out the government refusing to allow operators to produce. Just a fact or statement from the appropriate federal regulatory body will do, issuing a cease and desist order of some sort. You get extra points if on the shutdown order they reference Green New Deal Law.

Here you go.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/time ... priorities
Long piece but here is the first salvo:

*January 20, 2021: One of Biden’s first actions was to revoke approval for the Keystone XL pipeline and impose a moratorium on oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters. Roughly 25% of U.S. production comes from federal areas.

We've discussed this before. Repeating it, even in light of your ignorance of how this particular industry works, doesn't make it true. Pipelines have been designed and started and stopped all down through the industries growth for all sorts of reasons, and leasing on Federal lands has been halted before. When the stockpile of permits held by companies is itself a year or two long, stopping leasing doesn't even interfere with their CapX spending for the next 4 quarters. After that, THEN you can talk about stopping GROWTH in production. But you can't, because Biden didn''t do that. Oh yeah, and in the GOM where big chunks of those Federals lands are has even longer lease and lead times.

DEMOCRATS PROPOSE BILLS TO SEND GAS PAYMENTS TO AMERICANS, SOME FUNDED BY TAXING OIL COMPANIES

And? They also put together entire resolutions asking the President to stop being a rascist. They can propse any stupid thing they like, you didn't learn the difference between proposing and laws and regulations?

[vtsnowedin]

Then point out the government refusing to allow operators to produce. Just a fact or statement from the appropriate federal regulatory body will do, issuing a cease and desist order of some sort. You get extra points if on the shutdown order they reference Green New Deal Law.

Here you go.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/time ... priorities
Long piece but here is the first salvo:

*January 20, 2021: One of Biden’s first actions was to revoke approval for the Keystone XL pipeline and impose a moratorium on oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters. Roughly 25% of U.S. production comes from federal areas.

We've discussed this before. Repeating it, even in light of your ignorance of how this particular industry works, doesn't make it true. Pipelines have been designed and started and stopped all down through the industries growth for all sorts of reasons, and leasing on Federal lands has been halted before. When the stockpile of permits held by companies is itself a year or two long, stopping leasing doesn't even interfere with their CapX spending for the next 4 quarters. After that, THEN you can talk about stopping GROWTH in production. But you can't, because Biden didn''t do that. Oh yeah, and in the GOM where big chunks of those Federals lands are has even longer lease and lead times.

DEMOCRATS PROPOSE BILLS TO SEND GAS PAYMENTS TO AMERICANS, SOME FUNDED BY TAXING OIL COMPANIES

And? They also put together entire resolutions asking the President to stop being a rascist. They can propse any stupid thing they like, you didn't learn the difference between proposing and laws and regulations?

I suggest you read the whole article not just the lead I posted. They are attacking the industry from every available angle including permits ,regulation, and review standards, discouraging banks from financing Cap X, taxes of several types etc. A proposal in Congress would become law if they had the votes and thank god they do not.
For you to believe the Biden administration policy and actions are not the cause of the current fuel price inflation questions the soundness of your mind.

[AdamB]

I suggest you read the whole article not just the lead I posted. They are attacking the industry from every available angle including permits ,regulation, and review standards, discouraging banks from financing Cap X, taxes of several types etc. A proposal in Congress would become law if they had the votes and thank god they do not.

I am more than well aware of the various angles industry is demonized, and the angles used by government to punish them for not being ...whatever. I happened to have been around when the Windfall Profits Tax was PASSED (not a bunch of woulda should coulda you mistake for action) to punish oil companies for daring to sell a globally fungible commodity at world prices. I have been victimized by regulated natural gas prices, and told by Jimmy that grandma would freeze in the dark if he hadn't signed the Fuel Use Act. And then began allowing exemeptions to whenever asked. Why? Because Jimmy didn't know dick about reserves and resources and natural gas or oil development any more than you and Fox News. Those were laws that industry was subject to and mattered.

All laws and regulation and the whole smack.

Let me know when they pass Congress, and then we can talk about their consequences just like the real laws I already mentioned.

For you to believe the Biden administration policy and actions are not the cause of the current fuel price inflation questions the soundness of your mind.

I do not believe that hopes, dreams and house resolutions are laws. And if you don't understand what is happening with global energy markets because of Covid, the demand surge post Covid, the war, oil AND natural gas now becoming globally fungible because of the US becoming the world's largest exporter of NG, you don't ask Fox News. Or you apparently. Just blame it on the Democans. I've decided, taking you somewhat on your word, that while you might be secretly MAGA (because you don't wear the hat), and that I don't like the complexity of hyper-negative partisanship, that you can best be described as anti-Democan. Just...anti. If they say something, it must be a lie. If they hint at something, it can't be right. God forbid they pass a law, if they do, it must be scam. Always. Just one dimension, anti-Democan. Don't think, don't learn, repeat what you hear on Fox News, and all of this is ironic because Bernie is YOUR guy in the Senate. I feel confident that he will represent your interests with honesty and integrity.

[vtsnowedin]

Ayup question the soundness of your mind. Suspicion confirmed.

[AdamB]

Ayup question the soundness of your mind. Suspicion confirmed.

Yes....those of us familiar with the topic are usually the first ones that Fox News wants you to ignore. Let me know when you figure out the difference between political hopes and dreams as interpreted by bobble heads for the gullible and those facts you certainly don't want to talk about.

The good folks of Vermont sure know how to represent you though, don't they VT?

[mousepad]

Fox News

you a cnn guy? That doesn't shine a good light on you either

[AdamB]

Fox News

you a cnn guy? That doesn't shine a good light on you either

Nope. I'm a "they are all liars" guy. VT isn't the only person who just absorbs what he shoveled in his direction, once a preference is established, I think it is now endemic in the US.

I just start with the idea that everyone has a different perspective, I love seeing different opinions on a topic and am willing to consider whichever one has done the best research, using data, and being logical. Exactly why I started research into peak oil with the brand name PhD's way back when. When dealing with the sciences, no point in paying much attention to bobble head advocates and amateur hour folks. But opinions on things like politics, well, the bobble heads love that one because it is all opinion, with an occasional splash of facts, and can be argued in either direction, almost equally.

The entire brave new world of deliberate misinformation and alternative facts is just lethal to most folks being able to figure things out. VT falls right into that category, regardless of why, or when it happened to him. If a Democan was involved, it is bad. Doesn't' matter what the topic, if a Republicrat was involved, it is good. End of story. Now, he doesn't tend to pull the same mindless gibberish when discussing most economic ideas and other things, including peak oil. But politics? Dead ringer for mindless anti-Democan, and nothing more. It isn't a surprise who his go to source of information is for political commentary.

Current example, Uvalde. NRA convention going on in Houston, 19 kids are dead, Fox News staff were all shaking their heads on air, oh yes, quite bad, what are we going to do about crazy people, quick clip of Senator Cruz being all serious on air somewhere, yes, we need good guys with guns to stop bad guys with guns. Makes sense, I understand that claim, the problem is all the good guys with guns were standing outside the door wetting themselves about maybe getting hurt if they went in...so they stood around and waited until the mentally deranged had killed everyone over the course of an hour, asked a janitor nicely for a key, and then snuck in to see how many coffins they would need. Plus 1, as the good guys with guns finally got around to stopping the bad guy with a gun. Applause all around for the good guys with gun argument. That was Fox News, my parents love the stuff every since they became MAGA folks in 2016. Until the story changed and it turned out the good guys were all cowards and busy following orders, just like those nice men in the Waffen SS in Germany as they shuffled folks off to the concentration camps...who...us? Just following orders.

CNN? Non-stop anti-gun as best I could tell. Pretending that political reality is any different this time than all the others. Oh my, McConnell...maybe he'll think about doing something this time. Lets ignore whack-a-doodle people causing guns to kill people and focus on folks needing to be whack-a-doodle at 21 before we want them to acquire a firearm and shoot up school kids. Yes! A background check! Yes! It'll save ChiRaq!! Well....except most of these shooters are generally clean in the criminal record department, so good luck with spotting them early as a solution. Not quite as deranged on what is going on as Fox News, but close and just 175 degrees out of phase.

And don't ask me what the solution is, because I don't know how to cure American gun whack-a-doodle any better than the next honest person. The best idea I've heard since Uvalde was to require all guns to be locked away if there are underage kids around, and this would prevent like 50% of all children getting killed or being killed by them. Sounds like a seat belt and airbag type argument that can save thousands of lives a year with a basic safety thing, but nope, can't be having a adult solution stick its head in between the guns for everyone and guns for no one crowds.

So...call it research, and a trained ability to think without prejudice. I find that method works best for me, and making sure I cast a wide net for ideas and information. It was good enuogh to figure out why peak oil was a fraud 15 years ago, and when done right it doesn't tend to let one done with little social stuff either.

[mousepad]

good luck with spotting them early as a solution.

yes. I was wondering if it's technically possible to predict lunatic behavior based on aggregate internet activity. Is it possible for example for google/facebook/amazon etc to build such a complete profile of a person based on purchase habits, web page visits, interests, behaviors, travels etc to predicts issues? Of course such a solution has huge privacy and other issues as to be unimplementable. But I'm just wondering if it's even technically possible.

[AdamB]

good luck with spotting them early as a solution.

yes. I was wondering if it's technically possible to predict lunatic behavior based on aggregate internet activity.

We can hope that AI works well enough to spot looney tunes on Facebook before it turns lethal, but I'm betting that when a woman is called a raging B!tch and the AI can't spot that it is an insult because of the misspelling, we've got a long way to go.

Is it possible for example for google/facebook/amazon etc to build such a complete profile of a person based on purchase habits, web page visits, interests, behaviors, travels etc to predicts issues? Of course such a solution has huge privacy and other issues as to be unimplementable. But I'm just wondering if it's even technically possible.

Darned if I know, but I won't be happy being deemed some sort of deviant just because I get on a Facebook peak oil page and inform them on their basic resource economic ignorance and get labelled some sort of domestic threat because of it.

[vtsnowedin]

good luck with spotting them early as a solution.

yes. I was wondering if it's technically possible to predict lunatic behavior based on aggregate internet activity.

We can hope that AI works well enough to spot looney tunes on Facebook before it turns lethal, but I'm betting that when a woman is called a raging B!tch and the AI can't spot that it is an insult because of the misspelling, we've got a long way to go.

Is it possible for example for google/facebook/amazon etc to build such a complete profile of a person based on purchase habits, web page visits, interests, behaviors, travels etc to predicts issues? Of course such a solution has huge privacy and other issues as to be unimplementable. But I'm just wondering if it's even technically possible.

Darned if I know, but I won't be happy being deemed some sort of deviant just because I get on a Facebook peak oil page and inform them on their basic resource economic ignorance and get labelled some sort of domestic threat because of it.

They could at least make it difficult for anyone with a juvenile record to purchase a gun. The practice of sealing Juvy records needs to end.

[AdamB]

They could at least make it difficult for anyone with a juvenile record to purchase a gun. The practice of sealing Juvy records needs to end.

And enforce the law on those who lie on the federal forms.

If given a full suite of options, I'd really like the playing field to be level in the US, fair faith and credit act, if marriages and driving licenses are good in all 50 states, trained, investigated, registered folks with CCW permits should be as trusthworthy in Texas as they are in California.

[vtsnowedin]

They could at least make it difficult for anyone with a juvenile record to purchase a gun. The practice of sealing Juvy records needs to end.

And enforce the law on those who lie on the federal forms.

If given a full suite of options, I'd really like the playing field to be level in the US, fair faith and credit act, if marriages and driving licenses are good in all 50 states, trained, investigated, registered folks with CCW permits should be as trusthworthy in Texas as they are in California.

Yes as you travel across the country you should not have to consult a lawyer at each state line to know the rules. Of course the liberals will agree as long as the universal rule is no guns at all.

[AdamB]

They could at least make it difficult for anyone with a juvenile record to purchase a gun. The practice of sealing Juvy records needs to end.

And enforce the law on those who lie on the federal forms.

If given a full suite of options, I'd really like the playing field to be level in the US, fair faith and credit act, if marriages and driving licenses are good in all 50 states, trained, investigated, registered folks with CCW permits should be as trusthworthy in Texas as they are in California.

Yes as you travel across the country you should not have to consult a lawyer at each state line to know the rules. Of course the liberals will agree as long as the universal rule is no guns at all.

Not sure I would know a "liberal" from anyone else if I should see them on the street as they hardly have "L" emblazoned upon their foreheads, but yes it would be nice if the laws were consistent.

When in New England last week I just left mine behind at a relatives house, just the idea of carrying through Manhattan last week was creepy, easier to just forsake a god given right of humanity than risk it. Putting people in jail for daring to want to protect themselves, yes, they might not have "L" emblazoned on their forehead, but whatever you call them, they aren't like normal folk.

[vtsnowedin]

They could at least make it difficult for anyone with a juvenile record to purchase a gun. The practice of sealing Juvy records needs to end.

And enforce the law on those who lie on the federal forms.

If given a full suite of options, I'd really like the playing field to be level in the US, fair faith and credit act, if marriages and driving licenses are good in all 50 states, trained, investigated, registered folks with CCW permits should be as trusthworthy in Texas as they are in California.

Yes as you travel across the country you should not have to consult a lawyer at each state line to know the rules. Of course the liberals will agree as long as the universal rule is no guns at all.

Not sure I would know a "liberal" from anyone else if I should see them on the street as they hardly have "L" emblazoned upon their foreheads, but yes it would be nice if the laws were consistent.

When in New England last week I just left mine behind at a relatives house, just the idea of carrying through Manhattan last week was creepy, easier to just forsake a god given right of humanity than risk it. Putting people in jail for daring to want to protect themselves, yes, they might not have "L" emblazoned on their forehead, but whatever you call them, they aren't like normal folk.

That implies you swung back up to New England to pick it back up? Sounds terribly inconvenient.