myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Big Oil and citizenship
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 79, 80, 81  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14834
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-gas-prices-when-trump-left-office-were-much-higher-than-he-now-claims/ar-AAR6iW8


Fact check: Gas prices when Trump left office were much higher than he now claims


Quote:
Former President Donald Trump has been attacking President Joe Biden over this year's increase in gas prices -- and greatly exaggerating the size of that increase.

In a Fox News interview that aired on Sunday, Trump said, "Look, when I left, gasoline was $1.87. That was a year ago. And now, it's I guess just hit $7.50 in California, the rest to follow..."

If You Spend Time on Your Computer, this Strategy Game is a Must-Have. No Install.
Ad
Forge of Empires - Free Online Game
If You Spend Time on Your Computer, this Strategy Game is a Must-Have. No Install.
In another Fox News interview that aired on Tuesday, Trump claimed the increase was even bigger: "Gas was at -- gasoline, $1.83 or $1.86 when I left, a gallon. And now it's at $7.70 in California, in different places in California, and it's heading that way everywhere."

Facts First: Both of Trump's claims about gas prices at the time he left office were off by more than 50 cents per gallon. The national average for regular gas on his last day in office, January 20, was $2.393 per gallon, not $1.83, $1.86 or $1.87, according to data provided to CNN by the American Automobile Association. And while there is a remote California station where gas prices have exceeded $7.50 this fall, it's misleading to cite any one station as the figure for "California," as Trump appeared to do on Sunday -- especially because this station has been known for years as one of the most expensive in the country. The average gas price in California was $4.704 on Sunday and $4.705 on Tuesday, according to AAA data. That was the highest average for any state, but it was far from Trump's claims of $7.50 and $7.70.

In the interview that aired on Sunday, Trump said that gas was selling for $1.87 both "when I left" and "a year ago." In context, the "a year ago" very much seemed to still be referring to prices at the time he left office, which was actually 10 months ago. But for the record, he would have been incorrect even if he was talking about prices a full year prior to the interview's air date. The national average gas price was $2.113 per gallon on November 21, 2020, according to AAA.

A big increase, but smaller than Trump claims

Video: How Biden's oil reserve plan will likely lower gas prices in weeks (CNN)

Pause
Mute
HQ
CaptionsFullscreen
How Biden's oil reserve plan will likely lower gas prices in weeks
There's no doubt that gas prices have spiked internationally, nationally and in California in 2021. The increases have been driven by a complex array of global economic factors, notably including increases in the price of crude oil.

California gas prices have hit a series of record highs in November, most recently on Monday. National gas prices -- an average of $3.403 per gallon on Tuesday, according to AAA -- are currently the highest since 2014 overall and the highest since 2012 for a Thanksgiving holiday period, AAA spokesperson Ellen Edmonds told CNN on Wednesday.

So drivers have felt real pain during the Biden era. Still, the starting prices Trump used for Biden's term -- $1.83, $1.86 and $1.87 -- were all at least 52 cents per gallon too low.

And it's obviously invalid to compare any previous national average price to the recent price at a single station, particularly an infamously prohibitive one like the coastal California station that received media and social media attention over its October prices of $7.599 per gallon for regular and $8.499 per gallon for premium. (The man who answered the phone at the station on Wednesday afternoon said the current price was $6.80 for regular.) Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, told CNN on Wednesday that pricing at this station in the community of Gorda "likely is the highest in the country."

It's also worth noting that prices at the Gorda station at least sometimes exceeded $6.50 per gallon for regular under Trump. That happened in May 2019, according to a local news report at the time, and in June 2020 and October 2020, according to De Haan on Wednesday.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I give thanks for organizations like Greenpeace. Here is there annual fundraising pitch. Pitch perfect?

Quote:
Today, as we give thanks, I want to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the U.S. government and the taxpayers for the billions of dollars they’ve so graciously given to my industry. They are truly helping to keep us profitable, and I’m so very grateful to them.

You see, I’m a fossil fuel executive, and through direct subsidies, your government (meaning your taxes) has handed us provided $15 billion this year. These funds ensure we keep chalking up huge profits despite the ongoing efforts of organizations like Greenpeace to stop the damage we inflict on the planet (they seem a little jealous if you ask me).

Just think of all the mansions, cars, yachts, even trips to space I could buy with your that money!

So what are you thankful for this year? Is it oil I spilled in the Pacific or the millions of plastic bags I made that kill millions of animals annually? Or maybe it’s the lawmakers I so graciously bribe donate to each campaign cycle so they can continue fighting for legislation that protects me and my bottom line?

Anyway, whatever you’re thankful for, just know how thankful I am that our government is choosing my profits over your wellbeing. Wink

As you start your holiday shopping this weekend, I hope I'm on your list. The best gift you can give me is not donating to Greenpeace.

Sincerely,

Polluting Paul
Chief Greed Officer, Fossil Fuel Industry

P.S. I can’t keep lining my pockets if Greenpeacers like you keep getting in the way. Please don’t ruin my holiday season. Don’t give to Greenpeace this year.

Greenpeace USA never takes a dime from corporations or governments. Everything we do is thanks to the generous support of people like you!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big oil, and their apologists--damaging your health and lying about it.

Quote:
When we think about fossil fuels and climate change, we don’t think about the clothing we wear. But the reality is more than 60% of our clothes are made with synthetic textiles derived from oil — textiles like acrylic, nylon and polyester. Producing these synthetic fibers has a profound impact on our climate. It is a source of global warming.

Big Oil fears that demand for fossil fuels is flattening as the economy moves toward electric vehicles and renewable energy sources. Its plan is to replace some of the profits historically made from selling oil and gas for fuel, with profits made by selling oil and gas as feedstock for increasing amounts of plastics, fertilizers and other petrochemical-based products. As a result, plastics, and their health impacts, are increasingly ubiquitous. Like fish in water, we are surrounded by petrochemicals we cannot see.

Through months of testing, we at the Center for Environmental Health have learned that even small clothing items like socks made for babies, children and adults can be loaded with BPA — up to 31 times the safe limit under California environmental law. Studies have shown that BPA can be absorbed through your skin. Socks are worn for hours at a time, so it is concerning to find such high levels of BPA, particularly in those made for babies and children.

BPA mimics human hormones, the chemical messengers that tell our bodies what to do. Hormones tell a child when to go into puberty. They can tell a woman to go into menopause at age 25. They can tell cancer cells to grow. Hormone-mimicking chemicals can cause nearly every negative health outcome you can think of.

Research has shown that early life exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals like BPA can increase the risk of infants developing a range of diseases during childhood and later in adulthood. Exposure to these chemicals during critical periods of development can increase the risk of adverse health outcomes such as developmental harm, early onset of puberty, alteration of the development of reproductive organs, harmful effects on immune system function and metabolic disorders.

It is important to note that when CEH tested socks made from different blends of polyester, cotton and spandex, high levels of BPA were found only in the socks made from polyester with spandex. We took those results and initiated litigation against 84 plastic socks brands, including Adidas, Champion, GAP, Hanes, New Balance and Reebok. Already some companies are responding and working collaboratively with us to begin the process of removing BPA from their products. Our intention is to force the entire apparel sector to remove this petrochemical-based toxic substance from our sock drawers.

Where does BPA come from? If you answered “the petrochemical industry,” you are correct. The oil and gas industry is digging 65-million-year-old plants and animals out of the ground and turning them into toxic chemicals, which the clothing manufacturers then put in the socks we put on our babies’ feet. This is a shortsighted plan with complete lack of thought about the long-term consequences for our health and the environment. As consumers, most of us have no idea this chemical is in our babies’ socks.


Synthetic fibers like polyester are made from petroleum, and the intermediate steps required to refine petroleum into polyester fibers generates and releases toxic byproducts into the air, water and soil. In the United States, many of these drilling sites, crackers, refineries, ports and intermediary facilities are located in communities of color and low-income communities in places like the gulf states. In the manufacturing of this “plastic clothing,” frontline communities living, working and schooling nearby suffer and are exposed at a disproportionately high rate to toxic chemicals.

More and more of this “plastic clothing”’ is designed to have a short lifespan. Every second, one garbage truck full of textiles is landfilled or incinerated. And the damaging effects do not end at the landfill. Microplastics shed from synthetic fibers are released into the environment at every step during the use and disposal of clothing. These microplastics accumulate in the bodies of people and wildlife and endanger the health of all living beings.

Society is allowing petrochemical companies to conduct an unplanned science experiment on ourselves and our planet, including the babies who may be absorbing BPA from their socks. It’s time to hold both the oil and gas sector and their downstream customers in the apparel sector accountable for putting the health of all of our children and our planet at risk. Let’s keep the petroleum in the ground and the petrochemicals out of our homes.

Michael Green is CEO of the Center for Environmental Health, a 25-year-old public interest organization leading the nationwide effort to protect people from toxic chemicals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What a surprise. A deteriorated oil line breaks in Louisiana, near the big easy, spilling 300,000 gallons of fuel. I neve have heard of the damage caused by spilled electrons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, but our solar system and everything on earth formed billions of years ago by the coalescing of particles from a long gone supernova. Possibly from one of these electron spills.
https://earthsky.org/space/electron-capture-supernova-identified-2018zd/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14834
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2022 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

excellent graph

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php

Oil and petroleum products explained
Oil imports and exports

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We don’t need no stinkin’ regulations chant their shills.

Quote:
An aerial survey of the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico found roughly 30 oil and gas facilities "persistently" emitting copious methane, the equivalent of roughly 100,000 metric tons of methane per year. The report, from the Environmental Defense Fund and Carbon Mapper, said that while these dozens of sites make up a tiny share of the Basin's total infrastructure, the leaks are severe enough that repairing them represents an immediate chance to help the United States meet methane reduction targets. (Reuters)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14834
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2022 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42735

what the media does not tell people is under trump we began to be a NET petroleum trade importer... we were 3 years stable tll 2017... then don hill at a fast pace...

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Mon Feb 28, 2022 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Where’s Exxon? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/business/russia-oil-companies.amp.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Feb 28, 2022 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NYT behind a pay wall. But buggy whips are everywhere, making the world safe for autocrats and dictators.

Quote:
Exxon has billions of dollars at risk in Russia oil projects
Operates oil, gas fields off Sakhalin Island in Russia's East

More departures similar to BP's likely -analyst
HOUSTON, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil (XOM.N) likely will face new pressure to severe ties with Russia's largest oil producer, said analysts, after rival BP agreed to unload a Rosneft stake.

Russia's attack on Ukraine has unleashed broad economic and political rebukes and corporate withdrawals by banks, technology and other firms unprecedented in their extent. BP on Sunday said it would take a $25 billion writedown to abandon its Rosneft holdings. read more read more

Exxon holds a 30% stake, alongside Rosneft (ROSN.MM), Japan's SODECO and India's ONGC Videsh (ONVI.NS), in Sakhalin Island oil and gas fields in Russia’s Far East. The group with Exxon as operator has exported more than 1 billion barrels of oil and 1.03 billion cubic feet of natural gas since production began in 2005.

"Supermajor E&Ps and major service providers with exposure to Russia will now be facing tremendous pressure to pull investments from Russia," said Rystad Energy analyst Artem Abramov.

"I will not be surprised if we see big announcements similar to (the) BP-Rosneft one in the next few days, but it will be difficult to speculate on how exactly things will play out," he said.

An Exxon spokesperson did not reply to a request for comment.

The U.S. oil major previously ended two Russian joint ventures after sanctions were imposed following Russia's 2014 military operations in eastern Ukraine. Exxon took a $200 million hit to earnings from the exit.

Sakhalin represents one of the largest single direct investments in Russia, according to Exxon, with its three oil and gas fields. The partners have been advancing development of a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility on the island. Such plants typically cost several billion dollars to construct.

Exxon last year employed more than 1,000 people across Russia with offices in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and Yuzhno-Sakhalinst, according to its website.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 79, 80, 81  Next
Page 80 of 81

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group