Maggie's Farm

This is a more complicated issue than would appear on its face. Petroleum markets are extremely complex, and the persvasive use of hydrocarbons throughout our economy, in many different forms, is a vast market format that is so complex it defies accurate measurement, which is why the price of petroleum products often fluctuates wildly based on simple sentiment.

While we were a net exporter during Trump's term, in reality there was still an ebb-and-flow of virtually every crude and refined product across borders, and this is necessary to prevent market interruptions, shortages. A 'net' exporter is just a virtual condition. We are still actively importing many things that we don't produce here, or can't produce competitively. If we were to stop all petroleum exports, consumer costs would skyrocket.

As others have pointed out elsewhere, Oberlin's endowment is in the billions, and it operates more like a hedge fund than an educational facility grounded on principles of scholastic achievement and excellence, and open intellectual inquiry.

They can pay the fine without noticing any impact to their wealth, it's that small of an impact. The same rancid administrators that perpetrated this holocaust on the Gibson family and their business continue on in their roles at the campus.

While being handed a defeat, they will carry on with their message and communicate it outwardly as if it were a validation. In that sense, the courts have failed to render justice in a way that would force Oberlin to admit it did something wrong, and force it to commit to constructive change.

But I did give you an answer: The markets would freeze up and prices would skyrocket. Do you think the countries that currently export to the US would look favorably on us if we just choked off exports unilaterally? Do you have an idea of how much gas & oil goes across national boundaries in pipelines for the purpose of refining and powergen? Look a little closer. I understand the 'America first' principle just fine, and believe sometimes that open markets for hydrocarbon exports should not necessarily be wide open, but A does not equal B in this case. It's much more nuanced and complicated.

Think about the long list of petroleum products, starting with the thousands of different crude oils that are produced, each of them with widely-varying compositions and properties. Now they're transported and refined into both market and intermediate industrial products, so consider the enormous list of those products, and finally consider the import/export breakdown to their ultimate destination of consumption. Crude oils are refined into fuels, into petroleum products, into plastics, into fertilizer, into chemicals, into industrial feedstocks. None of this refining process is undertaken with just a barrel of crude as the raw material. Feedstocks are blended with other petroleum products, such as distillate and other fractions, to achieve desired yields. Many of these are imported because we don't produce them here. We make the raw materials for plastics and other industrial polymers from crude oils, but not just crude oils. Are you going to stop export of all the products that come from hydrocarbons too? Close the plants down, stop producing? Do you have an idea of how much trade this represents? Are you imagining that the import of the raw materials we need would continue if we closed the taps? Are you imagining that Canada and Mexico would be happy to accept that we shut down their imports without trade repercussions? Why?

You seem to be determined to take a simplistic executive-overview type of stance on something that cannot be properly interpreted by that method - it would be like trying to forecast the economy by choosing your favorite color. Go to https://www.eia.gov/ and look around a little. the hydrocarbon economy is huge, multi-variant, and so complicated that intelligent, well-seasoned professional economists that do it for a living usually get it wrong, but are happy when they're even close.

Nope, sorry. Multiple degrees in geology and petroleum engineering, ran drilling programs all over the world for 40 years. Started in 1980, working drilling rigs. I know a little bit about what I speak of.

In truth complex markets work best when they are left to find their own equilibrium. When people refer to energy policy they call our reliance on oil & gas 'the elephant in the room'. But they are wrong. Oil & gas is the room itself, and most of the house too. People have no idea how much hydrocarbons touch each and every aspect of their daily modern life, not just as a source of dense, transportable, fungible energy, but as a raw material. No idea; Oil & gas is ubiquitous. In this sense I agree with you - Oil & gas is not managed as an irreplaceable resource, and with this wide spectrum of uses in mind, and it should be.

When it comes to energy policy though, the world has been led down a Green garden path to a culdesac swamp full of quicksand. It's madness when food is converted to gasoline or diesel instead of using it to feed people. It's crazy when the cleanest, most carbon-free form of energy is demonized using fear propaganda, when in fact it carries the best safety & environmental record of any energy source. Our country should be moving with all of its renowned talents toward nuclear, and targeting using it to meet at least 70% of its power gen requirements in 10 years. It can be done, but not by dithering - and not with politics as usual. It will prolong our use of hydrocarbon reserves for things that nuclear power cannot provide (plastics, fertilizer, chemicals, transportation fuels etc.)

On these things, where the leadership class uses policy to play politics for private profit, the political will to change society's direction needs to come from the populace. After this winter, I am thinking that people in the US and Europe will be mad enough at the failures of their politicians to provide a large and vocal surplus of the requirement for direction, and maybe even the will to use shows of force to make sure they get the message. This winter, if it's not a mild one, is going to be painful, especially for Europe. People are going to die of energy poverty, if predictions are correct.

Research dollars should continue to be spent on further alternative sources of energy, especially with respect to battery technology. And a balanced, holistic approach must be adopted to understand true full-cycle environmental impact of alternative energy concepts.

"Why officer, I have no idea how those classified materials got down my pants and the other ones into my socks! It must have been some kind of a mistake! And those other classified materials that I removed from the facility on my previous trips, that are hidden outside in out-of-the-way place were a mistake too! No way was I going to pick them up later! Silly me! I'm so absent minded!"


Sure. Solid comparison.