Exactly the non-answer know nothing twaddle I expect from you, even when you are warned against such stupid vapid nonsense that only indicates you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about, as usual, and are just regurgitating propaganda as best you can, which is pretty damn bad because you clearly don’t understand it.

Prices will go up….by 1/1400 of one cent per gallon? Little boy, you are such a troll with nothing to say….and you’re undoubtedly wrong as usual.

In total under Biden 180 million barrels have been released, most over the summers when prices spike. Under 16 days worth over 730 days. In Oct he announced the final release…10-15 million barrels, through the end of the year. .8 - 1.2 days worth over 90 days. Barely over 1% of demand maximum. If you think that dramatically changes prices at the pump, you’re dumber that you sound….which is unbelievable.

Meanwhile, oil company profits have tripled from pre pandemic levels after a few oil companies had 2 bad quarters in 2019- 2020. They recovered their losses and then some in 2021, 2022 they raked America over the coals, intentionally creating shortages while their profits skyrocketed.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/wrapup-global-oil-giants-rake-massive-profits-third-quarter-2022-10-28/

Tapping the strategic petroleum reserve was never about lowering prices, it was about showing he was trying everything to lower them as they rose worldwide faster than in America. It was a political show to stop the Cons from claiming he was doing nothing as they blocked every legislative move he tried. It would never make a noticeable difference by itself.

What will happen to gas prices, I expect they’ll continue to fall precipitously like they have since June because 1) our supply has returned to close to normal and 2) we are in winter, when natural gas price rises and gasoline drops EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Duh.

The quality of your trolling has depreciated noticeably since your numerous political and financial losses piled up. What’s wrong? Are your handlers too busy preparing their defenses, and looking for new networks, to spoon feed you today’s fabricated Con positions?

Had buddy who was a chemical engineer with a petroleum background---After the British Petroleum blow out in the Gulf, he told me that he knew it was going to happen; that it was always going to happen--because BP had always underspent on maintenance. He explained it like owning a boat. If you aren't spending 10% of the cost of the boat on maintaining it every year, you're doing it wrong. That includes maintenance, downtime, and prevention/OSHA/Worker safety.

Screw the money, it won't save or rehabilitate the poisoned zones. Instead arm the Amazonians with military grade weaponry, and legalize the execution on anyone involved from rig workers to lawyers for Texaco/Chevron to the CEO and their descendants, wipe their DNA from the planet. It will never happen again if we give them what they deserve, slow painful death by massive petroleum poisoning.

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

*doublepromote *quality info, even if it barely scratches the surface of this food web destroyer.
This seems like our backup Armageddon. If the effects of climate change don't wipe us out, the survivors get to die slowly of petroleum poisoning.
I hope those disposable forks were worth it.

I was surprised he didn't mention all the plastics we eat intentionally, like any toothpaste with sparkles for instance....that's just bits of plastic we are fed on purpose.

"The United States has been the world's top producer of natural gas since 2009, when U.S. natural gas production surpassed that of Russia, and the world's top producer of petroleum hydrocarbons since 2013, when U.S. production exceeded Saudi Arabia's."


... Long before Trump ever entered into his dictatorship Presidency.

Anyone else happen to notice the gas can at the bottom right of the screen? A little less about the leaves and a little more about the petroleum accelerant I think.

Love the effect though.

If you look at Oklahoma in the beginning and then 2014+ you can see all the earthquakes caused from deep-well injection of all the fracking fluid.

Source: I am a petroleum engineer.

This is the lucky 1/1000 that gets found and saved.
This is becoming the norm rather than the exception, although often it's a plastic bag, mistaken for their food source, jellyfish, that horrifically chokes or suffocates turtles to death.
The ocean is chock full of petroleum products like plastics, mostly in near microscopic pieces. If you eat seafood of any variety, so are you.

Man, do I hate TLAs
(AKA: Three Letter Acronyms)

FPS
A). Frames Per Second
B). First Person Shooter
C). Food Process Solution
D). Fires Per Second
E). Federal Protective Service
F). Forest Products Society
G). Financial Processing Solutions
H). Fire Protection Systems
I). Food Pharma Systems
J). Foundation Plant Services
K). Federation of Petroleum Suppliers
L). Foundation Public School
M). Fancy Play Syndrome
N). Feet Per Second
O). Fair Play System
P). French Parts Service
Q). Fedorki Performance Systems
R). Fluid Property Sensor
S). Farmington Public Schools
T). Foot-Pound-Second
U). FairPlay Streaming
V). Family Pairwise Search
W). Forum on Physics and Society
X). Forensic Psychological Services
Y). Future Problem Solving
Z). ALL OF THE ABOVE

*Hint: the answer is Z.
(And yes, every one of these are real things that use this TLA.)

@A-Winston @lantern53

Here is another fantastic wikipedia article that i highly recommend you read closely.

Note that not a single scientific institution is in any doubt about the points made on that page about climate change. The last group that rejected any of the points (the American Association of Petroleum Geologists no less; one of the most biased-looking on the page and in clear opposition to the consensus) had to, in 2007, accept that the evidence was making them look foolish, and took a "non-committal" stance... whatever that means. A very unscientific conclusion to make - the conclusion should state what the results stated and most importantly be free of opinion. For example you'd get roasted alive for writing "95% probability, so it's quite likely!" in a university science report - italicised bit is clearly an opinion, and is scientifically meaningless.

Read the bit about consensus. Read the bit about peer reviewed research being conducted by lecturers and students at universities around the world.

I'm genuinely trying to help you understand how scientific consensus works, please give this a look. If you're worried about wikipedia you can check the citations, i've given it a look and the sources look reliable, and you can let me know if you've got any doubts about any and i'll take a look for you and discuss it with you in private if you like. Genuinely want to help if i can.

Asphalt may be petroleum based, but it's also one of the most recycled products ever...around 99% of all asphalt is recycled. The increasing cost of petroleum will take decades to make this a cheaper alternative.

It does -nothing- for electric vehicles, or for snowplowing. Those claims are nothing but the purest bullshit. The amount of electricity needed to melt more than a trace of snow is utterly prohibitive. Which is why you don't see heated roads...or any of the others that this video "addresses" (without providing any actual facts, of course).

you're not wrong that rooftop solar panels would collect more energy. but this also kills many birds with one idea/stone. since asphalt is petroleum-based, the costs for roads is constantly going up, this solves that. this solves a lot of issues with electric vehicles, and snow plowing and many others that the video addresses.

but hey, even if this idea ultimately doesn't work out. any work done on this project can be spun off into a new project that could benefit us greatly.

so I've got zero problem investing in this, even if it ultimately it doesn't pan out, because this work will ultimately benefit someone else's work.

Part of the premise when this first surfaced a few years back is that solar panels are getting cheaper and cheaper to produce whereas asphalt, being a petroleum product, is getting more and more expensive.

It's only a matter of time before the upfront costs of this are cheaper before you even consider the returns.

Great.. but they still use fossil fuels. 50% as much is awesome, but that might just be enough to keep the petroleum companies in control of the world for a few years longer.
...and I'm guessing that the claim they can use "solar" as fuel, means that they can use solar produced hydrogen, like any other fuel cell (not that this is neccesarilly a bad thing.. just not new).