Jump to content

Joe Biden 2022: Enter Dark Brandon


Longboard Horn

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DixonHur said:

@Immaculate Vibes

I don't agree with all the tactics the Biden administration has proposed, but what is the GOP's plan to lower inflation and fuel prices?

They helped create this monster, so what are they doing / proposing to fix it?  

Moar shitposting on twitter!

There's really not a better example of how the GOP is incapable of governing than their utter inaction during this period.  Other, of course, than making unjustified and non-factual swipes at the current administration.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hmbre97 said:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/drilling-vs-returns-us-oil-producers-tradeoff-windfall-tax-threatens-2022-06-13/

 

 

Here's a live shot of the oil companies discussing ramping up production to ease the pain at the pump 

goodfellas-fuck-you.gif

Gee, I wonder why those E&P companies might be hesitant to ramp up capex on working over old wells or investing in new ones?

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Gee, I wonder why those E&P companies might be hesitant to ramp up capex on working over old wells or investing in new ones?

 

You can go peddle that dumb shit to the old boomers on facebook. Demand for fossil fuels isn't going anywhere and they know it. You wanna sell they don't want to tie up capex on building new refineries? Sure, maybe I can buy that due to the time horizon but spinning up old wells or drilling new ones is a nothingburger in the long run. It has nothing to do with Biden or anyone elses threats about getting rid of fossil fuels and everything about purposely sitting idle and taking profits.

The only people crying about the 'new green deal' and the world transitioning over to renewables are either O&G shareholders or mineral rights holders. Like everything else with capitalism, those who are getting those sweet divvys or cashing the royalty checks are perfectly fine letting the planet burn itself up in the name of money.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is illustrative of why I hate party politics.  Just as John McCain would have done what Barack Obama did as far as economic policies are concerned immediately post-election, any (sane) POTUS would have done what Joe Biden has done, but the right wing wants us to believe that Biden took unprecedented, malicious and unjustified actions that have driven the price of a tank of gas through the roof.

 

 

To be fair to the GOP, they didn't run a sane candidate.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

giphy.gif
 

We can’t get some posters to accept reality, much less perspective 

The same people who believe quantitative easing is stealing, counterfeiting, handouts to the poor are the same people that lobbied for PPP money. The entire world is going through shit. It’s sucks for everyone. Act accordingly. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh speaking of stupidity. I just looked at LinkedIn because a recruiter messaged me. I deleted the message.  On my feed, I saw some Corporate Finance guy for some O&G company lamenting Biden for his comments about price gouging and said Biden didn’t say anything about Big Tech profits like Google and Apple. Then a hundred comments from other smart guys with smart degrees saying similar stupid comments 

Do people fill up their cars, trucks, and tankers with IPhones? 

Sweet christ, we’ve lost our ability for critical thinking in this country. The reason why energy is different than iPhones is because without energy, people die. Food doesn’t get delivered. Goods don’t get delivered. Homes aren’t heated. 

So yes, Apple is price gouging too, but the President doesn’t give a fuck because people don’t need Microsoft Windows to heat and feed themselves. 

I’m going to continue rooting for the meteor

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

https://reut.rs/3xmdETL

 

TRANSCRIPT:

REPORTER: "Have you decided, sir, whether to go to Saudi Arabia?"
BIDEN: "No, not yet."
REPORTER: "What would be holding up the decision at this point? Are there commitments you’re waiting for from the Saudis on the negotiations over peace talks?"
BIDEN: "No, no, the commitments from the Saudis don't relate to anything to do with energy. It happens to be a larger meeting taking place in Saudi Arabia. That’s the reason I’m going, and it has to do with national security for that, for Israelis, I have a program — anyway, it has to do with a much larger issue than having to do with the energy."

 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Fossil fuels NEED to be ended.  Is that so hard to wrap you mind around?

BTW, I see it's really cooled off in Austin.  Only 98 today.  Wonder what it will be this time next year.

They can’t be. 
 

Everything around you is dependent on them. 

Biden going with the classic strongly worded letter. 
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Fossil fuels NEED to be ended.  Is that so hard to wrap you mind around?

BTW, I see it's really cooled off in Austin.  Only 98 today.  Wonder what it will be this time next year.

Your comment is equally ignorant 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, CowboyFred said:

1. What has Biden done, specifically, to “worsen” fuel shortages?

2. Again, what has Biden, or his administration, done specifically to hinder the exploration and refining for hydrocarbons?

3. What does it matter what Kerry says? He’s the climate dude of course he’s going to push green energy. What has he done, policy wise that prevents more drilling?

4. Not going to read that longcat thread.

1) he’s considering ways to subsidize demand (temporary elimination of fuel tax) while considering ways to dampen supply (windfall tax). These ideas shouldn’t even be floated in media  
 

2) there’s been plenty of moves they’ve made to deter drilling and building of infrastructure. Most of them on the margins but when combined with campaigning on killing the business, it’s not hard to see it as a hostile business environment for oil and gas. The whole, “why won’t these guys drill, and where did all the refineries go?” act is so weird.  The stated goal has been to crush demand. 
 

3) He’s been named a key adviser to Biden. 
 

4)whatever

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

1) he’s considering ways to subsidize demand (temporary elimination of fuel tax) while considering ways to dampen supply (windfall tax). These ideas shouldn’t even be floated in media  
 

2) there’s been plenty of moves they’ve made to deter drilling and building of infrastructure. Most of them on the margins but when combined with campaigning on killing the business, it’s not hard to see it as a hostile business environment for oil and gas. The whole, “why won’t these guys drill, and where did all the refineries go?” act is so weird.  The stated goal has been to crush demand. 
 

3) He’s been named a key adviser to Biden. 
 

4)whatever

So nothing? Cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i love the argument that is essentially, "there's other things we need it for and that we don't have any substitutes."  seems like a real great reason to not waste our carbon budget doing things like driving from cypress to the energy corridor.   

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

Joe should increase Social Security payments, I agree. Those living off fixed income with no other retirement plans have it rough, and high earners shouldn’t be capped for what they contribute to SS. No monster should want to make cuts to SS.

Fuck 'em, if they didn't have the foresight to realize Social Security wouldn't be able to provide for all their retirement needs.  It's not like this is some new-found revelation.

They should have worked harder, made better choices or something like that.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

They can’t be. 
 

Everything around you is dependent on them. 

Biden going with the classic strongly worded letter. 
 

 

I think everyone here realizes we are pretty dependent on fossil fuels. But maybe, just maybe, the answer is expanding alternative energy sources rather than racing to see how quickly we can burn the world up. I love how the lessons we were taught as children, like needing to sacrifice initially for long-term success and caring about what we leave behind, are thrown out the window as soon as us "grown-ups" face anything resembling hardship.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, we've had over three decades of knowledge that burning Fossil fuels leads to climate change and we've done jack shit about it. Just like guns, apparently after or during a crisis is not an appropriate time to take any action to limit further harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hookem2010 said:

Also, we've had over three decades of knowledge that burning Fossil fuels leads to climate change and we've done jack shit about it. Just like guns, apparently after or during a crisis is not an appropriate time to take any action to limit further harm.

arrhenius outlined the principle back in the 1800s. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Humboldt may have commented on it even before then. Wasn't it 1988 or something where Exxon acknowledged human-influenced climate change? Regardless, it's a problem we've ignored for too long that we are going to suffer some pain if we choose to actually address it, and a shit ton more pain with our current approach of constantly sucking O&G dick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

I haven’t seen any stated policies.

Do you not see the problem here?  The right just wants to shit on any proposal by the Democrats without offering up any solutions of their own.  Put up or shut up.

15 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

A good place to start would be to not do things that will worsen fuel shortages and inflation. 

Name a policy Biden has enacted to worsen fuel shortages and inflation.

1 hour ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

1) he’s considering ways to subsidize demand (temporary elimination of fuel tax) while considering ways to dampen supply (windfall tax).

I've highlighted the key words for you.  Neither of these have occurred, but you're using them as examples of things Biden has done.  He hasn't.

1 hour ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

2) there’s been plenty of moves they’ve made to deter drilling and building of infrastructure.  

Name one move that Biden has made to deter drilling or building infrastructure?  I'm legit curious and will be honest as to whether I agree with the move.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Fossil fuels NEED to be ended.  Is that so hard to wrap you mind around?

BTW, I see it's really cooled off in Austin.  Only 98 today.  Wonder what it will be this time next year.

 

2 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

Your comment is equally ignorant 

 

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Bruh. He doesn’t need anything more than an EV. So fossil fuels simply aren’t needed anymore.  Not for electricity, MGO for industry, it’s simply not needed. 

Trey and Fatty, Bullneck is correct. We need to end our reliance on fossil fuels. That doesn't mean immediately. It doesn't mean without a plan. But, the science shows that failing to do so would be disastrous for humanity. And, from an economic standpoint, separating ourselves from the tantrums of the oil and gas market (and to a large extent those that control it in OPEC) would also be a great thing. No one is saying that oil and gas aren't needed right now. Of course they are, that's how our infrastructure is setup. But, we have the technology to replace oil and gas as fuel sources in the vast majority of use cases. So we need to transition away as quickly as possible. Besides, hydrocarbons are put to much better use in petrochemicals. Burning them is wasteful.  

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but the price gouging narrative I think is pretty much bullshit.  But, I suppose it's a fair counter to "It's all his fault, let's go Brandon."

That profit margins are year-on-year the same or very similar means there's no gouging going on.

Now, could you argue that corporations/businesses should share the pain in terms of reducing their margins in addition to the reduced sales they're experiencing.  Absolutely.  That would be good corporate citizenship, though, so fuck that.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, hookem2010 said:

I believe Humboldt may have commented on it even before then. Wasn't it 1988 or something where Exxon acknowledged human-influenced climate change? Regardless, it's a problem we've ignored for too long that we are going to suffer some pain if we choose to actually address it, and a shit ton more pain with our current approach of constantly sucking O&G dick.

Chevron and others have admitted it in court.

Quote

 

 A Chevron attorney said in court on Wednesday that the company supports scientific conclusions that humans are causing climate change, a response to a lawsuit that accuses five major energy producers of misleading the public for years about their role in global warming.

At a hearing in San Francisco federal court, Chevron attorney Theodore Boutrous also said that the scientific consensus about greenhouse gas emissions did not fully form until the past decade.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-hearing/chevron-says-it-will-not-dispute-climate-science-in-u-s-lawsuit-idUSKBN1GX185

More context in the link below:

Quote

The defendants, on the other hand, had Chevron lawyer Theodore Boutrous do all the talking. (After Boutrous surprisingly stated that he would speak only for Chevron, the judge gave the other defendants two weeks to decide whether or not they agreed with everything presented.) As expected, Boutrous did not deny that humans have caused climate change, but he did seek to paint climate science as much more uncertain in the recent past.

* * *

Finally, Boutrous argued that it’s the use of fossil fuels—rather than the production and sale of them—that causes climate change. He pointed out that the IPCC report discusses population growth, land use, and energy use but not fossil fuel extraction. This is the obvious argument for the companies to make, despite the fact that the case explicitly targets their behavior as sellers.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/in-court-oil-companies-accept-climate-science-but-rewrite-its-history/

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

 

Trey and Fatty, Bullneck is correct. We need to end our reliance on fossil fuels. That doesn't mean immediately. It doesn't mean without a plan. But, the science shows that failing to do so would be disastrous for humanity. And, from an economic standpoint, separating ourselves from the tantrums of the oil and gas market (and to a large extent those that control it in OPEC) would also be a great thing. No one is saying that oil and gas aren't needed right now. Of course they are, that's how our infrastructure is setup. But, we have the technology to replace oil and gas as fuel sources in the vast majority of use cases. So we need to transition away as quickly as possible. Besides, hydrocarbons are put to much better use in petrochemicals. Burning them is wasteful.  

His comment about it being 98 in June and woe is me how hot will it be next year is equally fucktarded.  I guess no one remembers last summer when we had 3 or 4 days all year over 100.  

 

Ending our reliance on fossil fuels is a goal.  It's a long term goal that's been shoe-horned into unrealistic short term expectations.  We've made a lot of progress, but it's not as simple as "build more wind and solar farms!!!, ERMAGHERD!!!"  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm sorry, but the price gouging narrative I think is pretty much bullshit.  But, I suppose it's a fair counter to "It's all his fault, let's go Brandon."

That profit margins are year-on-year the same or very similar means there's no gouging going on.

Now, could you argue that corporations/businesses should share the pain in terms of reducing their margins in addition to the reduced sales they're experiencing.  Absolutely.  That would be good corporate citizenship, though, so fuck that.

I think most of the increases in the price of oil are being driven by global disruptions caused by the pandemic, not government policies.  For instance, you can see in the yearly crude oil production that the downturn in production started in 2020. But even then, US production didn't drop that much (roughly 2017 levels). So framing this as a US problem or being driven by US environmental policies is silly.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=M

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

His comment about it being 98 in June and woe is me how hot will it be next year is equally fucktarded.  I guess no one remembers last summer when we had 3 or 4 days all year over 100.  

It was an anecdote used to illustrate the problem. The trend of increased global temperatures is clear. If anything, your anecdote is that one that looks ignorant because it mistakes a regional decrease in temperatures last summer due to weather patterns for a global trend. 

Quote

Ending our reliance on fossil fuels is a goal.  It's a long term goal that's been shoe-horned into unrealistic short term expectations.  We've made a lot of progress, but it's not as simple as "build more wind and solar farms!!!, ERMAGHERD!!!"  

It's not something we can do instantly. And while a complete elimination of oil and gas as energy sources is extremely complicated, replacing most of it isn't that much more complicated than building more wind and solar farms. It just takes time.  

 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

His comment about it being 98 in June and woe is me how hot will it be next year is equally fucktarded.  I guess no one remembers last summer when we had 3 or 4 days all year over 100.  

 

Ending our reliance on fossil fuels is a goal.  It's a long term goal that's been shoe-horned into unrealistic short term expectations.  We've made a lot of progress, but it's not as simple as "build more wind and solar farms!!!, ERMAGHERD!!!"  

We'd be much further along in the process if the oil companies had been transparent about what their own climate scientists were telling them.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Ain't it crazy that we're all talking about fucking gas, meanwhile the other side is trying to steal democracy and make us a subservient baby-making slave state. Eye on the fucking ball, people.

Yep, if gas prices were such an issue, people wouldn't be traveling at above pre-pandemic rates (what I heard on CBS news radio report).    Do I like paying $5/gal?  Hell no.  Is it changing my habits/lifestyle?  Not on bit. 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Yep, if gas prices were such an issue, people wouldn't be traveling at above pre-pandemic rates (what I heard on CBS news radio report).    Do I like paying $5/gal?  Hell no.  Is it changing my habits/lifestyle?  Not on bit. 

Absolutely. Why worry when you can charge it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Yep, if gas prices were such an issue, people wouldn't be traveling at above pre-pandemic rates (what I heard on CBS news radio report).    Do I like paying $5/gal?  Hell no.  Is it changing my habits/lifestyle?  Not on bit. 

Are you talking about air travel or vehicle?  In either event, a lot of this is is likely flights books or trips planned (if not paid for) months ago.  If this is what the data still suggests I'm guessing it flips sooner rather than later.  A lot of us on this board probably don't have to change our lifestyle/habits but we're fortunate. Most of the country is getting squeezed.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Are you talking about air travel or vehicle?  In either event, a lot of this is is likely flights books or trips planned (if not paid for) months ago.  If this is what the data still suggests I'm guessing it flips sooner rather than later.  A lot of us on this board probably don't have to change our lifestyle/habits but we're fortunate. Most of the country is getting squeezed.

The report I heard indicated an increase in travel in vehicle and air. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Fingers crossed for the trickle down.

very little to none outside of a little bit of extra christmas bonus for housekeepers and au pairs in the woodlands but that is a separate conversation.

Edited by sidis
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple points 

1. Initial Goals: We do need to end our reliance on fossil fuels. That doesn't mean we will ever stop using fossil fuels. It just means the majority of our energy needs to be generated by renewables to reduce climate change and end our reliance on foreign energy production. (we can't force producers in US to only sell in US)

      - Biden stated in his campaign he would be aggressive in this regard. He showed that by cancelling the Keystone Pipeline and reduced drilling permits on Federal Land. He can's stop producers from drilling on private land. 

2. New Info Changes Things: Putin invading Ukraine took a giant shit on stable energy prices. So Biden has to pivot on his renewable energy push and try to help Americans with high energy costs. That doesn't mean he was wrong with his initial talking points and strategy regarding renewable energy. We still need to reduce our depending on fossil fuels, but since the entire landscape of the world changed due to the war, those goals had to be changed. 

3. Dishonest Discourse: Now we are seeing oil and gas employees (and Republicans) take the words of Pre-Ukraine War Biden and blame him for high gas prices. They say the renewable energy push is the reason gas prices are high, etc. That is all complete horseshit. However, we live in a world that lacks critical thinking and supports dishonest discourse. 

Are oil companies making a crap ton of money? Yes. Do high gas prices hurt American people? Yes. Energy is a necessity of life. It would be the socially responsible thing to do, but the United States left social responsibility in the shit heap a long time ago. Welcome to Capitalism. Oil and gas companies could produce more to help out, or reduce prices to help fellow Americans, but they're not going to. They are private companies. They don't give a fuck. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, sidis said:

 

economically, this is an important point.  we haven't reached the point of material demand destruction yet because of summer timing more than anything.  but it will happen soon.  anecdotally, even the wulaw's of the world are altering their RV plans to limit his family being a menace to society only in texas instead of the entire united states.  but a lot of people's behavior hasn't changed yet because of timing.  it will...and the market will respond as it usually does.

Yep.  I'm not on any kind of a real budget but we did a quick trip to Lake Travis last weekend and I made my family pack into my Sedan rather than take the larger SUV.  It's only a matter of time until travel data flips.  We may very well be around the peak gas prices but I don't see much of a chance at all for a smooth landing by midterms. Fully expect the economy to be in rough shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, sidis said:

I don’t follow your question. Impacts on energy policy of what? The us govt? 

Ok I’ll try to restate. In your view there have been no executive actions since inauguration impacting energy policy and the dynamics related to domestic energy production?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well inherently there are executive actions that impact "energy policy" as an executive's energy policy is "energy policy."  the question still doesn't make sense to me.  i think you may just be stating it inartfully and actually asking if biden's "energy policy" is impacting the energy markets but, as always, i could be wrong.  

the impact of biden's energy specific policies on domestic production are fairly immaterial compared to market variables such as demand and negative supply shocks from international trade.  i suppose one could argue that rejoining the paris agreement, biden's reinstitution of the obama era "social cost of carbon" policy (which does not affect fuel prices), the temporary pause in federal leasing in early 2021 that was quickly lifted, and the executive order signed in december seeking to reduce emissions by 2030, and new ferc policies on new pipelines meeting certain environmental thresholds could be seen as "unfriendly" to O&G but none of the recent market price sea changes over the last six months can be attributed to any of that.  as i stated repeatedly in the preceding posts, domestic production has been most significantly impacted by the black swan demand events in 2020 attributable to covid and february 2021 attributable to storm uri.  there is no significant diminishment of production resulting from anything to do with biden policies.

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/#ng-tab

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/#oil-tab

the most relevant policy that biden has enacted since his inauguration that can be pointed to as materially impacting the current market prices in O&G is his foreign policy towards russia stemming from russia's invasion of ukraine.  his banning of russian imports and his efforts to coordinate the international community to follow suit is easily the most impactful policy regarding current market dynamics and prices.

Edited by sidis
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

A couple points 

1. Initial Goals: We do need to end our reliance on fossil fuels. That doesn't mean we will ever stop using fossil fuels. It just means the majority of our energy needs to be generated by renewables to reduce climate change and end our reliance on foreign energy production. (we can't force producers in US to only sell in US)

      - Biden stated in his campaign he would be aggressive in this regard. He showed that by cancelling the Keystone Pipeline and reduced drilling permits on Federal Land. He can's stop producers from drilling on private land. 

2. New Info Changes Things: Putin invading Ukraine took a giant shit on stable energy prices. So Biden has to pivot on his renewable energy push and try to help Americans with high energy costs. That doesn't mean he was wrong with his initial talking points and strategy regarding renewable energy. We still need to reduce our depending on fossil fuels, but since the entire landscape of the world changed due to the war, those goals had to be changed. 

3. Dishonest Discourse: Now we are seeing oil and gas employees (and Republicans) take the words of Pre-Ukraine War Biden and blame him for high gas prices. They say the renewable energy push is the reason gas prices are high, etc. That is all complete horseshit. However, we live in a world that lacks critical thinking and supports dishonest discourse. 

Are oil companies making a crap ton of money? Yes. Do high gas prices hurt American people? Yes. Energy is a necessity of life. It would be the socially responsible thing to do, but the United States left social responsibility in the shit heap a long time ago. Welcome to Capitalism. Oil and gas companies could produce more to help out, or reduce prices to help fellow Americans, but they're not going to. They are private companies. They don't give a fuck. 

 

 

 

 

1) a shift to renewables shifts our dependency to China. 
 

2) you’re really acting like there wasn’t a looming energy shortage before Putin invaded?

EU was already having shortages and price spikes. They are much farther down the road of don’t drill, all renewables.

E058131-B-7-E8-D-4397-A94-A-F191-FB232-D

 Crude oil and Us natural gas were moving higher.

5890-B986-F80-E-4-B8-D-97-CF-37-F3-F8-ED

17-FC9-B43-CE3-E-4-AAD-B6-FC-8099-D2-A61


The invasion obviously spiked things, but the table was set for this to happen. 
 

3) shifting investment to renewables was always going to cause tighter supply and thus higher prices in fossil fuels when there’s still such high demand. Not sure why that’s surprising. 


Also, going after cyclical businesses for making money is funny. Can’t wait until Biden is going after farmers for high food prices. You know it’s coming.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • immamac changed the title to Joe Biden 2022: Enter Dark Brandon


×
×
  • Create New...