Skip to main content

Donald Trump's energy policy answer

Image result for grain wheat

Does anyone else understand this?

In the second debate, asked about energy policy, Trump responded with an example of his customary stream-of-consciousness. I won't quote it or try to dissect it all.

But it ended with this. Trump talked about how foreign companies are buying US companies in the oil & gas market, in order to get a hold on their plants. They are "buying so many of our different plants and then rejiggering the plant so they can take care of their oil."

Huh?

I don't know what he means by this and nobody yet has been able to enlighten me. Let's take a stab at it: he means buying oil companies to get their refineries?

Let's try to be specific. In 2011, a major international oil company, Statoil, spent $4.4 billion Brigham Resources, a small but innovative shale-oil firm active in North Dakota.  Statoil is 67% owned by the Kingdom of Norway.

So is Norway having refineries (or "plants" in any sense) rejiggered so they can take care of their oil?

No. First, because Brigham is an exploration company, it isn't an integrated concern so it doesn't have any plants. It has wells, leases, intellectual property, etc.

But assume it had plants, just to continue. Does Norway need or want oil that is different in specifications from the oil demanded in the US? So that a refinery would have to be "rejiggered to take care of their oil" and presumably send it across the Atlantic?

If that were so, wouldn't it make more sense to spend some small portion of that $4.4 billion building the necessary refineries in Norway? to make that special Norway desired goop?

Was Trump just babbling or is there some grain of truth in this "rejiggering the plants" talk that I'm missing?  Just in case the latter is the case, I've put a photo of some grains of truths above this post.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…