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."


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.


Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …