Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

Menu

Subscriptions

Drudge Retort RSS feed RSS Feed

Links

Recent Comments

Recent comments from all news stories on this site. Users must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you want to retrieve a comment of yours that was recently deleted, visit your user page and click the Moderation link.

For the uninformed

Crude oil is pumped from the ground and transported to a refinery.

Refineries have a maximum capacity that they can refine the crude oil into useable product-bunker oil, gasoline, kerosene, diesel, etc.

Our refineries are working at maximum capacity

We have limited storage capacity for this oil like those big tanks you see near highways

So that refined product has to be distributed

We export around 1/4 of that capacity or around 1.5 million barrels per day

If piggy says no exporting oil (which would be socialism btw), then the 1.5 million barrels per day has to go somewhere.

Pipeline distribution is maxed out.

So, if it isn't exported and cannot be put into the overland distribution network, where does it go?

Strategic petroleum reserve? Well, that sort of defeats the purpose of the export ban doesn't it. And filling the SPR when prices are high is well dumb

It can be put on ships and shipped to NYC and Boston and Maine and Seattle and San Fran etc

Yes, but switching to that model will take time as ships need to be rerouted, ports have to have shipping capacity, oil storage and trucking needs to be available.

That sort of distribution will take time

And what is the incentive to the oil companies? This is price control, hitting their profits

They will, of course, slow down refining so the oil can meet distribution, with that reduction goes gasoline, kerosene etc.

So, does piggy order the oil companies to keep their refining capacity up? Now that is serious socialism

idgaf about Israel.

"Under international humanitarian law (IHL), civilian communities that naturally or historically develop around military bases are not considered "human shields." For a situation to meet the legal definition of human shielding, there must be a specific intent to exploit civilian presence for military advantage."

"Legal scholars often distinguish between active shields and what the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) refers to as "proximate" civilians. These are individuals who simply happen to live or work "too close" to a legitimate military target without any coercive action or deliberate tactical placement taking place. While their proximity dramatically increases their risk during a conflict, they do not automatically fulfill the legal definition of human shields."

"While communities surrounding military bases are not shields, militaries do have a legal obligation under Additional Protocol I (Article 58) to "endeavor to remove the civilian population... from the vicinity of military objectives" and avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas."

"International Criminal Court (ICC): In late 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for leaders of both Israel and Hamas (including Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif). While the charges against Hamas leaders heavily centered on the October 7 attacks (such as murder, hostage-taking, and sexual violence), subsequent formal complaints have been filed at the ICC by Palestinian civilians from Gaza, urging the court to explicitly prosecute Hamas for utilizing local residents as human shields."

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy