[0] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/saudi-arabia-keeps-lid-on-oil-out...
[0] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/saudi-arabia-keeps-lid-on-oil-out...
This, if you're not familiar, is Axios's entire value prop: short and sweet.
Not saying it's good or bad, just pointing out that I would consider this article standard if not verbose by Axios's own standards.
As a side note, I wasn't aware of the following info (again from Wikipedia) but it kinda explains the OP article to me a little more:
>In January 2017, Axios hired as an executive vice president Evan Ryan, the assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs and a former staffer for Vice President Joe Biden.
Connecting otherwise unrelated dots is the foundation of conspiracy theories, not fact, and (if Wikipedia is accurate) that was five years ago.
But come on, really. Pretend it was Trump and Fox.
Either there is a factual basis or there's not.
And who are you talking about? Do you have any basis for me saying whatever you are implying? Are you saying everyone says it? Do you have any basis for comparing Axios to Fox? And if it's false for Trump and Fox, isn't it just as false here - you therefore know it's false?
> I obviously can't prove it
There's a lot of territory between proof to empty fabrications. You don't provide any evidence or more than two dots of data on a big graph - which you arbitrarily connect and claim the new line is a trend. Does that person even still work at Axios? In what role? Is there reason to believe they were involved in this article? What about others at Axios - including those directly involved in the article - do they have biases and why aren't they just as likely to affect this article? What about the author or their editor? If Axios had that bias, can you point to other similar articles?
It's absurd to reason, 'this article might reflect well on the White House, therefore it's biased'. Isn't some positive news inevitable?
Because 16 people upvoted it.
The weird thing is that the submitter seems to have a ratio of 100:1 of submissions to comments. They might just have developed a habit of submitting every article they read that they find at all interesting.
HN as cloud bookmarking service. :)
Nonsense. And it grossly simplifies trade flows of refined products and crude flow in and out of the USA.
From the article:
Now, after the shale gas revolution of the last 15 years, the impact is more subtle. Higher fuel prices disadvantage consumers and energy-intensive industries, yes. But there is a counteracting surge in incomes for domestic energy producers and their workers.
Energy is the fundamental underpinning of modern society. Today a large part of that energy comes from oil, but not really for much longer.
So maybe better late than never?
>Higher fuel prices disadvantage consumers and energy-intensive industries, yes.