Operation Epic Furry Energy Crisis Thread

62,783 Views | 962 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by cal83dls79
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Supply?

Please tell me where all of this cheap crude oil production is supposed to come from in California?

What fields in CA are cost effective to tap into by major oil companies?

If you guessed the Monterey Shale, you'd be wrong.

Meanwhile, Alaska peaked at 2.0 mbpd in 1988 and is now roughly 450,000 bpd.

Can you say depletion?

Just the Facts.



DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

DiabloWags said:

movielover said:

So the result is worse for the environment, including the use of filthy Bunker oil to fuel the container ships.


Sorry, this isnt close to being true when it comes to the Maritime business. Please educate yourself.

IMO 2020 Compliance: Following the 0.5% sulfur cap, Low-Sulfur Fuel Oil (LSFO) and Marine Gas Oil (MGO) became the new standard, replacing the heavy, high-sulfur fuels of the past.


These articles (and others) indicate that filthy bunker oil is still predominantly used.


Please educate yourself on regulations that went into effect in 2020.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/at-last-the-shipping-industry-begins-cleaning-up-its-dirty-fuels
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

oski003 said:

DiabloWags said:

movielover said:

So the result is worse for the environment, including the use of filthy Bunker oil to fuel the container ships.


Sorry, this isnt close to being true when it comes to the Maritime business. Please educate yourself.

IMO 2020 Compliance: Following the 0.5% sulfur cap, Low-Sulfur Fuel Oil (LSFO) and Marine Gas Oil (MGO) became the new standard, replacing the heavy, high-sulfur fuels of the past.


These articles (and others) indicate that filthy bunker oil is still predominantly used.


Please educate yourself on regulations that went into effect in 2020.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/at-last-the-shipping-industry-begins-cleaning-up-its-dirty-fuels



Already did and the articles were written and published well after those regulations took effect. Thanks.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Supply?

Please tell me where all of this cheap crude oil production is supposed to come from in California?

What fields in CA are cost effective to tap into by major oil companies?

If you guessed the Monterey Shale, you'd be wrong.

Meanwhile, Alaska peaked at 2.0 mbpd and is now roughly 450,000 bpd.

Just the Facts.




Crude oil "production" - refining - happened at both Valero and Los Angeles (two sites). Three sites total.

Both Valero and Phillips66 refined oil from a mixture of sources international and domestic, including Alaska. They're especially critical given that our state has all of these boutique gasoline blends that not everyone can supply, which will therefore increase reduce supply options, increase complexity, and prices to consumers.

Both refineries produced our specialized, cleaner-burning gasoline, specifically California Reformulated Blendstock Gasoline for Oxygenate Blending (CARBOB) and Conventional Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending (CBOB).

Valero Benicia was also a major producer of asphalt, and expect price increases there as well and shorter price guarantees for contractors.

Paint products will also likely rise, as will jet fuel and diesel.

Given our number of refineries continue to decrease (by Democrat design), we'll be even more susceptible to price spikes when Supply shortages / bottlenecks hit. Oil coming from India or South America is more risky.

Chevron could also close, which would be a massive blow to the 5th largest economy in the world.

We're losing Supply, flexibility, refining capacity, skills, and knowledge, while refineries elsewhere often use subpar processes, spewing more pollution into the environment. And that air doesn't stay in South America or India. Business people like options, flexibility, redundancy, and we lose a lot there.

Democrats have made our Supply Chain even more vulnerable. If we hit $7, $8, $10 a gallon (bottleneck), as some academics have predicted, yes, $4.50 a gallon will look "cheap".

P.S. Chevron corporate already left our state.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Then there are the unintended consequences of never ending higher Prices. Businesses fleeing blue states to red. Energy, regulations, theft, crime, insurance, fire insurance... and then the impending billionaires tax, which supposedly can become a millionaires tax without a new vote. Just like the new top-secret State Capitol with hidden hallways, allowing Legislators to take 'controversial votes' and not have to answer to the press.
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wags killed you all the MAGA arguments with tonight's posts on this subject.

Welcome back Wags.

Choose Kindness
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is certainly a most bizarre Dunning-Kruger effect that has taken a hold of this thread.

The conflation here is puzzling to say the least.
Makes no sense.



DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

DiabloWags said:

Supply?

Please tell me where all of this cheap crude oil production is supposed to come from in California?

What fields in CA are cost effective to tap into by major oil companies?

If you guessed the Monterey Shale, you'd be wrong.

Meanwhile, Alaska peaked at 2.0 mbpd and is now roughly 450,000 bpd.

Just the Facts.




Crude oil "production" - refining - happened at both Valero and Los Angeles (two sites). Three sites total.




Sorry, but I asked a question about CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION.

Not refining.

You have to have crude oil (the input) before you can have (the output) of refining called gasoline.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

movielover said:

DiabloWags said:

Supply?

Please tell me where all of this cheap crude oil production is supposed to come from in California?

What fields in CA are cost effective to tap into by major oil companies?

If you guessed the Monterey Shale, you'd be wrong.

Meanwhile, Alaska peaked at 2.0 mbpd and is now roughly 450,000 bpd.

Just the Facts.




Crude oil "production" - refining - happened at both Valero and Los Angeles (two sites). Three sites total.




Sorry, but I asked a question about CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION.

Not refining.

You have to have crude oil (the input) before you can have (the output) refining.



REFINING is a critical stage in oil production. Democrats are restricting Supply, limiting refining options, which will create more bottlenecks and raise costs.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

DiabloWags said:

movielover said:

DiabloWags said:

Supply?

Please tell me where all of this cheap crude oil production is supposed to come from in California?

What fields in CA are cost effective to tap into by major oil companies?

If you guessed the Monterey Shale, you'd be wrong.

Meanwhile, Alaska peaked at 2.0 mbpd and is now roughly 450,000 bpd.

Just the Facts.




Crude oil "production" - refining - happened at both Valero and Los Angeles (two sites). Three sites total.




Sorry, but I asked a question about CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION.

Not refining.

You have to have crude oil (the input) before you can have (the output) of refining called gasoline.



REFINING is a critical stage in oil production. Democrats are restricting Supply, limiting refining options, which will create more bottlenecks and raise costs.


Refining has nothing to do with OIL PRODUCTION.
Refining is not a critical stage in oil production.

You sound confused.

oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SBGold said:

Wags killed you all the MAGA arguments with tonight's posts on this subject.

Welcome back Wags.

Choose Kindness

Sorry, but I feel your adulation is interfering with your logic. For example, I posted articles about maritime pollution in 2023, and he asks me to reacquaint myself with a regulation that took immediate effect in 2020. Please follow along better before trashing others.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You're either uninformed or dishonest. I've previously noted the numerous regulations, fees, CARB and California EPA requirements, and new laws Democrats used to create this burden on working men and women. Here are more:

- New oil drilling permits in California fell by 95% since Governor Gavin Newsom (D) took office in 2019, leading to a significant decline in in-state oil production. This is their plan.

- Newsom has prioritized phasing out oil extraction, implementing strict regulations on fracking, and pushing for a 91% reduction in state oil consumption by 2045.

- California has produced roughly 128,000 fewer barrels of oil per day over the past five years.

- Strict regulations, including a 2023 refinery price-cap law, contributed to voluntary exits and closures of major refineries.

Governor Gavin Newsom: Governor Newsom Takes Action to Phase Out Oil Extraction in California: 2021

""The climate crisis is real {It is, where?}, and we continue to see the signs every day," said Governor Newsom. "As we move to swiftly decarbonize our transportation sector..."

"Inclusion of the target in the Scoping Plan means that phasing out oil extraction becomes a part of California's [Democrat] blueprint to achieve economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. CARB will evaluate economic, environmental and health benefits and effects of eliminating oil extraction. ..."

"Earlier this week, the California Environmental Protection Agency announced the release of two independent studies that identify strategies to support the state's goal to dramatically reduce transportation fossil fuel demand and supply by 2045."

"...Develop and implement a just transition roadmap."

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/04/23/governor-newsom-takes-action-to-phase-out-oil-extraction-in-california/

California Democrats have sued to block the Santa Ynez offshore platform and pipeline near Santa Barbara.

Do working families think $2, $3, $4 a gallon extra is "just" for non-existent climate crisis and droughts?
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

DiabloWags said:

oski003 said:

DiabloWags said:

movielover said:

5So the result is worse for the environment, including the use of filthy Bunker oil to fuel the container ships.


Sorry, this isnt close to being true when it comes to the Maritime business. Please educate yourself.

IMO 2020 Compliance: Following the 0.5% sulfur cap, Low-Sulfur Fuel Oil (LSFO) and Marine Gas Oil (MGO) became the new standard, replacing the heavy, high-sulfur fuels of the past.


These articles (and others) indicate that filthy bunker oil is still predominantly used.


Please educate yourself on regulations that went into effect in 2020.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/at-last-the-shipping-industry-begins-cleaning-up-its-dirty-fuels



Already did and the articles were written and published well after those regulations took effect. Thanks.


Sadly, your articles were irrelevant to maritime regulations that lower sulfur content in "bunker" oil.
You don't seem to be aware that "bunker" oil is a generic colloquial term for fuel oil used by marine vessels.
There are a number of "grades" of bunker oil.

You apparently are unaware of this given your post.

Moreover, neither of your links mentioned anything having to do with current regulations.
Instead, they presented hope for Net Zero Emissions by 2050 while providing no regulatory framework.

Feel free to educate yourself on "bunker" fuel:




Review on impacts of low sulfur regulations on marine fuels and compliance options - ScienceDirect


SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for the info Wags,. hopefully lover reads up on it and dials back on posting misleading X postings.

VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

oski003 said:

DiabloWags said:

oski003 said:

DiabloWags said:

movielover said:

5So the result is worse for the environment, including the use of filthy Bunker oil to fuel the container ships.


Sorry, this isnt close to being true when it comes to the Maritime business. Please educate yourself.

IMO 2020 Compliance: Following the 0.5% sulfur cap, Low-Sulfur Fuel Oil (LSFO) and Marine Gas Oil (MGO) became the new standard, replacing the heavy, high-sulfur fuels of the past.


These articles (and others) indicate that filthy bunker oil is still predominantly used.


Please educate yourself on regulations that went into effect in 2020.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/at-last-the-shipping-industry-begins-cleaning-up-its-dirty-fuels



Already did and the articles were written and published well after those regulations took effect. Thanks.


Sadly, your articles were irrelevant to maritime regulations that lower sulfur content in "bunker" oil.
You don't seem to be aware that "bunker" oil is a generic colloquial term for fuel oil used by marine vessels.
There are a number of "grades" of bunker oil.

You apparently are unaware of this given your post.

Moreover, neither of your links mentioned anything having to do with current regulations.
Instead, they presented hope for Net Zero Emissions by 2050 while providing no regulatory framework.

Feel free to educate yourself on "bunker" fuel:




Review on impacts of low sulfur regulations on marine fuels and compliance options - ScienceDirect





Nothing you posted here or before supports your argument countering the assertion that maritime shipping still uses filthy bunker oil, which is addressed in my 2023 articles. At best, you can say the 2020 regulations have helped curb pollution. Nothing I wrote indicates that I am unaware that there are different grades of bunker oil. Do better and admit you were wrong.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:


Nothing I wrote indicates that I am unaware that there are different grades or bunker oil. Do better and admit you were wrong.


You clearly weren't aware of the dramatically lower sulfur content since 2020 in bunker fuel.
You never mentioned this in any of your counter-point posts.

I'm not wrong about that.
Thanks.

DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SBGold said:

Thanks for the info Wags,. hopefully lover reads up on it and dials back on posting misleading X postings.

VOTE BLUE AND VOTE GAVIN


It's difficult to convince someone that adds 2 + 2 and keeps getting 5 when the real answer is 4.

Refining is NOT "a critical stage in oil production"

Refining deals with taking crude oil that ALREADY HAS BEEN PRODUCED and refining it into gasoline and jet fuel.

He also doesn't seem to understand that there are Refineries OUTSIDE of CA that also produce CA CARBOB blended gasoline, such as the Phillips 66 refinery in Ferndale, WA.


oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

oski003 said:


Nothing I wrote indicates that I am unaware that there are different grades or bunker oil. Do better and admit you were wrong.


You clearly weren't aware of the dramatically lower sulfur content since 2020 in bunker fuel.
You never mentioned this in any of your counter-point posts.

I'm not wrong about that.
Thanks.




You posted about it. I didn't need to. You are very wrong about what I did and didn't know. Don't ASSUME.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

DiabloWags said:

oski003 said:

-
Nothing I wrote indicates that I am unaware that there are different grades or bunker oil. Do better and admit you were wrong.


You clearly weren't aware of the dramatically lower sulfur content since 2020 in bunker fuel.
You never mentioned this in any of your counter-point posts.

I'm not wrong about that.
Thanks.




You posted about it. I didn't need to. You are very wrong about what I did and didn't know. Don't ASSUME.


The articles that you posted didn't even mention the lower sulfur content in bunker fuel due to "IMO 2020" regs.
Those were articles that you posted. Not me.

And they were irrelevant to my original post which focused on dramatically lower sulfur content in fuel used by maritime vessels. - - - You're conflating again.




IMO 2020 cutting sulphur oxide emissions
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

You're either uninformed or dishonest. I've previously noted the numerous regulations, fees, CARB and California EPA requirements, and new laws Democrats used to create this burden on working men and women. Here are more:

- New oil drilling permits in California fell by 95% since Governor Gavin Newsom (D) took office in 2019, leading to a significant decline in in-state oil production. This is their plan.

- Newsom has prioritized phasing out oil extraction, implementing strict regulations on fracking, and pushing for a 91% reduction in state oil consumption by 2045.

- California has produced roughly 128,000 fewer barrels of oil per day over the past five years.

- Strict regulations, including a 2023 refinery price-cap law, contributed to voluntary exits and closures of major refineries.

Governor Gavin Newsom: Governor Newsom Takes Action to Phase Out Oil Extraction in California: 2021

""The climate crisis is real {It is, where?}, and we continue to see the signs every day," said Governor Newsom. "As we move to swiftly decarbonize our transportation sector..."

"Inclusion of the target in the Scoping Plan means that phasing out oil extraction becomes a part of California's [Democrat] blueprint to achieve economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. CARB will evaluate economic, environmental and health benefits and effects of eliminating oil extraction. ..."

"Earlier this week, the California Environmental Protection Agency announced the release of two independent studies that identify strategies to support the state's goal to dramatically reduce transportation fossil fuel demand and supply by 2045."

"...Develop and implement a just transition roadmap."

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/04/23/governor-newsom-takes-action-to-phase-out-oil-extraction-in-california/

California Democrats have sued to block the Santa Ynez offshore platform and pipeline near Santa Barbara.

Do working families think $2, $3, $4 a gallon extra is "just" for non-existent climate crisis and droughts?


Newsom tried to cover up their disastrous Green Dreams by backtracking and selling a few new oil permits in Kern County in 2026. SB237, new oil leases after a THREE YEAR MORITORIUM.

Democrats / Newsom - 95% reduction in oil leases.

California Post: Electricity bills in California spiked 39% over six years the most in the country

PGE contributes to Newsom and Siebel.

Google AI: "Total Contributions: Records show over $227,000 directly to his campaigns and over $358,000 to his wife's non-profit, with some reports suggesting total influence efforts and contributions related to his career are significantly higher."

California has the second-highest residential electricity rates in the U.S., trailing only Hawaii, with prices roughly double the national average at over 33 cents/kWh in early 2026. States like Iowa and Minnesota saw rates fall.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

oski003 said:

DiabloWags said:

oski003 said:

-
Nothing I wrote indicates that I am unaware that there are different grades or bunker oil. Do better and admit you were wrong.


You clearly weren't aware of the dramatically lower sulfur content since 2020 in bunker fuel.
You never mentioned this in any of your counter-point posts.

I'm not wrong about that.
Thanks.




You posted about it. I didn't need to. You are very wrong about what I did and didn't know. Don't ASSUME.


The articles that you posted didn't even mention the lower sulfur content in bunker fuel due to "IMO 2020" regs.
Those were articles that you posted. Not me.

And they were irrelevant to my original post which focused on dramatically lower sulfur content in fuel used by maritime vessels. - - - You're conflating again.




IMO 2020 cutting sulphur oxide emissions



The original post was about dirty bunker oil. You don't control this into a discussion solely about sulphur dioxide. You are completely wrong here.

While this in no way should have to be stated here, please educate yourself on the following, which should be obvious to anybody with at least a middle school education.

"No, sulfur dioxide (\(SO_{2}\)) is not the only maritime pollutant. While SOx emissions from shipping dropped significantly after 2020, maritime transport emits several other major pollutants, including nitrogen oxides (\(NOx\)), particulate matter (PM), carbon dioxide (\(CO_{2}\)), and black carbon. Shipping also causes water pollution through sewage, greywater, and ballast water discharge."

Thank you.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearlySane88 said:

6


This might be one of the more misleading articles from the Trump Propaganda Machine called the NY Post.

No one in my neck of the woods is paying $6.99 a gallon for regular gas.
In fact, top-tier gasoline is over $1 lower here in the Diablo Valley where median household income is $135,665 in my hometown of Walnut Creek.

But if you're stuck living in Needles, California where it's 110 in the summer I guess you get who you voted for.

Median household income: $39,876
Percentage of residents under the poverty level: 29.7%
Population: 4,839

I'm surprised that the Price Polizei hasn't replied to this post as being terribly MISLEADING.
I guess they were out on a donut break.

MAGA gets crushed again by 47.



May 4th in the 94521
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

BearlySane88 said:

6


This might be one of the more misleading articles from the Trump Propaganda Machine called the NY Post.

No one in my neck of the woods is paying $6.99 a gallon for regular gas.
In fact, top-tier gasoline is over $1 lower here in the Diablo Valley where median household income is $135,665 in my hometown of Walnut Creek.

But if you're stuck living in Needles, California where it's 110 in the summer I guess you get who you voted for.

Median household income: $39,876
Percentage of residents under the poverty level: 29.7%
Population: 4,839

I'm surprised that the Price Polizei hasn't replied to this post as being terribly MISLEADING.
I guess they were out on a donut break.

MAGA gets crushed again by 47.



May 4th in the 94521


Which one of your seven edits did you troll on? Do better.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
California could cut waste, fraud, and then cut gas taxes for hard working Americans. Gas taxes are regressive.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

California could cut waste, fraud, and then cut gas taxes for hard working Americans. Gas taxes are regressive.


The gas tax is 0.61 in CA and 0.19 in AZ

Yes, gas taxes are regressive.
Just like tariffs.

Thanks.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Which one of your seven edits did you troll on? Do better.


Flagged.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

movielover said:

California could cut waste, fraud, and then cut gas taxes for hard working Americans. Gas taxes are regressive.


The gas tax is 0.61 in CA and 0.19 in AZ

Yes, gas taxes are regressive.
Just like tariffs.

Thanks.



California has the highest total state gas tax in the U.S., with the state excise tax alone at 61.2 cents per gallon. When including additional state sales taxes and fees, the total state-level burden exceeds 70 cents per gallon.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

DiabloWags said:

movielover said:

California could cut waste, fraud, and then cut gas taxes for hard working Americans. Gas taxes are regressive.


The gas tax is 0.61 in CA and 0.19 in AZ

Yes, gas taxes are regressive.
Just like tariffs.

Thanks.



California has the highest total state gas tax in the U.S., with the state excise tax alone at 61.2 cents per gallon. When including additional state sales taxes and fees, the total state-level burden exceeds 70 cents per gallon.


If you eliminate this tax, where would you suggest the money comes from to maintain all of our highways and interchanges and bridges?
smh
How long do you want to ignore this user?
smh
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sighned, not dead yet # funk trunk; i.c.e. too
BearlySane88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

movielover said:

DiabloWags said:

movielover said:

California could cut waste, fraud, and then cut gas taxes for hard working Americans. Gas taxes are regressive.


The gas tax is 0.61 in CA and 0.19 in AZ

Yes, gas taxes are regressive.
Just like tariffs.

Thanks.



California has the highest total state gas tax in the U.S., with the state excise tax alone at 61.2 cents per gallon. When including additional state sales taxes and fees, the total state-level burden exceeds 70 cents per gallon.


If you eliminate this tax, where would you suggest the money comes from to maintain all of our highways and interchanges and bridges?



They do a crap job of doing that fwiw
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearlySane88 said:

DiabloWags said:

movielover said:

DiabloWags said:

movielover said:

California could cut waste, fraud, and then cut gas taxes for hard working Americans. Gas taxes are regressive.


The gas tax is 0.61 in CA and 0.19 in AZ

Yes, gas taxes are regressive.
Just like tariffs.

Thanks.



California has the highest total state gas tax in the U.S., with the state excise tax alone at 61.2 cents per gallon. When including additional state sales taxes and fees, the total state-level burden exceeds 70 cents per gallon.


If you eliminate this tax, where would you suggest the money comes from to maintain all of our highways and interchanges and bridges?



They do a crap job of doing that fwiw


I disagree.
The East Bay has never looked better.
4/24/242/680/880.

I've noticed that Movielover has disappeared to posting on other threads.
Unable to answer my question.
Sad really.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Caltrans has always kept 24 and 680 nice through Lamorinda and Danville. 880 is a mess.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

movielover said:

DiabloWags said:

movielover said:

California could cut waste, fraud, and then cut gas taxes for hard working Americans. Gas taxes are regressive.


The gas tax is 0.61 in CA and 0.19 in AZ

Yes, gas taxes are regressive.
Just like tariffs.

Thanks.



California has the highest total state gas tax in the U.S., with the state excise tax alone at 61.2 cents per gallon. When including additional state sales taxes and fees, the total state-level burden exceeds 70 cents per gallon.


If you eliminate this tax, where would you suggest the money comes from to maintain all of our highways and interchanges and bridges?



1. Cut the home Healthcare fraud
2. Review analysts findings of fraud and cut billions in waste
3. Cut the Train to Nowhere, the biggest White Elephant in history, costing us Billions
4. Audit all the NGOs
5. Cut most aid to illegal immigrants, tens of Billions

Middle class and working Americans will see relief, rents will drop with self deportations, quality of life will return, but the elites will have to increase wages for their gardeners, maids, handyman, painters, roofers, fast food and nannies.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Caltrans has always kept 24 and 680 nice through Lamorinda and Danville. 880 is a mess.


If you have any clean up or pothole requests, let me know. I have the District #4 Supervisor on speed dial.

680 at the 84 cut-off to Livermore (down by Sunol) is looking great!

Now completed!

https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-projects/d4-alameda-sr-84-expressway-widening-sr-84-i-680-interchange


 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.