Ending Tax Breaks for Big Oil

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

maybe reread your post and if you still can't figure it out ask around.

Hint, you continually make a completely bogus statement to be countered rather than allow for true dialog.

It's a waste of time.

I might disagree with the others posters on the right but we communicate and don't waste time screwing around distorting fact.

Yawn...

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

How much of this 100 to 200 year supply that you cite is offshore?

Regards,

D-Ray

Most of it is inland in the form of oil shale spread out over Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. Accessing and processing oil shale is very feasible, but not profitable unless the price of crude on the world market is sustained above $70 per barrel. At today's prices, $70 / barrel seems like bargain, but it's unlikely that local companies will invest in oil shale extraction and processing until or unless the $70 threshold is sustainable.

Or, maybe it would have been a better idea, rather than sending $20 billion to Brazil to help fund their off shore drilling operations, we could have kept that money at home to fund our own energy security, and kick-start domestic production of oil from oil shale?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

Not if we have an administration intent on blocking drilling.

So, you would drill just to spite them?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

I just think that when a fuel source is non-renewable it makes more sense to use up someone elses supply before you tap your your own, in the long run. And that it makes even more sense to continue researching other potential sources while you're at it.

But, then, I'm one of those stupid people who tries to look ahead 50, 100 or 1,000 years, rather than be reactionary and do what is temporal and expedient, future be damned.

Dave

[d-ray657]

Actually, I'm not real excited about the risk of fouling Brazil's shoreline either. Of course the only thing that's important in life is making sure everything is profitable. If someone makes a profit, no need to worry about the collateral damage.

Regards,

D-Ray

[HatchetJack]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Hey Jack, Good to see you and your meticulous spacing of your posts back
around. There has certainly been some bad energy policy, and Democrats
haven't done anything to reverse it over the years. What I wasn't clear
about from your post is whether you think that conservation should be
a priority. Also, do you think that there is any benefit to continuing the
subsidies to the oil companies and to agribusiness?

Regards,

D-Ray

Yes, conservation is always a good thing and "we" seem to be the worst
offenders. I say we lower the speed limit and raise the fines to 1,000 bucks
with that money going towards a clean energy package run by someone
honest enough to make it work. It would be like a volunteer tax
paid mostly by the people you guys think should pay more anyway.

The oil companies have us by the balls and until there is an alternative they
call the shots. Not sure about the agribusiness, it probably started out as
a good thing.

I think the sooner we can dam up some more rivers, make solar panels
more affordable and move to electric smaller cars the better. But, that
would lower tax revenue and who would the government leach off of then?

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

So, you would drill just to spite them?

Dave

Your question assumes that the Administration is correct in their strategy of blocking drilling, which is resulting in tightening domestic oil supply and increasing the price. The strategy makes no sense in light of the facts presented, so your question doesn't make sense.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Your question assumes that the Administration is correct in their strategy of blocking drilling, which is resulting in tightening domestic oil supply and increasing the price. The strategy makes no sense in light of the facts presented, so your question doesn't make sense.

The strategy does not fit within your priorities. That does not mean it does not make sense, it just doesn't satisfy you.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I just think that when a fuel source is non-renewable it makes more sense to use up someone elses supply before you tap your your own, in the long run. And that it makes even more sense to continue researching other potential sources while you're at it.

But, then, I'm one of those stupid people who tries to look ahead 50, 100 or 1,000 years, rather than be reactionary and do what is temporal and expedient, future be damned.

Dave

A strategy of "using up someone elses supply" might have been OK years ago. But every president since Nixon has made some attempt to increase domestic energy supply and has come up short. I wonder why that is?

As far as researching potential alternative sources, I'm all for it. But there's no reason why such research can't continue while we move toward energy independence via increasing domestic supply.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The strategy does not fit within your priorities. That does not mean it does not make sense, it just doesn't satisfy you.

Regards,

D-Ray

Does it make sense, to use an analogy, to starve yourself while there's a full plate of food in front of you and the fridge is fully stocked? Does it make sense to tolerate continued volatility in the middle east, and the foreign policy idiocy and adventurism that leads to, when we can extricate ourselves from a big chunk of it by increasing domestic oil supply? Does it make sense to tolerate rising oil prices, while are now starting to fuel inflation in everything from the gas pump to food to finished goods, when we can increase domestic supply?