Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Should do that anyway. As well as all corporate subsidies (particularly green energy subsidies) and get back to tariffs if we're going to help our companies compete against unfair foreign advantage. Make the other governments pay the freight instead.BWAHAHA......
Obama is going to "punish" ALL "BIG OIL" by withdrawing all subsidies.
Gee, I wonder how ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, et al could possibly survive without government help???
Should do that anyway. As well as all corporate subsidies (particularly green energy subsidies) and get back to tariffs if we're going to help our companies compete against unfair foreign advantage. Make the other governments pay the freight instead.BWAHAHA......
Obama is going to "punish" ALL "BIG OIL" by withdrawing all subsidies.
Gee, I wonder how ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, et al could possibly survive without government help???
Should do that anyway. As well as all corporate subsidies (particularly green energy subsidies) and get back to tariffs if we're going to help our companies compete against unfair foreign advantage. Make the other governments pay the freight instead.BWAHAHA......
Obama is going to "punish" ALL "BIG OIL" by withdrawing all subsidies.
Gee, I wonder how ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, et al could possibly survive without government help???
Don't you wonder WHY the subsidies are given in the first place?
HMMMMmmmm????
Could they be the "carrots" that the feds use to encourage alternative energy development!!!!!
Yeah, brilliant idea.
Should do that anyway. As well as all corporate subsidies (particularly green energy subsidies) and get back to tariffs if we're going to help our companies compete against unfair foreign advantage. Make the other governments pay the freight instead.
Don't you wonder WHY the subsidies are given in the first place?
HMMMMmmmm????
Could they be the "carrots" that the feds use to encourage alternative energy development!!!!!
Yeah, brilliant idea.
Normally I follow you Samson... but I'm not quite getting it today. I r teh slowz.
I know all forms of green energy are currently unsustainable without severe govt. payola. Just like all public mass transit.
Ahhh... gotcha. See I'm more of a 'let the market decide' in this type of project. Pull the subsidies, and if there is a shown benefit of going to a new type of energy that is bigger,better,faster,stronger then the market will take care of it just like has been the case throughout all of history.Don't you wonder WHY the subsidies are given in the first place?
HMMMMmmmm????
Could they be the "carrots" that the feds use to encourage alternative energy development!!!!!
Yeah, brilliant idea.
Normally I follow you Samson... but I'm not quite getting it today. I r teh slowz.
I know all forms of green energy are currently unsustainable without severe govt. payola. Just like all public mass transit.
Question: Which companies are in the best position to develope alternative energy sources?
Answer: ENERGY PRODUCING COMPANIES
Question: But, why should they?
Answer: GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES
Question: You mean ConocoPhillips has plans to build a large Campus in Lewisville, CO that will be focused on developing sources of non-fossil fuel based energy?
Answer: Yes
Question: Will they be interested in this endeavor without receiving US Govt Subsidies?
Answer: Probably not
Ahhh... gotcha. See I'm more of a 'let the market decide' in this type of project. Pull the subsidies, and if there is a shown benefit of going to a new type of energy that is bigger,better,faster,stronger then the market will take care of it just like has been the case throughout all of history.
Normally I follow you Samson... but I'm not quite getting it today. I r teh slowz.
I know all forms of green energy are currently unsustainable without severe govt. payola. Just like all public mass transit.
Question: Which companies are in the best position to develope alternative energy sources?
Answer: ENERGY PRODUCING COMPANIES
Question: But, why should they?
Answer: GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES
Question: You mean ConocoPhillips has plans to build a large Campus in Lewisville, CO that will be focused on developing sources of non-fossil fuel based energy?
Answer: Yes
Question: Will they be interested in this endeavor without receiving US Govt Subsidies?
Answer: Probably not
But that's me. I don't like subsidies to corporations for almost any/every reason.
Okay, I see your point in that regard. But the market would force the same thing, only when we would start running out of oil. But that day is a few centuries off.Ahhh... gotcha. See I'm more of a 'let the market decide' in this type of project. Pull the subsidies, and if there is a shown benefit of going to a new type of energy that is bigger,better,faster,stronger then the market will take care of it just like has been the case throughout all of history.Question: Which companies are in the best position to develope alternative energy sources?
Answer: ENERGY PRODUCING COMPANIES
Question: But, why should they?
Answer: GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES
Question: You mean ConocoPhillips has plans to build a large Campus in Lewisville, CO that will be focused on developing sources of non-fossil fuel based energy?
Answer: Yes
Question: Will they be interested in this endeavor without receiving US Govt Subsidies?
Answer: Probably not
But that's me. I don't like subsidies to corporations for almost any/every reason.
I agree.....usually.
However, to convert the USA to a non-fossil based world, we need to begin LARGE, LONG RANGE projects......much like the Manhatten Project.
Large Energy Companies employ the brains, and can pay them for pursuing thousands of, 15-20 year projects, only one or two of which may work, if they are given an incentive.
Essentially, Obama's threat to pull "Big Oil" subsidies shoots his goal of developing alternative energy sources in the foot, and demonstrates how sadly naive his administration is.
Okay, I see your point in that regard. But the market would force the same thing, only when we would start running out of oil. But that day is a few centuries off.Ahhh... gotcha. See I'm more of a 'let the market decide' in this type of project. Pull the subsidies, and if there is a shown benefit of going to a new type of energy that is bigger,better,faster,stronger then the market will take care of it just like has been the case throughout all of history.
But that's me. I don't like subsidies to corporations for almost any/every reason.
I agree.....usually.
However, to convert the USA to a non-fossil based world, we need to begin LARGE, LONG RANGE projects......much like the Manhatten Project.
Large Energy Companies employ the brains, and can pay them for pursuing thousands of, 15-20 year projects, only one or two of which may work, if they are given an incentive.
Essentially, Obama's threat to pull "Big Oil" subsidies shoots his goal of developing alternative energy sources in the foot, and demonstrates how sadly naive his administration is.
Well, look at what's happened in the past when we've switched energy sources. From whale Oil to Kerosene. It only got rocky when the government tried to interfere to protect old industries or create false market strictures.Okay, I see your point in that regard. But the market would force the same thing, only when we would start running out of oil. But that day is a few centuries off.I agree.....usually.
However, to convert the USA to a non-fossil based world, we need to begin LARGE, LONG RANGE projects......much like the Manhatten Project.
Large Energy Companies employ the brains, and can pay them for pursuing thousands of, 15-20 year projects, only one or two of which may work, if they are given an incentive.
Essentially, Obama's threat to pull "Big Oil" subsidies shoots his goal of developing alternative energy sources in the foot, and demonstrates how sadly naive his administration is.
If I'm wrong, then no sweat, we'll be ready in a century or three.
If YOU're wrong, we'll be shooting each other over firewood.
Well, look at what's happened in the past when we've switched energy sources. From whale Oil to Kerosene. It only got rocky when the government tried to interfere to protect old industries or create false market strictures.Okay, I see your point in that regard. But the market would force the same thing, only when we would start running out of oil. But that day is a few centuries off.
If I'm wrong, then no sweat, we'll be ready in a century or three.
If YOU're wrong, we'll be shooting each other over firewood.
Same went for railroads switching to from wood to coal to oil. Each had their start up costs but all happened because the price rose with scarcity, but happened far enough off in the future that the alternative was found long before it was a danger. Heck, only when there was a threatened coal strike with winter coming in 1901 was there a real threat to people's lives. And in that case I fully agree with how TR handled it.
But then again, I do not believe in Peak Oil one bit, and see 90% of our difficulties in extracting oil right now as socio-political, not scientific or due to scarcity.
Yeah, I can see why you're saying that. And our energy consumption back then was far less than today. But I do think the change will scale accordingly. That said, we knew about Oil for a generation or so before Jay Rockafeller figured out a way to use distillates like Kerosene and market it in a way that dropped the energy costs over 90% as compared to whale oil and create the monster known as Standard Oil.Well, look at what's happened in the past when we've switched energy sources. From whale Oil to Kerosene. It only got rocky when the government tried to interfere to protect old industries or create false market strictures.If I'm wrong, then no sweat, we'll be ready in a century or three.
If YOU're wrong, we'll be shooting each other over firewood.
Same went for railroads switching to from wood to coal to oil. Each had their start up costs but all happened because the price rose with scarcity, but happened far enough off in the future that the alternative was found long before it was a danger. Heck, only when there was a threatened coal strike with winter coming in 1901 was there a real threat to people's lives. And in that case I fully agree with how TR handled it.
But then again, I do not believe in Peak Oil one bit, and see 90% of our difficulties in extracting oil right now as socio-political, not scientific or due to scarcity.
Comparing the switch from Whale Oil to Kerosene with the 180 million BPD Oil the 300 million in the USA currently consumes to another energy source is, I'm sorry to say, quite absurd.
I don't believe in "Peak Oil" either. But I also don't believe we'll suddenly find some natural resource laying around that we can simply strike a match to and burn. Hoping that this will magically occur as a result of the free market is an invitation to disaster.
If you were correct, then the free market would have refined U 235.
Yeah, I can see why you're saying that. And our energy consumption back then was far less than today. But I do think the change will scale accordingly. That said, we knew about Oil for a generation or so before Jay Rockafeller figured out a way to use distillates like Kerosene and market it in a way that dropped the energy costs over 90% as compared to whale oil and create the monster known as Standard Oil.Well, look at what's happened in the past when we've switched energy sources. From whale Oil to Kerosene. It only got rocky when the government tried to interfere to protect old industries or create false market strictures.
Same went for railroads switching to from wood to coal to oil. Each had their start up costs but all happened because the price rose with scarcity, but happened far enough off in the future that the alternative was found long before it was a danger. Heck, only when there was a threatened coal strike with winter coming in 1901 was there a real threat to people's lives. And in that case I fully agree with how TR handled it.
But then again, I do not believe in Peak Oil one bit, and see 90% of our difficulties in extracting oil right now as socio-political, not scientific or due to scarcity.
Comparing the switch from Whale Oil to Kerosene with the 180 million BPD Oil the 300 million in the USA currently consumes to another energy source is, I'm sorry to say, quite absurd.
I don't believe in "Peak Oil" either. But I also don't believe we'll suddenly find some natural resource laying around that we can simply strike a match to and burn. Hoping that this will magically occur as a result of the free market is an invitation to disaster.
If you were correct, then the free market would have refined U 235.
Now that begs an interesting question. Why don't we have refined U-235? I really don't know.
June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Anadarko Petroleum Corp., the Texas oil company that owns a stake in BP Plcs leaking Gulf of Mexico well, said it may shift spending on capital projects to other regions after the U.S. extended a ban on deep-water drilling.
Capital spending this year will still total between $5.3 billion and $5.6 billion, as forecast before the April 20 rig explosion that triggered the oil spill, Anadarko said today in a statement. The company said it will consider reallocating money that would have been spent in the Gulf this year to other projects around the world, including U.S. onshore developments.
And if you listen to the politicians in Louisiana, they get the double whammy of losing rigs that are currently in productions thanks to P-BO's stupid moves on drilling, they lost their seafood industry AND tourist industry.
So let's just make it all the harder for people there to make money and make sure oil companies never come back.
This is why many think P-BO is deliberately destroying this nation. He keeps shooting us in the feet. After a while, it's gotten to feel like he's TRYING to shoot at our feet.
I listen to the news and keep thinking the econazis are just dogs chasing cars. They wanna catch one, but once they do, they've no idea what to do with it.
So, civil and criminal investigations have begun against BP. What do you hope to achieve? Put them out of business? Lock up the board of directors? Round up all the investors and send them all to a prison or something for daring to invest in an inherently evil company?
What do you think the consequences of your actions are going to be if you shut BP down? How is that good for you, your family, your locality, your state, your nation, the whole world? BP is a leading producer of petroleum and in that helps keep modern society moving. If they did not contribute their part, what good will come of it?
Do you foresee any problems with your 'solution' to BP? Any unintended consequences perchance? What will happen when production drops?
What then dawg? What will you do when you catch one-a-them cars?
I listen to the news and keep thinking the econazis are just dogs chasing cars. They wanna catch one, but once they do, they've no idea what to do with it.
So, civil and criminal investigations have begun against BP. What do you hope to achieve? Put them out of business? Lock up the board of directors? Round up all the investors and send them all to a prison or something for daring to invest in an inherently evil company?
What do you think the consequences of your actions are going to be if you shut BP down? How is that good for you, your family, your locality, your state, your nation, the whole world? BP is a leading producer of petroleum and in that helps keep modern society moving. If they did not contribute their part, what good will come of it?
Do you foresee any problems with your 'solution' to BP? Any unintended consequences perchance? What will happen when production drops?
What then dawg? What will you do when you catch one-a-them cars?
are you saying that if someone donates a million dollars to charity a year and employs a bunch of people they should never be charged with murder, even if they murdered someone, because of the good they did, or they should never be charged with any criminal acts that they DID or even be investigated for them, because they did a lot of good?
That sure sounds like what your gripe is about and if it is, then i totally disagree with you.
***NOTE
your thread starter post is the only one i have read, so far.....plus a few others, but not the whole thread
To prove murder, you have to prove they intended to kill. At best you can probably get is manslaughter. Most likely you'll get a civil judgment of accidental death.I listen to the news and keep thinking the econazis are just dogs chasing cars. They wanna catch one, but once they do, they've no idea what to do with it.
So, civil and criminal investigations have begun against BP. What do you hope to achieve? Put them out of business? Lock up the board of directors? Round up all the investors and send them all to a prison or something for daring to invest in an inherently evil company?
What do you think the consequences of your actions are going to be if you shut BP down? How is that good for you, your family, your locality, your state, your nation, the whole world? BP is a leading producer of petroleum and in that helps keep modern society moving. If they did not contribute their part, what good will come of it?
Do you foresee any problems with your 'solution' to BP? Any unintended consequences perchance? What will happen when production drops?
What then dawg? What will you do when you catch one-a-them cars?
are you saying that if someone donates a million dollars to charity a year and employs a bunch of people they should never be charged with murder, even if they murdered someone, because of the good they did, or they should never be charged with any criminal acts that they DID or even be investigated for them, because they did a lot of good?
That sure sounds like what your gripe is about and if it is, then i totally disagree with you.
***NOTE
your thread starter post is the only one i have read, so far.....plus a few others, but not the whole thread
