Dot Com
Nullius in verba
- Thread starter
- #21
You hang out with some mighty ignorant conservatives.
No one who is actually involved in the petroleum industry (at least not here in the U.S.) would make such a claim. What you might be told is that it is bad energy policy to punish oil and gas for its successes, to take tens of billions of dollars of its revenues solely for the purpose of creating artificial markets for "green" technologies, to equate "Big Oil" with the small independent companies who actually drill 80% of the wells in this country, or to assume that oil prices will remain high for all time.
The presence of U.S. warships in the Arabian Gulf are to ensure safe passage of oil cargos destined the world over, not just here.
I know. I was on one of them before Gulf War I. As to price, who said anything about taking away revenue? How about taking away tax- payer subsidies such as being able to drill on publicly owned lands for pennies on the dollar?
Hats off to ya, sailor.
Pennies on what dollar? Can you define that yardstick?
Yes- taking away revenues. That's what taxes do. "Subsidies" as they are misnamed, are the government's mechanism for allowing businesses to retain revenue for reinvestment.
subsidies are paid by taxpayers as a form of public welfare to business' generally who aren't that profitable. Last I checked, Exxon/Mobil had the largest profit of any corp in history. Keeping that addiction going.
2nd UPDATE: Exxon's 4Q Profit Surges 53% Amid Higher Oil Prices - WSJ.com
That last figure is the one I was referring to.Exxon reported a profit of $9.25 billion, or $1.85 a share, up from $6.05 billion, or $1.27 a share, a year earlier. That's a profit level not seen since the third quarter of 2008, when the company posted a record $14.83 billion.