See what putting all your eggs in one basket.....

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. :thup:

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
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.
That last figure is the one I was referring to.
 
The "putting all your eggs in one basket" saying is really stupid, when one thinks about it. You are far more likely to have an accident and lose some eggs while juggling many baskets, then you are keeping the one secure. It's the K.I.S.S. theory in action, "Keep It Simple Stupid."

This example is only concerning real eggs in real baskets, not the false metaphor used in the thread title.

Carry on.
 
The "putting all your eggs in one basket" saying is really stupid, when one thinks about it. You are far more likely to have an accident and lose some eggs while juggling many baskets, then you are keeping the one secure. It's the K.I.S.S. theory in action, "Keep It Simple Stupid."

This example is only concerning real eggs in real baskets, not the false metaphor used in the thread title.

Carry on.

Thats a false analogy. It is possible to break all the eggs in one basket by say- being hit by a car or inadvertently walking off a cliff whereas if you have 5 different baskets carried by 5 different people (companies in different energy sectors), it isn't.

You didn't REALLY THINK ABOUT IT.
 
Last edited:
- oil, leads to?

Saudi unrest escalates, police fire on protesters - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com
BREAKING NEWS
CAIRO — Saudi police opened fire Thursday to disperse a protest in the mainly Shiite, oil-producing east, leaving at least one man injured, as the government struggled to prevent a wave of unrest sweeping the Arab world from reaching the kingdom.

Word of the protest helped drive oil prices back up on international markets.

Another reason to diversify.

The US energy policy is hardly putting all its eggs in one basket.

But I agree with you that finding and or creating additional sources of energy other than petroleum is absolutely necessary.

NUCLEAR. How come so many are opposed to an easy safe energy source?
 
What did I do to have boedicca posting on my thread?


Because I am a member here with the posting privileges of any member who abides by the board rules, you silly little kniggit.
 
nuclear aint looking so good: http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/158925-nuclear-meltdown-in-japan-reactor.html

Besides, anyone know who processes most if not all of our spent fuel? Rabid conservatives, who pretty much make- up 90% + of the repub/tea party ranks now 'a days, won't like the answer :razz:

For battered Japan, a new threat: nuclear meltdown - Yahoo! News



Japan is not going to turn into a Chernobyl. The reactors in Japan are better designed and better managed.
 
Go ahead explain to us how bad Japan's current nuclear crisis is? It is not very bad at all, why , because of all the safe guards.
If they don't have cooling-water circulating its a recipe for disaster.
What did I do to have boedicca posting on my thread?


Because I am a member here with the posting privileges of any member who abides by the board rules, you silly little kniggit.
Whats a kniggit?
nuclear aint looking so good: http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/158925-nuclear-meltdown-in-japan-reactor.html

Besides, anyone know who processes most if not all of our spent fuel? Rabid conservatives, who pretty much make- up 90% + of the repub/tea party ranks now 'a days, won't like the answer :razz:

For battered Japan, a new threat: nuclear meltdown - Yahoo! News

Japan is not going to turn into a Chernobyl. The reactors in Japan are better designed and better managed.

I hope for the best but that nuclear incident isn't looking too good. BTW- what are you basing your assessment on given that they don't have any cold water circulating but are using sea water which has been described as "a last ditch effort"?
 
Last edited:
Go ahead explain to us how bad Japan's current nuclear crisis is? It is not very bad at all, why , because of all the safe guards.

nuclear aint looking so good: http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/158925-nuclear-meltdown-in-japan-reactor.html

Besides, anyone know who processes most if not all of our spent fuel? Rabid conservatives, who pretty much make- up 90% + of the repub/tea party ranks now 'a days, won't like the answer :razz:

For battered Japan, a new threat: nuclear meltdown - Yahoo! News



Japan is not going to turn into a Chernobyl. The reactors in Japan are better designed and better managed.

This makes explosion #2
New blast at nuclear plant heightens fears - World news - Asia-Pacific - msnbc.com
TOKYO — A hydrogen explosion rocked the earthquake-stricken nuclear plant in Japan where authorities have been working desperately to avert a meltdown, compounding a nuclear catastrophe caused by Friday's massive quake and tsunami.

Japan's chief cabinet secretary said the blast occurred at Unit 3 of Japan's stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The blast was similar to an earlier one at a different unit of the facility.
 
Would you support nuclear?

Most bang for the buck plus it provides lots of jobs.

And we know how to do it.

Absolutely. Solar and wind are better long-term answers (don't need to store the waste, plus uranium isn't a limitless resource either), but the technology isn't there yet to make them useful on a wide scale (though we're getting there). Nuclear provides an intermediate alternative.
 
It isn't just an economic concern (its cheap/has been cheap) As I've said, the costs of wars and various other ongoing military actions aren't factored into the price one pays at the pump. It's a national security concern yet most conservatives I encounter seem to think relying solely on oil is just fine.

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'm sorry, but firms making tens of billions a year do not need aid of taxpayers and you've never going to get to economically viable alternatives quickly enough without investment in research.
 
It isn't just an economic concern (its cheap/has been cheap) As I've said, the costs of wars and various other ongoing military actions aren't factored into the price one pays at the pump. It's a national security concern yet most conservatives I encounter seem to think relying solely on oil is just fine.

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'm sorry, but firms making tens of billions a year do not need aid of taxpayers and you've never going to get to economically viable alternatives quickly enough without investment in research.

No need to apologize.

It's not taxpayers who are giving aid to successful (or unsuccesful) firms. It's the taxing bodies who, through the desire to encourage economic investment, make the decision to take less revenues from these firms when it is used to create that economic activity.

Automakers, banks, and a host of other firms make tens of billions each year within their own industries. Why doesn't Obama tap their asses to fund his green dreams?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top