Aside from your first statement, which I addressed above (produce 13 million barrels more oil per day), the remainder has nothing to do with the OP. Start a thread, or threads, I'll participate.
Being happy we can produce more oil is like being happy you can buy more crack. I'll never understand the right wing hatred for cleaner energy sources which are available to us.
There is no hatred toward them. That is a mischaracterization. Your conservative adversaries simply acknowledge their relative economic non-viability as long as oil remains the cheaper alternative.
Being happy we can produce more oil is like being happy you can buy more crack. I'll never understand the right wing hatred for cleaner energy sources which are available to us.
Being happy we can produce more oil is like being happy you can buy more crack. I'll never understand the right wing hatred for cleaner energy sources which are available to us.
Cheaper alternative, yes, meth is also cheaper than coke. Which one would you like to engage in first?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I would bet the US gov't would approve new refineries being built if the builder of said refinery pledged to only sell to America. I'm not very well read in on the regulations, market, etc but it sounds sensible. Anyone know a reason why that wouldn't work?
How do you intend to produce an additional 13 mb/day to add to your current 5 mb/day - just to meet your domestic consumption?
(Incidentally the Saudis are currently producing 10 mb/day - good luck with the Hollywood Fantasy future)
I suspect that even if you provide them with a totally FREE energy alternative they would still reject it and prefer to burn coal, oil and gas.
THe level of socio-psychopathic neurosis and tribal based hatred is astonishing - especially in the USA where the level of propaganda and general ignorance is so intense
:lamo What TF sort of comparison is that?
So will the government guarantee to buy from this refinery all that it can supply at any price?
Or will the price be fixed.
Because if it is not, then the refinery could sell all it can produce at hugely inflated prices, whereas normally, it can only sell at prices that the market will bare.
And if it is a set price, what happens if the price of oil goes up or down drastically? Does the price the government will pay change as well?
What if the price the government is prepared to pay no longer allows the refinery to make a profit? Will the government start subsidizing it?
It all sounds a little bit too much like central government planning to me.
I understand your point - but I say leave it to the free market.
My point went over your head? Am I supposed to be shocked by that?
Look, I'm not going to claim to know a lot about this subject because I don't. My point was that the gov't apparently isn't granting permits for new refineries and that maybe they would if said refinery pledged to sell to America only. There's nothing big gov't or central gov't about that. It's merely the gov't giving out a permit that they already give out to existing refineries anyway. I'm not proposing our gov't force them to sell X amount of barrels to them at a certain price or anything like that. They could still sell it on the open market. It just wouldn't be sold to foreign countries.
Similarly, I would like to see a few states join together to create quasi-public corporations to build refineries to sell only in their states at or near cost which would put pressure on big oil to stop manufacturing supply shortages to run prices up.
Similarly, I would like to see a few states join together to create quasi-public corporations to build refineries to sell only in their states at or near cost which would put pressure on big oil to stop manufacturing supply shortages to run prices up.
It didn't go over my head, I fully comprehended it as imbecilic. You compared oil vs. alternatives to meth vs. coke. Meth and coke are obviously both worth avoiding at all costs, whereas without oil or an equivalent alternative (which does not exist) our entire global economy collapses.
i wish. but that's socialism. cant be having that in 'merica, home of the poor and the people who ride their
View attachment 67137907
's to caymans and back to hide their trillions
Except it is not. The states wouldn't own the corporation, just start and fund it as a non-profit and then get their money back from the economic development loanStrawparty Socialism ain't socialism
that's massively interventionalist on behalf of the government. but i support the idea completely even if you dont agree with my characterization of it.
Look, I'm not going to claim to know a lot about this subject because I don't. My point was that the gov't apparently isn't granting permits for new refineries and that maybe they would if said refinery pledged to sell to America only. There's nothing big gov't or central gov't about that. It's merely the gov't giving out a permit that they already give out to existing refineries anyway. I'm not proposing our gov't force them to sell X amount of barrels to them at a certain price or anything like that. They could still sell it on the open market. It just wouldn't be sold to foreign countries.
No, I compared the false premise that we shouldn't engage in healthier living because it's expensive to another false premise that we shouldn't engage in healthier living because it's expensive. A coke bottle is literally more expensive than a meth hit. So which would you rather have?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?