- Posts: 14802
- Thank you received: 5
neptunechimney wrote:
LadyJazzer wrote:
CritiKalbILL wrote: I understand you can't counter the article yourself...I'll wait for someone who can use logic and reason to make the argument for you.
And I'll wait until I get answer before I bother with another deflection.
Thank you for the response, it's classic.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
CritiKalbILL wrote: Perhaps we could use this thread to educate ourselves on what an oil subsidy actually is and why getting rid of them would be good, bad, or make little difference. If any of you would like to counter this article, please do so...I'm all ears.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plu ... -question/
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
LadyJazzer wrote: [I've already caught you once today posting a chart that was a misrepresentation and a lie, stolen from another article and used to try to prove something that it had no bearing on. If you have a point, make it. Otherwise, I'm not going to spend my time trying separate your bullsh*t from fact when you don't even research it yourself before posting it.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
LadyJazzer wrote: If they would have paid it otherwise, and they aren't, then it's money that didn't go to the government that otherwise would have. But I do love to watch you try to twist it into something else... Rave on....
"Tax escape artists" doesn't address the $4 Billion in tax subsidies that the oil companies are getting. I'll wait until you're ready to talk about the subject at hand instead of going off into the weeds trying to be right about something else.
LadyJazzer wrote: And by the way, losing $60 Billion to "loopholes" is NOT the same thing as giving a $4 Billion SUBSIDY to the oil companies
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
CritiKalbILL wrote: Perhaps we could use this thread to educate ourselves on what an oil subsidy actually is and why getting rid of them would be good, bad, or make little difference. If any of you would like to counter this article, please do so...I'm all ears.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plu ... -question/
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Keystone pipeline isn't cure for gas prices
The controversial link to bring oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico could raise prices at the gas pump, especially in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions.
"Rising gasoline prices have helped proponents of a controversial pipeline proposal press their case that the project would help ease supply bottlenecks and lower prices for consumers."
They’re half right.
The proposed pipeline would relieve a glut of crude oil backing up in the Midwest and redirect those barrels to Gulf of Mexico ports. From there they could be shipped to world markets and repriced at higher global prices. But that likely would mean higher prices for drivers in the nation's midsection, who currently are enjoying an unusual discount stemming from a lack of pipeline capacity.
That’s where the Keystone pipeline comes in. Proponents of the pipeline have argued it will help wean the U.S. off foreign imports and lower pump prices. But rather than pushing Gulf Coast prices lower, it will let oil producers charge more for their crude.
TransCanada Corp. estimates the pipeline would boost sales of Canadian-produced crude by $2 billion to $4 billion a year, according to an assessment submitted to Canada's National Energy Board.
“The prices for those crudes in North Dakota and Canada will fetch closer to Gulf Coast prices, which are tied into the higher international market price,” said Tim Hess, an Energy Department analyst.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.