| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
feuser
Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1291
|
 Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 8:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| isobars wrote: | | mrgybe wrote: | | "The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy ... technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence." - Hillary Clinton - Democratic National Committee convention 2007. |
SURELY none of these guys was unaware of that comment, which tells SO much about the extreme left's regard for private (including corporate) property. Anyone who hasn't seen that speech several times is beyond ignorant. Next you'll be telling us some f***ing communists here support that point of view. IMO, that's taking even the First Amendment too far, as it advocates overthrowing the government. Even Castro admits it to be a total failure. |
Tell that to the fucking communists who hold 9% of the 15 trillion (?) of United States public debt. Oh, wait. They're not communists any longer, they just have a comprehensive energy policy instead of bickering....
And, they've successfully out-subsidized Solyndra. Now we have to go and buy thin film solar panels (invented in the US) from china, like everything else. Just brilliant.
_________________
florian - ny22
http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
feuser
Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1291
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Patrick J. Michaels (±1942- ), also known as Pat Michaels, is a largely oil-funded global warming skeptic who argues that global warming models are fatally flawed and, in any event, we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases.... |
Perhaps Mir Michaels is counting on the likes of Hillary Clinton to "take the oil companies record profits" and invest a chunk thereof into alternative energy research. Which, I guess, an upcoming energy startup could capitalize on and become the next Exxon, Google or whatever...
Perhaps it isn't necessary at all, sice Exxon is already investing heavily in the next generation energy source? Mrgybe, this is where you tell us all about it.
_________________
florian - ny22
http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2218
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| feuser wrote: | | Perhaps it isn't necessary at all, sice Exxon is already investing heavily in the next generation energy source? Mrgybe, this is where you tell us all about it. |
Perhaps you can explain to me why Exxon is under any obligation to invest in an entirely different, uneconomic business, when it knows full well that it will have to go full bore to fulfill demand from its current business for at least the next 30 years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 4687
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So Exxon is at total capacity with nothing left to develop or grow? Now that is a total pantload!
I have to expect more from the leading energy producer in the world. Don't you? Is being stuck in the past enough for you? Even the folks that make cigarettes have been smarter than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2218
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have resisted the temptation to draw attention to your sublime ignorance of the oil business and I will continue to do so. However, I do suggest that you try to educate yourself a little before commenting further. You could start with "reserve replacement". You could also research the top three largest oil companies in the world.........none of them are Exxon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2218
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ....or four, or five. See you've learned something today! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 4687
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whatever mrgybe. Why worry about what the little guys who know nothing think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1531
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
However, Exxon is the largest "oil refiner"isn't it mrgybe? Large "oil producers" are, mostly, state owned.
Of course, large energy companies are developing other strategies for a changing energy market...natural gas is one area. Exxon, for example, is also involved in solar (gasp). Shell Oil is producing geothermal energy.
Mrgybe, you have stated that Obama's halting of the rapid approval of the Keystone Pipeline will give China an opportunity to secure this oil. But, isn't the oil market driven by world demand? Should we be racing the Chinese in approving a pipeline that bisects the US for the purpose of supplying another source for world consumption of refined oil products?
I am not opposed to the Keystone Pipeline. The oil refiners in Texas are part of our economy. The US is an energy exporter of refined energy products. The profits provide taxes and pensions. However, I do not believe that we should be so desperate for energy that we make mistakes in these sorts of energy developments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
feuser
Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1291
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | feuser wrote: | | Perhaps it isn't necessary at all, sice Exxon is already investing heavily in the next generation energy source? Mrgybe, this is where you tell us all about it. |
Perhaps you can explain to me why Exxon is under any obligation to invest in an entirely different, uneconomic business, when it knows full well that it will have to go full bore to fulfill demand from its current business for at least the next 30 years? |
Last I checked, the production of fossil carbon fuels has ceded millions of years ago. Exxon is not producing oil, they're pumping it out of the ground.
Of course, Exxon will be prepared for the moment these wells run dry (or another energy source becomes cheaper). It's not an obligation, it is a long term business strategy. The only question here is, who should pay for the research that will potentially benefit Exxon or any other future energy company.
Perhaps you think Hillary should have said:
"I want to take that taxpayer money. And I want to put it into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies, so that oil companies can continue to sell us energy, long after the oil has run out."
_________________
florian - ny22
http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2218
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | However, Exxon is the largest "oil refiner"isn't it mrgybe? Large "oil producers" are, mostly, state owned. |
Owning refining capacity isn't the issue. The challenge is to find new sources of hydrocarbons to meet the expected 30% increase in demand over the next quarter century. Exxon production dropped 9 percent in 4Q2011 and 5.5% in 1Q2012. Those are big numbers. And Exxon isn't alone.
http://www.businessjournals.com/ci_20515686/exxon-mobil-production-oil-gas-drops
| coboardhead wrote: | | Of course, large energy companies are developing other strategies for a changing energy market...natural gas is one area. Exxon, for example, is also involved in solar (gasp). Shell Oil is producing geothermal energy. |
Exxon is also pursuing algae.......but only in a realtively small way. They are smart enough to know that their focus should be on their core business.
| coboardhead wrote: | | Mrgybe, you have stated that Obama's halting of the rapid approval of the Keystone Pipeline will give China an opportunity to secure this oil. But, isn't the oil market driven by world demand? Should we be racing the Chinese in approving a pipeline that bisects the US for the purpose of supplying another source for world consumption of refined oil products? |
We've been through this before. Putting in place the infrastructure for a secure supply from a friendly nation will calm the fears of supply disruptions from unfriendly nations. The export spigot can be turned off at any time and redirected to the domestic markets. BTW, there are tens of thousands of miles of pipelines bisecting the US already.
| coboardhead wrote: | | I am not opposed to the Keystone Pipeline. The oil refiners in Texas are part of our economy. The US is an energy exporter of refined energy products. The profits provide taxes and pensions. However, I do not believe that we should be so desperate for energy that we make mistakes in these sorts of energy developments. |
Why is it a mistake? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
