Posted on 12/07/2005 5:47:49 PM PST by broberts
Here is an article that looks like a set-up piece planted by the energy companies as a cover.
You could just link the article directly rather than getting us to add to your web sites "visitor" stats.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5080-2004May31.html
By the way people, note the date.
$2.27 is not too low.
This strategy is called "blog pimping" on FR.
welcome newbie.....
They've been such an oil company advocate in the past.
You're not really this naive, are you?
If you continue posting nonsense like this, you won't last too long here. All the best.....
Cool another reason to never listen to scooop radio. Around here we don't pimp our sites.
Gas prices went up in my neck of the 'Burgh. Were as low as $2.03 Monday, now $2.19 at same gas stations. Others went up anywhere from $.10 to $.15 cents/gal.
If every auto (that means the driver of course) would burn just a gallon less per week...
http://www.onlineconversion.com/volume.htm
42 gallon [US, liquid] = 1 barrel [US, petroleum]
2,000,000 barrel [US, petroleum] = 84,000,000 gallon [US, liquid]
There are in excess of 200 million vehicles; if only 84 million burned one less gallon per week...
A tax puts the pressure on the oil companies to seek the cheapest petroleum possible, because that means they will be catching unholy hell in the media for the price of gasoline, without making the money needed to drill wells and pay an army of attorneys to clear the way to try to increase infrastructure capacity.
A tax (even more than we already have) removes money from the economy and redistributes it along pathways which will not necessarily benefit the economy, with the exception of people studying the sex lives of Ostracodes, or cow farts or some such, or coming up with new ways to grind birds while generating electricity.
It will not get more wells drilled or refineries built, and thus will not address the root problem.
With the price of oil increasing, that tax would have done little good, in fact, more harm, especially considering the subsequent hurricanes and their effect on the industry.
Well, he got his wish, but not in the way he was pushing for. Prices are up, due to the one-two punch of increased Asian demand, (Chinese drilling wells in the Piceance Basin in Colorado, buying up huge shares of the rights to the Alberts tar sands), and hurricane disruption of our producing and refining infrastructure right here at home. Only this time, thanks to nature's fury, at least some of the money will end up where it will be spent on drilling more wells, building more pipelines, and maybe, if the ecowhackos and Nimbys will finally back off just a little, more refineries.
For those who embrace the idea of alternate techniologies, there is also the financial incentive (unavailable at cheaper oil prices) to develop those technologies, and ease them through the critical but expensive growing pains of any technology at its inception. Cutting oil prices at this point would undermine that, too, as venture capital would flee elsewhere for greener pastures.
Well put!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
