Prices are as high as the spike of 2007 when the price of oil shot to $140. Its 'only' $96 right now.

 

Something is amiss. Not sure what but the historical oil/gas connection has disconnected or there is a new connection and is supposed to be the new normal.

 

Somewhat addressed here.

 

Watch "Jeff Rubin on Oil and the End of Globalization [FULL]" Video at OPEC

I'm certainly no expert on how much that will help the environment. My uneducated guess is the less we have used in the States the better we will be environmentally.

What about the energy prices that go through the roof?

While we're playing "pull a number out of thin air" let's do this.

 

Let's all agree that the world class economist has inside info and the number is indeed 500B.

 

So what?

 

You think that oil is staying in the US?

 

You do know that the companies that contracted with the proposed XL pipeline had contracts for 2/3s of it to go overseas, right?

 

So tell me how we can guarantee that oil stays in the US?

I would propose that the significant cost incurred to tap the resource be paid by the government. That's something I could get on board for our tax dollars being appropriated for versus checking out the potholes on Mars with a cool transformer named curiosity. If the government spends that $ on the development of the technology then there is stipulation with the private sector to the delivery and use of the resource. I think that we could deal with that. Sounds simple enough. I know it's likely not, but for me at least, it's a starting place and talking point.

I would propose that the significant cost incurred to tap the resource be paid by the government. That's something I could get on board for our tax dollars being appropriated for versus checking out the potholes on Mars with a cool transformer named curiosity. If the government spends that $ on the development of the technology then there is stipulation with the private sector to the delivery and use of the resource. I think that we could deal with that. Sounds simple enough. I know it's likely not, but for me at least, it's a starting place and talking point.

 

Are you saying that private companies still do the drilling but the govt require them to use it in the US only?

 

If so, how would you stop the companies from raising their prices ? Aren't you setting the US up for less competition (ie not buying gas from the world markets)? What is my incentive as a producer to keep costs low?

Edited August 28, 201214 yr by Clyde

Semantics. The govt needs to be involved in some manner.

Semantics? So the government spending billions in tax money versus creating an environment to encourage research by the private sector while not spending an dime is semantics?

Are you saying that private companies still do the drilling but the govt require them to use it in the US only?

 

If so, how would you stop the companies from raising their prices ? Aren't you setting the US up for less competition (ie not buying gas from the world markets)? What is my incentive as a producer to keep costs low?

 

I suppose it would depend on what the new technology allows and what the cost of that new technology would be. Sure I'd be for some restrictions in some form or fashion.

What about the energy prices that go through the roof?

 

No question it's an issue of "how much more are we willing to pay."

I suppose it would depend on what the new technology allows and what the cost of that new technology would be. Sure I'd be for some restrictions in some form or fashion.

 

The problem I see with what you're proposing is that there is no incentive for keeping costs down which will be passed onto us.

Semantics? So the government spending billions in tax money versus creating an environment to encourage research by the private sector while not spending an dime is semantics?

 

My original point was that I'm for govt $$ being spent to fix the problem. The entrepreneurs need some help while they're getting their projects off of the ground. We've got a vested interest in them succeeding so I'm cool with tax $$ helping. You say "creating an environment" and I say "helping." I see them as the same.

My original point was that I'm for govt $$ being spent to fix the problem. The entrepreneurs need some help while they're getting their projects off of the ground. We've got a vested interest in them succeeding so I'm cool with tax $$ helping. You say "creating an environment" and I say "helping." I see them as the same.

Except mine doesn't spend money. They want help getting projects off the ground then get a loan from a bank. Or find investment from private sources. Maybe they could try Shark Tank. I'm sure Mark Cuban would be happy to help. If it's a good idea and money to made they shouldn't have any problem finding some evil rich person to invest.

The problem I see with what you're proposing is that there is no incentive for keeping costs down which will be passed onto us.

 

So are you suggesting that we have to sell 2/3 of it to foreigners to keep our own costs down?

My original point was that I'm for govt $$ being spent to fix the problem. The entrepreneurs need some help while they're getting their projects off of the ground. We've got a vested interest in them succeeding so I'm cool with tax $$ helping. You say "creating an environment" and I say "helping." I see them as the same.

 

 

How does taking money from business actually help other businesses? I don't nor have I ever understood this philosophy. You are forgetting the impact it has, long term, on taxpayers and the market as a whole.

So are you suggesting that we have to sell 2/3 of it to foreigners to keep our own costs down?

 

No.

Except mine doesn't spend money. They want help getting projects off the ground then get a loan from a bank. Or find investment from private sources. Maybe they could try Shark Tank. I'm sure Mark Cuban would be happy to help. If it's a good idea and money to made they shouldn't have any problem finding some evil rich person to invest.

 

IMO this issue has the largest impact on our economy of any issue out there. Therefore, I think it's wise for govt to use $$ to encourage entrepreneurs. Could be in the form of a business loan. Could be in tax credits. Come on. We give tax credits TODAY to the oil industry . We can't do the same for something that has the potential to have a great impact on our economy and future?

How does taking money from business actually help other businesses? I don't nor have I ever understood this philosophy. You are forgetting the impact it has, long term, on taxpayers and the market as a whole.

 

I need some clarification before I respond. "Taking money from business...?"