Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Understand - at least Israel has been an ally - but money outflow is money outflow - and regardless of who it is - we don't have the money.
Israel hasn't helped us anymore then other countries have. We have a military alliance with them and Egypt. Doesn't mean we should give them a damn dime while we are going into bankruptcy as a nation.
Israel hasn't helped us anymore then other countries have. We have a military alliance with them and Egypt. Doesn't mean we should give them a damn dime while we are going into bankruptcy as a nation.
I'm not arguing with you. Nobody should be getting anything.
Pakistan - $7.5B in 2011 - U.S. Aid Plan for Pakistan Is Foundering The aid program promoted by Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, promised Pakistan $7.5 billion over five years, much of it delivered through the civilian government.
Egypt - $2B per year - Follow the Egyptian money Since the Camp David peace accords more than three decades ago, the United States and Egypt have had an unspoken bargain in terms of the roughly $2 billion in aid given each year to Cairo:
Only about $180 million out of that $7.5 billion to Pakistan was actually delivered, and the way things are going, they are unlikely to see much more of it.
As for the shale, it is very expensive to extract, but they should be looking into finding better extraction methods. In the past it has been difficult to get big oil interested in these kinds of projects. For example Shell started in CO, but quickly abandoned the project because it was not going to generate enough profits. Mostly likely such projects would have to be heavily subsidised by the government.
Only about $180 million out of that $7.5 billion to Pakistan was actually delivered, and the way things are going, they are unlikely to see much more of it.
As for the shale, it is very expensive to extract, but they should be looking into finding better extraction methods. In the past it has been difficult to get big oil interested in these kinds of projects. For example Shell started in CO, but quickly abandoned the project because it was not going to generate enough profits. Mostly likely such projects would have to be heavily subsidised by the government.
It appears it's dependant on the price of oil as like you say it's more expensive but if oil remains high there is an incentive to go after it. New technology will drive the price down. NO reason to go "all in". The shell project was dumped because of low crude prices if I recall correctly. I doubt the government is gonna give any money for shale exploration but you never know. Too busy funding green stuff where they are going "all in" with our money instead of waiting until the green stuff becomes competitive with other sources of energy. There is the green problem in a nutshell.
Restrict agricultural development? Sure, I vote for paying more money for food stuffs so I can have expensive gasoline.
You wouldnt pay more money for food, most of the food doesnt come from that region, and the price of gas would drop so low, that transportation costs would probably drop dramatically
You wouldnt pay more money for food, most of the food doesnt come from that region, and the price of gas would drop so low, that transportation costs would probably drop dramatically
No, it wouldn't.
Oil shale and sand development depends on the high price of oil. If it dropped to "so low, that transportation costs would probably drop dramatically", then oil sands and oil shale wouldn't be worth the money put into it.
Its viability is all based on crude being 100 dollars a barrel or higher.
Right now it is. In five or ten years with new technology the price could come down. That is why some folks are looking into it. In other countries of course because the feds own most of the land the shale is on in the US and they know it's not worth going through the red tape to even get started here.
Right now it is. In five or ten years with new technology the price could come down.
I've heard the same thing said of solar, and Republicans will destroy anyone who mentions that effort.
Natural gas is here, now, and will be here for another 100 years. Well enough time to develop cheap solar energy, far cheaper then oil sands will ever be.
Should we use oil sands to boost domestic supply? Sure.
Are they an answer to long term energy needs? Nope.
Difference is the ventures into shale exploration are not funded by taxpayer dollars. Nat gas won't be here for long after the EPA and Sierra Club get done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
