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.
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.
I cry bull on that one. Tax payers subsidize all oil operations, its why Exxon paid no income tax.
Maybe if you would read the link you could provide a point. You jump up and down when you didn't even realize this was testimony by the GAO YESTERDAY. Probably so Obama could promise to get er fired up right after he's re elected though. LOL
Now back to your whining.
Seriously dude, you come off as unreasonable and irrational on this forum.
I cry bull on that one. Tax payers subsidize all oil operations, its why Exxon paid no income tax.
Exxon paid the us government 7.6 billion in taxes in '09. Sure they based themselves offshore like the rest to avoid the highest corporate tax rate of any industrialized country in the world. Do you use any tax loopholes, or subsidies, or your returns? Being holier than thou I take it you deduct nothing.
Exxon paid the us government 7.6 billion in taxes in '09. Sure they based themselves offshore like the rest to avoid the highest corporate tax rate of any industrialized country in the world. Do you use any tax loopholes, or subsidies, or your returns? Being holier than thou I take it you deduct nothing.
Not income tax though. Most companies pay the same taxes plus income tax.
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.
Not even close. just like the price of natural gas fell as they discovered more, the same will be true with crude. As they pump out more, the cost goes down substantially, especially in these volumes. I'm not sure where you are getting your $100 a barrel figure, other than out of ur butt.
Not even close. just like the price of natural gas fell as they discovered more, the same will be true with crude. As they pump out more, the cost goes down substantially, especially in these volumes. I'm not sure where you are getting your $100 a barrel figure, other than out of ur butt.
Natural has is easy to obtain, so supply decreases demand.
The price of oil shale isn't in the supply, its in the production.
MASSIVE costs involved in production, which is why its price dependent to make it viable.
No, setup costs are tremendous, but once those costs have been spent, then the cost to break even drops substantially.
its like buying a new car.. Once you've made the expense, the cost is over.
No, the PROCESSING costs are tremendous. Not just the set up costs.
It takes a ton of energy to heat the sands, to seperate the oil, then you have to process it more, then you can refine it.
Its price margins will never drop, its all market dependent.
Go read a book about it, I have.
And as I said, I'm not opposed to oil sands. But there are plenty of other energy sources that are far less impactful to the environment, far less impactful to the atmosphere, they are cheaper, and we have more of it.
Mainly natural gas.
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.
