The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-24-2013, 10:53 PM   #26
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
You mean like local business owners losing business and tourism going through the floor? Let me guess...it was all concocted.



Bull****, you've never been there.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0w7XRyChE

Biggest damage to tourism was from political fearmongering and hyperbole. Right in line with what Mr Crichton was saying.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 06:44 AM   #27
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0w7XRyChE

Biggest damage to tourism was from political fearmongering and hyperbole. Right in line with what Mr Crichton was saying.
Yeah, it wasn't due to the poor availability of seafood, layoffs due to poor business or any of that.

I love it, Beavis. No one can post a graph or chart without you whining and crying about how graphs and charts are Baaaaaaah-d...but post an article (by a British newspaper about a British company) with pictures (see? there's no oil in the sand...it's all gone!), and you all of the sudden know what you're talking about.

You. Don't.

And this still leaves unaddressed the original point of the thread, which is about tar sands oil. Good luck with that.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 07:49 AM   #28
Johnykbr
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldorado View Post
So, this thread went full retard in near record time.
Try and find one on the politics board that doesn't in under two pages. Damn near impossible.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 08:59 AM   #29
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Yeah, it wasn't due to the poor availability of seafood, layoffs due to poor business or any of that.
The "poor availablity of seafood" was mostly due to a federal fishing ban. If you read that Time article I posted below, you'll see that the fish themselves for the most part fared just fine. Any long term impact on tourism had more to do with media hyperbole and hype than any actual oil on the beaches.

And we can go into the specifics of tar sands if you like. But I don't see the point so long as the hiptards' position remains stern opposition to anything not Unicorn-powered.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 09:09 AM   #30
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The "poor availablity of seafood" was mostly due to a federal fishing ban. If you read that Time article I posted below, you'll see that the fish themselves for the most part fared just fine. Any long term impact on tourism had more to do with media hyperbole and hype than any actual oil on the beaches.

And we can go into the specifics of tar sands if you like. But I don't see the point so long as the hiptards' position remains stern opposition to anything not Unicorn-powered.
Yep, and nothing will change as long as the more money at any cost crowd believes that natural and man-made disasters are just trumped up opportunities for more federal money.

Like I said, you see something, you have your own explanation, you find evidence you think that supports it. It's how any good research is done!

houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 09:20 AM   #31
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Yep, and nothing will change as long as the more money at any cost crowd believes that natural and man-made disasters are just trumped up opportunities for more federal money.

Like I said, you see something, you have your own explanation, you find evidence you think that supports it. It's how any good research is done!

Yeah, real research is "I saw something kinda sorta like it first hand once. Therefore it's always cataclysmic everywhere."

The sad part is you think this is a risk you can just turn on or off. In reality less domestic drilling and pipelining equals more supertankers floating around the coasts. And if history has shown anything, it's that an accident with one of those things is when the SRHTF.

Oh and there's that whole middle class/jobs aspect you claim to care so much about.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 09:31 AM   #32
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yeah, real research is "I saw something kinda sorta like it first hand once. Therefore it's always cataclysmic everywhere."

The sad part is you think this is a risk you can just turn on or off. In reality less domestic drilling and pipelining equals more supertankers floating around the coasts. And if history has shown anything, it's that an accident with one of those things is when the SRHTF.

Oh and there's that whole middle class/jobs aspect you claim to care so much about.
And now you're just jumping from thread to thread rehashing arguments that have already been discussed. Your "transporting oil is dangerous, so what's the big deal about a pipeline" argument has already been discussed. The indiscretions and negligence of the company contracted with Keystone pipeline (not to mention big oil in general) are well documented and many.

But sure, keep burying your head in the (tar) sand. I'm sure you'll be first in line with the "nothing to see here, folks!" when the next disaster inevitably happens. Meanwhile, the oil company that gets a slap on the wrist and the (likely) conservative elected officials will laugh all the way to the bank, while more and more of those small businesses you claim to love go out of business.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 11:44 AM   #33
Eldorado
Formerly orange&blue
 
Eldorado's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,288

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pot Roast
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnykbr View Post
Try and find one on the politics board that doesn't in under two pages. Damn near impossible.
I said 'near record' you damn commie. learn to ****ing read.

/straw man/
/ad hominem/
/straw man/




















Am I doing this right?
Eldorado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 11:55 AM   #34
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,972

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
And we can go into the specifics of tar sands if you like. But I don't see the point so long as the hiptards' position remains stern opposition to anything not Unicorn-powered.
I'm not opposed to continuing to burn fossil fuels while we have to. I'm opposed to the idea that we should continue to invest in a dino powered economy (and subsidizing the **** out of it) instead of pushing hard for other sources of energy.

As a long term play, it's about a stupid a strategy as you can have, from both an economic and environmental perspective.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 12:26 PM   #35
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
I'm not opposed to continuing to burn fossil fuels while we have to. I'm opposed to the idea that we should continue to invest in a dino powered economy (and subsidizing the **** out of it) instead of pushing hard for other sources of energy.

As a long term play, it's about a stupid a strategy as you can have, from both an economic and environmental perspective.
How exactly do WE "invest" in dino energy? And the subsidy thing is mythological. If an oil company gets the same kind of tax deductions every other American industry gets, you suddenly call it a 'subsidy'

It's convenient, but not really accurate.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 02:43 PM   #36
alkemical
Guerrilla Ontologist
 
alkemical's Avatar
 
rorrim|mirror

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 43,075

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Prima Materia
Default

What's the ROI/benefit to Oil Subsidies? Is it keeping the price at the pump down? How does this impact earnings reports for profits by companies that claim profit? Is that profit real, or adjusted due to the funding a company receives?
alkemical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 03:29 PM   #37
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alkemical View Post
What's the ROI/benefit to Oil Subsidies? Is it keeping the price at the pump down? How does this impact earnings reports for profits by companies that claim profit? Is that profit real, or adjusted due to the funding a company receives?
Paraphrasing from the following:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energyso...als-love-them/

The largest BigOil "Subsidies" go towards:

Buying oil for the national strategic petroleum reserve.

Tax breaks for farmers who don't pay federal fuel taxes for the roads they don't drive on and...

low income energy assistance.

In other words, in any meaningful terms, they're not really subsidies to "Big Oil" at all. Just a nice talking point for the scapegoaters.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 07:27 PM   #38
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,725

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

The liberals love to demonize oil companies, but continue to want this country to have to deal with the ME for its oil, who ironically go against subjects the liberals supposedly are so in favor of such as equal rights for women and gay marriage. Liberals run away when discussion comes to the way women are treated in that region. Instead, they spend time talking about it for this country, like most don't already agree with any of that. It just doesn't take much courage to so any of that, but they are too scared to talk about Islam, with the only time they bother to do so is proclaim all religion is bad.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 07:31 AM   #39
Johnykbr
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldorado View Post
I said 'near record' you damn commie. learn to ****ing read.

/straw man/
/ad hominem/
/straw man/




















Am I doing this right?
Well played, good sir. Well played.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 08:31 AM   #40
alkemical
Guerrilla Ontologist
 
alkemical's Avatar
 
rorrim|mirror

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 43,075

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Prima Materia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Paraphrasing from the following:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energyso...als-love-them/

The largest BigOil "Subsidies" go towards:

Buying oil for the national strategic petroleum reserve.

Tax breaks for farmers who don't pay federal fuel taxes for the roads they don't drive on and...

low income energy assistance.

In other words, in any meaningful terms, they're not really subsidies to "Big Oil" at all. Just a nice talking point for the scapegoaters.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...ying%20ROI.jpg

The ROI on lobbyists doesn't make me feel that the subsidies are in the publics best interest. Anyone who is a free market person would be making a poor argument for giving redistribution of wealth to a profitable enterprise. That's a bad platform to support.

What i'm looking for is trying to find the # of how much the subsidies influence pricing: Pump price, transportation costs, packaging (plastics that are petrol based), etc.




PS: the subsidies for farms, has to do with ethanol. Which relates back to the problem of monoculture. You do realize also, that most pesticides and fertilizers that are chemical in large ag use are petrol derived? Which further questions the use of subsidized petrol.

Last edited by alkemical; 07-26-2013 at 08:40 AM..
alkemical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 09:21 AM   #41
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alkemical View Post
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...ying%20ROI.jpg

The ROI on lobbyists doesn't make me feel that the subsidies are in the publics best interest. Anyone who is a free market person would be making a poor argument for giving redistribution of wealth to a profitable enterprise. That's a bad platform to support.

What i'm looking for is trying to find the # of how much the subsidies influence pricing: Pump price, transportation costs, packaging (plastics that are petrol based), etc.




PS: the subsidies for farms, has to do with ethanol. Which relates back to the problem of monoculture. You do realize also, that most pesticides and fertilizers that are chemical in large ag use are petrol derived? Which further questions the use of subsidized petrol.
Not sure where you keep coming up with the subsidy angle. As I just finished pointing out. There really is no federal subsidy for big oil. The government buying oil for its own strategic purposes is not a subsidy to oil companies. The government waiving (transportation) taxes on farmers (for uses unrelated to publicly-funded transportation) is not a subsidy to oil companies. The government subsidizing energy costs for poor people is not a subsidy to big oil.

Where are you getting all these subsidies?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 12:30 PM   #42
alkemical
Guerrilla Ontologist
 
alkemical's Avatar
 
rorrim|mirror

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 43,075

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Prima Materia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Not sure where you keep coming up with the subsidy angle. As I just finished pointing out. There really is no federal subsidy for big oil. The government buying oil for its own strategic purposes is not a subsidy to oil companies. The government waiving (transportation) taxes on farmers (for uses unrelated to publicly-funded transportation) is not a subsidy to oil companies. The government subsidizing energy costs for poor people is not a subsidy to big oil.

Where are you getting all these subsidies?
So the oil companies are lobbying for what? Raisins? Toilet Paper? Cookies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

Quote:
A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[7] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies over the 2002–2008 period. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil-fuel based sources amounted to approximately $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)
The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:
Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)
In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion. It has been suggested that a subsidy shift would help to level the playing field and support growing energy sectors, namely solar power, wind power, and biofuels.[8] However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above). The value of industry-specific subsidies in 2006 was estimated by the Texas State Comptroller to be just $3.06 billion - a fraction of the amount claimed by the Environmental Law Institute.[9] The balance of federal subsides, which the comptroller valued at $7.4 billion, came from shared credits and deductions, and oil defense (spending on the SPR, energy infrastructure security, etc.).
Quote:
Fossil-fuel consumption subsidies were $409 billion in 2010, oil products ca half of it. Renewable-energy subsidies were $66 billion in 2010 and will reach according to IEA $250 billion by 2035. Renewable energy is subsidized in order to compete in the market, increase their volume and develop the technology so that the subsidies become unnecessary with the development. Eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies could bring economic and environmental benefits. Phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies by 2020 would cut primary energy demand 5%. Since the start of 2010, at least 15 countries have taken steps to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies. According to IEA onshore wind may become competitive around 2020 in the European Union.[19]
Maybe do a little more research into a topic other than finding one article that supports your incorrect view point.

If you want to dig in further:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=energy+subsidies
alkemical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 04:28 PM   #43
BroncsRule
Perennial Pro-bowler
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 983

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldorado View Post
I said 'near record' you damn commie. learn to ****ing read.

/straw man/
/ad hominem/
/straw man/


Am I doing this right?
You need to focus more on the personal attacks.

Idiot!

But keep after it. You're getting there.
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2013, 04:38 AM   #44
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
http://grist.org/news/no-one-knows-h...ds-oil-spills/

Welcome to the future of dino powered economies. As the "easy to access" sweet crude dries up, it'll become more profitable to do more risky things like trying to extract underground tar sands, which will result in messes like this.

“This is a new kind of oil spill and there is no ‘off button,’” said Keith Stewart, an energy analyst with Greenpeace who teaches a course on energy policy and environment at the University of Toronto. “You can’t cap it like a conventional oil well or turn off a valve on a pipeline.

“You are pressurizing the oil bed so hard that it’s no wonder that it blows out. This means that the oil will continue to leak until the well is no longer pressurized,” which means the bitumen could be seeping from the ground for months.

Let's inject pressurized steam into the ground to liquify the tar so we can suck it up. What? No way to release the pressure should something go wrong? Pfht, stand aside there's money to be made!
I can't wait for the Keystone pipeline to deliver that tar sands oil through the U.S. only to be shipped to overseas markets. Maybe they should learn how to clean it up before building the pipeline... just saying.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2013, 04:39 AM   #45
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

  Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2013, 04:40 AM   #46
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default



This is really entertaining.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2013, 03:03 PM   #47
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Of course, when they build the Keystone pipeline, they'll be extra safe and careful. "Trust us."

I think that's what BP said about deep Gulf drilling.
They did nothing without US Govt permission and the US Govt has since quietly restarted issuing permits to drill deep water off the Gulf Coast.

I fail to understand why you hold BP accountable for these assurances but not the feds.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:36 PM.


Denver Broncos