- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/9/25 at 1:10 pm to loogaroo
Poor Lisa just found out all politicians are able to lie with a straight face.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 1:29 pm to TBoy
quote:well then obviously murk should definitely be pissing away more money on green energy because its ROI is much more than O&G
Private companies are not producing unlimited reserves in Alaska because it is cost prohibitive and there isn’t enough return to justify the investment. You are just talking shite out of your arse.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 1:49 pm to TBoy
quote:.... and the Permian Basin is a long way from Alaska.
Alaska is a long way away from the Permian Basin.
Estimates are that Alaska has in the neighborhood of 300 TRILLION cubic feet of untapped NatGas! Of the 300 TRILLION CuFt of suspected NatGas, 35 TRILLION cubic feet of it are proven reserves. That's roughly 2x the 19 T CuFt of Permian reserves.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 2:11 pm to TBoy
quote:
The private companies that drill for natural gas should be all over drilling and setting up Alaska with unlimited natural gas.
They should be but then again LWNJ administrations have hamstrung such efforts. In fact they do drill for gas but much of it is being used to aid in crude oil extraction, so they know the gas is there, they can access it readily and cheaply enough to pump it right back down for oil.
quote:
You don’t know anything about what you are talking about. Private companies are not producing unlimited reserves in Alaska because it is cost prohibitive and there isn’t enough return to justify the investment. You are just talking shite out of your arse.
The irony of the retarded child attempting to lecture his betters...
Posted on 8/9/25 at 2:17 pm to Free888
She shouldn't even be in Congress but found a way to change election rules to guarantee her another win.
..and then turns around and screws the GOP every chance she gets. frick that bitch.
..and then turns around and screws the GOP every chance she gets. frick that bitch.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 2:32 pm to Ace Midnight
There’s nothing to agree or disagree with. It’s factual. Not really up for debate. Oil is subsidized. Taxes pay for all of it. The argument I think Billj is making is that what’s fair for oil should be fair for renewables. Why is it ok for tax dollars to subsidize oil and not renewables?
I’ll add this. If our species’ rate of energy consumption exceeds the earth’s rate of producing fossil fuels, won’t we have to address that? Why not now? Renewables has the math in favor of long terms solutions. Fossil fuels does not.
Agreements and disagreements can be had about how and when. But the why isn’t pretty well cemented at this point.
I’ll add this. If our species’ rate of energy consumption exceeds the earth’s rate of producing fossil fuels, won’t we have to address that? Why not now? Renewables has the math in favor of long terms solutions. Fossil fuels does not.
Agreements and disagreements can be had about how and when. But the why isn’t pretty well cemented at this point.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 3:31 pm to loogaroo
Sucks for you, bitch. That’s what you get for being a turncoat RINO POS.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 3:32 pm to BawtHouse
quote:
I’ll add this. If our species’ rate of energy consumption exceeds the earth’s rate of producing fossil fuels, won’t we have to address that? Why not now? Renewables has the math in favor of long terms solutions. Fossil fuels does not
Nuclear is the clear and simple answer.
This post was edited on 8/9/25 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 8/9/25 at 3:41 pm to loogaroo
Lisa
Back home.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 3:43 pm to goatmilker
MurCOWsky is a nepo baby……
Posted on 8/9/25 at 4:01 pm to loogaroo
She’s an idiot. Hope she is voted out of office.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 4:32 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
Nuclear is the clear and simple answer.
And subsidized. At least for a few more years. Not long enough to make anyone want to do it, but it’s still there until 32 I think.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 4:55 pm to billjamin
quote:
quote:
Nuclear is the clear and simple answer.
And subsidized. At least for a few more years. Not long enough to make anyone want to do it, but it’s still there until 32 I think
There are several folks pioneering cheaper, safer, and smaller nuclear reactors. This guy was on Shawn Ryan and is very interesting.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 4:59 pm to TBoy
quote:
Alaska possesses substantial natural gas deposits, particularly on its North Slope, which is one of the largest in the world.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 5:06 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
There are several folks pioneering cheaper, safer, and smaller nuclear reactors. This guy was on Shawn Ryan and is very interesting.
Been hearing it for decades. It’s not going to happen. Especially with a sunset on the nuclear tax credit that basically means any new development gets $0.
It was hard before this latest round of frickery. It’s impossible now. No ones going to invest when the rug can get pulled out from under them.
Posted on 8/10/25 at 4:15 am to billjamin
quote:
You’ll just pay it on the increased price of energy.
Yes but you have a choice of how much energy you consume.
Posted on 8/10/25 at 4:30 am to billjamin
quote:
There are nuclear power plants actively under construction in the U.S. The Vogtle plant in Georgia is currently expanding with two new reactors (Units 3 and 4). Unit 3 began commercial operation in July 2023, and Unit 4 in April 2024. These are the first new nuclear reactors to come online in the U.S. in over three decades. Additionally, there are projects underway for advanced reactors, such as TerraPower's Natrium plant in Wyoming and X-energy's project in Texas, though these are in earlier stages of development.
I guess people want "the rug pulled out from underneath them"........
Posted on 8/10/25 at 4:43 am to billjamin
quote:
Which ones? Some aren’t “paid”, because it’s just an offset to existing tax liability. Others are “paid” via the govt for protecting supply chains globally. Others are “paid” by land owners getting their property taken at rates they can’t negotiate themselves.
Taking advantage of existing tax law is not a subsidy.
Protecting supply chains, as in the US Navy, well then I guess your nikes are subsidized as well. Or are you referring to the protection the govt provided oil companies when Venezuela seized their assets, that protection was, shall we say lacking.
When have oil companies "taken" people's property?
Posted on 8/10/25 at 4:46 am to billjamin
quote:
And you can’t eminent domain a pipeline across Canada like they do here to keep the cost low.
The argument was the lack of energy for Alaska, and there is plenty of nat gas in Alaska, it has nothing to do with pipelines to Texas.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News