Rendell plan to tax Marcellus shale gas in doubt…
|
Comment Commandments:
1) No Personal Attacks. (Debating is encouraged, but be respectful). 2) No Sexual Discussion (unless it specifically pertains to a cited story). 3) No Profanity (Let’s all behave like adults). |
GOLDEN RULE:
Be civil and statesmanlike. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Annoying trolls who break these rules will be blocked from commenting. ***Please don't disable anonymous commenting for everyone else*** |
NOTE TO COMMENTERS: CREATE AN INTENSE DEBATE ACCOUNT
|
-vote comments up or down
-email notifications when someone replies |
-pick a profile picture
-promote your website or blog |
***TOPIC FORUM: 50 STORIES LAST COMMENTED ON***
***LIST OF TOP 50 COMMENTERS***
***LIST OF 50 MOST COMMENTED ON STORIES***
***LIST OF 50 LAST COMMENTS***
.
3 Comments
Leave it to Fast Eddie to entertain the prospect of taxing domestic energy reserves…
The first thing to realize about oil and gas is that they are formed continually by subterreanean processes. There is literally no end to either of them. The "rationers", who prosper from artificial shortages, want us to make the mistake of thinking that they are "fossil fuels", to which there is an end.
There are vast amounts of energy trapped in Marcellus Shale all over the country. Louisiana's deposits may exceed Pennsylvania's. The state who taps it first wins, and any taxes only impede prosperity.
Bill, I've heard the "subterreanean process" theory before, and I confess, I do find it hard to believe. Seems to me that if there are processes at work to produce oil/gas, some thing or things would have to be consumed in and by the process. But what? Can we measure changes in raw materials used vs. oil/gas produced? How can we test or prove/disprove this?