Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: axial who wrote (27677)	8/6/2008 11:46:13 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Sure Canada doesn't NEED extra money, in the strongest sense of that word, but that hardly means it doesn't benefit by it. Wherever most of the profit went, some of it went to Canada. Getting less then the whole pie, doesn't mean you can't enjoy the piece. And to the extent that non-Canadian companies drilled the oil (and that extent is not 100%), than many of the expenses, as well as many of the profits, went outside Canada. France's response to the '73 oil embargo was massive electrification, and standardized nuclear power generation which now satisfies 80% of electrical demand. Did the French pay a price that was beyond America's means? France still imports oil, natural gas, and perhaps other forms of energy and fuel. It doesn't have energy independence. Also I said nothing about the cost being beyond America's means, only that it would have been higher than the cost we have actually paid. That something is possible, and even has a gross benefit, does not imply that it has a net benefit.