It's only risky because they may never get the proper permits to operate or may face grassroots opposition that succeeds. The business itself is quite profitable. It is only artificially created hurdles that make it risky.
I've posted several links supporting my asssertions. can you support yours where you say "The big oil companies want subsidies and tax breaks so that they would get the damn things built for free". Where did you get this info?
Gonna take a stab at this just to see:
42 gallons in a barrel of oil, if oil rises $10 a barrel, then gas should rise $10/42 or $.24 a gallon(x2 as only 21 gallons of gas can be made from a barrel of oil) so lets say $10 rise in a barrel = $.48 a gallon of gas.
When oil was $20 a barrel in January 2002 the price of gas was $1.25 a gallon. In January 2007 oil was $55 a barrel and gas was $3.15 a gallon. This should have = a rise in gas of $1.68. $1.25 + $1.68 = $2.93 Pretty close to what it should have been give or take a $.25. Look at how many gallons the US alone uses and thats a lot of $.25's that get lost here and there. Lets just say about $45,000,000,000.
The oil companies have considerable control over what you pay and they make on any given week. To give them $8,000,000,000 in tax breaks and subsidies every year is like giving the fat lady twinkies! There is no need for it.
PS I know I'm about to get slaughtered on these figures, but hey, I put some out there!
