shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on May 12, 2011 17:51:02 GMT -5
"you still think there is a difference between members of the two parties? they both get told what to do at the bilderberg hotel. they are both willing, contributing, participants in the NWO " Now that I can believe
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 12, 2011 18:11:04 GMT -5
How much do we have to drill , pump and put on the international market do drop gas prices?Anyone know? Me thinks it wouldn't make a dent in gas prices for years.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on May 12, 2011 18:14:21 GMT -5
How much do we have to drill , pump and put on the international market do drop gas prices?Anyone know? Me thinks it wouldn't make a dent in gas prices for years. If we can produce, refine and put on market, it will take years, If we start to produce (ie. actually let the pumps run and exploration in the areas we know oil is) OPEC will lower the price quickly to keep us from undercutting them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:57:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2011 18:15:23 GMT -5
There are lots of things this country should have done 20- years ago. We need to get busy and DO IT!
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 12, 2011 18:21:25 GMT -5
Us? I was under the impression the oil companies drilling here were multi national, not US government owned and earmarked for the US. I think it goes to the highest bidder,regardless of origin or destination. I could be wrong,of course.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 12, 2011 20:58:00 GMT -5
Not saying a bad deal...don't know enough about it but it seems all forgot about the BP little problem in the Gulf, that is all water under the dam I guess, or Oil hidden in the depths of the Gulf or something like that.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on May 12, 2011 21:14:52 GMT -5
Not saying a bad deal...don't know enough about it but it seems all forgot about the BP little problem in the Gulf, that is all water under the dam I guess, or Oil hidden in the depths of the Gulf or something like that. I'd rather see them drill on solid ground. I'd rather see them make shale coal extraction easier, but, since the first isn't happening and the second is slowly developing I'll take the ones in the ocean for the economic value they add.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on May 12, 2011 22:00:34 GMT -5
I think it goes to the highest bidder,regardless of origin or destination. I could be wrong,of course.
What the hell what all this talk about domestic drilling be about if you were going to end up paying the Saudi's price for oil. Of course drilling in waters in and within US proximity would have the resulting price in crude being much lower than the ripoff Arabs price.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 13, 2011 7:23:35 GMT -5
Oil drilled and pumped here is put on the global market to be sold to the highest bidder. The government does not tell these multinational oil companies they have to sell it to the US at reduced prices. There was a law restricting the oil from the Alaskan pipeline was to be for domestic consumption, during the shortage years ago,but that was dropped . Imo,it would take a lot of barrels and time to have a large impact on global supplies and prices.>>>>> "Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the bill's lead sponsor, made the same argument Wednesday.
"If we send a signal to the markets that we’re going to go after the resources that we have in this country," he told bloggers on a conference call, "I think that will have a positive impact on driving the price of gasoline down. As a matter of fact, that happened in 2008."
But people who study oil markets for a living say they are wrong.
"I would really doubt that that [2008 price drop] would have been because we committed to more drilling," said Phyllis Martin, an analyst with the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), which just released its detailed, annual outlook on energy supply and prices.
"It was most likely the recession," Martin explained. "When demand cuts back, the production cuts back and the prices fall."
As for opening four new drilling leases, that's not even a drop in the bucket.
Analyst Lynch said that, if the nation took an extremely vigorous stance on oil exploitation -- and relaxed restrictions on the Gulf and drilled in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and off the coast of California, where America's most easily accessible offshore oil is located -- it still would not have much of an impact.
"With the exception of the deep Gulf, where there are restrictions, people are drilling as fast as they can," said Lynch, who regards himself as a moderate Republican. He is bearish on oil prices and believes the cost of crude will drop soon, regardless of an government policies.
"You might, under really optimistic scenarios, over five or six years, add 2 million barrels a day of production," said Lynch, who favors more drilling, even if he rejects the politicians' arguments. "On a global scale, it's significant. But we would still be big importers -- we would still be dependent on foreign oil."
And prices would not move much because of it, the analysts explained. Oil is traded on a world market, and the United States does not have enough petroleum to increase the global supply, which would reduce demand -- and thus the price -- for fuel.
"In 2009, the U.S. produced about 7 percent of what was produced in the entire world, so increasing the oil production in the U.S. is not going to make much of a difference in world markets and world prices," said the EIA's Martin. "It just gets lost. It's not that much."
And boosting drilling in the outer continental shelf?
"What comes out of the OCS is about 1 percent of the world total, and that's not enough to affect world prices," Martin said, even noting that she believes there are even more untapped reserves than officials can estimate at the moment.
Republicans are right about some things, the experts agreed. More drilling would mean more jobs and more tax revenue, if the industry's subsidies and tax breaks were revoked. It could also reduce oil imports -- even if gas prices wouldn't drop."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:57:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2011 8:26:47 GMT -5
In its latest monthly oil market report, the International Energy Agency revised downward its forecast for 2011 global oil product demand growth as a result of persistent high prices and weaker projections for economic growth in the developed countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
With a new forecast from the International Monetary Fund putting 2011 economic growth in the world’s advanced economies at 4.3% vs. 4.8% growth in 2010, IEA now projects that global oil demand will climb 1.3 million b/d this year to average 89.2 million b/d. In 2010, worldwide oil demand grew by 2.8 million b/d.
A month ago, IEA’s forecast put 2011 global oil demand growth at 1.4 million b/d.
IEA noted that $4/gal gasoline is likely to yield an anemic US driving season and that a weaker 2011 profile in North America is the main driver behind the change to its demand forecast. Also, governments in Russia, Brazil, and China face difficulties fully passing on recent price rises to consumers, helping to sustain robust demand growth in the non?OECD countries, and potential power supply problems in China might augment that trend, the report said.
Global oil supply dipped by 50,000 b/d in April to 87.5 million b/d, according to the report.
Oil supply from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries continued its downward trend in April, with Libyan supply shuttered in the wake of worsening civil war. April OPEC output averaged 28.75 million b/d, off by 235,000 b/d from March and 1.3 million b/d below January levels, according to the report. I doubt that Obama would want to pass by the political coup that would come from 1.2 million possible jobs, but it goes against his media stance towards the (evil?) oil companies. Also since a large amount of US refined product is sold overseas, it would do little to lower the price of gasoline.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 13, 2011 9:15:37 GMT -5
No such thing as cheap gas anymore- they pushed us to see how much we could handle, tanked the economy, and they are still trying to find the sweet spot. Drilling for cheaper gas is a pipe dream- no pun intended.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 13, 2011 9:19:19 GMT -5
We have gone from no energy policy under Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, to outright obstruction under Obama. The headline of the OP is correct. Obama wanted a cap and tax plan which he couldn't get through Congress, so his regulatory czar has been working with the EPA to implement it illegally. Here's what Obama said about his own cap and tax plan of a massive new $2.2 trillion energy tax:
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 13, 2011 9:25:41 GMT -5
No such thing as cheap gas anymore- they pushed us to see how much we could handle, tanked the economy, and they are still trying to find the sweet spot. Drilling for cheaper gas is a pipe dream- no pun intended. So, when Shell spent $4 billion dollars- $2.2 billion for oil leases alone, in Alaska, they knew ahead of time they were going to be denied the permits to drill on the flimsy notion of "emissions" effecting some podunk trading post? $4 billion was just to fuel the conspiracy? Gimme a break. www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/25/energy-america-oil-drilling-denial/Turn off Bill O'Reilly and grow up. 95% of the oil reserves on planet earth are controlled by GOVERNMENTS. "Big Oil" only has access to 5% of the world's oil, and we're blaming them for some big conspiracy? It's silly.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 13, 2011 9:59:53 GMT -5
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 13, 2011 10:07:05 GMT -5
Screw Shell- risk failed. That is what Capitalism is all about- taking risks- right? Can't win them all.
O'Reilly is a Fox news guy- the same network you apparently get all of your ideas from, so what makes you think I would listen to anything he had to say?
And- if you think drilling anywhere is going to automatically drop the price of gas to any meaningful level you need to grow up/ stop reading links from Fox.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 13, 2011 10:12:42 GMT -5
5 years, 4 billion dollars- I think their tax subsidy more than covered it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 13, 2011 10:31:30 GMT -5
Screw Shell- risk failed. That is what Capitalism is all about- taking risks- right? Can't win them all. Bullshit. The risk here was dealing with government with a policy to obstruct domestic oil exploration and drilling. Those evil speculators know it, too-- that's why they pegged the future price of oil higher. The government deliberately, and probably illegally obstructed the drilling here to screw Shell because they're anti-big oil unless it's Brazil.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 13, 2011 10:38:52 GMT -5
Paul,look at the links I posted.The EPA approved the permits, the local residents appealed them in the final prccess and got them overturned.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 13, 2011 10:41:20 GMT -5
"Late last week, the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB or Board) in Washington, DC rejected two air permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Shell Oil for proposed offshore drilling projects in the Arctic. The Crag Law Center represented local Inupiat organizations in the case, including the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, a federally recognized tribal government.
Shell’s offshore drilling proposal would emit thousands of tons of pollutants into the pristine air sheds of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, including nitrous oxides, particular matter, and carbon dioxide. The local communities already suffer from high rates of respiratory diseases like asthma, and they are concerned that the additional pollution will contribute to public health concerns on the North Slope.
In an important victory for the local communities, the EAB sent the permits back to EPA Region 10. The Board held that EPA Region 10 failed to address the local community’s environmental justice concerns and the potential health impacts of NOx emissions. In issuing the permits, EPA Region10 relied on outdated standards and science that were almost 15 years old in concluding that the drilling operations and NOx emissions posed no threat to the health of local people. The Board returned the permits to Region 10 of EPA noting the local communities’ use of offshore areas for subsistence purposes and asking Region 10 to incorporate the most recent scientific information before concluding that Shell’s proposed operations are safe for the local community" ---- TRANSLATION: The EPA approved the permits,and local residents sucessfully repealed them.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 13, 2011 10:50:36 GMT -5
5 years, 4 billion dollars- I think their tax subsidy more than covered it. Ahh, more dishonesty. Allowing oil companies to keep what THEY EARN, is not a "subsidy". Oil exec handed Rockefeller his ass yesterday on this topic... The Senate Finance Committee is doing the hearing, and the ConocoPhillips Chairman CEO James Mulva testified. Here's a portion of what he said in his opening remarks. Total worldwide taxes paid equaled their income, and these people are being told they're not paying their fair share. Senator Schumer asked an oil CEO if he thought that calling for an end to oil subsidies is un-American or not. And the oil exec tried to answer and Schumer interrupted, cut him off, said, Trying to trap these people in sound bites. Now, here's John Watson. John Watson is the Chevron Corporation CEO. Senator Jay Rockefeller interrogating him,
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 13, 2011 11:03:51 GMT -5
I'm a little tired of the annual, childish, populist uprising every year against oil companies. It's government obstructionism that has driven gasoline prices sky high. We can't explore, we can't drill, we can't refine-- all because of a government that's been hijacked by radical revolutionaries who range from anti-colonialists to environmentalist whackos who feel it's better if prices are high, we consume less, and are hampered in global economic, and military competition. If a foreign enemy had done to our domestic energy supply what our own government has done, we'd be in all out war with that enemy. That is a fact.
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on May 13, 2011 11:07:38 GMT -5
Yeah, Obama gave Soros the go ahead to drill in BRAZIL! Coincidence?? I doubt it. is Obama president of Brazil too?
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on May 13, 2011 11:14:01 GMT -5
Yeah, Obama gave Soros the go ahead to drill in BRAZIL! Coincidence?? I doubt it. is Obama president of Brazil too? No but he is going to help finance the drilling.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on May 13, 2011 11:15:03 GMT -5
"Late last week, the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB or Board) in Washington, DC rejected two air permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Shell Oil for proposed offshore drilling projects in the Arctic. The Crag Law Center represented local Inupiat organizations in the case, including the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, a federally recognized tribal government. Shell’s offshore drilling proposal would emit thousands of tons of pollutants into the pristine air sheds of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, including nitrous oxides, particular matter, and carbon dioxide. The local communities already suffer from high rates of respiratory diseases like asthma, and they are concerned that the additional pollution will contribute to public health concerns on the North Slope. In an important victory for the local communities, the EAB sent the permits back to EPA Region 10. The Board held that EPA Region 10 failed to address the local community’s environmental justice concerns and the potential health impacts of NOx emissions. In issuing the permits, EPA Region10 relied on outdated standards and science that were almost 15 years old in concluding that the drilling operations and NOx emissions posed no threat to the health of local people. The Board returned the permits to Region 10 of EPA noting the local communities’ use of offshore areas for subsistence purposes and asking Region 10 to incorporate the most recent scientific information before concluding that Shell’s proposed operations are safe for the local community" ---- TRANSLATION: The EPA approved the permits,and local residents sucessfully repealed them. This is even worse, so having gone through the difficult task of navigating the EPA bureaucracy to get permits, another government agency shut them down.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 13, 2011 11:17:31 GMT -5
What a bunch of cry babies in suits- our poor oil field workers. Like they give a shit about them. Just like they give a shit about any externalities- which is why they stated 'the issues were not major'- being the pollution they were going to inflict on the people that live there. The lost an appeal- tough tit, that's business. They knew it could happen- that is why it is called RISK TAKING- your favorite mantra. That's the thing with these so-called risk takers- when they lose they want us to pay for it. Nothing more blatantly hypocritical than watching 'conservatives' defend a business tax subsidy to go along with their 'free market' principles.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 13, 2011 11:21:30 GMT -5
Oh, BS. They pointed out the facts and the crybabies are the Jay Rockefellers, and Schmuck Schumers who got the truth and didn't like it because it accurately portrayed their policies to date, and their proposals as being a job killer, and a means of sustaining high energy prices.
Typical liberal tactic-- attack an industry, and when they screw it up for the people-- malign the industry they attacked and screwed up and blame the victims.
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on May 13, 2011 11:23:25 GMT -5
the gov't makes .41 cents on every gal of gas sold in america. the oil companies make .7 cents on every gal of gas sold in america.
if i were involved in this question and answer circus, i would have asked the gov't reps why they needed such a large american taxpayer subsidy.
and if oil companies were 'raping' americans, what would the gov't be charged in court with, all things being fair and equal?
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on May 13, 2011 11:31:11 GMT -5
Has anybody really taken a look at what these subsidies are? The biggest is the domestic manufacturing deduction which all domestic manufactures can claim, but I guess out of all industries they want to take this away from only oil/gas.
All subsidies should be ended, and the best way to do that is to enact the fairtax.
And future supply/demand can certainly effect current prices, so starting today on a plan to dramatically increase domestic energy would cause a drop in current prices.
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on May 13, 2011 11:31:39 GMT -5
I truly didn't know what a tax subsidy is but from my brief bit of research, they are really tax breaks. And is it because they are tax breaks that is another way to say that the government is subsidizing a business, in this case oil companies, because of the tax breaks given to it, hence the term "oil subsidy?" My next question is, are the oil companies getting more and above say different types of manufacturing concerns because of the product? Or, do they all get the same tax breaks or "subsidy?"
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on May 13, 2011 11:51:07 GMT -5
All subsidies should be ended, and the best way to do that is to enact the fairtax.
i totally agree.......no subsidies and a simple tax with no deductions what so ever. it can start a 10k or it can exclude BASIC food and meds, if it is a sales tax. but nothing more! NOTHING!
subsidy is just a word for our gov't choosing winners and losers in business, where it isn't so directly related to the cheating/stealing that is really happening by this favoritism.
|
|