Originally Posted by Stylerod Oil prices will be affected immediately because oil prices are based on FUTURE supplies. Also, oil is used in many things that wind and sugar cane can't replace. This would also help with corn prices since we could slow down ethanol production (at the store the ...
08-04-2008, 04:29 PM
| #41 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist North Carolina 
| Originally Posted by Stylerod Sorry, Bush's Department of Energy disagrees with you: Drilling in ANWR would only save us 75 cents per barrel... 10 YEARS from now. 
| ||||
     |
|
08-04-2008, 04:50 PM
| #42 | ||||
| Never, never, never give up  Conservative Party High Point, NC
| Originally Posted by motivez You keep forgetting this part of the story:
| ||||
| |
|
08-04-2008, 05:40 PM
| #43 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator  Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| What makes you think that oil wouldn't go on the world market? | ||||
| |
|
08-04-2008, 05:49 PM
| #44 | ||||
| Never, never, never give up Conservative Party High Point, NC
| Originally Posted by Scrum Common sense?
| ||||
| |
|
08-04-2008, 05:56 PM
| #45 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal  Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by Stylerod It has to go on the world market. Thats where the prices are determined. Are you saying you want the US government to impose trade restrictions to mandate that these private companies only sell thier oil in the US and no where else? You might as well nationalize them at that point.
| ||||
| |
|
08-04-2008, 06:03 PM
| #46 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| Originally Posted by Stylerod How is that common sense? What are you comparing this to?
| ||||
| |
|
08-04-2008, 06:03 PM
| #47 | ||||
| Never, never, never give up Conservative Party High Point, NC
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Why not? The government gives them a contract to drill on US land (or sea) with the stipulation that all or most is used in country.
Do you think people are wanting to drill on our coasts just so it can go into the huge world pot of oil with no guarantee it will even be sold to us? C'mon.... | ||||
| |
|
08-04-2008, 06:05 PM
| #48 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| Originally Posted by Stylerod Do we already have these contracts in place, or is that something we will work out after the oil companies get what they want?
Originally Posted by Stylerod Now you are starting to see why some of us think this is a silly political stunt.
| ||||
| |
|
08-04-2008, 06:33 PM
| #49 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by Stylerod Why don't we do that now then and just set price controls on the oil that is produced on US Soil? THat would bring the price down.
Anyway, the goal is to increase supply so that the price drops. EVen if it was sold on the world market, it would still depress prices a little. However, when you are talking the global market, it's a much bigger pool of oil and the added production that we could get from increased drilling in the US would be relatively small in terms of total supply. I really doubt that our governmnet would impose trade restrictions on the oil companies and mandate that thier oil only be sold within the US. They would probably not bother to drill if we did that. I think the windfall tax on profits would probably be better than imposing that sort of protectionist trade policy. | ||||
| |
|
08-04-2008, 08:10 PM
| #50 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| Originally Posted by Stylerod
 The energy companies have no reason to sell ONLY to the US. They're in business to make money, not to make our lives easier by selling us cheap oil. The drilling is not a nationalized project, it's not being run by any public authority. It would be private companies drilling to make money for themselves, and they're going to sell it wherever they can make the most profit Of course some will be sold to us, but you're being incredibly naive if you think that they're going to give it to us at below market cost. If that's what you want, why don't you just advocate nationalizing the oil industry here and let the government set the prices to begin with? Last edited by motivez; 08-04-2008 at 08:16 PM.. | ||||
| |
|
08-04-2008, 08:15 PM
| #51 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| Originally Posted by Stylerod Whoa, put the brakes on that socialist proposition!
"If your business operates in the US, you're required to sell your product to US consumers first, at a cheaper price than what they'd pay if they were getting it from a business based elsewhere in the world.." Maybe now you see why it's a political move rather than any kind of practical solution to oil prices. 75 cents per barrel, NOT gallon, would probably result in a price decrease of maybe 1 cent per gallon if we're lucky, 10 years from now. | ||||
| |
|
08-04-2008, 09:13 PM
| #52 | ||||
| Administrator  libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by motivez If you do any ONE thing it may not have much affect but it could keep prices from continuing upward over the long haul. Furthermore, I don't really care what bush says on the subject, I'll trust my industry publications that have far more realistic assumptions of supply/demand/production capacity than the doe.
If we just drilled in ANWR it may not have a huge affect on oil, if we drilled the OCS, the Rockies and ANWR? We're talking about substantial new supplies of oil and assuming production capacity can keep up we'd have an easy market for companies and producers to sell in and ample supply keeping prices low (see natural gas). | ||||
| |
|
08-04-2008, 09:14 PM
| #53 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by Rouger2 You're wrong.
| ||||
| |
|
08-04-2008, 09:22 PM
| #54 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by motivez You're making some excellent points here. Companies will sell in the US below world market prices, it happens all the time, again natural gas is a perfect example of this. However, there's some other things working in our favor in that regard. Selling in the US market is very competitive and its very easy to sell the products here. If production capacity doesn't keep up, we dont build refineries or dont drill then you're right the companies will go to other markets. Right now the US is the biggest and easiest market to distribute oil in (with a couple of exceptions like Saudi Arabia). That alone is worth quite a bit from a price perspective. Sell in the US at 90 dollars a barrel or in China at 110 dollars a barrel? Well the way things are TODAY they'll sell in the US. What scares me is that China is bringing on capacity so quickly that within 15 or 20 years they could consume just as much oil as we do and it could be as easier or easier to produce/offload etc.
I think you're overarching point though is correct, all things being equal they will try to sell where they get the most return on their investment. Which means we need to keep domestic supplies domestic and make sure bringing oil into the nation and refining it is as streamlined and painfree as possible for the companies producing the oil. edit: and you're right 75 cents a barrel translates into roughly 1.8 cents per gallon. It wouldn't take 10 years, it would take more like 3, perhaps 5. Most of the infrastructure is intact we just have to connect to it. The OCS is probably a 3 to 7 year deal which is ok because we're not really supposed ot have any major world shortfalls prior to 2012 but by 2015 the project daily shortfall is somewhere in the 8 to 10 million barrel per day range. Now there's some hopeful signs coming out of Saudi, and in our very own country. Looks like drilling the OCS will become a reality at some point and some of the shale plays that we do have access to could turn out to be huge. We are taking steps to increase production capacity/refining and we're showing good signs of increasing import capacity. Last edited by 6SpeedTA95; 08-04-2008 at 09:32 PM.. | ||||
| |
|
08-05-2008, 07:54 AM
| #55 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur.  Reform Party NJ
| For those who had some doubts that this was mostly Pelosi's doing... She has more power than some people give her credit for. She bothers me a lot, right from the opening fake smile all the way to the end. I just don't like the lady. She lies about just about everything. She's blocked debate and thus hasn't debated drilling everyday. She's debated about allowing a debate of which she has won and blocked the GOP on most occassions. There isn't very strong bipartisan support for emptying our reserves. It wouldn't pass and she knows it. If there truly was bipartisan support for emptying our reserves it would have gone to vote because it was her initial idea and she would have pushed it through. In fact, I think they did vote on it and it failed. So how she can say it has strong bipartisan support is beyond me. Last edited by JaJae; 08-05-2008 at 08:01 AM.. | ||||
| |
|
08-05-2008, 03:40 PM
| #56 | ||||
| Friend to all.  Socialist Maryland
| Originally Posted by JaJae She's this all powerful being yet can't get her shit passed? Interesting take.
__________________ www.otraw.com | ||||
| |
|
08-05-2008, 04:42 PM
| #57 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by Donkey® She can't force the GOP to vote for her bills, but she can prevent the GOP from bringing up votes in the House that they want to vote on.
| ||||
| |
|
08-05-2008, 05:57 PM
| #58 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| Originally Posted by JaJae Who said it wasn't Pelosi's doing?
She was on The Daily Show touting her book and she admitted it.  | ||||
| |
|
08-05-2008, 07:43 PM
| #59 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by motivez Indeed.
| ||||
| |
