Lipstick on a Pit Bull

[rbrodka]

How long will it take to get oil from new drilling? How much of our imported oil will it displace? And how long will that oil last once we do start getting some?

I'm confused about the logic of increased oil drilling and the suggestion it moves the USA closer to energy independence. The Republicans want to open up drilling in offshore areas and ANWAR in Alaska. The suggestion is this "American" oil production would reduce the amount of "foreign" oil the US would have to buy.

As I understand it, the oil that is pumped out of these areas belongs to the oil companies and not the citizens of the USA. The oil companies are free to sell this oil on the open world market to the highest bidder. It seems to me that more drilling and oil production just means more oil for the oil companies to sell, and will have little affect on US energy independence. Even with increased drilling and production, the USA still buys and sells its oil on the open world market.

But the Republicans are pushing hard for increased drilling, and saying that it is the right thing for America to do. Am I missing something, or are they being less than truthful in their rhetoric ?

[m0002a]

How long will it take to get oil from new drilling? How much of our imported oil will it displace? And how long will that oil last once we do start getting some?

I'm confused about the logic of increased oil drilling and the suggestion it moves the USA closer to energy independence. The Republicans want to open up drilling in offshore areas and ANWAR in Alaska. The suggestion is this "American" oil production would reduce the amount of "foreign" oil the US would have to buy.

As I understand it, the oil that is pumped out of these areas belongs to the oil companies and not the citizens of the USA. The oil companies are free to sell this oil on the open world market to the highest bidder. It seems to me that more drilling and oil production just means more oil for the oil companies to sell, and will have little affect on US energy independence. Even with increased drilling and production, the USA still buys and sells its oil on the open world market.

But the Republicans are pushing hard for increased drilling, and saying that it is the right thing for America to do. Am I missing something, or are they being less than truthful in their rhetoric ?

The oil and gas mineral rights in question in Alaska and offshore belong to the US Government. The US government gets paid a lot of money for selling the right to drill (lease) on government owned lands and also get paid a royalty percentage on the oil and gas sold. So the US and its citizens benefit a great deal financially if the oil is produced (regardless of the argument about imports vs. exports). Since the US owns the mineral rights, they could demand as part of the oil and gas lease sale that all production be sold only in the US, but it makes no real difference for reasons explained below.

Oil is a fungible commodity, although there are costs with transporting it long distances. Oil companies who operate the wells are usually allowed to sell it to whoever is willing to pay the best price (usually the “posted priceâ€

[jaganath]

Even a slight increase in supply or demand in oil can have a significant influence on prices, as we have seen in last few months as the price went up $40 and then dropped about $40 to its current price of $100 per barrel.

the recent fall in oil prices has a lot to do with the slowdown in world economic growth, and very little to do with nebulous proposals for increased US drilling.

[m0002a]

the recent fall in oil prices has a lot to do with the slowdown in world economic growth, and very little to do with nebulous proposals for increased US drilling.

You will have to excuse me if I don't take everything you say as fact, but I do agree (and thought I made it clear above) that the price can be affected by either a change in demand or a change in supply.

The world economy has not decreased 28% during the recent 28% drop in oil prices (grom $140 to $100). The GDP many not have decreased at all during the last few months (I am not really sure). But IMO it is likely that:

1. The price of oil was over-valued due to speculators and irrational fears on the futures markets. Prospects of additional drilling can counteract irrational fears of shortages that previously drove up prices, even if neither one these factors have much of a rational basis in fact. If prices can increase on a whim, they can often decrease on a whim.

2. Demand has decreased because people are proactively driving a lot less and trying to save energy due to the higher oil and natural gas prices, not just because of an economic slowdown.

[aristide1]

The world economy has not decreased 28% during the recent 28% drop in oil prices (grom $140 to $100).

I don't think you will see a 1-to-1 correlation like that. Rather what has happened in recent years is demand has exceeded supply, supply being how much is exiting the ground and being refined.

Let's say OPEC lowered production 5%. If supply exceeded demand by 10% a smaller price increase is likely. If supply exceeded demand by only 2% the price increase would likely be far larger, as demand would suddenly exceed supply.

This price swing is further aggrevated (more volatile or should I say steep?) by the fact that this product is not the kind where the demand/user can easily just say no. The purchase will be made regardless, so the supplier is in charge much more than say than when the demand for marshmellows exceeds supply. This is why OPEC cutbacks are very effective.

Unfortunately when the global economy is running well OPEC and Co. can be producing flat out 100% of capabilities and not meet demand, hence prices keep rising. That would leave any 1 country with the capability to be much more spiteful than usual if it wishes, by suddenly cutting back on production all by itself.

Or when a producer as large as Iraq suddenly stops altogether. Just another way Iraq slaps people in the wallet.

Global investing has worked to the advantage for the US. A lot of Middle East money invested in US stocks gets hammered when the economy slows. (The money has to be invested somewhere and there's so much of it coupled with yes, they understand diversification well enough.) This is probably a larger factor to persuade them to increase production when prices get too high than US pleading. Of course there is a balance to be made between return on investments and return on oil directly, hence the balancing act. The lastest factor though, again, is when they are producing flat out and have no room to increase supply.

Did anyone notice how much more civilized the discussions have been with overall lack of stupidity and need to incite?

I have no idea what, and to what degree, speculation on oil futures played on the price of oil over the last 18 months. Did the speculators clean up and move out allowing supply and demand to return to normal? You tell me.

[m0002a]

[quoteII have no idea what, and to what degree, speculation on oil futures played on the price of oil over the last 18 months. Did the speculators clean up and move out allowing supply and demand to return to normal? You tell me.

There was irrational speculation in almost all commodities over the last year or so, which has just recently burst.

Irrational real estate speculation had been going on for at least 6 years until the correction of the last few years.

The markets in all these areas are now correcting themselves.

In the late 1990's stock prices, especially dot.com stocks, were irrationally priced. The "new" investors claimed that old formulas for valuing securities (such as net present value of future cash flows) were no longer valid. A major correction happened when that bubble burst and prices came back to reality.

In the 1980's the price of silver went from a few dollars an ounce to over 50 dollars, then crashed a few years later.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hiya,

The peak of oil discoveries was in 1961 -- 46 years ago.

The peak of oil production was in 1980 -- 28 years ago.

The supply of oil is finite.

Any new drilling would take a minimum of 7 years to come to market.

In the most wildly optimistic estimates are for the output of new domestic drilling to be ~1-3% of our current consumption.

Please tell me how this solves anything?

Why are we resisting developing renewable energy resources -- they will always be here, and they cannot be imported.

[aristide1]

Drilling means just that, no guarantee anything will be found, but plenty of leverage to get more money from the government. At some point lower taxes AND drilling funds will make the oil companies no different that the spongers of undeserved welfare payments.

Unless we've already passed that point.

People are excited about Palin, but why? She won't be running the country, unless people expect, and perhaps want, another term like the last two, with puppetmaster Cheney pulling W's strings from the undisclosed location. So are you expecting another puppet-regime or not?

[m0002a]

Drilling means just that, no guarantee anything will be found, but plenty of leverage to get more money from the government. At some point lower taxes AND drilling funds will make the oil companies no different that the spongers of undeserved welfare payments.

How does drilling on Federal lands allow "leverage to get more money from the government"? What are you talking about?

What are drilling funds?

What do you mean by lower taxes for the oil companies?

[aristide1]

We routinely give $$$ to the oil companies money to drill as part of our "energy packages", which they (the oil company lobbyists) write.

The last one was the first one cloaked by the "national security" excuse, in order to hide whatever shit Cheney did doing from public view.

Its not like he'd ever get sent to prison anyway, but covering it up does limit the black eye the current adminsttation would get from yet another massive corporate giveaway at taxpayer expense, ala Halliburton. Cheney makes Spiro Agnew look like a law abiding citizen.

McSame (the name is now earned) wants to lower corporate taxes, which would include oil companies, no?

By the way did you know oil companies are exempt from the normal laws that prohibit the formation of monopolies?

[m0002a]

We routinely give $$$ to the oil companies money to drill as part of our "energy packages", which they (the oil company lobbyists) write.?

Could you explain these in detail? The tax breaks that most people talk about for the oil companies are avaialble to all companies in any industry. Maybe we should prohibit all companies from starting new business ventures because it would just lead to more tax breaks.

By the way did you know oil companies are exempt from the normal laws that prohibit the formation of monopolies?

No, I did not know that, because it is not true (like about 99% of the stuff you post).

[aristide1]

There's a difference between being ignorance and lies, although you sure did wait a long time to say I'm wrong with my record.

http://media.cleantech.com/node/554

Of course who can get more accurate information when Cheney cloaks everything with that national security bs?

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

Does Sarah Palin think that Iraq had something to do with the attacks on September 11th? Sheesh...

[m0002a]

There's a difference between being ignorance and lies.

Appropriately titled: Oil industry subsidies for dummies

http://media.cleantech.com/node/554

Of course who can get more accurate information when Cheney cloaks everything with that national security bs?

OK, let's go over this propoganda one by one (most of it has nothing to do with taxes):

Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free.
What does this have to do with the oil business as opposed to all other businesses (actually I have no idea what it has to do with any business)? How does this apply to drilling in Alaska or Offshore?

Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
What does this have to do with the oil business compared to other businesses? How does this apply to drilling in Alaska or Offshore?

Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead.
Please provide at least some explanation or evidence where this happens.

Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
The government is providing low cost loans with lenient repayment conditions to the oil companies? Please provide evidence. [It is getting really deep in here]

Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
Please provide specifics.

Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
There are no "breaks." Taxes on gas are imposed by federal, state, and local governments. The taxes are usually based on a fixed amount per gallon (rather then a percent) and until recently were a lot more than 8% that is the average sales tax on other goods. The federal government and the states are free to raise those gas sales taxes on consumers, but seem reluctant to do that (that includes Democrats). Is raising the gas sales tax part of the Obama platform?

Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
So are you suggesting that the US not help developing nations build their econimies with whatever resources they are able to develop? Have you checked with Bono about this? What about if the spend the money on farming and buy tractors. Does that mean that the US government is giving John Deere at tax break?

BTW, the more oil that is developed, the greater the supply, and the lower prices will be.

The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
So are you suggesting that we don't have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve? Obama has recently said we should start using it to increase supply (I guess he is a "supply side" guy), so I don't think he is opposed to it.

Construction and protection of the nation's highway system
That is funded by the federal tax on gas. More tax is collected than is spent on the highways.

Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people's lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
I am all for environmental protection (I would vote to banish overclockers from this forum), but any increase in costs related to reducing pollution have been and will be passed on to consumers, not to the oil companies.

Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid
This has nothing to do with taxes. Lease rates and royalty terms are negotiable and usually awarded to the highest bidder. If you think it so profitable to be an oil company, why don’t you and your comrades start an oil company of your own (and you return the excess money to the public). And don’t tell me you “can’tâ€

[aristide1]

You've proven only that my facts are faulty, not the state of the current administration. How far can you spend that?

[m0002a]

Why are we resisting developing renewable energy resources -- they will always be here, and they cannot be imported.

I wasn't aware that we are resisting anything. You are free to invest as much as you want. It is a free country.

The federal government, states and localities are investing in alternate energy. So are oil companies (and other companies). But money cannot solve all problems (at least not immediately).

As Boone Pickens has pointed out, there is a 200 year supply of natural gas in the US that can be used for many other energy needs than currently used for.

Most of the other nations of the world are rapidly moving to nuclear energy to solve the oil crisis and the global warming crisis. France gets more than 80% of its electric power from nuclear and that amount is increasing every year. The US only gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear and that amount is decreasing every year.

[aristide1]

I wasn't aware that we are resisting anything. You are free to invest as much as you want. It is a free country.

You have the freedom to accept what you want, doesn't make it any more accurate or truthful. Its an old story.

Apparently you don't recall the NC or SC senator that retired a couple of years ago that stated US energy policy is written by oil lobbyists because they know more about the subject than the politicians. Now of course they are more than willing to see substantial money go to other energy sources, to two drops in a bucket, which statistically is a 100% increase over the one drop in the bucket from the last time they made such a plan.

[aristide1]

Hi,

Does Sarah Palin think that Iraq had something to do with the attacks on September 11th? Sheesh...

We've already established, from W's supporters, that 9-11 was caused by God to punish the US on it's stand of being pro-homosexual. These are facts no one can deny.

[qviri]

As Boone Pickens has pointed out, there is a 200 year supply of natural gas in the US that can be used for many other energy needs than currently used for.

Er, years is not a unit of volume. 200 years at how much use per year?

[m0002a]

Apparently you don't recall the NC or SC senator that retired a couple of years ago that stated US energy policy is written by oil lobbyists because they know more about the subject than the politicians. Now of course they are more than willing to see substantial money go to other energy sources, to two drops in a bucket, which statistically is a 100% increase over the one drop in the bucket from the last time they made such a plan.

It doesn't make any difference who writes the legislation. Legislators can read, and if they don't like something, they can vote against it. All of this stuff about who is the author is a red herring.

[m0002a]

Er, years is not a unit of volume. 200 years at how much use per year?

Good point, but if Boone Pickens said there were xxxx mmcf of natural gas reserves, that probably would not help people understand how long that will last.

200 years at current usage. That means that even if we figure out how to fuel a large number of cars with natural gas (some fleets are already using it) then it will last less than 200 years, but still a long time.

[m0002a]

We've already established, from W's supporters, that 9-11 was caused by God to punish the US on it's stand of being pro-homosexual. These are facts no one can deny. :shock:

No, the 9/11 plot was hatched when Bill Clinton tried to assassinate Osama bin Laden in 1998 within days of when he gave a deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit and admitted to the American public that he lied about the affair with Monica Lewinsky. You can use your own judgment in deciding why Clinton never tried again. In hindsight, bin Laden’s reaction should not have been unexpected.

I seem to recall that some Kennedy assassination theorists believe that Castro assisted Oswald (who visited Cuba and frequently handed out leaflets supporting Castro) after Kennedy tried to assassinate the Cuban leader. Personally, I don’t really know, but it is an interesting theory.

[aristide1]

Legislators can read, and if they don't like something, they can vote against it. All of this stuff about who is the author is a red herring.

That's the kind of pick and choose the facts mentality that got us into the war, but hey, if you believe it must be true!

[m0002a]

That's the kind of pick and choose the facts mentality that got us into the war, but hey, if you believe it must be true! :shock:

Which part are you questioning? The fact that the legislators can read, or that they only vote for things they agree with? Well a few of them may not be able to read any more (like 90 year old Robert Byrd), but they have very intelligent committee staff members who do that for them. Hilary Clinton was a committee staff member in Congress when she was young.

It is true that very occasionally some legislation gets included as a part of a last-minute amendment that is not always scrutinized carefully, but the stuff about whether a lobbyist authored the legislation is not really relevant.

BTW, some people like to pick and choose who they consider to be lobbyists. For example, if there is legislation dealing with strengthening environmental protection laws, it is not unreasonable that such proposed legislation be substantially or totally authored by environmental lobbyists or an organization such as the Sierra Club. After all, they are experts on the environment (assuming you generally agree with their philosophy).

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with having lobbyists interact with government. A lobbyist is simply someone that represents an organization or group of people with a particular point of view. Sometimes they are conservative in nature, and many times they represent liberal causes.

Whenever you hear politicians complaining about lobbyists (and that probably includes McCain and Obama), it is about 95% demagoguery and 5% substance.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

From a great column, by Tim Wise:

[quote]White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.â€

[m0002a]

[quote="NeilBlanchard"]Hi,

From a great column, by Tim Wise:

[quote]White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.â€

[aristide1]

Thank you for your description of how DC works.

Apparently Jack Abramoff was one of a kind, and the good citizens of DC never show favoritism so that can get free rides on corporate jets and stuff like that. And it's not like they are promised cushy jobs after their political term is over. There are no ex-politicians in the lobbying community.

Hell, the politicians are so honest that even collecting $2 million a year Cheney continually puts the Constitution and the American people before Halliburton.

I think we should tear down the federal prisons that houses such criminals, since they're totally empty. How can you have a Club Fed with no members?

[derekva]

All I want to know about Palin - does she believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed?

If the answer is yes (and based upon various articles I've read, that's the case), then that tells me everything I need to know about her.

-D

[aristide1]

Yes, they co-existed, about 12,000 years ago.

[m0002a]

Thank you for your description of how DC works.

Apparently Jack Abramoff was one of a kind, and the good citizens of DC never show favoritism so that can get free rides on corporate jets and stuff like that. And it's not like they are promised cushy jobs after their political term is over. There are no ex-politicians in the lobbying community.

Hell, the politicians are so honest that even collecting $2 million a year Cheney continually puts the Constitution and the American people before Halliburton.

I think we should tear down the federal prisons that houses such criminals, since they're totally empty. How can you have a Club Fed with no members?

Jack Abramoff was primarily a lobbyist for the American Indians, a favorite cause of liberals. Now it is clear that Abramoff did some illegal things and should be punished for that, but the American Indians (and his other clients) have a constitutional right of free speech and to be heard in front of their representatives. BTW, Abramoff lobbied both Democrat and Republican members of Congress.

Don't confuse being a lobbyist with illegal activities of come lobbyists. Don't confuse being a priest with the illegal activities of some priests, etc, etc, etc.

With regard to Cheney, here are the facts:

In December 1998, the Vice President elected to defer compensation earned in calendar year 1999 for his services as chief executive officer of Halliburton. This amount was required to be paid in fixed annual installments (with interest) in the five years after the his retirement from Halliburton and thus could not be paid in a lump sum prior to his taking office. That election to defer income became final and unalterable before Mr. Cheney left Halliburton. The amount of deferred compensation received by the Vice President is fixed and is not affected in any way by Halliburton's current economic performance or earnings (an insurance policy was obtained to guarantee the payments even if Haliburton went bankrupt). This 2005 payment closes out the payments under the deferred compensation plan.

Cheney does continue to excercise Haliburton stock options from time to time as they become vested, but all of the proceeds of those stock options were set aside in a trust before he became VP for various charities, and Cheney receives no benefit from them whatsoever. If Cheney refused the stock options, they would revert back to Haliburton instead of being given to the charities he designated.

Given the above facts, don't you think you exercise some caution before making false statements about people. And maybe you should start getting other sources for your information.