Do you think that just because Exxon, Mobil etc pump oil from American soil and shores that it helps Americans?
- Thread starter dahunan
- Start date
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
I don't know what the lease deals are like in the US, but I do know that every drop of oil pumped out of Prudhoe Bay goes to refineries in Washington and California. None of it goes to Japan or Korea. (Even though technically they can send 6% over seas if they want to)
The twist is in the lease. If the lease says they have to keep the oil domestic then that is what they have to do. Now if they owned the land and they owned the mineral rights then maybe you'd be right. But AFAIK that doesn't happen very much.
I would imagine oil is like corn...
Some is purchased for a certain price via contract before the corn is grown and some goes to the open market, being sold at market prices.
Oil is oil, wherever it comes from. Some may be heavier and some sweeter, but it all gets sold somewhere.
The best oil is what companies can get out of the ground the cheapest. Gas pressure pushing oil is much better than having to inject salt water, etc.
Some is purchased for a certain price via contract before the corn is grown and some goes to the open market, being sold at market prices.
Oil is oil, wherever it comes from. Some may be heavier and some sweeter, but it all gets sold somewhere.
The best oil is what companies can get out of the ground the cheapest. Gas pressure pushing oil is much better than having to inject salt water, etc.
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
It only helps Americans if the oil is taxed or the producer pays royalties to the government.
Any oil found on private land does not help America at all.
And since the U.S. has literally given away oil leases, compared to all other countries, the oil pumped in the U.S. helps Americans less than any other country, since the oil companies sell U.S. produced oil at exactly the same price as oil produced elsewhere.
Any oil found on private land does not help America at all.
And since the U.S. has literally given away oil leases, compared to all other countries, the oil pumped in the U.S. helps Americans less than any other country, since the oil companies sell U.S. produced oil at exactly the same price as oil produced elsewhere.
Lease costs, Labor costs, Level of refining required, Exploration costs, Shipping costs, etc. all factor into the end price of a barrel of crude.
What if that "US Only" oil is more expensive than oil imported from the middle east... Does that still help America?
Would you pay $3.20 for a gallon of "US Only" gasoline if the price per gallon for gasoline refined from any source of crude was $2.85?
What if that "US Only" oil is more expensive than oil imported from the middle east... Does that still help America?
Would you pay $3.20 for a gallon of "US Only" gasoline if the price per gallon for gasoline refined from any source of crude was $2.85?
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
How about all the jobs provided when we produce our own oil.
Let?s say it cost $10 to produce a barrel of oil. Do you want that $10 going to American workers and companies or to foreign workers?
Additionally, the more oil that is on the market the cheaper it will sell for world wide. Plus the larger the amount of oil produced in stable regions of the world, US and North Sea, the more stable the overall market for oil will be which will result in lower prices.
Let?s say it cost $10 to produce a barrel of oil. Do you want that $10 going to American workers and companies or to foreign workers?
Additionally, the more oil that is on the market the cheaper it will sell for world wide. Plus the larger the amount of oil produced in stable regions of the world, US and North Sea, the more stable the overall market for oil will be which will result in lower prices.
It's all geopolitics and market manipulation . . . . 
In 2006 the USA produced an average of 5.14 million barrels/day (mb/d) of crude oil.
In 1996, 6.47 mb/d.
In 1986, 8.68 mb/d.
US rotary active rigs have decreased from a high of 4,500 in the early 1980's to approximately 1,500 in 2006.
2005 average Word Crude Oil Prodution: 84.542 mb/d.
2006 average Word Crude Oil Prodution: 84.502 mb/d.
90 percent of Saudi oil rigs are not owned by Saudi Aramco. In the next 2 years, capacity to produce oil (not actual production) could grow to 100 million barrels a day across the planet.
In the 1970's Iran's production peaked above 6 mb/d. It is now below 4 mb/d.
In the 1970's Iraq's production peaked above 3.7 mb/d. It is now below 2 mb/d.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) asserts that over 2,600 merger transactions took place in the oil industry from 1991 through 2000.
In mid 2002, there was over 6 million barrels per day of excess production capacity, but by mid 2003 the excess was below 2 million. During much of 2004 and 2005 the spare capacity to produce oil was under one million barrels per day.
A million barrels per day is not enough spare capacity to cover an interruption of supply from almost any OPEC producer.
If you really want to get pissed off check out U.S. Weekly Percent Utilization of Refinery Operable Capacity.
Bend over, World, Big Oil is drivin' . . . .
In 2006 the USA produced an average of 5.14 million barrels/day (mb/d) of crude oil.
In 1996, 6.47 mb/d.
In 1986, 8.68 mb/d.
US rotary active rigs have decreased from a high of 4,500 in the early 1980's to approximately 1,500 in 2006.
2005 average Word Crude Oil Prodution: 84.542 mb/d.
2006 average Word Crude Oil Prodution: 84.502 mb/d.
90 percent of Saudi oil rigs are not owned by Saudi Aramco. In the next 2 years, capacity to produce oil (not actual production) could grow to 100 million barrels a day across the planet.
In the 1970's Iran's production peaked above 6 mb/d. It is now below 4 mb/d.
In the 1970's Iraq's production peaked above 3.7 mb/d. It is now below 2 mb/d.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) asserts that over 2,600 merger transactions took place in the oil industry from 1991 through 2000.
In mid 2002, there was over 6 million barrels per day of excess production capacity, but by mid 2003 the excess was below 2 million. During much of 2004 and 2005 the spare capacity to produce oil was under one million barrels per day.
A million barrels per day is not enough spare capacity to cover an interruption of supply from almost any OPEC producer.
If you really want to get pissed off check out U.S. Weekly Percent Utilization of Refinery Operable Capacity.
Bend over, World, Big Oil is drivin' . . . .
The law would require that companies sell the oil to US only. It would not have the reverse that US has to buy their oil. The US would get the cheaper of the international or national. If the US companies wanted to make any money they therefor would have to be cheaper.
"The law would require that companies sell the oil to US only. It would not have the reverse that US has to buy their oil. The US would get the cheaper of the international or national."
Do you understand how capitalism works? :roll:
"The US" doesn't buy oil (except maybe for the strategic oil reserve). Oil companies pump the oil out of the ground and then either refine it or sell it to refineries.
The refinery is where the magic happens... A product that's useless to consumers (raw crude oil), is transformed into gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, etc.
Those products are then sold to consumers and businesses for consumption.
Do you understand how capitalism works? :roll:
"The US" doesn't buy oil (except maybe for the strategic oil reserve). Oil companies pump the oil out of the ground and then either refine it or sell it to refineries.
The refinery is where the magic happens... A product that's useless to consumers (raw crude oil), is transformed into gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, etc.
Those products are then sold to consumers and businesses for consumption.
No shit sherlock. Was there a point to your post. I'm sure you understand that US means for use in the US.
My point...
The US government (generally), doesn't tell US companies where they can and can't sell there products.
If the oil comes from US government lands they may or may not charge the oil companies some type of fee for the extracted oil. The proceeds from the extraction of the oil isn't sent out as checks to the US citizens. The funds are used for governing expenses.
Government controls on product destination (generally), don't work. They are nice sounding in the abstract, just as communism is.
But at the end of the day, the government can barely run itself, much less a for profit business.
The US government (generally), doesn't tell US companies where they can and can't sell there products.
If the oil comes from US government lands they may or may not charge the oil companies some type of fee for the extracted oil. The proceeds from the extraction of the oil isn't sent out as checks to the US citizens. The funds are used for governing expenses.
Government controls on product destination (generally), don't work. They are nice sounding in the abstract, just as communism is.
But at the end of the day, the government can barely run itself, much less a for profit business.
I think it would be pretty easy to notice a tanker full of oil leaving the US. And what the hell does saying what an oil company can do with US oil have to do with communism?
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
Yeah. Basically the oil companies are just bringing a product to market. So the product is worth what the market will bear. That part isn't going to change.
I bet if congress really wanted to they could set the price of domestic crude oil. They could just say "Ok.. your cost base is $14/bbl. So now you can't sell a barrel of crude for more than $xx/bbl. With oil set, a gallon of gas costs $xx/gal to produce and ship to destiniation so wholesale gas prices can't be higher than $xx/gal."
But that will never happen.
"And what the hell does saying what an oil company can do with US oil have to do with communism?"
I was simply using the parallels of how each idea "sounds" when heard for the first time.
* Government control sounds like it's looking out for the best interest of the people.
* Communism sounds like we all take care of each other.
I was simply using the parallels of how each idea "sounds" when heard for the first time.
* Government control sounds like it's looking out for the best interest of the people.
* Communism sounds like we all take care of each other.
What about price controls instituted by the Carter Administration?
Those went over like a lead ballon.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
So that was a nice straw man argument and nice defeated by yourself. WTG. Did anyone else talk about price controls?
There are a lot of people wound tight because they try and defend the indefensible.
Corruption will do that to you.
President Richard Nixon imposed wage and price controls on August 15, 1971.
"In 1971, the U.S. was also in the process of leaving the gold standard, which was intended to allow the value of the U.S. dollar to fall. . . . The 90 day freeze turned into nearly 1,000 days of measures known as Phases One, Two, Three, and Four. The initial attempt to dampen inflation by calming inflationary expectations was a monumental failure."
President Carter dismantled the last vestages of the price controls during his administration.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter