I have always wondered... why do Americans think driiling more in US will benefit CITIZENS??

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: Darwin333
Tons of high paying jobs accross a ton of fields, taxes paid by those jobs, taxes paid by the oil companies themselves, royalties, etc....


And the Dems reasons not to drill are??
To protect a special interest goups the tree huggers and those start up alternative energy companies who are losing money.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,419
4,798
126
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: LostUte
The oil will not really bring the price down at the pump, but it will reduce our trade deficit and boost the economy. In addition, the government gets leasing and tax revenues.
Which makes the dollar stronger making prices go down. Drilling will bring prices down anytime you add supply to the market prices go down. The oil market needs another stable supply of oil. To much of the worlds oil supply is in the hands of unstable governments. Drilling adds jobs, gives the government a shitload of money,keeps money in the country,makes the dollar stronger and lowers the prices at the pump. A win for all americans well except the tree huggers who want the public to use horses for transpertation.
Your expectations far exceed the amount of Oil in the ground.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
3
0
You're right, but facts are no fun, are they? Unless domestic oil is nationalized...the US would not benefit much more than other countries would. It's a globally traded commodity.
 

LostUte

Member
Oct 13, 2005
98
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
You're right, but facts are no fun, are they? Unless domestic oil is nationalized...the US would not benefit much more than other countries would. It's a globally traded commodity.
You're wrong about the Skoorb...even if the physical oil is sold to another country, it reduces our net imports. Therefore, it is as if the oil stayed within the US.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Fern

I think a better question is "why do Democrats think drilling more in US WON'T benefit CITIZENS??"

Fern
Because we've already seen what Republicans do with oil profits.
Hey Dave, it's 2008 and the Dems are in power (Congress is the one that gets to spend money. The Prez can only submit suggestions and/or veto).

Waddya say we let them play with the $100's of billions from US gov oil royalties?

Fern

 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Skoorb
You're right, but facts are no fun, are they? Unless domestic oil is nationalized...the US would not benefit much more than other countries would. It's a globally traded commodity.
So $100's of billions in US gov oil royalties is not much benefit to us?

I can't agree with that.

Fern
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
One poster parrots American Pe-Troll-ium Institue talking points and another poster promotes new jobs when oil companies can't fill the current jobs they have - from grunts to engineers.

And I haven't seen anyone explain who will build the platforms, pipelines and refineries for this wealth of 'new' oil - nor explain why the additional 15 mb/d coming online in the next 3 years will not help ease our transition (while demand continues to drop in the US) ...
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
One poster parrots American Pe-Troll-ium Institue talking points and another poster promotes new jobs when oil companies can't fill the current jobs they have - from grunts to engineers.

And I haven't seen anyone explain who will build the platforms, pipelines and refineries for this wealth of 'new' oil - nor explain why the additional 15 mb/d coming online in the next 3 years will not help ease our transition (while demand continues to drop in the US) ...
Because that 15mb/d is controlled by a government that does not really like us. They can shut off the tap any time they want making prices skyrocket. That and we are send our wealth to them instead of keeping it in this country. I would much rather see the money stay here and help keep the economy strong. I know the other side would rather have things really shitty so they can get power over peoples lives.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,317
2,351
136
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: jpeyton
"Drill here, drill now" is just a distraction tactic so the GOP can squeeze another 30 years of oil profits from Americans before we try to actually tackle the problem.
yeah, I mean, it's not like McCain is advocating a comprehensive energy policy or anything.
The republican's idea of a "comprehensive energy policy" is making sure they have enough chairs at the table for ALL the oil companies.

McCain has a "comprehensive energy policy"? Please.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
One poster parrots American Pe-Troll-ium Institue talking points and another poster promotes new jobs when oil companies can't fill the current jobs they have - from grunts to engineers.

And I haven't seen anyone explain who will build the platforms, pipelines and refineries for this wealth of 'new' oil - nor explain why the additional 15 mb/d coming online in the next 3 years will not help ease our transition (while demand continues to drop in the US) ...
Because that 15mb/d is controlled by a government that does not really like us. They can shut off the tap any time they want making prices skyrocket. That and we are send our wealth to them instead of keeping it in this country. I would much rather see the money stay here and help keep the economy strong. I know the other side would rather have things really shitty so they can get power over peoples lives.
Yeah. Those pesky Canadians, Brazilians, Nigerians, Mexicans AND American oil wells.

You Fail miserably.


Since the costs of royalty relief for deep water leases could be as high as $80 billion, with the application of royalty suspension volumes in litigation with unknown costs, and 'royalty suspension in-kind' for reserve oil, I think a little more explanation is in order before anyone will believe the fuzzy math on a so-called $100 billion windwall for 'new drilling'.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
One poster parrots American Pe-Troll-ium Institue talking points and another poster promotes new jobs when oil companies can't fill the current jobs they have - from grunts to engineers.

And I haven't seen anyone explain who will build the platforms, pipelines and refineries for this wealth of 'new' oil - nor explain why the additional 15 mb/d coming online in the next 3 years will not help ease our transition (while demand continues to drop in the US) ...
Because that 15mb/d is controlled by a government that does not really like us. They can shut off the tap any time they want making prices skyrocket. That and we are send our wealth to them instead of keeping it in this country. I would much rather see the money stay here and help keep the economy strong. I know the other side would rather have things really shitty so they can get power over peoples lives.
Yeah. Those pesky Canadians, Brazilians, Nigerians, Mexicans AND American oil wells.

You Fail miserably.


Since the costs of royalty relief for deep water leases could be as high as $80 billion, with the application of royalty suspension volumes in litigation with unknown costs, and 'royalty suspension in-kind' for reserve oil, I think a little more explanation is in order before anyone will believe the fuzzy math on a so-called $100 billion windwall for 'new drilling'.

You should of been more specific. I thought you were talking about the new Saudi Fields that will be going live in the next few years raising their output to 15mb/d.

Still does not matter I would much rather keep the wealth of this country right here in this country.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: jpeyton
"Drill here, drill now" is just a distraction tactic so the GOP can squeeze another 30 years of oil profits from Americans before we try to actually tackle the problem.
yeah, I mean, it's not like McCain is advocating a comprehensive energy policy or anything.
The republican's idea of a "comprehensive energy policy" is making sure they have enough chairs at the table for ALL the oil companies.

McCain has a "comprehensive energy policy"? Please.
Yes McCain is the only one with a complete energy policy. McCain wants to do everything which is the smart thing to do. McCain wants solar,wind,nulcear,drilling,research into other alternatives and conservation. McCain wins the energy debate unless you are a blind hater or a tree hugger.

 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,317
2,351
136
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: jpeyton
"Drill here, drill now" is just a distraction tactic so the GOP can squeeze another 30 years of oil profits from Americans before we try to actually tackle the problem.
yeah, I mean, it's not like McCain is advocating a comprehensive energy policy or anything.
The republican's idea of a "comprehensive energy policy" is making sure they have enough chairs at the table for ALL the oil companies.

McCain has a "comprehensive energy policy"? Please.
Yes McCain is the only one with a complete energy policy. McCain wants to do everything which is the smart thing to do. McCain wants solar,wind,nulcear,drilling,research into other alternatives and conservation. McCain wins the energy debate unless you are a blind hater or a tree hugger.
Um, no. That's what he says he WANTS to do. Bush was also against nation building, if you remember.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: jpeyton
"Drill here, drill now" is just a distraction tactic so the GOP can squeeze another 30 years of oil profits from Americans before we try to actually tackle the problem.
yeah, I mean, it's not like McCain is advocating a comprehensive energy policy or anything.
The republican's idea of a "comprehensive energy policy" is making sure they have enough chairs at the table for ALL the oil companies.

McCain has a "comprehensive energy policy"? Please.
Yes McCain is the only one with a complete energy policy. McCain wants to do everything which is the smart thing to do. McCain wants solar,wind,nulcear,drilling,research into other alternatives and conservation. McCain wins the energy debate unless you are a blind hater or a tree hugger.
Um, no. That's what he says he WANTS to do. Bush was also against nation building, if you remember.
Lol I love that argument so then we can ignore what Obama wants to do also? It was McCain who voted against the bush energy plan because it included free money to the oil companies.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Some of you guys are fools. We don't need to keep feeding ourselves oil, there are plenty of alternatives, and we can easily develop a completely different energy source if we don't cut back on sciences within the next 10-20 years. Well before the oil is supposedly going to start running low.

If you think we can't you're a pussy and ignorant to what we're capable of as a civilization.

OIL IS ON THE WAY OUT (I mean, it should be, but that would mean no more mansions for fat white men)
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
Why do people believe it? Because it's the easy answer, the one that maintains their delusion. It's what they want to hear...

One of those "Tell me you love me and then you can fvck me" deals...

And, yeh, oh yeh, they'll say it and do it, bet on that... anything to get into that sweet, sweet honeypot...
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Why do people believe it? Because it's the easy answer, the one that maintains their delusion. It's what they want to hear...

One of those "Tell me you love me and then you can fvck me" deals...

And, yeh, oh yeh, they'll say it and do it, bet on that... anything to get into that sweet, sweet honeypot...
It amazes me how utterly dumb you democrats will deliberately make yourself look by denying simple marketplace forces like supply & demand or keeping money here instead of sending it to Dubai, all for the sake of feeding your own hatred for Republicans.

The opposition to drilling is nothing more than the enviornmentalist, climate change fools who are mostly deluded sheep, happy to have a "cause" to take up in the light of their agnostism or atheism. Then you have the Al Gore's of the movement who are deeply financially invested in making as many people guilty for wanting to drill somewhere. One is a Godless Hypocrit, the other group is mostly Godless liberals who are so deluded into the doctrine of MMGW that they'll use any argument, no matter how dumb (see the quoted text) to defend their "Green Badge" that they use as a moral guide. Not saying the quoted guy is one of them, but there's no way so many people are this dumb to use arguments like the above and not have some serious underlying "truths" that they hold too dear to discuss openly all the time.

A little sharp, but you get the point.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
More drilling means more oil which means lower prices. Simple supply and demand.

With Russia use its oil money to arm itself drilling could become a national security issue. The lower we keep the price the less money Russia has to spend on weapons.
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,511
46
91
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: dahunan
-snip-
^^USA will only get a couple more Tax dollars... no other benefit
That's incorrect.

Since we're talkin about drilling on public lands, the US government ends up with about 40% of the gross revenue from royalties, lease fees etc.

E.g., with about 16 bilion Barrels in ANWAR at $100 per barrel, the US gov (we the poeple) would get over $600 billion in revenue. That could be used to fund alt energy etc.

Add to that the amount of US money that would be kept *in-house* instead of being sent abroad and the implications that go with it.

I think a better question is "why do Democrats think drilling more in US WON'T benefit CITIZENS??"

Fern
Yup. And lets not forget, in any traded commodity, increasing supply will drive down the cost, which is a benefit for the whole world, not just the US.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
6
76
More oil is a nice idea, but it doesn't help much if we can't refine it fast enough.
Look at Iran, plenty of oil but since they can't refine it, it does them no good.



 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,511
46
91
Originally posted by: Modelworks
More oil is a nice idea, but it doesn't help much if we can't refine it fast enough.
Look at Iran, plenty of oil but since they can't refine it, it does them no good.
Excellent point. And any sensible energy possible is going to streamline the process for new refinery construction; we haven't had a new one in ~30 years. With all of the boutique blends in use, it's one of the reasons for price spikes in the summer months.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
You're way, way, out there, Duwelon. I'm a different kind of conservationist, one who doesn't believe it's our God-given duty to suck every drop of oil we have out of the ground as fast as possible so we can blow it out our tailpipes, leaving nothing behind for the future.

I'm also an economic realist who's pretty confident that the piddly amounts of oil we'll get out of more domestic drilling would be like putting a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.

The long term price of oil isn't going anywhere but up as world demand increases, thanks in part to our sacrificing our jobs and industries in return for cheap goods and high profits in the short term.

The people who now have those jobs get a lot more utility from a gallon of fuel than we do, far greater than the disparity in wages. If we want to compete with them on the world market, we'll have to increase efficiency and utility, reduce our own consumption, currently 25% of world production, which will reduce overall demand pressures, contain prices more effectively than very small increases in production.

Like I said, however, that's not what the public wants to hear or do. Go ahead, delude yourself, believe that millions of people driving their gas guzzlers dozens of miles everyday is sustainable, that the real problem is just an issue of supply, not an issue of wasteful demand... that the answer is always "More!"

We can all lead excellent lives while consuming less energy (with much more of it alternative energy) if we set our sights on it, instead of letting the short sighted interests of energy giants whisper sweet nothings in our ears...
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You're way, way, out there, Duwelon. I'm a different kind of conservationist, one who doesn't believe it's our God-given duty to suck every drop of oil we have out of the ground as fast as possible so we can blow it out our tailpipes, leaving nothing behind for the future.

I'm also an economic realist who's pretty confident that the piddly amounts of oil we'll get out of more domestic drilling would be like putting a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.

The long term price of oil isn't going anywhere but up as world demand increases, thanks in part to our sacrificing our jobs and industries in return for cheap goods and high profits in the short term.

The people who now have those jobs get a lot more utility from a gallon of fuel than we do, far greater than the disparity in wages. If we want to compete with them on the world market, we'll have to increase efficiency and utility, reduce our own consumption, currently 25% of world production, which will reduce overall demand pressures, contain prices more effectively than very small increases in production.

Like I said, however, that's not what the public wants to hear or do. Go ahead, delude yourself, believe that millions of people driving their gas guzzlers dozens of miles everyday is sustainable, that the real problem is just an issue of supply, not an issue of wasteful demand... that the answer is always "More!"

We can all lead excellent lives while consuming less energy (with much more of it alternative energy) if we set our sights on it, instead of letting the short sighted interests of energy giants whisper sweet nothings in our ears...
That is the problems with your side only want to do 1 thing. The other side understands we need a do everything approach. Conservation and more fuel effiecent cars are great but we still need to drill for more oil and natural gas. While we do that we can research and give insentives to alternatives till one is discovered that can replace oil for cars/semi trucks. One of the keys to turning the economy around will be to get the prices of fuel down to stop the run away inflation and lowered consumer spending.

I think between solar,geothermo,wind, clean coal and nuclear we don't have to cut back on our energy consumption. Just have to move away from foreign energy.

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
I think between solar,geothermo,wind, clean coal and nuclear we don't have to cut back on our energy consumption. Just have to move away from foreign energy.
I"ll bet you think you can drink whiskey from a bottle of wine, too... or get blood from a turnip, or that you really can have a free lunch energy-wise.

The reason alternative energy hasn't been more widely used is because it's still more expensive than petroleum, even at today's prices. so if we want to spend less on energy, we need to use less, regardless of the source or where the money's going. That's economic reality.

And the reason energy giants are pushing domestic drilling isn't for our benefit at all, but to benefit their own bottom line. domestic drilling won't increase world production by a full percentage point, or the price enough to matter, but oil so obtained will fatten their bottom line. they'll pay uncle sam less than the going rate, yet still sell it at prevailing world prices. They'll also pay less to transport it to market. And, of course, the more we consume, the more money they make...

The other side of it that nobody wants to examine squarely, at all, is the fact that enormous populations in India, China and other parts of the world are stirring, clearing away the economic wreckage of colonialism, imperialism and bad govt in general. They're reaching for what we already have, and are rapidly becoming alternative buyers in the world marketplace. They'll keep demand going up, and prices, too, even though they earn a lot less. That's because there's a whole lot of them, and because they'll get a helluva lot more utility from the same gallon of gas than we will. 80 mpg motorbike vs 8 mpg hummer, to accomplish basically the same purposes. billions of consumers vs a few hundred million...

But, uhh, what would I know, right? go ahead, chump out, buy that SUV and that 5000sqft house in the exurbs, 40 miles from where you work. Get it all for nothing down and forever to pay. Just don't blame me when you're eatin' beans and rice every night, juggling the bills, wishin' the place had two fireplaces instead of one so you could stay a little warmer... watching the price of what used to be cheap foreign goods fly out of sight because the value of your money went into the septic tank... Wishing you didn't have negative equity so you could get out from under...

Welcome to the free market global economy, where only the air is free...
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
-snip-
Since the costs of royalty relief for deep water leases could be as high as $80 billion,
Link
Basically, you're expressing a fear that the Dem controled Congress will screw up new drilling.

Royalty relief isn't automatic, the well must be uneconomical without the relief before it can be considered eligible. The well must also be in the Gulf of Mexico and West of the FL/AL border. In other words, it simply doesn't apply; we're talking about drilling off the East coast (which is outside the defined zone) and nobody can legitimately claim drilling will be uneconomical without relief.

To be eligible for relief, the lease must be located in the Gulf of Mexico and west of 87 degrees and 30 minutes West longitude (the Florida-Alabama boundary). MMS must determine that the field is not economically viable without relief.
with the application of royalty suspension volumes in litigation with unknown costs,
Here again, this is irrelevant to new/proposed drilling. This only concerns leases in the late 90's up to 2000 and, as I have stated above, is a consequencse of mistakes made by the Clinton administration.

Link


and 'royalty suspension in-kind' for reserve oil,
Another *red herring*.

Link

the royalty-in-kind program, whereby the government receives oil instead of cash for payment of royalties on leases of federal property.
This is just a program whereby the government collects oil instead of cash for royalties owed it by the oil companies. They only do this for filing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Whether the government collects cash, and then buys the oil or just takes delivery of oil is all the same. This has nothing to do with new/proposed drilling. And IIRC, purchases for the SPR have been suspended since 2006; and it's 97% full anyway.


I think a little more explanation is in order before anyone will believe the fuzzy math on a so-called $100 billion windwall for 'new drilling'.
See boded remarks above.

The issues you cite above do NOT apply to new/proposed drilling. Therefore, it is mis-leading to mention them in that context. It appears you do not understand the talking points you've memorized.

Fern
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY