I oppose all new drilling of US oil resources

[Hayabusa Rider]

We completely rework how oil is distributed. As it stands right now, we do not own our own resources. Anything drilled anywhere can be sold anywhere, with no direct benefit to the US.

My proposal is this. The US owns it's own oil. We have oil companies to drill for these resources for a contracted price (actual cost of production plus a locked in mark-up). It's then sold in the US for the US people not at what the futures market and China determine it to be, but based on the real cost of production.

We need control over our own resources.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We completely rework how oil is distributed. As it stands right now, we do not own our own resources. Anything drilled anywhere can be sold anywhere, with no direct benefit to the US.

My proposal is this. The US owns it's own oil. We have oil companies to drill for these resources for a contracted price (actual cost of production plus a locked in mark-up). It's then sold in the US for the US people not at what the futures market and China determine it to be, but based on the real cost of production.

We need control over our own resources.

You gotta know the Free Marketers won't agree with this.

 

[Zebo]

Not needed because geography and only producing 45% of our needs it already dictates where it goes. We already do use 100% of our production. And some of Canadas, Mexicos, etc etc.

actual cost of production plus a locked in mark-up

Ok Comrade and watch oil exploration come to a grinding halt and gas prices parity gold per oz. What keeps guys like me drilling after dry hole, under producing holes, etc is the big profit ones.

The US owns it's own oil.

Also untrue - Guys with lease holds and mineral rights holders own the oil and gas except on govt land.

 

[daishi5]

They do this with oil in alaska, to my knowledge, for the same reason. Despite the fact that it would be more efficient to sell that oil to japan, and use the money to buy oil from other countries. The thing about commodities is that it does not help to try to control where any specific piece goes, it is so easily replaced with another unit that is just more efficient to sell and buy at the best price, and let the market sort it out.

And as a second idea, selling more oil to another country does benefit the US, it is supply and demand, we increase supply, price will go down. It does not have to go directly to us to benefit us, just pumping it into the market will make all our oil cheaper. Of course this does not include the rampant speculation LK talks about in other threads, that is markets gone bad and needs some regulation or oversight to bring it back under control.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: daishi5
They do this with oil in alaska, to my knowledge, for the same reason. Despite the fact that it would be more efficient to sell that oil to japan, and use the money to buy oil from other countries. The thing about commodities is that it does not help to try to control where any specific piece goes, it is so easily replaced with another unit that is just more efficient to sell and buy at the best price, and let the market sort it out.

And as a second idea, selling more oil to another country does benefit the US, it is supply and demand, we increase supply, price will go down. It does not have to go directly to us to benefit us, just pumping it into the market will make all our oil cheaper. Of course this does not include the rampant speculation LK talks about in other threads, that is markets gone bad and needs some regulation or oversight to bring it back under control.

Japan get their part because they helped fund the pipeline. A deal's a deal.

 

[BassBomb]

Yea we would have enough gas for ourselves (Canada) from what is made in Alberta, but we export it and import the others

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Japan get their part because they helped fund the pipeline. A deal's a deal.

Yes, but the point is that, if we can drill it for 35, and sell it to japan for 100, then buy it from venezuela for 90, thats more efficient than just piping it directly from the drill site. Limiting where it can be sold may force us to ship it inefficiently and actually make the drilling less beneficial to us than it could be.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Not needed because geography and only producing 45% of our needs it already dictates where it goes. We already do use 100% of our production. And some of Canadas, Mexicos, etc etc.

actual cost of production plus a locked in mark-up

Ok Comrade and watch oil exploration come to a grinding halt and gas prices parity gold per oz. What keeps guys like me drilling after dry hole, under producing holes, etc is the big profit ones.

The US owns it's own oil.

Also untrue - Guys with lease holds and mineral rights holders own the oil and gas except on govt land.

If Mobile doesn't want the money, then BP or someone else will drill it. If there's money to be made then someone will make it. You failed to mention that oil companies don't drill hole after hole. In fact most of the potential reserves haven't been tapped and no records of exploration are available.

Regarding public property, if someone want's to drill ANWR or off-shore, there is no legal compelling argument to give the oil away for the price of the land. Of course if you support the interests of the oil companies, who would still be making a profit over your country's then that's your affair.

 

[palehorse]

Nationalize our oil?

OK comrade, that's cool... so, after oil, what should we go after next?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We completely rework how oil is distributed. As it stands right now, we do not own our own resources. Anything drilled anywhere can be sold anywhere, with no direct benefit to the US.

My proposal is this. The US owns it's own oil. We have oil companies to drill for these resources for a contracted price (actual cost of production plus a locked in mark-up). It's then sold in the US for the US people not at what the futures market and China determine it to be, but based on the real cost of production.

We need control over our own resources.

so how do you pay current royalty holders?

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
If Mobile doesn't want the money, then BP or someone else will drill it. If there's money to be made then someone will make it. You failed to mention that oil companies don't drill hole after hole. In fact most of the potential reserves haven't been tapped and no records of exploration are available.

they do drill dry holes. exploration isnt' 100% certain. the only way to know for sure is to drill a hole.

and if the money to be made doesn't pay for the opportunity cost then no, it's not going to get drilled. platforms are not cheap and they are not built overnight. if you can get more by putting it elsewhere that is where it is going.

Regarding public property, if someone want's to drill ANWR or off-shore, there is no legal compelling argument to give the oil away for the price of the land. Of course if you support the interests of the oil companies, who would still be making a profit over your country's then that's your affair.

the oil isn't given away, there is a system of royalties where the landholder gets paid before the oil company does, based on the amount of production. heck, if they know oil is there they can negotiate the bonus up.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Nationalize our oil?

OK comrade, that's cool... so, after oil, what should we go after next?

Health care, of course.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We completely rework how oil is distributed. As it stands right now, we do not own our own resources. Anything drilled anywhere can be sold anywhere, with no direct benefit to the US.

My proposal is this. The US owns it's own oil. We have oil companies to drill for these resources for a contracted price (actual cost of production plus a locked in mark-up). It's then sold in the US for the US people not at what the futures market and China determine it to be, but based on the real cost of production.

We need control over our own resources.

You gotta know the Free Marketers won't agree with this.

You're just being fucking stupid Red. Since when does the free market demand that natural resources are free to use? It's called mineral rights and most states retain them. If the state gives those mineral rights away for free, who's fault is that?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We completely rework how oil is distributed. As it stands right now, we do not own our own resources. Anything drilled anywhere can be sold anywhere, with no direct benefit to the US.

My proposal is this. The US owns it's own oil. We have oil companies to drill for these resources for a contracted price (actual cost of production plus a locked in mark-up). It's then sold in the US for the US people not at what the futures market and China determine it to be, but based on the real cost of production.

We need control over our own resources.

so how do you pay current royalty holders?

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
If Mobile doesn't want the money, then BP or someone else will drill it. If there's money to be made then someone will make it. You failed to mention that oil companies don't drill hole after hole. In fact most of the potential reserves haven't been tapped and no records of exploration are available.

they do drill dry holes. exploration isnt' 100% certain. the only way to know for sure is to drill a hole.

and if the money to be made doesn't pay for the opportunity cost then no, it's not going to get drilled. platforms are not cheap and they are not built overnight. if you can get more by putting it elsewhere that is where it is going.

Regarding public property, if someone want's to drill ANWR or off-shore, there is no legal compelling argument to give the oil away for the price of the land. Of course if you support the interests of the oil companies, who would still be making a profit over your country's then that's your affair.

the oil isn't given away, there is a system of royalties where the landholder gets paid before the oil company does, based on the amount of production. heck, if they know oil is there they can negotiate the bonus up.

The new sites are in large part public lands. Current commitments would need to be honored, however future contracts do not need to be negotiated as they have been.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Nationalize our oil?

OK comrade, that's cool... so, after oil, what should we go after next?

I've apparently overestimated you. I apologize for that mistake.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Zebo
Not needed because geography and only producing 45% of our needs it already dictates where it goes. We already do use 100% of our production. And some of Canadas, Mexicos, etc etc.

actual cost of production plus a locked in mark-up

Ok Comrade and watch oil exploration come to a grinding halt and gas prices parity gold per oz. What keeps guys like me drilling after dry hole, under producing holes, etc is the big profit ones.

The US owns it's own oil.

Also untrue - Guys with lease holds and mineral rights holders own the oil and gas except on govt land.

If Mobile doesn't want the money, then BP or someone else will drill it. If there's money to be made then someone will make it. You failed to mention that oil companies don't drill hole after hole. In fact most of the potential reserves haven't been tapped and no records of exploration are available.

Regarding public property, if someone want's to drill ANWR or off-shore, there is no legal compelling argument to give the oil away for the price of the land. Of course if you support the interests of the oil companies, who would still be making a profit over your country's then that's your affair.

What you don't seem to understand it's not the big 5 doing the drilling and exploration. It's moms and dads across this land. http://www.ogclearinghouse.com/ go ahead get involved. Only the huge leases or high capital ones like off shore do they partake in. But even with 'Big oil' it's mom and dads across the land 401k's and other annuities and stock they hold in oil that owns big oil. Big and small oil is us.

 

[Robor]

Dems reject Bush's call to lilft ban on offshore oil drilling

I thought this was particularly interesting from that story:

"Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem," Reid said. "The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil."

(also posted in the other offshore drilling topic)

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
If Mobile doesn't want the money, then BP or someone else will drill it. If there's money to be made then someone will make it. You failed to mention that oil companies don't drill hole after hole. In fact most of the potential reserves haven't been tapped and no records of exploration are available.

they do drill dry holes. exploration isnt' 100% certain. the only way to know for sure is to drill a hole.

and if the money to be made doesn't pay for the opportunity cost then no, it's not going to get drilled. platforms are not cheap and they are not built overnight. if you can get more by putting it elsewhere that is where it is going.

You know, that statement got me thinking. How much money is wasted by drilling dry holes? Is it enough money to consider investing in better technology that provides more accurate estimates about whether or not a particular location has oil along with estimates about how much oil is there? Surely there must be a way to improve such things if enough time and money is spent developing those ways. I'm just not sure if the juice is worth the squeeze.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Robor
Dems reject Bush's call to lilft ban on offshore oil drilling

I thought this was particularly interesting from that story:

"Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem," Reid said. "The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil."

(also posted in the other offshore drilling topic)

3%? That seems lower than most people are making it out to be. Is it really worth it?

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We completely rework how oil is distributed. As it stands right now, we do not own our own resources. Anything drilled anywhere can be sold anywhere, with no direct benefit to the US.

My proposal is this. The US owns it's own oil. We have oil companies to drill for these resources for a contracted price (actual cost of production plus a locked in mark-up). It's then sold in the US for the US people not at what the futures market and China determine it to be, but based on the real cost of production.

We need control over our own resources.

Yea, I have thought about this before. It don't do the U.S. one bit of good if it's drilled here if the oil is shipped to China for a much higher price per barrel. And if we failed to deliver this newly drilled oil to the world markets, countries like Saudi Arabia could cry foul, and stop exports to the U.S. which is the fly in the oil, so to speak. But if the oil found in the U.S. was refined and delivered to the U.S. the cost per barrel would drop signifigantly, and what greedy oil company would possibly want that?

I hate to say nationalizing all oils found in the U.S. is a good thing, but under the present economic circumstances, it certainly is. And there needs to be a lot more accounting done of the private oil companies to ensure we are not getting screwed at the pumps if it's pumped over here or over there.

Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US reserves by 10x - What's old is new again. Originally discovered in 1951!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Zebo
Not needed because geography and only producing 45% of our needs it already dictates where it goes. We already do use 100% of our production. And some of Canadas, Mexicos, etc etc.

actual cost of production plus a locked in mark-up

Ok Comrade and watch oil exploration come to a grinding halt and gas prices parity gold per oz. What keeps guys like me drilling after dry hole, under producing holes, etc is the big profit ones.

The US owns it's own oil.

Also untrue - Guys with lease holds and mineral rights holders own the oil and gas except on govt land.

If Mobile doesn't want the money, then BP or someone else will drill it. If there's money to be made then someone will make it. You failed to mention that oil companies don't drill hole after hole. In fact most of the potential reserves haven't been tapped and no records of exploration are available.

Regarding public property, if someone want's to drill ANWR or off-shore, there is no legal compelling argument to give the oil away for the price of the land. Of course if you support the interests of the oil companies, who would still be making a profit over your country's then that's your affair.

What you don't seem to understand it's not the big 5 doing the drilling and exploration. It's moms and dads across this land. Only the huge leases or high capital ones like off shore do they partake in. But even with them it's mom and dads across the land 401k's and other annuities and stock they hold in oil that owns big oil. Big and small oil is us.

This came up on another board. Someone was telling another more or less what you said. While it's true that some part of most people's investments have some investments in oil, it comes down what impacts those moms and dads. My answer is that the oil companies doing well haven't helped my 401k much. Likewise, if oil companies had to readjust to how resources were contracted, then the amount that most 401ks would lose is insignificant compared to the extra we are paying at the pump. Gas prices and the resulting inevitable inflation will hurt them far more.

Oil price as you know is at a point far above what supply and demand dictate. It's in large part a matter of speculation. Contracting for a cost plus fee basis is done virtually everywhere. The whole healthcare industry works this way, yet the snide "comrade" comments only come out when oil is mentioned. Oil companies can still make a profit, but it's the speculators who get cut out.

 

[mxyzptlk]

I think we should be saving that oil until after we've transitioned to using an alternative energy source for transportation. Save it for when we need it for plastics and fertilizer and shit like that.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We completely rework how oil is distributed. As it stands right now, we do not own our own resources. Anything drilled anywhere can be sold anywhere, with no direct benefit to the US.

My proposal is this. The US owns it's own oil. We have oil companies to drill for these resources for a contracted price (actual cost of production plus a locked in mark-up). It's then sold in the US for the US people not at what the futures market and China determine it to be, but based on the real cost of production.

We need control over our own resources.

Good thing that U.S. doesn't actually have any significant oil reserves, so this is absolutely pointless.

Besides the fact, we already use all of our supply and even with ANWR and off coast drilling we'll still need imports. How exactly will you ration that oil at your fixed price?

Even at the current price we still need to import oil to meet the demand, what do you think will happen when you introduce subsidized gasoline along with unsubsidized gasoline?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

The new sites are in large part public lands. Current commitments would need to be honored, however future contracts do not need to be negotiated as they have been.

and how is that?

Originally posted by: Robor
Dems reject Bush's call to lilft ban on offshore oil drilling

I thought this was particularly interesting from that story:

"Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem," Reid said. "The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil."

(also posted in the other offshore drilling topic)

we haven't explored most of the coast, so we don't actually know what is offshore. there could be gobs of oil, there could be none. we simply don't know.


and that bakken field looks interesting.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: palehorse
Nationalize our oil?

OK comrade, that's cool... so, after oil, what should we go after next?

I've apparently overestimated you. I apologize for that mistake.

Well then please explain to me how your plan is different than having nationalized commodities?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We completely rework how oil is distributed. As it stands right now, we do not own our own resources. Anything drilled anywhere can be sold anywhere, with no direct benefit to the US.

My proposal is this. The US owns it's own oil. We have oil companies to drill for these resources for a contracted price (actual cost of production plus a locked in mark-up). It's then sold in the US for the US people not at what the futures market and China determine it to be, but based on the real cost of production.

We need control over our own resources.

Yes, because then other countries would do the same thing with thier resources and we would be royally screwed.
Though I sympathize with the feeling.
What we need is to get a fair amount for the oil we are letting the oil companies take from US lands.