I oppose all new drilling of US oil resources

[Fern]

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.

Maybe later I'll come back and explain better.

But your entire is premiss is incorreect because we will still be an exporter.

If we developed excess oil supply and could ensure that it stayed here, there be a big drop in golbal demand.

We would buy less global oil. Our reduction in foriegn oil would cause a drop in global prices.

But we would still need to import a bunch, albeit at a lower price. And our internal/domestic market forces would price our new oil at the price we now buy foreign oil for.

The mathematics indicate no difference between keeping the oil here, or selling normally on the world market.

To get to any difference while we are a net exporters requires all kind of gymnastics such as complicated price controls (calcualtions averaging US domestic production under a price control with free market foreign supplies needed etc) and import/export rules and policing.

This part I think doable - "We have oil companies to drill for these resources for a contracted price (actual cost of production plus a locked in mark-up) - but beyond that are numerous problems.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 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?

Public land is precisely that. It's owned by the citizens as a whole. The oil that's underground is also public property. The oil companies do not own it. However what has been done is that the oil companies drill and sell it to the market and it goes everywhere. We have to repurchase it or other oil that has been marked up to whatever the market bears. If you had a fish farm and had others harvest them for you, why should you have to repurchase it at retail in order to feed your family fish? Did you just nationalize your fish farm by using your own product? Nonsense.

 

[1prophet]

Why Must The Shoemaker?s Children Go Without Shoes?

 

[LostUte]

Originally posted by: 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.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but do you really think that companies as successful as Exxon haven't already thought of this? They have reasons for trying to drill where they do.

 

[sportage]

If we drilled for more oil, you really think it would not be sold to foreign countries, like Japan? You really believe it wouldnt?

 

[drifter106]

Originally posted by: 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?

So if he is "@@@@@@@" stupid what are U? The "state" does not own my gas or oil that is being pumped off my land. The company that drilled on my property pays us a royalty of said commodity (less transportation). State taxes us but they do NOT have mineral rights....landowners have them (people can even sell land and retain mineral rights if both parties agree.) State or Federal land is a whole different ball game.

 

[Moonbeam]

We need solar energy and genetic engineering to make oil from the sun and air.

 

[3chordcharlie]

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

Not really, or at least 'not that relevant'. Oil sands production isonly profitable for the oil industry at high prices - back when oil was $20 a barrel, the oil sands were more like a curiousity than an energy source, and general opinion was that oil might pretty much stay in the ground forever.

As far as the OP, Canada did something like this with the NEP under Trudeau in the early-mid eighties. It cushioned the impact of the second oil crisis, but also cost Alberta oil companies billions in lost profits at prevailing world prices, and by extension, cost ALberta residents thousands of high-paying jobs. It certainly stabilized the overall economy, compared with the rest of the developed world, but at the cost of considerable regional inequity.

Now, no country in the world is above protecting their own interests, free trade agreements or not, but oil prices aren't a matter of protection, they are either a case of truly rampant speculation, or a legitimate warning sign that its time to move on to other sources, starting yesterday.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Why Must The Shoemaker?s Children Go Without Shoes?

You mean the Saudis?