jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (68 posts)

Our Oil Companies Export Oil. We have plenty!!!

  1. bgamall profile image86
    bgamallposted 5 years ago

    Worried about the price of gas? Our oil companies aren't. They export oil in the SF Bay and in April will start exporting West Texas Intermediate (WTI) from the Gulf of Mexico.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-asto … rum-2012-3

    Here is my response. We can thank libertarian thought for the housing bubble and for the price of Brent, which far exceeds the price of WTI. Someone needs to stop the Square Mile from speculation.

    Here is my response to the article above:

    "If Canadian oil went to the gulf of Mexico it would likely be exported. WTI will be exported in April to take advantage of the Brent price which the Square Mile drives up through sheer speculation. It is a massive scam upon the America people.

    If it were not for the Square Mile, we would not have had the housing bubble and we would not pay so much for our gas."


    I would think this is not in the national interest as prices keep going up. It is a giant scam people. It is not Obama, nor would it be Romney. It is a SCAM.

    1. amillar profile image83
      amillarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I've no doubt it's a scam bjamall.  We have a square mile in London that needs sorting out too (or is that the same one).  I'm beginning to think that people like having their plonkers pulled.

      1. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, the Square Mile in London is the most powerful financial cabal on the face of the earth. Even Parliament has no power over them. When US banks really want to gamble, they go there.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It's not a scam.

        The money that was created by our central bank to pay for bailing out banks, auto industries, the welfare state, the warfare state, and all the trillions that went to overseas banks is now, finally, pushing up prices.

        People are finally beginning to spend the money they received, and as a natural consequence, prices have to go up.

        If you measure the price of gasoline in real money, the price is actually very very low. Expect to see $5  gas before the end of summer, and possibly $6 gas before the next summer.

        Despite the claims of the Chicago School of Economics and the Keynesian (mainstream) economics (both schools want inflation), we're entering a parabolic curve of consumer price inflation. This means that austerity is going to befall our country as prices go up before wages go up.

    2. Dave Mathews profile image60
      Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No Kidding! Just how long did it take you to finally realize this? The USA has the second largest amount of oil in reserve in the world, and has had since back in the 1960's, but the US. Government chooses to both sit on it and export it rather than use it within their own borders for the American people.

      The discovery of Oil in Canada's rich oil sands as well as Canada's off shore drilling has been known of for just as long, but Canada too chooses to export it to the US and Mexico rather than to use it to benefit its citizens. Right now in Ontario Canada, the citizens are paying $1.31 per litre or $5.25 per gallon since it takes 4 litres to equal to one gallon.

      Tarriffs dictate who gets the oil and export tarriffs make money while import tarriffs cost money.

      1. profile image0
        Larry Wallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I read the link you posted, and I did not see anything about WTI being exported anywhere. I will admit I did not check every link in the story. The story was about petroleum products and the price of oil. I am going to do a hub about oil prices, you may want to look for it.

        1. bgamall profile image86
          bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this
        2. Dave Mathews profile image60
          Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Since I haven't got a clue what WTI is, how could i give it mention or discuss it?

          1. profile image0
            Larry Wallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I apologize. The WTI reference was by BGAMall which you responded to, so the comment was by BGAmall, but it showed up in your response. WTI is West Texas Intermediate. It is the benchmark grade of oil used in the United States. When you hear what the day's oil price was it was the price paid for WTI. Some grades of oil,especially those with more sulfur sell for much less. A few grades, like Louisiana Sweet may sell for a dollar or two more, depending on what the purchasing refineries need.

          2. bgamall profile image86
            bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            There is a huge price difference between WTI and Brent crude, which is the benchmark for the gas you buy in most parts of the country. Brent is $124 a barrel while WTI is under 110. Brent is the result of massive speculation and all the world pays the price. Some speculation exists in WTI too.

  2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image92
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago

    Of course we do.  Why would anyone trust the globalist conspirators under their monopolized media and banking cabal's guise of capitalism and patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel?

  3. Don Bobbitt profile image92
    Don Bobbittposted 5 years ago

    OK!
    1-Oil prices are High!
    2-Specuators drive Oil Prices, Up and Down!
    3-Oil Demand gives the Speculators the Opportunity to manipulate pricing-short term!
    It's called Capitalism!
    So, let's focus on reducing demand, and the Speculators will drop Oil like the proverbial Hot Potato and move on to something more profitable to manipulate.

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Only a libertarian would call it capitalism. You guys are bankrupt. Onions are banned from the futures markets and you cannot speculate the prices up in onions so I suppose that is not capitalism?

      Sheesh.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Don't bother with BG. It's hopeless.

      Oil only costs 16 cents.

      1. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You, as usual, didn't get to the point I made that onions are not subject to speculation. A Republican, Eisenhower, who would puke at libertarianism and John Birch Tea Partyism, banned speculation in onions.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, I got the point. You just don't take it to the final conclusion. You stop half way and declare your position correct.

          1. bgamall profile image86
            bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Again, no information on your part. Say something for a change.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Newsflash: I was agreeing with someone else. Hence, additional information was not necessary.

              This is how typing works.

              1. bgamall profile image86
                bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Type something that we can learn from.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  ugh...

    3. Wayne Brown profile image87
      Wayne Brownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think Don Bobbitt makes an excellent point....curb some of the demand and the speculators start running scared after they get caught holding too much crude. Speculation is up four to five times the norm mainly because it is such a sure bet at the present.  We need to drill baby drill and at the same time everybody needs to try to lower their short term demand in any way they can and leave these guys holding the bag. The news coming out of North Dakota indicates a tremendous amount of oil in just that one location...but we have to drill it to get it so let's get us a government willing to do that as opposed for what we currently have. WB

  4. ftclick profile image60
    ftclickposted 5 years ago

    This is about oil & not always politics. It is about oil companies fabricating lies and making midnight hour laws (bribes) to secure their profits. Yes, an alternative will come and overtake these world wide polluting companies

  5. Hugh Williamson profile image87
    Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago

    BGAMall wrote:
    "If Canadian oil went to the gulf of Mexico it would likely be exported. WTI will be exported in April to take advantage of the Brent price which the Square Mile drives up through sheer speculation. It is a massive scam upon the America people."

    Bingo!
    The price of oil is determined by what you can sell it for, not what it costs you.

    There will be no cheap gasoline, no matter how many pipelines are built. The builders have said they cannot promise that the Keystone XL pipeline oil will not be exported. The U.S. will have to compete, just like any other buyer,  for the product it delivers.

    Oil companies have shown no mercy to consumers in the past, why would they start now?

    FTClick -- nice shades.

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for the encouragement Hugh.

      1. Hugh Williamson profile image87
        Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        YW. Thanks for the thread.

  6. profile image0
    Larry Wallposted 5 years ago

    The United States, as of this month, was exporting a minimum amount of oil, about 37,000 barrels a day or 13.5 million barrels a year. Two of the 17 refineries in Louisiana could process that amount of oil in two days.

    We are exporting petroleum products, which is a bid difference. Our primary demand from oil is gasoline. However, a barrel of oil cannot just produce gasoline. It is going to produce other products.

    If demand for those products is down in the United States, does it not make sense to sell the excess to other countries and recover your investment in the purchase of the oil and the cost of refining. If those products were not being exported, refineries would have to either shut down or cut back, which would result in less gasoline being made. If there is less gasoline, the price at the pump is going to go even higher.

    Exporting refined products improves our balance of trade and brings back to the U.S. some of the dollars that were spent purchasing crude oil.

    As far as exporting oil, sometimes it is convenient to export from one place and import from another, depending on location, available refining capacity and pipeline availability. We grow wheat--we export wheat. We grow oranges, we export oranges. We produce oil and we export the value added products from that oil. Sounds like normal business practices to me. Whether we export petroleum products or not, the price of crude is going to be dictated at the global level and not by the United States or the oil companies.

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Estimates are that exports through the gulf will be 400k barrels. I suggest you look to this as the reason people want Canadian oil to be exported through the gulf. http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/wt … de-oil.php

      We are swimming in crude, with diminished refinery capacity. The WTI people want a better price so they want Brent pricing. Brent is speculated upon by the Square Mile and is a massive scam.

      1. profile image0
        Larry Wallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I am sorry, but I think you misread the link you sent me. The article was talking about two grades of oil, Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI). WTI is liked by refineries, especially those on the Gulf Coast. However in the past, some WTI has gone other places. With the new pipeline the WTI referred to  in the article is going to the Gulf Coast for use in refineries in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The oil is not being exported to a foreign country. It was an easy mistake to make.

        1. bgamall profile image86
          bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, the refineries in the gulf are export oriented. No mistake here. You are being deceived by the oil companies. The oil won't be exported but the gasoline and by products will at even greater profit for big oil and the speculators.

          http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-th … ystone-xl/

  7. profile image70
    logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago

    Congress and the President will not take action against the Commodities Exchange leadership to get them to stop the cheap and rampant speculation.
    In order to buy contracts of oil, you only need a fraction of the cost upfront.  This leads to speculation by investors who have no desire or capability to take delivery or to delivery crude oil.
    Until those that live off the campaign donations get the courage to act, the status quo will continue.  Write your legislator.  I have.  We need more to do it.

  8. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    How about the candidates get honest too?
    Romney is still blaming Obama.

    IN fact:

    "The Republican “solution” to drill more would mean “more profit for domestic crude producers rather than significantly lower gasoline prices for Americans,” according to the Koch-funded Cato Institute. The Wall Street Journal also wrote, “producing a lot of oil doesn’t lower the price of gasoline in your country.”

    Keystone to be exact....which would give private property over by emminant domain to the companies wishing to build it.
    Perhaps the product of the "alleged" North American Union?

  9. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    January 3, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    "Another announcement today that PetroChina has purchased the remaining 40% of the MacKay River oil sands in Alberta. Is there any doubt now that the Keystone XL oil will be bound for China and other parts of Asia, instead of providing the much claimed “energy security” for the US?"


    This crop of R's seriously does not give 2 cents about America!

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well said.

  10. profile image0
    Larry Wallposted 5 years ago

    There has been some confusion in this forum regarding the issues of oil imports and exports and the reserves of oil in the United States and other regions of the world.

    I want to try and clear up some of the definitions and offer a few other comments. I do not want to get into a he said, you said, situation. I will accept your comments but I asked that you read what I am about to write carefully. This will probably end up being too long for this forum and will turn into a hub.

    First, as I always do, let me make my disclaimer. I was Director of Public Affairs for a Louisiana based oil and gas trade association. In December of 2010, after working there 22 years, I was advised that my position was being eliminated. We had a change in management two years earlier.

    Therefore you can say I have a bias for the oil and gas industry, since I worked for them so long or I have an ax to grind because they fired me. Neither is correct. One of my jobs with the trade association was doing research, and keeping everyone on the same page.

    First, let me tell you a couple of things, some of you may not know.
    --The CITGO refinery in Lake Charles is owned by Venezuela, and all the oil refined at that facility come from Venezuela.
    --The Chalmette Refinery in Chalmette< LA, is jointly owed by Exxon and the Venezuela national oil company. The ownership of that refinery has changed hands over the years. It was once owned by Tenneco, the Mobil. When Exxon and Mobil merged, it became a ExxonMobil refinery. Today, it is owned by Exxon and Venezuela.
    --The Refinery in Convent LA is a Motiva Refinery. Today it is owned by Shell Oil and Saudi Arabia. The same is true for the Motiva Refinery in Norco. Years ago, Shell and Texaco merged their refining and marketing operations and took on Saudi Arabia as a partner. This made it very unlikely that Saudi Arabia would ever refuse to import oil to the United States as it did in the 1970s. Texaco was acquired by Chevron, which then sold its share of the two refineries to Shell. Shell, by the way, is actually a foreign oil company. Its headquarters is in the Netherlands.

    There is more I want to say, but I am turning it into a Hub. Please look for it.
    Thank you.

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Here is the deal Larry, the price of gasoline goes up even if there is no demand. The plan is to export 400,000 barrels per day, and it would be likely in the form of gasoline and other products to who knows where, maybe South American.

      Point is, it gets priced as Brent when exported and that is higher than WTI. It will happen, Larry. It is disingenuous for you to say it does not now happen because the plan is in place for it to happen in April. We are in March. Much of the upward speculation of WTI relates to this expected exporting.

      Refineries in the Bay Area export. We export because we have low demand and oil companies can make more money exporting and by keeping prices high at home. At some point they will destroy demand and then, oh boo hoo for them.

      BTW, I was one of the protesters at the Santa Barbara oil spill and happy I did that. In cold waters of California you cannot have deep drilling. It would be ruinous.

      1. profile image0
        Larry Wallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The oil from Canada can be used by some refineries in the United States. I am sure some will be exported.

        No matter how much oil the U.S. produces, it is not going to be enough to drive down prices. The only group with that kind of clout is OPEC and the group has to be agreement. One country, even Saudi Arabia cannot do that. At one time, back in the 70s, Saudia Arabia could but not anymore.

        Tapping shale oil would help to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and maybe in theory help drive the price down some. This would be something of a new venture. Since the oil companies are flush with cash, it would be a good time for them to start the process and figure out what is going to be involved and the environmental impacts. In other words, do not wait until the last minute.

        I never said, and I do not know anyone who has said, that the oil companies should not be regulated. They should not be over-regulated and have to deal with junk-science regulations, which has happened in the past, or forced to meet impossible deadlines, which cannot be met and therefore results in some significant fines for the government.

        I have not studied the Santa Barbara area enough to agree or disagree. Howeever, I do believe that 10 miles from the coast would be far enough to start some offshore drilling. Safety standards and equipment have improved. The BP incident was a terrible tragedy, but we need to keep drilling. Air plane crashes are terrible. People always die, but we keep flying and each new generation of airplanes are usually safer than the last.

        1. profile image0
          Larry Wallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Who has this plan to export 400,000 barrels a day. Each oil company operates independently. The government does not export oil and refined products. So who does this plan belong to?

  11. Hugh Williamson profile image87
    Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago

    Larry -

    Thanks much for the inside info above. I read the associated Hub and it takes some of the mystery out of the process.

    Ques - If the Keystone pipeline is built and the Alberta tar sands oil is sent to the Gulf coast, what would happen to that oil? Is there anything to do with it other than export it?

    How much additional oil will the U.S. have to produce to drive down prices? Do we have to glut the whole world oil market for prices to lower?

    We are told that tapping into shale must be done to add that oil to our supply. Why? If we have enough production now to meet our needs, isn't  Drill-Babee-Drill just overkill if it only benefits Big Oil?

    I don't see why we should believe that the Oil companies will behave without someone watchfully regulating them.

    Your thoughts?

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      We could swim in oil in our swimming pool and prices will not decline. It is not a matter of production. It is a matter of Brent speculation and of messing with futures markets.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It's not speculation. BG: you have not asked yourself "where is the money for the speculators coming from".

        It was printed out of thin air from the fed. Prices - when measured in real money - is insanely undervalued right now.

        1. bgamall profile image86
          bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, money for speculation can also come from drug sales, tax havens, hedge funds. The QE money used for speculation is just part of it. And most of it is foreign money anyway for Brent oil speculation.

          Hedge funds funded the shadow banks in the housing bubble and they can fund fast profits and momentum plays as they have about 2 trillion dollars.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You're argument is that many many many rich people are all investing in oil, and THIS is what's driving up the cost?

            I can only insist that you are wrong.

            I've had this discussion with you before neither of us could convince the other.

            My final statement: Money is a commodity. It always has been. When you increase the supply of it, it's worth decreases. This is why we're seeing 3% OFFICIAL CPI increases, and 5-10% unofficial CPI increases.

            Gas is currently undervalued, and I plan on investing in oil.

            1. bgamall profile image86
              bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Even congress knows that speculation is driving up the cost of oil. You have no clue do you?

  12. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Romney Absolutely blames Obama.

    NO ONE questions him!

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Paul did, but you were too busy talking about your uterus and missed it.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Paul would do well NOT to discuss uteruses.....these young women will leave in droves if he does.

        And, did he specifically diss Romney, or just dismiss the idea that Obama is to blame for high gas prices?

  13. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is trying to limit how much speculators can bet in oil futures -- a power it was given by Dodd-Frank. It issued a rule in October, but it won't take effect for another year.

    Meanwhile, Wall Street has gone to court to stop the rule. It's already won a stay.

    As rising gas prices start wagging the election-year dog, the President should let America know what's really causing prices to rise."

    Reminds me of Koch...who has kept the proposed Wind Farm off Nantucket Shoals stalling in the courts for 10 years....

    They will do everything to keep energy to themselves, and keep the prices high--America be darned.
    Another part of their "war of wars" with Obama.

    1. Don Bobbitt profile image92
      Don Bobbittposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Really?

      You do realize that this commission only has power over US companies and speculators, don't you? So if this happens, we limit our own people and thus allow all other nations speculators to have even more freedom to manipulate the market?

      This is what is happening when we regulate our Oil companies from drilling in certain areas outside our recognized limits of control. This allows the other nations of the world to drill in these areas, even though right off of our coast, and reap the rewards of what is essentially Our Oil.

      Be careful, here, Regulation that is defined by politicians and special interest groups often leads to catastrophe for the common man in America.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        All I see is special interests groups already destroying America...  It's no "free" market, it's controlled monopolies.
        Like here. Back Bay lost power for 3 days, and even the mayor said: Who's going to pay to repair all these roads they dug up? Who's going to pay for all the lost business, lost wages?

        There is only ONE choice for electricity around here. One. And the CEO makes 8 mil a year.....

        And now the state is responsible to pay for the damage done to the roads, and business and workers will just have to eat the lost revenus and wages.

        Can I ask: Where is the responsibility of the ONE electric company? What's the 8 mil a year for, if the service is shoddy?

        We must have regulations. The freedom that the "free-market" has had through-out the past decade is what ruined America.

        And it's people like Koch, who use the system to prevent competition, that are the problem. IMO

  14. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "The iron fist of the free market, squeezing every drop of money out of the people."

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The rest of your quote: "... But only if they first agree to it! Which is the best part about the free market because government just kills you if you refuse... especially Obama, who claims the right to kill US citizens without a trial!"

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nope....we don't have a choice..that's the point! That's WHY they can squeeze us, because there is no choice. AND they work to keep it that way.

        ONE electric company.
        6 Media conglomerates.

        ONE cable.

        How many oil and gas co's? 3...4?
        Banks?

        Doesn't matter, because what is the "free" choice they offer? Not much.

        ALL follow same policies. Unfettered by gvt. Otherwise, how come I can pay one price for gas at home, and go 30 miles up and pay less?

        1. profile image0
          Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "how come I can pay one price for gas at home, and go 30 miles up and pay less?"

          We have the same thing here. Gas is .15 to .20 per gallon cheaper where I live as opposed to where I work because of the difference in county taxes. That may be the case where you are as well.

      2. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The free market is a dream, which the banks will simply not allow. They will stop lending entirely if they don't get what they want. So it is better to regulate them and slow them down than to let them get everything they want.

  15. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's Budget Director, said it plainly on CNN last week, "Stop beating the war drums right now [against Iran], and Obama could do that, and he could say the neocons are history."

    http://nader.org/index.php?/archives/23 … rices.html

    PLEASE, PLEASE, PULLEEEAAAZZZE!

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "I will not accept an energy strategy that traps us in the past.”—President Obama speaking in Ohio today

      looking better every day...

  16. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    As Americans, we actually under, under, under pay for our fuel.

    I've been doing my own policy analysis, and research overwhelmingly shows that when everything is taken into account, we should be paying around $12 per gallon.

    We deny the health care costs directly attributed to fossil fuel (transportation-related for this argument), we turn away from the environmental costs, the government continues to subsidize oil prices, and oil companies are taxed at miniscule rates.

    Believe me, I wouldn't want to pay so much for a gallon of gas, but this is the reality of the situation.

    Pundits can continue blaming speculators and claiming that the Keystone Pipeline will help bring prices down, but the reality is, our prices are artificially very, very low in comparison to the true costs of oil use.

    1. profile image0
      Larry Wallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      We are not underpaying for fuel. Oil companies, like any other business, pass on all their costs to the customer.

      Next, I do not understand what you mean the government subsidizes oil prices. Are you referring to the tax incentives that President Obama wants to repeal. Those incentives were enacted, when oil was very cheap and the oil companies were not making money, thus they were not drilling and that would had led to a whole series of problems.

      No, the Keystone pipeline is not going to lower prices. Prices come down when global prices drop or when consumption drops. Independent oil companies make money selling oil to refineries. Integrated oil companies, Exxon, Shell, Chevron and the like make money selling to their own refineries and to other refineries.

      Refineries make money selling to gasoline stations or bulk sales in other states.

      Gasoline stations make money when you fill your tank.

      Oil and gas operations are a business just like any other business. They do get some tax breaks, but so do a lot of other industries and as individuals we get tax breaks--we can deduct charitable contributions, you can deduct gambling losses if they exceed your winnings, you can deduct business expenses and so on.

      I have a Hub about how sometimes you cannot help but make money. You might want to look for it.

      1. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, they have just figured a way to extract shale oil for 10 dollars a barrel. Don't say they aren't raking in money.  And don't say that there is no speculation in Brent because there is. Look at the massive difference in price between Brent and WTI.

      2. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Here is proof that oil prices have nothing to do with more drilling. And truth is, although this article doesn't state it, speculation is what drives up and keeps up prices:

        http://content.usatoday.com/communities … 2swWdUU58E

        1. profile image0
          Larry Wallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I do not understand your point. I have always contended that speculation was a major factor in the run up of oil prices. If the U.S. could drill enough it would be less dependent on foreign oil, but I never said that the price would go down. I wrote a hub call about how oil companies just cannot avoid making money

          http://larrywall.hubpages.com/hub/Somet … Make-Money

          It explains why oil companies sometimes cannot avoid making money and why they cannot lower prices.

          1. bgamall profile image86
            bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            My point is that there is no free market in oil. Manipulation makes it impossible for a free market to function. That is what makes this exporting of oil so disgusting. I wouldn't mind that exporting if oil prices weren't manipulated, but they are..

      3. mikelong profile image83
        mikelongposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Just add up the health care costs caused by oil-based pollution in California, for example, and you will see what I am talking about.

        The use of the word "subsidy" is all over the place, with little consensus. I use it as anything a government does (or doesn't do) to keep costs low.

        When one looks at the compounding factors of poverty, lack of health insurance (or poor coverage), and health problems, it is the taxpayer who directly and indirectly pays the bill.

        Gasoline and Diesel fuel combustion is directly linked to asthma, cardiovascular disease, and numerous other problems....and in places like California (the lungs of America's economy in terms of logistics...which is a hefty chunk) we disproportionately suffer the consequences. Poor communities, like Pacoima and the City of Commerce are also disproportionately stuck with the health and environmental costs.

        Thinking beyond the "current market value" needs to take place.

        1. profile image0
          Larry Wallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I will be the first to admit that oil and gas are not perfect fuels. Unfortunately we do not have the anti matter combustion they have in science fiction. Please, I am not belittling your comments. I understand them better. There are health issues. In California, part of the problem is your geographic location and your immense population. The gas and diesel use today produce less emissions than they did 10 or 20 years ago and yes the environmental movement had a lot to do with that.

          I cannot accept your conclusion that the oil and gas industry is subsidized by the federal government. If you follow your path, almost every industry is subsidized by the oil and gas industry. Manufacturing industries, that may use oil and gas, have their own set of unique emissions. Agriculture in the distant past used DDT, which is now banned. The computer industry, does not provide a safe way of disposing of old parts which are often sent overseas and dump into pools of acid so some of the gold can be recovered. During the silver boom engineered in the 1980s resulted in silver recovery activities at newspapers and other places that used photographic materials involving silver processing. The fumes from the process were horrible. I was a newspaper reporter then. I hear your frustration. However, I have found that there is never one single cause for most things. Oil and gas is blamed for coastal erosion. Yet, the building of levees along the Mississippi River, hurricanes, and natural subsidence have played a much larger role.
          Because of its visibility, the oil and gas industry often becomes the whipping boy, when in fact they may be others involved and sometimes, the industry is really innocent.

          1. mikelong profile image83
            mikelongposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No belittling taken.

            Health costs are one aspect of this picture.

            California's biggest geographic problem is our location between the East Coast/Europe and Asia.

            The same people who profited from logistics are the same who made California what it is today. This history behind the creation of San Pedro into the mighty ports of LA and Long Beach is a perfect example of what I mean.

            Failed planning and a drive towards quick and maximized profits continues to shape the landscape. It is not just that cars pollute, it is the environment that they were created within. The congestion found, for example, on the 405 Freeway as people from the Antelope Valley drive in and out of LA to work every day symbolizes the failed thinking that I am talking about.

            In terms of the "industry being innocent", I'm not just singling them out. There is much intermingling between different industries and government. The oil industry has lobbied hard over its history to fight against tighter regulations on emissions. It has been difficult to get legislation passed, and even today we see the "conservative" party pushing for less regulation. It has been the lack of, or weakness of regulation that has created the toxic environment that we are in. This is why the United States lags well behind the rest of the "industrialized" world in terms of emissions and other toxins....which, as a result, lead to increased health problems and costs.

  17. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    I've never been able to grasp why the U.S. should be in a big hurry to produce more oil rather than buy much more cheaply produced oil from other countries. Why not use up their oil and conserve ours for the future? I recognize that there are security and balance of payments issues for reducing imports. Aside from those considerations it seems to me that it would make sense to use up other countries' oil and save ours for the future. ???

    1. profile image0
      Larry Wallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There is a logic to your suggestion that I cannot dispute. However, the issue is security. If we depend on foreign imports, we threaten our security. You cannot drill wells overnight. Oil companies cannot afford to drill wells and then shut them in. If oil companies do not drill, there will be a lot of people in primary and supporting jobs who will join the unemployment rolls.

      There should be no stigma attached to using foreign oil, as some appear to believe. But it is important that we also develop our own resources.

      Also, foreign countries will not supply us forever. They are going to take care of their needs before ours. As the old saying goes, "you better look out for yourself, because no one else will."

  18. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 5 years ago

    Hypocrisy on parade . . .

    Fox News aired in 2008 a series of explanations why it wasn't reasonable to blame President Bush for high gas prices . . .

    http://youtu.be/UzEnKdBAb_o

    In case you missed it, here's how Fox is covering gas prices now with President Obama in office:

    http://youtu.be/ztc8UxvSSTo

 
working