USA: oil exports

In reply to oldsaw:

De-privatization? Don't we give them $4 Billion in tax subsidies? How are they private now? If de-privatization is so risky, we should, you know, stop doing it.

People get confused a lot about what money is private and what money is public. Been hearing a lot of that in the health care debate of late. Reminder- we didn't get the govenrment run health care the Republicans keep complaining about.

ReverendDexter wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: Drilling is still a good idea. Just don't pump it out. Cap the wells now and open them up later.That way when demand ramps up supply can be more quickly brought to market.

And why would they do that? High demand coupled with short supply only puts MORE money in their pockets.

They already do the same sort of thing....complaining that the evil environmentalists are trying to interfere with them procuring new oil leases, yet not drilling in the areas they already have rights to use. I haven't checked to verify this, but have read that 70% of the areas leased to companies for oil and gas go unused.

Oil companies limit production to keep prices high.

It's just amazing to me that so many point the finger at politicians for the price of gas (whether drilling or taxes) when everyone knows that its global economics that influence the price.

Electric cars may not be perfect, and may not suit every daily need, but they could at least give more of us a way to avoid all the squabble.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

So you're saying "they" are more like gse's? Like Fannie and Freddie?

And, yes, I'm OK with removing oil subsidies as long as all other energies are treated equally. Won't do much to lower prices though.

JoeyM wrote: They already do the same sort of thing....complaining that the evil environmentalists are trying to interfere with them procuring new oil leases, yet not drilling in the areas they already have rights to use. I haven't checked to verify this, but have read that 70% of the areas leased to companies for oil and gas go unused. Oil companies limit production to keep prices high.

Or, the costs to explore, develop and exploit those areas are too high (for now).

Or it's some combination of many factors few people know about or will admit.

Subsidies go into research and development of a growing industry.

Instead of paying the petro-industry to improve and cheapen its ability and resource extraction, only to sell it globally, it would be more beneficial for the public to subsidize a growing and infant industry that is big-wind and big-solar.

Dare I say it, Gas has room to grow, because until they can safely and cleanly extract its resource, the public will suffer.

oldsaw wrote: And, yes, I'm OK with removing oil subsidies as long as all other energies are treated equally. Won't do much to lower prices though.

The situation we have now is quite the opposite. We subsidize the oil industry directly, when they have had decades to benefit from their position. But if we subsidize something else in even a minor way people go insane.

Yet, here we are, once again, talking about how great it would be if we were more energy independent. Natural gas doesn’t make sense? We have loads of the stuff and it burns cleaner than gas. Electric won’t work? When we can generate tons of the stuff with American resources. Current electric car technology would work well for loads of people, but there’s no infrastructure to support it. We talk about how gas is so much more efficient than any of the alternatives, but would it be if all the gas stations were closed tomorrow and they had to rebuild from scratch? If it’s in our best interest to encourage other forms of energy, why wouldn’t we subsidize the creation of that infrastructure, just as we subsidize the oil industry.

Not to mention public transportation. Would the oil companies be doing as well as they are if we stopped building public highways tomorrow? Aren’t highways public spending that makes the oil and car industries more profitable? Why is building roads okay, but building rail is a waste of public money?

Treated equally? I’m pretty sure we can’t afford to treat any other form of energy equally. But I’d love to see the scale tip at least a little toward nutral. We’re not subsidizing alternative energy, we’re burying it. If we throw some fraction of the public money we spend on the oil/auto industry at alternatives, it’s just a token effort to try to keep them from being crushed under the weight of the status quo.

oldsaw wrote:

JoeyM wrote: They already do the same sort of thing....complaining that the evil environmentalists are trying to interfere with them procuring new oil leases, yet not drilling in the areas they already have rights to use. I haven't checked to verify this, but have read that 70% of the areas leased to companies for oil and gas go unused. Oil companies limit production to keep prices high.

Or, the costs to explore, develop and exploit those areas are too high (for now). Or it's some combination of many factors few people know about or will admit.

no, that makes too much sense, they should be drilling where they don't think there is oil, or even a way to bring oil onshore, if there were any, because you can't have dessert until you've eaten everything on your plate

i've mentioned these sort of things several times but it is always ignored.

On a somewhat related note, I found this post on TDiClub with regards to why diesel costs more than gas:

First, the price of diesel is pushed higher by strong demand outside of the U.S. The U.S. is a gasoline-dominant motor fuels market. 98 percent of passenger vehicles are powered by gasoline with fewer than 2 percent powered by diesel fuel. Consequently, the refining infrastructure is designed for optimum efficiency in producing gasoline. From a typical 42-gallon barrel of oil, the refining process delivers around 18 to 21 gallons of gasoline and 10 to 12 gallons of distillate (diesel fuel) plus some other refined products. Refinery yields can be tweaked but to produce significantly more distillate they would need to undergo significant upgrades costing billions. Outside of the U.S. other countries are much more reliant on diesel. In Europe, for instance, diesel is used in the majority of new passenger vehicles sold there. Strong international demand for diesel --for both passenger vehicles and industrial machinery-- has placed a premium on diesel fuel imports. Second, here in the U.S. the Energy Dept. says overall gas consumption has declined by 5 percent since 2004 while diesel demand has increased by 29 percent over the same period. In response, refineries have increased diesel production 15.1 percent, boosting diesel yield from a barrel of oil from 23.9% to 27.5%. Third, the introduction of Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel(ULSD),which was gradually phased into the market between 2006 and 2010 to replace the on-highway diesel fuel known as Low Sulfur Diesel(LSD) mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency, required approximately $8 billion in refinery infrastructure upgrades. Naturally, that cost was passed on to you, the consumer. The Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel added about 10 cents a gallon to the cost. And last but not least, taxes. The federal tax on diesel is 24.4 cents per gallon, versus 18.4 cents for gasoline. The last increase was in the early '90s and tht's when diesel was generally less expensive than gasoline.

Strizzo wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

JoeyM wrote: They already do the same sort of thing....complaining that the evil environmentalists are trying to interfere with them procuring new oil leases, yet not drilling in the areas they already have rights to use. I haven't checked to verify this, but have read that 70% of the areas leased to companies for oil and gas go unused. Oil companies limit production to keep prices high.

Or, the costs to explore, develop and exploit those areas are too high (for now). Or it's some combination of many factors few people know about or will admit.

no, that makes too much sense, they should be drilling where they don't think there is oil, or even a way to bring oil onshore, if there were any, because you can't have dessert until you've eaten everything on your plate i've mentioned these sort of things several times but it is always ignored.

If they don't think there is oil, they should not have bought the leases to drill there.

JoeyM wrote: If they don't think there is oil, they should not have bought the leases to drill there.

Perhaps they though oil was there, did more studies, drilled a test well or two and discovered there wasn't enough to make it worth their while.

So, demand plummets in the US because our economy is dying despite the headlines forced upon us plus newer cars get better fuel economy and now we are a net gas exporter. One could argue this is tied into better fuel economy of newer cars I suppose, but to me it points to just another piece of data that tells me the real unemployment numbers are way higher than reported.

Here is the story shown in a graph. This is not a good news story that we are becoming a net producer of gasoline because we increased our capacity to refine it or became more efficient at refining it, rather, the real story is that economy is a total mess and our debt-based monetary system is unravelling. The past 4 years of trying to fix a problem of too much debt by adding unprecidented levels of new debt has done nothing but put us all in more debt. Look at the fall in gasoline usage and tell me the economy is really turning around. Maybe, gasoline usage plummeted because of all the Chevy Volts out on the road.

T.J. wrote: Maybe, gasoline usage plummeted because of all the Chevy Volts out on the road.

The average fuel efficiency of vehicles in general has gone through the roof in the past 5 years. In 2008, there were very few 40mpg cars. Now manufacturers boast plenty of them. Crossovers replaced SUV's for the most part. It's starting to add up.

T.J. wrote: Look at the fall in gasoline usage and tell me the economy is really turning around.

The economy is turning around.

I know you wish it wasn't, but it is. Sorry to spoil your day. The Bush Recession is over. We've weathered the Tea Party downgrade. Yeah, we have a tough road ahead and high gas prices aren't helping. But yes. The economy is much better. America can. America is. America will.

"While Obama crows about 200,000 jobs created last month, the most for a month during his entire Administration, in September, 1983 the Reagan recovery less than a year after it began created 1.1 million jobs in that one month alone. Under Obama, we are still almost 6 million jobs below the peak before the recession started over 4 years ago! In the second year of the Reagan recovery, real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/01/12/the-worst-economic-recovery-since-the-great-depression/2/

Yep, the economy is much better.

In reply to z31maniac:

Glad to see someone is doing their homework and not drinking the Kool-aid.

The economy can be going great even with high unemployment. High employment is more of a social issue.

The economy doesn't care if production is going full speed ahead with 10 thousand workers or 10 million, just as long as their are enough consumers out there to buy stuff. This is how capitalism works.

Otto Maddox wrote: High employment is more of a social issue.

So that's what they're calling it now...........

Fletch1 wrote: In reply to z31maniac: Glad to see someone is doing their homework and not drinking the Kool-aid.

Yeah, I find the number game interesting.............Less total jobs, higher population..............but LESS unemployment?

In reply to Otto Maddox:

Not sure if serious.

z31maniac wrote:

Fletch1 wrote: In reply to z31maniac: Glad to see someone is doing their homework and not drinking the Kool-aid.

Yeah, I find the number game interesting.............Less total jobs, higher population..............but LESS unemployment? In reply to Otto Maddox: Not sure if serious.

Rich people define economic health by GDP growth. The rest of us define it by what we perceive as the general health of the country, with employment being a big factor.

The problem with only looking at the graph is gas prices aren't set by simple supply and demand. That would be too easy. Instead, prices are set on the commodities market by the potential supply and potential demand. Iran does some sword rattling, threatening to disrupt the gulf supply... the pending Summer travel season... and prices inch upwards...

Money managers play a shell game and we get to pay for it, whether they're right or wrong.

Otto Maddox wrote: Rich people define economic health by GDP growth. The rest of us define it by what we perceive as the general health of the country, with employment being a big factor.

If I define the economy based on what I see, it's pretty rosy. But that's too narrow a world view. I don't have any friends without a college degree and I don't have any friends who are out of work, or struggling to pay bills, at risk of losing their house.

The largest employer in Tulsa, the American Airlines maintenance facility is getting ready to cut a significant % of their people........but I guess since I don't know any of them, it doesn't matter that something like 1000 well paying jobs are about to be lost.

So yeah, nearly 20% of the rest of the labor being unemployed or underemployed, isn't a problem.

z31maniac wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: Rich people define economic health by GDP growth. The rest of us define it by what we perceive as the general health of the country, with employment being a big factor.

If I define the economy based on what I see, it's pretty rosy. But that's too narrow a world view. I don't have any friends without a college degree and I don't have any friends who are out of work, or struggling to pay bills, at risk of losing their house. The largest employer in Tulsa, the American Airlines maintenance facility is getting ready to cut a significant % of their people........but I guess since I don't know any of them, it doesn't matter that something like 1000 well paying jobs are about to be lost. So yeah, nearly 20% of the rest of the labor being unemployed or underemployed, isn't a problem.

I am not following you. Unemployment certainly is a problem.

Otto Maddox wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: Rich people define economic health by GDP growth. The rest of us define it by what we perceive as the general health of the country, with employment being a big factor.

If I define the economy based on what I see, it's pretty rosy. But that's too narrow a world view. I don't have any friends without a college degree and I don't have any friends who are out of work, or struggling to pay bills, at risk of losing their house. The largest employer in Tulsa, the American Airlines maintenance facility is getting ready to cut a significant % of their people........but I guess since I don't know any of them, it doesn't matter that something like 1000 well paying jobs are about to be lost. So yeah, nearly 20% of the rest of the labor being unemployed or underemployed, isn't a problem.

I am not following you. Unemployment certainly is a problem.

A few posts back you asserted that unemployment is more a social problem than economic - perhaps so.

But, that social issue wouldn't be as debilitating if real employment was at a higher rate. The social issues are a symptom of an economic disease.