Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 3
OK, this headline makes no sense what so ever. BP and Shell received permission to ship crude oil OUT of the USA. WTF!?!

So we allow foreign countries to ship out our oil so we can import from people that want to blow us up? That makes as much sense as restricting drilling on our own land but subsidizing foreign countries to develop their own oil fields. Oh, wait, never mind, forgot what administration we're dealing with.

JLC

http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/583321?source=email_rt...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
SSHHH! Once this administration views this as a crisis they will intervene. Mebbe like Carter's gas price control in 1979. Remember them loooong gas station lines. Oh and don't fergit the "Windfall Profit Tax" enacted by his administration too.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
this is encouraging.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-11/u-dot-s-dot-...

Every president since Richard Nixon has chased the dream of energy independence, promising to break the U.S. reliance on foreign oil. Today the U.S. is more energy-independent than it’s been in 20 years. But don’t give President Obama too much credit. He came into office promising to jump-start renewable energy and directed billions in subsidies toward the green economy. Meanwhile, a separate energy revolution took hold in the oil and gas fields. New drilling techniques unlocked vast reserves unreachable just a few years ago. Oil and natural gas production in the U.S. is increasing at its fastest rate in 50 years, while imports from OPEC have been cut by a quarter in the last four years.

This year the US produced 83% of the energy it consumed. Up from 73.9% in 2008.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
This year the US produced 83% of the energy it consumed. Up from 73.9% in 2008.

Not so fast Sparky. Because of the Obozo's booming economy (NOT), there could merely be less demand for energy thus creating the illusion we're producing more of our own.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Intruder alert!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/business/energy-environmen...

Just a couple of comments:

1. I question the 83% number cited earlier, definitely in terms of crude oil. America produces about 6 million barrels per day, and uses 18-19 million barrels. I would guess coal and gas provide 90-95% of the electricity.

2. We agree that exporting oil to other countries is short-sighted and not in the country's best interests. There's only so much oil in the ground, and I would rather use their oil first, saving ours for later. The philosophy of free market capitalism, combined with short-term financial goals, compels these corporations to maximize profitability and resource utilization.

3. Once again, blaming stuff like this on President Obama seems misguided. There's been a push to increase domestic production that started under President George W. Bush, and continues under this President. What concerns me is the timing to push domestic production. Why now? It's an important change in strategy.

Your hit-and-run Democrat correspondent says thanks for reading.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Once again, blaming stuff like this on President Obama seems misguided. There's been a push to increase domestic production that started under President George W. Bush, and continues under this President.
----------------------------------------------------------
Obama continues to push for an increase in domestic energy production? Really.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's what I see, 2828. Look at the increased production numbers and any policy decisions made. I will once again suggest that an increase in production now is a bad sign overall.

I need to know more about the Keystone pipeline project to have a strong opinion. However, the last thing I would want is for Canada to ship that tarry mess elsewhere. On the other hand, if the end result of the Keystone project is increased exports of refined oil products, then I'm against it.

Finally, I'm afraid what we will see on the northern slope of Alaska is less crude oil than hoped for, and a terribly difficult environment to extract it from. We shall see.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This year the US produced 83% of the energy it consumed. Up from 73.9% in 2008.

Not so fast Sparky. Because of the Obozo's booming economy (NOT), there could merely be less demand for energy thus creating the illusion we're producing more of our own.

JLC


I believe 2008 was the year that energy consumption cratered.And production has increased quite a bit from 2009 on.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec1_4.pdf
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's what I see, 2828. Look at the increased production numbers and any policy decisions made.
-------------------------------------------------------
From what i've read the increased production is on private land and the rig count on public land is at lows. We all know what Obama has done to coal. That article was informationless. The keystone south portion didn't even need the presidents approval so he hasn't done jack there, it's the part that connects to Canada that is important.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
OK, this headline makes no sense what so ever. BP and Shell received permission to ship crude oil OUT of the USA. WTF!?!

So we allow foreign countries to ship out our oil so we can import from people that want to blow us up? That makes as much sense as restricting drilling on our own land but subsidizing foreign countries to develop their own oil fields. Oh, wait, never mind, forgot what administration we're dealing with.

JLC


So you are saying that you disagree with the administration's decision to *not* interfere with private property rights for a change?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Once again, blaming stuff like this on President Obama seems misguided. There's been a push to increase domestic production that started under President George W. Bush, and continues under this President.
------------------------------------------------------------
Er, yeah:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/12/reminder-oil-and-gas-p...

As Daniel Kish detailed in USNews yesterday, the Energy Information Administration recently released its Annual Energy Review 2011, and it demonstrates just how much Obama’s policy isn’t so much “all of the above” as “nothing from below”:

In reality, data shows that oil and gas production is actually falling on federal lands. Offshore oil production was the lowest since 2008, and natural gas production on federal lands was the lowest since 2003. Coal production on federal lands has fallen as well. Coal production was the lowest since 2006. Energy Information Administration also reports that 2011 had the highest average price for gasoline in U.S. history, and 2009-2011 has seen the highest average real electricity prices since the early 1990s.

What the record shows is that energy production is happening in spite of the president’s polices, not because of them. Instead, the federal government’s policy has been to restrict access to the 2.46 billion acres of onshore and offshore energy lands—lands that hold the greatest untapped resource potential—thereby denying their use to the people who own these resources.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
...private property rights...

Have been irrelevant since Kelo vs. City of New London.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
...private property rights...

Have been irrelevant since Kelo vs. City of New London.

JLC


No, they haven't. Property rights are not binary. They are analog. They are on a sliding scale. Granted, they have been sliding in the wrong direction, which makes it all the more important that we are supportive of property rights and not attack the right of oil companies to actually sell oil.

I think it is a shame that oil companies have to seek permission from bureaucrats to sell their oil in the first place.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
...private property rights...

Have been irrelevant since Kelo vs. City of New London.

JLC

No, they haven't. Property rights are not binary. They are analog.


I look at them as more binary. You can either do what you want or you can't.

Analog is like trying to be a little bit pregnant, IMHO.

JLC, who likes things black & white, not 50 shades of grey.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
...private property rights...

Have been irrelevant since Kelo vs. City of New London.

JLC

No, they haven't. Property rights are not binary. They are analog.

I look at them as more binary. You can either do what you want or you can't.

Analog is like trying to be a little bit pregnant, IMHO.

JLC, who likes things black & white, not 50 shades of grey.


Well, we *definitely* disagree on this one. A property right represents freedom, and the amount of freedom to use your property as you wish is most definitely not binary.

Think of a business. The amount of regulations that you must comply with reduces your freedom and therefore your property rights, but it does not completely eliminate your property rights.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Crude oil and other sources of energy are often sold over the major exchanges globally. They are sold globally and use benchmarks such as Brent, West Texas Intermediate, etc., which have differing physical characteristics such as the sulphur level content - (sweet crude, sour crude, etc.)

It's not the case that if, for example, the US uses 10 million barrels a day (made up number) and we produce 10 million barrels within our borders, therefore all 10 million barrels stay within the borders. It's not even remotely that simple. Large multinational companies like Shell, Chevron, Exxon, etc. have well sites all over the world, over land and sea. They sell to countries, peoples, and other organizations all over the world. They have contracts with each other, transport/shipping deals, etc, that determine whether the buyer gets the oil from Nigeria, Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea, etc. It's very complicated network. Even the physical characteristics of oil, such as sulphur content will determine where the buyers gets the oil. Typically lower sulphur content are preferred (sweet crude) because the process of refining it to products like gasoline, jet fuel, etc. is much less energy intensive than sour crude. There are a multitude of reasons why oil is often shipped long ways around the globe.
Print the post Back To Top