T Nation

Oil in America

Should oil that comes from America stay here and forgo the World Market ?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Should oil that comes from America stay here and forgo the World Market ?[/quote]

If it were in your backyard would allow someone to make that decision for you?

Even if it is drilled here it is still on the world market whether it leaves the country or not.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Should oil that comes from America stay here and forgo the World Market ?

If it were in your backyard would allow someone to make that decision for you?[/quote]

If it were in your backyard, you would take a royalty from whatever the oil company you leased your land to pulls out of the ground.

So yes, you would allow someone to make that decision for you.

What about public land ?

If for example a company both drilling for oil in Alaska and refining oil in Lousiana can sell Alaskan-drilled oil at the port to Japan for say $120/bbl, can buy some foreign oil at the port in Louisiana for $120/bbl, but it would cost them money to transport their own oil from Alaska to Louisiana, wouldn’t it be inefficient and quite pointless and wasteful to transport the oil from Alaska to Louisiana? Regardless of “keeping it in the country.”

Either way, the country has the exact same amount of oil from either method, but the first way avoided wasting money in a needless process.

As I understand it, that sort of situation is indeed exactly the case, though the figures are probably not exactly as above.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If for example a company both drilling for oil in Alaska and refining oil in Lousiana can sell Alaskan-drilled oil at the port to Japan for say $120/bbl, can buy some foreign oil at the port in Louisiana for $120/bbl, but it would cost them money to transport their own oil from Alaska to Louisiana, wouldn’t it be inefficient and quite pointless and wasteful to transport the oil from Alaska to Louisiana? Regardless of “keeping it in the country.”

Either way, the country has the exact same amount of oil from either method, but the first way avoided wasting money in a needless process.

As I understand it, that sort of situation is indeed exactly the case, though the figures are probably not exactly as above.[/quote]

That is a good point on transportation, but we would have to import a lot less oil if we kept our own oil. I guess I am talking about regulating American oil.

If the only reason we imported a larger number of barrels is because we sold for export that same larger of barrels, what is the disadvantage to that?

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If the only reason we imported a larger number of barrels is because we sold for export that same larger of barrels, what is the disadvantage to that?[/quote]

Isn’t that company going to have to pay shipping to get the oil to Japan? If not, then how would Japan be able to ship it back to us without out someone covering the transportation cost either way. I doubt they would always be the one’s covering the cost and not adjusting their price accordingly.

Did I miss something?

Yes :wink:

It’s easily possible for shipping costs to be less between Alaska and Japan than between say Alaska and Louisiana; and more between say Alaska and Louisiana than from some foreign sources and Louisiana.

For example, if going by supertanker, it’s much less of a trip Alaska/Japan or say Venezuela/Louisiana than it is Alaska/Louisiana.

As to whether, in my example, the price at the dock would be identical at an Alaskan port vs the Louisiana port, probably not exactly so but I have no idea what the difference presently is. It would not change the principle. In any case, it is for example much further to ship from say the Middle East to Japan than it is from Alaska to Japan.

And also, most certainly I did not say Japan would be shipping oil back to us. That was not the example. Indeed, it would make no sense to ship oil to Japan just to have them ship it back to us, but that wasn’t being said.

Bill brings up excellent points. Remember also, that taking a large percentage of supply OFF the world markets by forcing it to stay here at home would most certainly cause the price of crude trading in the rest of the world to skyrocket leaving our friends and neighbors with no choice but to consider doing the same with their own reserves. This would set off trade wars of epic proportions.

[quote]bdog527 wrote:
Bill brings up excellent points. Remember also, that taking a large percentage of supply OFF the world markets by forcing it to stay here at home would most certainly cause the price of crude trading in the rest of the world to skyrocket leaving our friends and neighbors with no choice but to consider doing the same with their own reserves. This would set off trade wars of epic proportions.

[/quote]

America would be bringing down the cost of oil for America
And do I understand Bill Correctly, that Japan is refining our oil? If it is on public land the oil companies do not own the oil they just harvest it.

I didn’t say or suggest that Japan refines our oil. The example I gave was of our refining our own oil in Louisiana (as an example case) and Japan buying oil for its own market.

If the Japanese do refine oil for us I’m unaware of it; it seems very unlikely; and if it does occur it wouldn’t change the point being made.

Japan is, however, an importer of oil for their own market.

I thought some of that oil, especially in Alaska was part of a “strategic reserve,” meaning we were saving it incase we had to fight a long war that disrupted oil imports.

Now I’m for developing domestic oil, with reasonable environmental protections, but I think keeping a “strategic reserve” is a very good idea, especially in light of troubles with Iran and Russia.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I didn’t say or suggest that Japan refines our oil. The example I gave was of our refining our own oil in Louisiana (as an example case) and Japan buying oil for its own market.

If the Japanese do refine oil for us I’m unaware of it; it seems very unlikely; and if it does occur it wouldn’t change the point being made.

Japan is, however, an importer of oil for their own market.[/quote]

What I am questioning is should America pay companies to bring oil to market from public lands , then refine the oil and put it on the market at our own set price ?

I understand Japan has it�??s own market , it would be up to them to put the screws to OPEC

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
Bill brings up excellent points. Remember also, that taking a large percentage of supply OFF the world markets by forcing it to stay here at home would most certainly cause the price of crude trading in the rest of the world to skyrocket leaving our friends and neighbors with no choice but to consider doing the same with their own reserves. This would set off trade wars of epic proportions.

America would be bringing down the cost of oil for America
And do I understand Bill Correctly, that Japan is refining our oil? If it is on public land the oil companies do not own the oil they just harvest it.
[/quote]

That kind of linear, protectionist thinking always has ramifications which extend beyond what the goals are.

America doesn’t have enough known oil supplies to effectively power the nation long enough to effect a meaningful switch to an alternative source of fuel. Our own known reserves are either in a state of decline, small though somewhat meaningful (Anwar, Offshore) or extremely expensive or energy instensive to extract (Shale Oil).

We are quite dependant on OPEC and Russia for the oil they provide.

I do not think it is something that even matters. We use around 18 mil + per day and import around 70%.

We are not going to be producing an additional 12 mil + barrels per day anytime soon. The point to drilling is not necessarily where it goes but it is to increase world supply - which will drive down the price. We saw when demand dropped that the price dropped so I am pretty sure the supply side of the equation will work also. But that is another subject.

If we are producing an extra 2 to 4 mil barresl/day or more - then that is 2 to 4 mil barrels we do not need from the middle east or venezuela thereby leaving additional supply on the world market.

By the way - 1 mil + is what we would be getting just from ANWR if we had started 10 yr ago. Throw in oil shale and the outercontinental shelf and well - you do the math.

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
I thought some of that oil, especially in Alaska was part of a “strategic reserve,” meaning we were saving it incase we had to fight a long war that disrupted oil imports.

Now I’m for developing domestic oil, with reasonable environmental protections, but I think keeping a “strategic reserve” is a very good idea, especially in light of troubles with Iran and Russia.[/quote]

Yes, keeping the stragetic reserve full is wise, and depleting it a short term political Band-Aid to momentarily reduce prices, especially at a time when the world isn’t unusually stable, is a bad idea.

No, the strategic reserve does not comprise or include oil unpumped from oil fields such as ANWR or any other.

It consists of four artificially-created caverns within salt domes, filled with purchased oil. It reportedly holds only 77 million barrels, which – if it could be pumped fast enough to substitute for our current rate of importation – would be only about 60 days’ supply. In fact, however, it reportedly can be pumped at only 4.4 million barrels per day, so it’s not capable of supplying if necessary, at peak, more than about one-third of the amount of oil we routinely import.

Of course, Democrat politicians and mouthpieces (by which I mean most of the media) have it that having a million barrels per day on an ongoing basis that the market knew would continue from ANWR would lower the price of gas less than a penny per gallon; but pumping a suggested amount such as a million barrels per day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would, though the market would know it cannot be sustained, yield an important price drop. Just another example of blatant intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.

(Another related one is that Senator Warner is arguing for a 55 mph speed limit on the argument that it would save several hundred thousand barrels per day, which he claims would achieve a real price break for consumers and for charities that now can’t afford to buy gas for their vehicles. But of course, a million barrels per day if from ANWR would do about nothing. But perhaps I misjudge the Senator: it could be that instead of being intellectually dishonest, it is just ignorance and he is unaware that “several hundred thousand” is less than “one million.” However, actually I think intellectual dishonesty is the more likely explanation.)

On the general concept of, would it make sense to have a plan to hold back given undeveloped oil fields for scheduled future dates, I agree that could make sense. If the position of the left was that they felt that, for example, the oil off of California should be saved till 2015, then start tapping the oil off Florida in 2025, then begin drilling in ANWR in 2035 as part of a long-term plan to guarantee America had good domestic oil production into the near and mid-term future, while I wouldn’t agree with it I would hardly consider it treasonous or stupid.

However, their position is that they do not want these trillions of dollars worth of oil EVER to be drilled. They want America to simply forego that wealth. Every other country on Earth can and will drill for their oil, which they are not at all protesting at the UN, in the media, in their blogs, or anywhere; while America should suffer a resulting further trillions of dollars imbalance in trade over time, resulting vastly further indebtedness to foreign nations, and resulting further decreased value of the dollar. However if the United States drills for her oil, that would increase global warming and potentially destroy all life on Earth, except maybe subterranean bacteria.

Besides, “Big Oil” might make 8 cents on the dollar or something, and that would be a true horror. Better that foreigners should have 100 cents on the dollar.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
I thought some of that oil, especially in Alaska was part of a “strategic reserve,” meaning we were saving it incase we had to fight a long war that disrupted oil imports.

Now I’m for developing domestic oil, with reasonable environmental protections, but I think keeping a “strategic reserve” is a very good idea, especially in light of troubles with Iran and Russia.

Yes, keeping the stragetic reserve full is wise, and depleting it a short term political Band-Aid to momentarily reduce prices, especially at a time when the world isn’t unusually stable, is a bad idea.

No, the strategic reserve does not comprise or include oil unpumped from oil fields such as ANWR or any other.

It consists of four artificially-created caverns within salt domes, filled with purchased oil. It reportedly holds only 77 million barrels, which – if it could be pumped fast enough to substitute for our current rate of importation – would be only about 60 days’ supply. In fact, however, it reportedly can be pumped at only 4.4 million barrels per day, so it’s not capable of supplying if necessary, at peak, more than about one-third of the amount of oil we routinely import.

Of course, Democrat politicians and mouthpieces (by which I mean most of the media) have it that having a million barrels per day on an ongoing basis that the market knew would continue from ANWR would lower the price of gas less than a penny per gallon; but pumping a suggested amount such as a million barrels per day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would, though the market would know it cannot be sustained, yield an important price drop. Just another example of blatant intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.

(Another related one is that Senator Warner is arguing for a 55 mph speed limit on the argument that it would save several hundred thousand barrels per day, which he claims would achieve a real price break for consumers and for charities that now can’t afford to buy gas for their vehicles. But of course, a million barrels per day if from ANWR would do about nothing. But perhaps I misjudge the Senator: it could be that instead of being intellectually dishonest, it is just ignorance and he is unaware that “several hundred thousand” is less than “one million.” However, actually I think intellectual dishonesty is the more likely explanation.)

On the general concept of, would it make sense to have a plan to hold back given undeveloped oil fields for scheduled future dates, I agree that could make sense. If the position of the left was that they felt that, for example, the oil off of California should be saved till 2015, then start tapping the oil off Florida in 2025, then begin drilling in ANWR in 2035 as part of a long-term plan to guarantee America had good domestic oil production into the near and mid-term future, while I wouldn’t agree with it I would hardly consider it treasonous or stupid.

However, their position is that they do not want these trillions of dollars worth of oil EVER to be drilled. Every other country on Earth can and will drill for their oil, and we should suffer a trillions of dollars imbalance in trade and resulting indebtedness to foreign nations and resulting decreased value of the dollar; but if America drills for her oil, my goodness that would increase global warming and potentially destroy all life on Earth, except maybe subterranean bacteria.

[/quote]

The suggestion to pump from strategic oil supply was Newt Gingrich’s idea

I’m pretty sure I never said that Gingrich never had a bad idea.

However,

  1. A statement that pumping from the SPR is Gingrich’s idea, if intended meaning is that Gingrich originated the idea or is the prime promoter of it, is wrong.

It’s also the case that:

  1. Gingrich is not in political power and wasn’t being discussed and is not so relevant, if at all, to what the government does or does not do.

  2. Of those that are in power, it is, as I said, the Democrats that are calling for drawing down the SPR, by a wide (perhaps not exclusive) margin.)

  3. Of the media, it is as I said those that are, generally, pretty obvious shills for modern liberalism and/or the Democratic Party that are calling for drawing down the SPR, by a wide (perhaps not exclusive) margin.

Gingrich is also a global-warming deceptee. He’s an intelligent fellow but being intelligent doesn’t mean never being wrong, not for anyone. It may be that he lacks information on specific things or has not done necessary analysis on the specific problem. For example, maybe he actually never has looked at the SPR issue from the perspective and considering the facts I provided above. He may not have.

Anyone who cannot see that this debate is about crippling the US and not saving the environment should not be allowed to reproduce.

Really, this one is nit wittery to the nth degree. The one heartening fact is that most Americans don’t really buy this crap when the chips are down.

When polled generally, they’ll show enlightened concern that there’s probably something to this whole environmental disaster thing.

Poll them when gas is 4 bucks a gallon and ask if they’d be willing to pay more to stop climate change and save the planet? NO WAY!!! High 70’s say drill anywhere you have to, just get these prices down.

Nobody (well, almost nobody) who thought the world was going to literally end would say that their budget was more important. They may say the politically correct thing sometimes, but they don’t really buy it when asked to put their money where their mouth is.

Now here’s the part where the elitists step in and cry about how this is why they have to be put in charge to save us from ourselves.