Its not good for US consumers or the whole economy in my Opinion.
[B]
But[/B] if we have to export it (because politicians $$$$$$$ feel we must), why can’t there be a requirement to use a US-flag ship? Why am I required to have health insurance, or why must auto-makers meet safety and emissions requirements? Or the Pharmaceutical industry meet FDA guidelines? Or beef meet USDA standards? Just conditions of doing business, if you [I]choose[/I] to do business here.
Where do you think the oil from Albany being shipped on the AFRODITE is coming back to as product?
Because politicians feel we must? No, wrong answer.
Write your congressman and tell them the reasons why this is a bad idea, or at least a bad idea in its present form. It’s up to the thousand or so people reading this thread to take it upon themselves to ensure this issue is understood by their representatives in DC.
I agree with you, just illustrating a point saying they feel we must, emphasis on the $$$, and the sentiment that they “always know what is best for us.” There’s no way exporting crude is a good deal.
The Albany-St John example is a good, easily understood one as its close to home. Only thing lacking is arrows showing the Product coming back to the Northeast.
I was on a BP tanker that was the first to export Alaskan crude in 1990’s to Taiwan. We got the shit kicked out of us by winter weather and typhoons in summer. 6 million a year in repairs negated the extra 1 million dollars a trip to the far east for the cargo. Sell refined products and keep the jobs here. The eco-nuts up here in Maine don’t want “tar sands” oil leaving out of Portland Maine. Crude has been imported into Maine since the late 1940s and pumped to Montreal refineries through the same pipeline they want to route the Canadian oil out to the US and overseas.
You cant win with these liberal lunatics as they drive their electric (coal generated power) vehicles. Maybe we all need to ride horses and the horses can mow our lawns too. No we can’t use them either. The methane from their farts are warming the planet.
[QUOTE=rob;152140]So, how is this good for U.S. consumers?[/QUOTE]
It has been a long time since anyone in Congress has had the best interests of the American consumer in mind. This latest treachery by John McCain is only the latest of a generation of shameless and treasonous efforts of self aggrandizement and personal wealth building by a new class of corporate sponsored and self appointed royalty.
Until we can stop these people from buying and selling elections we will continue our slide into becoming the largest banana republic on the planet. We have to cut the ties between corporations and politicians, we must close the cash pipeline that feeds the institution that is well on the way to destroying every aspect of American social and political traditions. We must stop campaign funding practices that provide shelter for corrupt politicians and corrupt those who might have had our interests in mind before they were seated in Congress. Our “representatives” no longer represent the people and we must stop this descent before it is too late.
Regarding McCain, he said in a NY Times interview a few days ago "“Every single day is a day less that I am going to be able to serve in the Senate.” All I can say to that is thank Heavens they haven’t found a cure for old age and senility quite yet. Unfortunately, he takes advantage of each day he has left to pocket a few more dollars and sell a few thousand more Americans down the toilet in exchange for his services.
I don’t feel informed enough about what all the possible outcomes could be to have a valid opinion on the matter. But I do know this: I could care less about how much less companies will make. I believe they can still make money, just not as much as they would like. Corporate greed has done terrible things to this country. Never mind exporting the oil, but if the jobs keep being exported as well, the wealth gap will become even larger and there will be no said middle class to speak of. Even us top dollar earning mariners are still just working class shmuks, and without jobs like these and similar ones, people who were not born into a certain class will have a snowball’s chances in hell of ever becoming anything. Next thing you know, America will become a third world country and we’ll all be immigrating to Canada and Europe to have a better life. Maybe that’s what these big corporations want? For America to become a third world country? Whatever the decision ends up being, any argument that starts out with discussing the company’s bottom line should be dismissed as hot air immediately. They need to come up with facts, statistics and points on how it will benefit America as a whole. As my time is limited, I only skimmed through that article and the other report that was referenced but most of what I saw was how much less companies will make. Us working class don’t want to hear that you are only going to be making 2 Billion in profits, versus the 6 billion you could be making.
Below is a summary of crude oil export benefits described in ConocoPhillips’ presentation:
[B]
If all US domestic oil competed freely on the global market:[/B]
Will see an increase in U.S. production of 1.5 million barrels per day (MMBD) to 3 MMBD by 2020 - a 10-20% increase from today
The domestic price discount on light oil would be greatly reduced
Companies would have increased cash flow to reinvest
More wells and drilling plays would become economic
Investment in new U.S. production would increase
[B]Economic Benefits**[/B]
Savings to consumers on fuel would total $18 billion annually**
Job creation & economic development would improve
Expanded markets would incentivize $750 billion in new exploration and production investment between 2016 and 2030
The U.S. would gain $135 billion in annual Gross Domestic Product at the peak
One million direct or supply-chain jobs would be added at the peak
The trade balance would improve by $67 billion annually
The U.S. government would gain $1.3 trillion in higher federal, state & local taxes & royalties from 2016 to 2030
[B]Sources [/B]
NERA prepared for Brookings Institution
** IHS Global Inc.
[QUOTE=rob;152140]So, how is this good for U.S. consumers?[/QUOTE]
very clearly it isn’t…no way, shape or form anyone will be able to prove that any benefit will come to the population or the nation…only the producers and traders will benefit why the president of ConocoPhillips was so strident in his remarks to you. That alone should tell everyone here who will be reaping rewards if the ban is lifted.
Didn’t see a link to the Brookings article/letter. Good reading for anyone interested in an educated counter opinion (those who already know everything there is to know don’t bother). From a relatively centrist group too.
They actually go into what some of the problems with lifting the export ban might be near the end of the article.
[B]Economic Benefits**[/B]
Savings to consumers on fuel would total $18 billion annually**
Job creation & economic development would improve
Expanded markets would incentivize $750 billion in new exploration and production investment between 2016 and 2030
The U.S. would gain $135 billion in annual Gross Domestic Product at the peak
One million direct or supply-chain jobs would be added at the peak
The trade balance would improve by $67 billion annually
The U.S. government would gain $1.3 trillion in higher federal, state & local taxes & royalties from 2016 to 2030
[B]Sources [/B]
NERA prepared for Brookings Institution
** IHS Global Inc.[/QUOTE]
That’s what they said about NAFTA and all sorts of other trade agreements. In all cases, they resulted in the loss of many, many decent manufacturing jobs.
Didn’t see a link to the Brookings article/letter. Good reading for anyone interested in an educated counter opinion (those who already know everything there is to know don’t bother). From a relatively centrist group too.
They actually go into what some of the problems with lifting the export ban might be near the end of the article.[/QUOTE]
From the Brookings article; “Supporting free trade. Lifting the ban on crude oil exports will increase the credibility of U.S. arguments for free trade in the global economy.”
The problem there is that all this free trade has ruined our manufacturing sector, putting untold numbers of people out of work.
Another problem with exporting crude is that we become a raw material exporter and do not enjoy the benefits of value added to those raw materials by further processing of the materials. An example is that we are exporting raw logs to China and getting that material back in the form of finished wood products. All the jobs, taxes, etc associated with turning those logs into finished products are lost.
Another example is cotton. We export about two-thirds of the annual crop. Meanwhile all those factories that used to make underwear, socks, jeans, etc. are history. The jobs are lost. The taxes paid by the factories to local towns/counties are lost. The business associated with supplies, tools, and associated materials to those factories is lost.
Being a raw material exporter is not the way to prosperity. It puts a country in the same category as third world countries.
[QUOTE=JohnG;152171]Being a raw material exporter is not the way to prosperity. It puts a country in the same category as third world countries.[/QUOTE]
Nigeria comes right to mind…exports enriching a ruling clique while the masses live in hovels…mark steamers’ words that we are doubletime goosestepping to becoming a banana republic at an ever increasing pace.
[QUOTE=JohnG;152169]That’s what they said about NAFTA and all sorts of other trade agreements. In all cases, they resulted in the loss of many, many decent manufacturing jobs.[/QUOTE]
all these studies purporting benefits to the country by lifting the ban are bought and paid for by the very companies wanting to get the ban lifted so of course they are going to support the exporters’ desires. I look at all those claims as being nothing but a steaming pile myself! Don’t step in it!
We will not be heard even if we are 20,000. The 501c3 guys have no limits and no transparency. Citizens United trashed the US, and I’ve given up hope of any politician looking after regular folk again. Letters? Public opinion? Fuggetaboutit.
They made a pocket lining choice a long time ago. Money or Humanity, and we weren’t picked. Sittin’ safe in gerrymandered districts, the nations representatives are insulated from any danger of getting voted out - except if they piss off their corporate sponsors,
Lets face it – we’ve got great tanks and military planes and warships, but everything that would actually make a difference in our daily lives in America is going to crap. America will be hollowed out in my lifetime if it keeps up, and society itself will collapse into a S. American banana republic. It’s well on the way my friend - and thems’ thats’ gots it are just picking what to pillage next. if it is US crude that suits there fancy, it’ll go over the bank in a heartbeat.
[QUOTE=bcoogan23;152177]Decent man? How do you know, does he come over for BBQs and hangout and play all-time QB in your family touch football games?[/QUOTE]
please stop with this line of attack and let’s get back to the subject of the thread
