Oil at $100 a bbl?? Where the hell have you been?
[QUOTE=coldduck;152558]Oil at $100 a bbl?? Where the hell have you been?[/QUOTE]
oil going down that much from its peak is what he meant but it is closer to $80 than $100 unless it falls another $20 to $30 a barrel which thankfully seems to not be happening now. Seems like $50 will be the new normal for 2015.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
[QUOTE=c.captain;152384]so please just make it clear what your position actually is?
- the crude oil export ban needs to be maintained?
or - the crude oil export ban needs to be repealed?[/QUOTE]
I am waiting for your answer SIR!
Chevron and the rest want to export oil because the quality of the oil they want to export cannot be refined in the USA at present with the existing refineries? Here’s a novel idea, build another refinery or two ! Of course that would be a major cost and indicate you have long term faith in USA oil. My goodness you guys claim to be masters of technology and capable of getting oil safely out of the most pristine places on God’s earth so surely you can build a state of the art refinery to process the stuff you dig up.
Sounds like to me these guys want to gut a law designed to protect the country so they can make a short term profit. Shocking !
even easier…retool and add to existing refineries here in the US. Got to be much easier for the permitting.
Sounds like to me these guys want to gut a law designed to protect the country so they can make a short term profit. Shocking!
spot FUCKING on sir but sadly you realize they are likely to get that ban lifted…seems like the Congress is already there and I don’t see the Administration saying much in opposition to it being lifted either! MONEY RUNS WASHINGTOON!
I seem to remember when Barry was elected there were all manner of shovel ready projects of the unemployed. What would be a bigger public works project than building a refinery near each shale producing area? What about building giant tank farms to store it all? Lots of money to be made off the crude but even more off the refined product. We haven’t built new refineries since what? The 70’s?
[QUOTE=c.captain;152596]even easier…retool and add to existing refineries here in the US. Got to be much easier for the permitt[/QUOTE]
An even easier option is not dig the stuff out of the ground they can’t sell ! It makes no sense unless…
There are really stupid CEOs of oil companies that just like pissing away millions of dollars to find unsaleable oil or they already had paid the bribes to get the law changed
Uhh, drinkin’, mostly… Kinda an old quote showing the level of subsidies given to the US oil companies.
[QUOTE=tengineer1;152595]Chevron and the rest want to export oil because the quality of the oil they want to export cannot be refined in the USA at present with the existing refineries? Here’s a novel idea, build another refinery or two ! Of course that would be a major cost and indicate you have long term faith in USA oil. My goodness you guys claim to be masters of technology and capable of getting oil safely out of the most pristine places on God’s earth so surely you can build a state of the art refinery to process the stuff you dig up.
Sounds like to me these guys want to gut a law designed to protect the country so they can make a short term profit. Shocking ![/QUOTE]
Not sure if re-tooling is the right decision considering the fact heavy sour oil is still being produced and thus still needs to be processed. That’s a decision for the refineries, but I’d say it might be cheaper for them to import the oil from West Africa, Venezuela (or via the Keystone) than retool them and process the domesticly-produced oil. “Energy independence” doesn’t mean the U.S. won’t still import oil, it means we don’t HAVE to import the oil in order to keep up with domestic demand.
With that in mind, I agree, building another refinery would make sense.
Here’s a thought that a friend of mine came up with -
Getting the permits and dealing with the environmental folks about building a refinery in the U.S. will no doubt be a painful experience. It would create a lot of jobs, but then again, where would you build it? Considering the fact that our Caribbean neighbor Haiti is in complete disarray, what if we struck a deal with the Haitians to build a refinery there in order to help get that country back on its feet?
Provisions could be put in place where only US-flagged ships could be used to transport the oil to the refinery, or from the refinery back to the U.S.
I’m not saying it’s the best answer, but perhaps something to ponder.
Haiti is too unstable and too corrupt. It would be cheaper and easier to complete and operate a new refinery in the U.S. There are lots of places that would be more practical than Haiti: Bahamas, BVI, DR, Mexico, Honduras, Canada. But none of those would use US Flag ships.
How about building a big new oil refinery for DOD fuel production at Gitmo? That would require US Flag ships.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;152617]Haiti is too unstable and too corrupt. It would be cheaper and easier to complete and operate a new refinery in the U.S. There are lots of places that would be more practical than Haiti: Bahamas, BVI, DR, Mexico, Honduras, Canada. But none of those would use US Flag ships.
How about building a big new oil refinery for DOD fuel production at Gitmo? That would require US Flag ships.[/QUOTE]
All the countries listed would allow US flag ships in, it happens often enough now. ,But in this day and age of the need to create jobs why won’t one of the patriotic oil companies build a refinery right in the USA? A little research will provide the curious the reason why and the problem is not regulation
No such thing as a patriotic oil company. They consider themselves transnational. To them the US is just another uppity banana republic.
[QUOTE=tengineer1;152618]All the countries listed would allow US flag ships in, it happens often enough now. ,But in this day and age of the need to create jobs why won’t one of the patriotic oil companies build a refinery right in the USA? A little research will provide the curious the reason why and the problem is not regulation[/QUOTE]
The political and regulatory obstacles are absurd. You have no idea how powerful the “green” lobby is with certain pols. The oil company spends 10s of millions of dollars just to get the okay, or they waste 10s of millions of dollars when they get turned down.
Remember, a refinery is just a factory for oil, just like a shipyard is a factory for ships. Getting a factory approved, built and operating in the US has become a nightmare. Steve Jobs told this to Obama. He told Obama that it was absurdly expensive and time consuming to try to open a factory here. Consequently, some “joe lunchbuckets” lose their decent paying factory job and end up working at Walmart or MacDonalds. It’s just a great system we’ve managed to create.
Oil Refineries for sale in USA:
-
http://www.kitmondo.com/completely-refurbished-oil-refinery/ref84663
-
Citgo’s existing & operating 3 refineries in USA. Where does it say that we’ve to buy Venezuelan oil?
There. All political and regulatory objections overcome.
A novel thought: Why can’t we have a sovereign fund like other oil based economies? Takes care of the deficit and other uncertainties in the future. After all, oil is national wealth, belonging to the country and the citizens, isn’t it?
[QUOTE=DredgeBoyThrottleJocky;152554]#4. You’re an analyst unaware of Billions of dollars of us subsidies for US oil productions? Yeah, right… Sure you are… “Not exporting is hurting US producers by forcing them to sell at lower domestic prices.” From Mother Jones…(Not the Act) “Over the past century, the federal government has pumped more than $470 billion into the oil and gas industry in the form of generous, never-expiring tax breaks. Once intended to jump-start struggling domestic drillers, these incentives have become a tidy bonus for some of the world’s most profitable companies. Taxpayers currently subsidize the oil industry by as much as $4.8 billion a year, with about half of that going to the big five oil companies—ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips—which get an average tax break of $3.34 on every barrel of domestic crude they produce. With Washington looking under the couch cushions for sources of new revenue, oil prices topping $100 a barrel, and the world feeling the heat from its dependence on fossil fuels, there’s been a renewed push to close these decades-old loopholes. But history suggests that Big Oil won’t let go of its perks without a brawl.”[/QUOTE]
I knew exactly what they are talking about. I also know you googled “US oil subsidies” for the first time ever and copy and paste it from the second link. Just because someone decides that they think a particular tax policy is wrong or too low doesn’t make it a subsidy. By that logic you could pick out any tax standard for deductions in any industry, call it too low and say it’s a subsidy. Like I said before, the oil export ban was added after the 1970s oil embargo long after the jones act was created.
[QUOTE=smoker;152634]A novel thought: Why can’t we have a sovereign fund like other oil based economies? Takes care of the deficit and other uncertainties in the future. After all, oil is national wealth, belonging to the country and the citizens, isn’t it?[/QUOTE]
[B]j’accuse you blasphemer![/B]
[B]for such heresy you will burn![/B]
Alaska has a sovereign oil fund, the Alaska Permanent Fund. Its a huge success.
So why can’t the US have one too?
[QUOTE=tugsailor;152644]Alaska has a sovereign oil fund, the Alaska Permanent Fund. Its a huge success.
So why can’t the US have one too?[/QUOTE]
because in Alaska, they are all left leaning red as Marx socialists and do not believe in the time tested Americanism that the resources and profits from them belong solely to the makers and that those same makers will spend all the great wealth they have made off the resources of the land down to all those beneath them. It’s called supply side trickle down theory and it has been abundantly proven now ever since that greatest of communicators, Ronald Regan presided as our benevolent king.
God Bless the man who brought wealth and prosperity to all the unwashed American masses! The man who ended all deficit spending, fed, clothed, housed and schooled all, and finally ended poverty in our great land. A truer American hero you will never find!
[QUOTE=tugsailor;152644]Alaska has a sovereign oil fund, the Alaska Permanent Fund. Its a huge success.
So why can’t the US have one too?[/QUOTE]
The federal government can only collect royalties on oil/gas recovered from federally owned property or offshore. States collect royalties on oil/gas recovered within the states, because it’s their land, not the federal government’s.
The federal royalty on onshore oil/gas is 12.5% to 18.75%. Offshore oil/gas royalties are 18.75%. The royalty for new offshore, deepwater oil/gas is about 37%.
Over the years, the government has collected many billions in royalties. They pissed it away. What else is new?
[QUOTE=pcdunham;152635]I knew exactly what they are talking about. I also know you googled “US oil subsidies” for the first time ever and copy and paste it from the second link. Just because someone decides that they think a particular tax policy is wrong or too low doesn’t make it a subsidy. By that logic you could pick out any tax standard for deductions in any industry, call it too low and say it’s a subsidy. Like I said before, the oil export ban was added after the 1970s oil embargo long after the jones act was created.[/QUOTE]
Do you have any coherent points to be made to this debate, other than trying to shield your employer, Mr Lackey?
Atleast, DredgeBoyThrottleJocky backed up his talking point with a fact. YOU? And, you still have to answer c.captain.
[QUOTE=JohnG;152652]The federal government can only collect royalties on oil/gas recovered from federally owned property or offshore. States collect royalties on oil/gas recovered within the states, because it’s their land, not the federal government’s.
The federal royalty on onshore oil/gas is 12.5% to 18.75%. Offshore oil/gas royalties are 18.75%. The royalty for new offshore, deepwater oil/gas is about 37%. [/QUOTE]
you obviously are not familiar with the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act of 1995 (DWRRA, P.L. 104-58) which excludes up to the first 87.5MM bbl of oil in any lease block from any royalty payment no matter what the going price is when it is produced