Rep. Lisa Murkowski Pushes U.S. Crude Exports...Again

I know this has been discussed here before, but can anyone give a coherent argument for selling our oil abroad? Because I can’t find one given by Murkowski. Also, this quote: [B]“The United States has a general prohibition, a ban, on exports of domestic crude oil. To me, this equates to a sanctions regime against ourselves,” Murkowski said. “It hurts American producers, who have to sell oil at a significant discount to Brent, and it hurts American consumers, whose prices at the pump are higher than they would otherwise be.”[/B]

Two thoughts:

  1. What is with our general obsession with selling off national assets?

  2. I’m far from an economist, but how exactly does domestic oil selling at a discount to Brent result in higher pump prices?

[QUOTE=socalguy;160043]http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/us-self-sanctioning-with-oil-export-ban

I know this has been discussed here before, but can anyone give a coherent argument for selling our oil abroad? Because I can’t find one given by Murkowski. Also, this quote: [B]“The United States has a general prohibition, a ban, on exports of domestic crude oil. To me, this equates to a sanctions regime against ourselves,” Murkowski said. “It hurts American producers, who have to sell oil at a significant discount to Brent, and it hurts American consumers, whose prices at the pump are higher than they would otherwise be.”[/B]

Two thoughts:

  1. What is with our general obsession with selling off national assets?

  2. I’m far from an economist, but how exactly does domestic oil selling at a discount to Brent result in higher pump prices?[/QUOTE]

  1. She’s taking after the general trend set by none other than John Sidney McCain, who is quite good at arranging same (look up his involvement in the copper mining industry and of course you know his take on OUR industry)

  2. It doesn’t. She is pandering to the drill here, drill now crowd, most of whom have no idea how oil and gas is bought, traded, sold etc and don’t care as long as it’s cheeeeep at the pump. Largely the same demographic who bought the line about the Iraq War paying for itself because “we” were going to have access to their oil fields.

Lisa Murkowski is a CUNT!

[QUOTE=socalguy;160043]http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/us-self-sanctioning-with-oil-export-ban

I know this has been discussed here before, but can anyone give a coherent argument for selling our oil abroad?[/QUOTE]

Because the oil companies want to. What oil wants, oil gets.

Hmmmm… https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00026050&type=I&newmem=N

[QUOTE=highseasharry;160050]Because the oil companies want to. What oil wants, oil gets.[/QUOTE]

Because the oil companies told her to take that position, they paid for her to take that position. She could care less about American jobs and the domestic economy, she is owned by the oil companies and taking that position also makes her look good to the locals who are permanently attached to the State tit. McCain and Murkowski illustrate the worst examples of what America has to offer its citizenry.

[QUOTE=socalguy;160043]http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/us-self-sanctioning-with-oil-export-ban

I know this has been discussed here before, but can anyone give a coherent argument for selling our oil abroad? Because I can’t find one given by Murkowski. Also, this quote: [B]“The United States has a general prohibition, a ban, on exports of domestic crude oil. To me, this equates to a sanctions regime against ourselves,” Murkowski said. “It hurts American producers, who have to sell oil at a significant discount to Brent, and it hurts American consumers, whose prices at the pump are higher than they would otherwise be.”[/B]

Two thoughts:

  1. What is with our general obsession with selling off national assets?

  2. I’m far from an economist, but how exactly does domestic oil selling at a discount to Brent result in higher pump prices?[/QUOTE]

I have no idea if the pump price argument is true or no but it’s theoretically possible that it is true. Crude is not gasoline. Introducing artificial inefficiencies could raise prices.

Presumably it depends upon transportation logistics, the suitability of refineries for the type of crude. Gasoline likely is traded on world markets. Prices for gasoline may be more closely linked to world prices then prices for some crude in certain locations.

[QUOTE=c.captain;160047]Lisa Murkowski is a CUNT![/QUOTE]

Tell us how ya really feel!

[QUOTE=catherder;160106]Tell us how ya really feel![/QUOTE]

there simply are not words in the English language to adequately convey that…

[QUOTE=c.captain;160128]there simply are not words in the English language to adequately convey that…[/QUOTE]

That hasn’t kept you from trying…

Typical Sen. Lisa “Thanks daddy” Murkowski

Can’t Understand Normal Thinking… Great pic of Dear Lisa…

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/slideshow/2015-CERAWeek-Top-quotes-from-Day-One-107920.php

like I said…Lisa Murkowski is a CUNT! the BITCH even looks like Dick Cheney

[B]Senator Murkowski to Introduce Legislation to End U.S. Crude Export Ban[/B]

By Rob Almeida On April 20, 2015


U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, image © 2015 IHS

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, today announced plans to introduce legislation this year to end the 40-year-old ban on exporting U.S. crude oil. Her remarks were made in Houston during the annual CERAWeek event.

“America has entered an era of energy abundance. Imports are down, and so are prices. We are on the verge of being able to help our allies and trading partners with our energy – instead of competing with them for supply from others,” Murkowski said.

She went on to specifically address the fact sanctions against Iran may soon be lifted which over the next few years could lead to an additional 1 million barrels of oil per day hitting the global oil markets.

“The United States has a general prohibition – a ‘ban’ – on exports of domestic crude oil. To me, this equates to a sanctions regime against ourselves,” Murkowski said. “It hurts American producers, who have to sell oil at a significant discount to Brent, and it hurts American consumers, whose prices at the pump are higher than they would otherwise be.”

“We should not lift sanctions on Iranian oil while keeping sanctions on American oil. It makes no sense,” Murkowski added.

In early January, Ryan Lance, CEO of ConocoPhillips made a similar call for the crude oil export ban in Washington, D.C. “The U.S. energy situation has improved significantly since the ban was put in place,” Lance noted in his presentation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS. “Government should recognize the new reality of the renaissance that has transformed North America from energy scarcity to abundance, and enable the industry to keep it going. We have just scratched the surface of its potential, and can help ensure that the renaissance continues as an engine of long-term economic growth by exporting our excess crude oil into the world market. Thanks to our new energy abundance, domestic refiners would still have all the oil they need, and would still enjoy a competitive advantage over foreign refiners.”

Meanwhile however, the United States’ refineries are decades old and there appears to be no push to update them or build new ones to keep up with the growth in U.S. production.

It’s quite a different story however in Saudi Arabia where production is being maintained at a high level and huge investments are being made to not only continue production of this commodity, but to turn it into a refined product for consumers.

While unlimited crude oil exports will undoubtably benefit the United States’ trade balance and will create jobs within the upstream exploration and production sector, lawmakers and executives such as Senator Murkowski and Ryan Lance appear to be forgetting that crude oil is not energy, but rather a commodity that needs to be refined in order for it to be used. Without a subsequent investment in domestic refining capacity, it appears that opening up unlimited exports of crude oil will not support the United States’ energy security in the long term, but rather shift it more toward Saudi Arabia.

[QUOTE=c.captain;160273]like I said…Lisa Murkowski is a CUNT! the BITCH even looks like Dick Cheney[/QUOTE]

That’s a bit rough, don’t you think? Cheney is better looking … not easy to look at but at least he doesn’t instantly remind you of a fanatical right-wing whackjob.

She is an over-privileged member of the self appointed political royalty who got her position by the same technique 3rd world kleptocrats use to keep the family treasury full. Her existence along with others of her ilk makes me gag.

As long as people like her are allowed to walk the halls of government we are doomed to the fate of a long list of other failed nations controlled by obscenely wealthy kleptocrats, a role she obviously cherishes.

[QUOTE=Steamer;160279] As long as people like her are allowed to walk the halls of government we are doomed to the fate of a long list of other failed nations controlled by obscenely wealthy kleptocrats, a role she obviously cherishes.[/QUOTE]

Don’t forget other senators like Bob Corker (R-TN) and his hearing on April 15th. This from the MEBA newsletter:

http://mebaunion.org/M.E.B.A.%20Telex%20Times%20for%20April%2016-%202015.pdf

[B]CORKER COMMITTEE SEEKS TO KICK OVER U.S.SHIPPING’S THREE - LEGGED STOOL[/B]
[I][B]Renewed Push Takes Myopic Viewpoint of Complex Issue[/B][/I]

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee led by Chairman Bob Corker (R - TN) is seeking the reform of the nation’s food aid program involving the elimination of preference cargo for U.S. - flag shipping.

A parade of witnesses supporting his approach testified that inefficiencies in the current program prevent a more timely and extensive reach to hungry mouths around the world. Food for Peace helps feed starving Third World nations while providing critical support to U.S. shipping and American farmers.

The U.S. Merchant Marine has long likened the series of programs that help keep it stabilized to a three - legged stool - the Jones Act, the Maritime Security Program
and cargo preference laws. Military cargo accounts for about 80% of preference cargo. But U.S. - shipping is already suffering from diminishing cargoes following DOD’s
drawdown of peacetime forces overseas. The lion’s share of the other 20% of preference cargo is accounted for primarily through the Food Aid program and cargoes from the Export - Import Bank. The Ex - Im Bank is also under attack and Members of Congress may let the Bank’s charter expire at the end of June. A loss of food aid cargo with no replacement plan would further hasten the spiral of vanishing U.S. - flag vessels and the associated pool of U.S. mariners and would desperately complicate the ability to fulfill DOD sealift requirements.

Sen. Corker has introduced legislation, along with Sen. Chris Coons (D - DE) to reform Food Aid. The proposed system wouldn’t turn the program into an entirely cash - based system, but the U.S.- flag cargo preference component would be eliminated. [B]Scheduled witnesses at Wednesday’s hearing were all preaching to the Corker choir. The maritime industry was not invited to testify. [/B]U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Food for Peace Director Dina Esposito said that food purchased locally is more cost efficient and can get to the intended sources in a more timely fashion. She alleged that enough protections are in place to ensure the aid isn’t delivered to unintended recipients. During the hearing, [B]Sen. Corker regularly dismissed arguments opposing his own as “hoaxes”[/B] saying that special interests “should be ashamed” that they are letting people starve around the world by trying to maintain the current system.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D - MD) was more mindful of the damaging effects a “reformed” program would have on U.S. maritime. He worried that DOD sealift capabilities
would be compromised that, without significant expenditures, would lead to reliance on foreign - flag ships and foreign mariners for critical defense operations. He cited
the comments of USTRANSCOM Commander Gen. Paul Selva last month before the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding the potential reduction of food aid cargoes for the U.S. fleet. Gen. Selva had stated, “With the recent vessel reductions, the mariner base is at the point where future reductions in U.S. - flag capacity puts our ability to fully activate, deploy, and sustain forces at increased risk.”

But Sen. Corker rebutted that it isn’t USAID’s job to ensure that military policy and sealift capability is met. “That’s a DOD problem,” he announced. [B]He likened the current program to “corporate welfare” favoring shipping companies, a few agricultural interests and a handful of non - governmental organizations (NGOs).[/B]

Quizzed as to what group has put up the most resistance against overhauling the food aid program, witnesses essentially agreed that it was the maritime industry
that has been most aggressive in its opposition.

There’s a good reason for that. In a statement submitted for the record, U.S. maritime interests acknowledged that they can appreciate the desire to fine - tune the food

  • aid program, but pointed out any forwarded proposal should ensure that U.S. maritime jobs, U.S. - flag ships and logistical networks available through the Maritime Security Program are not threatened. A number of shipping companies, associations and maritime labor unions, including the M.E.B.A. and AMC, crafted and signed onto the statement. Unfortunately the Corker/Coons legislation to reform Food Aid, the statement read, “does not adequately address the impact that the complete
    elimination of the U.S. - flag shipping requirements … will have on MSP and the U.S. - flag maritime industry. In fact, [their elimination] will diminish our nation’s U.S. -
    flag sealift capability and will result in the loss of American jobs.”

If we allow ourselves to follow this path, without regard for U.S. shipping, the Government will have to spend far in excess of the cost of cargo preference in direct spending to replicate the national security capabilities of the privately owned U.S. - flag commercial fleet.

More fodder for the anti-Jones Act guy called McCain.

That’s what we get when we keep voting for the same clowns over and over again, people.

Rat poison for Murkowski and Corker too

Uhh…you may wanna delete that

Traitors, plain and simple.

Scumbag traitors and parasites who hide behind a bible and a flag while they suck the blood out of this nation. It proves the majority of American voters are ignorant fools, but even ignorant fools deserve better than we are getting from the scum we send to DC.

Where is Babs? Why isn’t she standing up to call a traitor a traitor? Didn’t she claim that she was not going to run again so that she could do the right thing? Maybe too busy enjoying the MEBA manor house to even notice her comrades proposing to rape the nation a bit more.

Welcome to career politicians. I say 2 term limit on any elected office in the United States at federal, state and local levels. It wouldn’t totally stop corruption but would certainly hinder it. Also maybe a 3rd term awarded to whistleblowers for those taking these handouts for votes/laws