A Bad Move by Obama Re: oil

bravo said:
Now there's a guy with his head literally up his ass....

There can't be any other reason to talk so stupid....even far left pinheads don't say things as dumb as this....
Click to expand...

I wanted to get this posted before bravo could edit what he said.

I'd like to comment on this when I have more time.

I don't right now.
 
bravo said:
Do what you gotta do....

Anyone that would post, "Neocons want us to drill less so they can make money on the high prices.", in bold....Without adequate explanation is the idiot....like I said....I can only comment on what you actually post....
Click to expand...

I also wanted to get this posted before bravo could edit it as well.
 
Man, you are one Super Freak-ing gas bag! The oil companies will be compensated by gov't for these projects....just as they are now via their tax situation that was lamely defended on the Hill recently. And even when the projects will be completed, they STILL will not make us wholly "independent" of foreign oil, given the projections of reserves and consumption rates. But the oil companies will boost their profits for a few years.
Click to expand...

Seriously.... either learn to use the quote boxes or just put your entire response together.
Now, for the comment you stuck in the middle of my post...

1) yes, oil companies will be compensated? AND??? Does that change one fucking thing I stated? No, it does not. The projects themselves are LONG term. They are NOT going to INCREASE the short term profitability like the idiot from Sierra suggested.
2) AS I stated, to proclaim it will do nothing to reduce our energy dependence is absurd.

Taichiliberal said:
1) Less doesn't automatically equate improvement in security....our oil companies just don't deal in local consumption, but they have a piece of the international production/distribution of oil as well.
Click to expand...


Do you understand what energy dependence means? It means the MORE we produce of our own consumption, the LESS we rely on foreign countries. It is irrelevant whether the oil companies work in foreign countries. That work is subject to the political whims of those countries. Look at Venezuela as a prime example of what can happen. Being LESS dependent on foreign energy absolutely means greater energy security you half wit. Because WE have the control of production.

2) Define "lasting jobs"....because essentially the jobs are to construct the rigs, then drill for the oil, then bring up and transport the oil to already exising refineries. So exactly how many jobs are we talking about? And how long would they last given the projections of reserves (assuming the projections live up to reality)?
Click to expand...

Seriously? LMAO.... I don't know the exact number of jobs you half wit as it would be entirely dependent on how many sites the idiots in DC allow to be drilled. The oil and nat gas sites would provide jobs that would otherwise be sent overseas. So whatever the number, is it not better that the jobs be HERE in the US rather than overseas?

3) Are you saying that the additional burn offs from the new rigs won't add to local air quality? And the only reason we NEED to keep drilling here in the US is because you have a hefty portion of the economy based on the way things are....and those who mightly profit from that are NOT want to change...period!
Click to expand...

Wow, you are truly delusional are you not? Tell me genius... which do we have greater control over: the environmental standards of oil and gas drilled in the US and its territories or the environmental standards of oil and gas drilled in foreign countries?

Next answer this as it might help you understand your own folly: If we consume 'x' number of barrels of oil each day.... is it better that WE produce it here (keeping the jobs and the money in OUR economy) or producing it overseas (where the jobs and cash go to another countries economy)???
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/ said:
Are you saying the USA can produce enough oil domestically to meet our needs- and at a price consumers can pay?
Click to expand...

I think what he is saying is obvious.....if you increase supply, prices go down.......and, if the US economy is profiting from the use of oil instead of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia is is better for us............... are you denying it?........
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/ said:
Are you saying the USA can produce enough oil domestically to meet our needs- and at a price consumers can pay?
Click to expand...

1) No, I am not suggesting we can produce enough oil to meet our current demand. I am saying quite clearly that every barrel we produce here keeps the money HERE and creates jobs HERE rather than overseas.

2) If we increase our supply then prices will be LOWER relative to where they would be without the additional world supply.

3) If you are asking can we reduce our foreign energy consumption by drilling for oil AND nat gas.... then yes, I do believe we can get there in 5-10 years. But ONLY if we switch transportation to a nat gas based system.
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/ said:
Oil is a commodity, and is priced and traded as such. That won't change if we increase production, will it?

We're already seeing increased demand from India and China. Do you think the oil companies won't send our oil to those markets if they outbid us?
Click to expand...

1) Oil prices are based on a combination of current supply vs. demand which gives us a 'fair value' and on the future supply/demand equation (this is where the speculation comes into play)

2) Thus, if you increase the supply side of the equation relative to what it would otherwise be, then prices will be lower than what would occur if the supply was not brought on line. This happens regardless of what the demand side does. Keep in mind, this does not mean that future prices will go DOWN. It means future prices will be lower in the future than they otherwise would have been had the supply not been added.

3) Worldwide demand is what it is. It matters not which country ships to which country. Global demand is 'x'. Global supply is 'y'. We don't get into bidding wars over barrels of oil. Everyone buys at the same spot rate (though they can HEDGE their bets for future purchases by buying futures contracts on oil)
 
Superfreak said:
Now you are simply being the troll we all know you to be.

It is irrelevant in terms of pricing based on supply/demand, it is NOT irrelevant in terms of where the jobs and money go.
Click to expand...

you called him a troll.....expect dune to PM you and call you out on it

oh wait....he won't....because dune the "new" member only PM's yurt about such things
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/ said:
I didn't realize that the profits oil companies make and pay to their shareholders as dividends only stay in the US if the crude they produce comes from here.

I also didn't know that American oil workers can't get jobs in foreign countries where the bulk of drilling occurs.

It's been a real eye-opener getting all this inside info.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Again you are simply playing the roll of troll because you for some reason get your kicks out of it.

Show me where I said ALL the profits would stay here. The vast majority of the money would stay here due to the production being here, the jobs therefore being here, the salaries of those workers thus would stay here.

Also, lil troll.... no one said that American workers couldn't get jobs overseas. They can and they do. But guess what dear little troll.... the money they spend on food, clothing, housing, foreign taxes etc... all tends to STAY in those countries where they work. If they have some disposable income, that may in part come over here, but again moronic lil troll... it is no where near the amount that would stay in our economy should the production be here.
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/ said:
Nice self-pwn, SuperFreaky.






SuperFreakConfessions.jpg
​



According to the data, US domestic oil production is at its highest level in years (see links).


http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/oil_production.html



http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo/cf_tabl...d=false&endQuarterChanged=false&noScroll=true


http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_m.htm
Click to expand...

Do explain to us dear lil troll how the above is a self pwn as you proclaim?

As I stated and you ignored....

Show me where I said ALL the profits would stay here. The vast majority of the money would stay here due to the production being here, the jobs therefore being here, the salaries of those workers thus would stay here.

Also, lil troll.... no one said that American workers couldn't get jobs overseas. They can and they do. But guess what dear little troll.... the money they spend on food, clothing, housing, foreign taxes etc... all tends to STAY in those countries where they work. If they have some disposable income, that may in part come over here, but again moronic lil troll... it is no where near the amount that would stay in our economy should the production be here.
Click to expand...

Now dear lil troll.... explain how a slight increase in domestic production changes any of the above?
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/ said:
Superfreak said:
One idiot obviously decided to pipe in.... not surprising that it came from the Sierra Club. For one, this is in no way helping 'short term profits' for oil companies. These are LONG TERM projects. Second, this will ABSOLUTELY help us on the path to energy independence. The two comments show complete ignorance on the matter and thus highlight the knee jerk reaction that is typical from the extreme environmentalists.

But wait.... we have another contender for 'I have no clue what I am rambling about':
Click to expand...


We do, and it's SuperFreaky.

Is there an inexhausible supply of oil within the US and it's waters?

No.
Click to expand...

So instead of actually showing us where I self pwned myself, you are going to instead create more straw men.

SHOW ME WHERE I SUGGESTED THE US HAD AN INEXHAUSTABLE SUPPLY. Hint: I never stated any such nonsense.

Can domestic drilling - which is at it's highest production levels in years, significantly reduce our thirst for imported oil?

No.
Click to expand...

It being at high levels of production relative to the past is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that we are capable of producing far more oil and gas that we currently do and it most certainly CAN reduce our use of imported oil. Had you actually paid attention to what I have been writing, you would have seen that I already stated this and you have yet to refute it.


Are oil companies even drilling on all their leases?

No.
Click to expand...

No, and again I never suggested that they were and it is completely irrelevant. Only brain dead morons who have no comprehension of how oil is produced would pretend that they are going to drill on every site that is leased. Here is a quick hint for you troll.... they only drill where they think they can produce oil at an economically viable level. A second hint for you lil troll is that they not only need a lease for exploration, but they ALSO are required to have a PERMIT to do the drilling.

Tell us lil troll... has the government issued permits for every lease?

Thanks again for proving you are nothing more than a pathetic moron.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Funny thing about fossil fuels is that we keep finding new reserves, and so the depletion dates keep getting extended. When I first researched fossil fuel depletion for a presentation back in 2000, the projected dates of depletion were 2045 (gas), 2075 (coal), and 2100 (oil). Now those numbers and the sources I cited are all bullshit, because so many geological finds have been made in the last 11 years.
 
Superfreak said:
Man, you are one Super Freak-ing gas bag! The oil companies will be compensated by gov't for these projects....just as they are now via their tax situation that was lamely defended on the Hill recently. And even when the projects will be completed, they STILL will not make us wholly "independent" of foreign oil, given the projections of reserves and consumption rates. But the oil companies will boost their profits for a few years.
Click to expand...

Seriously.... either learn to use the quote boxes or just put your entire response together.
Now, for the comment you stuck in the middle of my post...

Seriously, since you can clearly discern between what you wrote and my response, why waste time whining about me not following some unwritten rule of post & response? Truth be told, the "quote" system on this site has never properly worked for me....I know this because I'm on another discussion board that uses the same format, and the quote system there works quite well, therefor I rarely need to use my response style. Now, back to the discussion.....

1) yes, oil companies will be compensated? AND??? Does that change one fucking thing I stated? No, it does not. The projects themselves are LONG term. They are NOT going to INCREASE the short term profitability like the idiot from Sierra suggested.
2) AS I stated, to proclaim it will do nothing to reduce our energy dependence is absurd.

Let me dumb it down for you....during these "long term" projects, the oil companies will be compensated, will enjoy all the largesse that the gov't currently affords them, and then when production finally does come (if all goes as scheduled), who is to say that it will balance those years of construction and drilling (case in point, ANWR was predicted to produce 10 years worth of oil at current consumption rates)? And all the while the oil companies are doing business as usual to meet the demand.


Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Less doesn't automatically equate improvement in security....our oil companies just don't deal in local consumption, but they have a piece of the international production/distribution of oil as well.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what energy dependence means? It means the MORE we produce of our own consumption, the LESS we rely on foreign countries. It is irrelevant whether the oil companies work in foreign countries. That work is subject to the political whims of those countries. Look at Venezuela as a prime example of what can happen. Being LESS dependent on foreign energy absolutely means greater energy security you half wit. Because WE have the control of production.

A glaring example of your myopic understanding of the situation....."It is irrelevant whether the oil companies work in foreign countries" is one Super Freak-ing DUMB statement. Even IF your faith in "drill baby drill" goes according to plan, how much of our foreign oil dependence do you actually think will be offset? And for how long? Hint: It's not going to anywhere NEAR 50%. So yeah, our oil companies are STILL going to be at the mercy of foreign oil, OPEC....while you and I will be at the mercy of Shell, Mobil, Conoco, Wall St., etc.

2) Define "lasting jobs"....because essentially the jobs are to construct the rigs, then drill for the oil, then bring up and transport the oil to already exising refineries. So exactly how many jobs are we talking about? And how long would they last given the projections of reserves (assuming the projections live up to reality)?
Click to expand...

Seriously? LMAO.... I don't know the exact number of jobs you half wit as it would be entirely dependent on how many sites the idiots in DC allow to be drilled. The oil and nat gas sites would provide jobs that would otherwise be sent overseas. So whatever the number, is it not better that the jobs be HERE in the US rather than overseas?

Ahhh, so with the usual Super Freak-ing smokescreen, I get you to admit that your just all wishful thinking without any REAL concrete evidence as to the validity of your "drill baby drill" faith. As I suspected, because if the ANWR project would be 10 years, that's a limited number of jobs for various limited periods....Hardly a back breaker for unemployment rate.

3) Are you saying that the additional burn offs from the new rigs won't add to local air quality? And the only reason we NEED to keep drilling here in the US is because you have a hefty portion of the economy based on the way things are....and those who mightly profit from that are NOT want to change...period!
Click to expand...

Wow, you are truly delusional are you not? Tell me genius... which do we have greater control over: the environmental standards of oil and gas drilled in the US and its territories or the environmental standards of oil and gas drilled in foreign countries?

And what's the record on enforcing gov't environmental standards on the oil companies in the last 30 years, my Super Freak-ing BS artist? Do some honest research and get back to me on that, because I'm damned tired of doing homework for Super Freak-ing willfully ignorant jokers like you.
Next answer this as it might help you understand your own folly: If we consume 'x' number of barrels of oil each day.... is it better that WE produce it here (keeping the jobs and the money in OUR economy) or producing it overseas (where the jobs and cash go to another countries economy)???
Click to expand...

See my previous responses, my Super Freak-ing Dunce....because a regurgitation of your wishful thinking doesn't cut it against recent history concerning all factors involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top