US Oil Production/Consumption

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby assateague » Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:29 pm

I don't care who buys it to "support the crazies", as long as it's not us. Contributing one cent to those who wish to destroy is beyond stupid.

And we all know how greatly the price if oil is tied to speculation. If the US cane out tomorrow, and said "starting October 1, we're cutting taxes for all petroleum related industry, and loosening restrictions for domestic oil field exploration and development, along with substantial tax incentives", is there any doubt the price of oil would plummet? The Saudis would crap a brick. Crude, sweet, extra virgin, doesn't matter- US commitment to domestic oil production=decreased price on the world market.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland


Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:38 pm

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:Would it reduce the amount of money the crazies have, yes.
How can you be so sure? Your assumption is that the crazies doesn't get the first cut. They are not governed by fairness, reason, or any thing but their self-centered desires.

Oil revenues went down in Iran. Money to the crazies went up. :huh:

When times are good there is less to lose and more incentive to stop the crazies. When times are bad, well, that's when the crazies seem to do better.

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:China imports more non-sweet oil than sweet oil.
So? They are fungible. Pay more to processes the cheaper or pay less to process the more expensive. It's all going to get sold and there will be no shortage of money to fund the nutjobs.

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:Yes if the demand is increased the cost goes up, but not if supply goes up.
That's why I gave the example of us producing 10 times as much and buy a factor of 10 less. Sure it might push it down to $10 a barrel, although we would have to subsidize the hell out of if, but that would still be $40 million dollars per day in oil revenue in Iran. It doesn't take billions or hundreds of billions to keep the nutjobs well funded. It's still a small fraction and given the huge hit to the economy, probably a much greater incentive to join the jihad.

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:Are you really claiming that if we produced enough oil domestically the cost would not be affected?
The price, yes. The number of islamo-fascist terrorist with the means and desire to kill us, NO! I think the impact would be negligible, but as likely to increase as decrease the threat at the margin.

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:If so, why is gas $0.67 there?
Subsidies. This is a bribe to try to keep the people happy while the Sheiks rake in billions.

Image

assateague wrote:I don't care who buys it to "support the crazies", as long as it's not us.
If you buy any of it, you are buying all of it. It's a world market, but if a certain type of accounting makes you feel better, I guess there is value in that.

It is not the root cause problem and I don't think it even has a second order beneficial effect on international islamo-fascist terrorism. I don't think you can even say for certain that higher oil prices does not reduce it. Can't say the opposite either. It's just not a major factor. Look at the huge drop in oil revenue in Iran and they are the center of most of it. Maybe we should try that in Saudi Arabia too. Maybe this time it will help. :no:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15867
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:05 pm

Spinner, you are missing the point entirely.


We need to shut off the sucking vacuum of buying foreign oil and stick with our own. Why does most of the Alaska Oil get sold to Japan? Why does American wood get sent overseas and shipped back a crap lumber and resold here, etc........ We need to stop allowing other countries to use our natural resources to make a profit off of us at home.

Assa is right, paying people who fund terrorists is no different than negotiation with them. We can put a stop to that problem entirely and let someone else deal with them. If we don't have any money invested or a need for their oil, we have no national interest over there. We can fall back, let them try and smack us and periodically nuke various portions of the middle east since we no longer care if they exist or not. Keeping us tied to their oil teet keeps us locked in place and in the fighting over there for the forseeable future.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6453
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby aunt betty » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:12 pm

If our govt. would quit inflating...or never had the ability to inflate, our currency would still be strong and a gallon of gas would cost less.
Thats a problem that affects prices on everything. End inflation and we will all feel it.
Difficult concept to grasp.
INTERNET CREDIBILITY is...an OXYMORON. :moon:
User avatar
aunt betty
hunter
 
Posts: 10377
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:33 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:We can put a stop to that problem entirely and let someone else deal with them.
They'll just leave us alone. :no:

ScaupHunter wrote:periodically nuke various portions of the middle east
:lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

Never going to happen.

ScaupHunter wrote:Keeping us tied to their oil teet keeps us locked in place and in the fighting over there for the forseeable future.
We are not tied to their oil teet.

However, are you arguing to ban exports or just some of them? This is pretty interesting position for a free market small decentralized government advocate. This is pure centralized government, but my centralized government.

How much power would you be putting in the hand of government and bureaucrats to change this?

ScaupHunter wrote:Why does most of the Alaska Oil get sold to Japan? Why does American wood get sent overseas and shipped back a crap lumber and resold here, etc........ We need to stop allowing other countries to use our natural resources to make a profit off of us at home.
Obama and his administration would love to have this power :yes:

We blew a huge opportunity in Iraq because we didn't want to make it look like it was about the oil.

We should have taken all the Iraq oil and gas and divided it up into 10 independent corporations of roughly equal value, given every Iraqi 100 shares of each, 50 they can sell if they want and 50 that they own from birth to death that is 50% of the company plus and IPO for the other 50% to raise capital for the company and pay a tax for infrastructure. Then issue 10 year managing and operating contracts for each of the 10 with the company buying at least a 20% stake and with all M&O profits based on dividends paid to the shareholders and then a normal board running the company after that. I'll bet the Iraq oil production would be double what it is now and there would be no risk of collusion.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15867
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby wanapasaki » Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:52 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:We can put a stop to that problem entirely and let someone else deal with them.
They'll just leave us alone. :no:

ScaupHunter wrote:periodically nuke various portions of the middle east
:lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

Never going to happen.

ScaupHunter wrote:Keeping us tied to their oil teet keeps us locked in place and in the fighting over there for the forseeable future.
We are not tied to their oil teet.

However, are you arguing to ban exports or just some of them? This is pretty interesting position for a free market small decentralized government advocate. This is pure centralized government, but my centralized government.

How much power would you be putting in the hand of government and bureaucrats to change this?

ScaupHunter wrote:Why does most of the Alaska Oil get sold to Japan? Why does American wood get sent overseas and shipped back a crap lumber and resold here, etc........ We need to stop allowing other countries to use our natural resources to make a profit off of us at home.
Obama and his administration would love to have this power :yes:

We blew a huge opportunity in Iraq because we didn't want to make it look like it was about the oil.

We should have taken all the Iraq oil and gas and divided it up into 10 independent corporations of roughly equal value, given every Iraqi 100 shares of each, 50 they can sell if they want and 50 that they own from birth to death that is 50% of the company plus and IPO for the other 50% to raise capital for the company and pay a tax for infrastructure. Then issue 10 year managing and operating contracts for each of the 10 with the company buying at least a 20% stake and with all M&O profits based on dividends paid to the shareholders and then a normal board running the company after that. I'll bet the Iraq oil production would be double what it is now and there would be no risk of collusion.



Interesting. I remember seeing Halliburton with US Army escorts north of Taji on different several different missions.. Not sure what to think about that
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:58 pm

wanapasaki wrote:Interesting. I remember seeing Halliburton with US Army escorts north of Taji on different several different missions.. Not sure what to think about that
I remember reading quite about their roles in Iraq. So they clearly had a public role. Now a secret role, I have no clue.

Where we screwed up is we put the Iraq government in charge of the oil? That is how you guarantee corruption and ultimately funding people you don't want to fund, especially when you choose to end the war by surrender, retreat, just going home because you are bored, or whatever the reason for the end.

If every Iraqi had a small stake in the success of their oil industry and there were 10 companies whose profit was determined by maximizing the profit on oil sales, well who knows, but it sure as hell would have been an interesting experiment. We know how the government control works, so why not try something new? Did somebody want the same failed solution? :huh:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15867
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:10 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:Interesting. I remember seeing Halliburton with US Army escorts north of Taji on different several different missions.. Not sure what to think about that
I remember reading quite about their roles in Iraq. So they clearly had a public role. Now a secret role, I have no clue.

Where we screwed up is we put the Iraq government in charge of the oil? That is how you guarantee corruption and ultimately funding people you don't want to fund, especially when you choose to end the war by surrender, retreat, just going home because you are bored, or whatever the reason for the end.

If every Iraqi had a small stake in the success of their oil industry and there were 10 companies whose profit was determined by maximizing the profit on oil sales, well who knows, but it sure as hell would have been an interesting experiment. We know how the government control works, so why not try something new? Did somebody want the same failed solution? :huh:


I would wager that with current admin, they very well might have.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8012
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:15 pm

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:Interesting. I remember seeing Halliburton with US Army escorts north of Taji on different several different missions.. Not sure what to think about that
I remember reading quite about their roles in Iraq. So they clearly had a public role. Now a secret role, I have no clue.

Where we screwed up is we put the Iraq government in charge of the oil? That is how you guarantee corruption and ultimately funding people you don't want to fund, especially when you choose to end the war by surrender, retreat, just going home because you are bored, or whatever the reason for the end.

If every Iraqi had a small stake in the success of their oil industry and there were 10 companies whose profit was determined by maximizing the profit on oil sales, well who knows, but it sure as hell would have been an interesting experiment. We know how the government control works, so why not try something new? Did somebody want the same failed solution? :huh:


I would wager that with current admin, they very well might have.

Bush had a lot of holdovers. It was all part of that new tone crap. Same dumb ideas held over from the Clintons, who had no holdovers, not even in the travel office :no:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15867
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:20 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:Interesting. I remember seeing Halliburton with US Army escorts north of Taji on different several different missions.. Not sure what to think about that
I remember reading quite about their roles in Iraq. So they clearly had a public role. Now a secret role, I have no clue.

Where we screwed up is we put the Iraq government in charge of the oil? That is how you guarantee corruption and ultimately funding people you don't want to fund, especially when you choose to end the war by surrender, retreat, just going home because you are bored, or whatever the reason for the end.

If every Iraqi had a small stake in the success of their oil industry and there were 10 companies whose profit was determined by maximizing the profit on oil sales, well who knows, but it sure as hell would have been an interesting experiment. We know how the government control works, so why not try something new? Did somebody want the same failed solution? :huh:


I would wager that with current admin, they very well might have.

Bush had a lot of holdovers. It was all part of that new tone crap. Same dumb ideas held over from the Clintons, who had no holdovers, not even in the travel office :no:


I wouldn't say much better of Bush than I would Obama or Clinton.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8012
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby wanapasaki » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:39 pm

Ya I questioned a lot of what was going on there. I was involved in convoy security which included dropping US money off at Iraqi banks. KBR controlled our water treatment facilities (even though the army had entire units devoted to the job) and not exactly sure what Halliburton was doing there. We weren't allowed to wear our name tags around the Iraqi Police, yet they were sworn into duty by the post generals . Iraqi army soldiers were AWOL constantly and usually never returned to duty. Someone came up with the ingenious decision to hand over national guards obsolete and out of date M16-A4's :lol3: :fingerpt: My brigade commander, Lieutenant Colonel Funk, disregarded the curfew that was set forth by the previous division we replaced. A lot more IED's were found after that.. To me, it seemed like a plan to promote a body count and reason to continue their efforts in the country. Sorry for the rant, just seemed interesting what you had to say Spinner. Good talk!
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Sep 25, 2013 8:20 am

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:Interesting. I remember seeing Halliburton with US Army escorts north of Taji on different several different missions.. Not sure what to think about that
I remember reading quite about their roles in Iraq. So they clearly had a public role. Now a secret role, I have no clue.

Where we screwed up is we put the Iraq government in charge of the oil? That is how you guarantee corruption and ultimately funding people you don't want to fund, especially when you choose to end the war by surrender, retreat, just going home because you are bored, or whatever the reason for the end.

If every Iraqi had a small stake in the success of their oil industry and there were 10 companies whose profit was determined by maximizing the profit on oil sales, well who knows, but it sure as hell would have been an interesting experiment. We know how the government control works, so why not try something new? Did somebody want the same failed solution? :huh:


I would wager that with current admin, they very well might have.

Bush had a lot of holdovers. It was all part of that new tone crap. Same dumb ideas held over from the Clintons, who had no holdovers, not even in the travel office :no:


I wouldn't say much better of Bush than I would Obama or Clinton.

I agree. Although it's hard to say how much was the holdovers. The stuff I was working on at the time came straight down from the top. I saw people actively work to undermine or simple disregard the direction we were given. The bureaucracy runs the show and Clinton did far better at cleaning house. So did Obama. Part of that is that I think there is respect for authority that doesn't exist with the left, except for when they are the authority. What I'm doing now for the most part is crap and we often had meetings where we laughed at the stupidity from the top, but we still do the work and tried to get the most out of it for the taxpayers that we could. Had we done that under Bush we could have made some serious progress and not had it all killed when Obama got elected.

wanapasaki wrote:Sorry for the rant, just seemed interesting what you had to say Spinner. Good talk!
Listening to people with actual experience always interest me. It's all part of understanding what happened and why we screwed up.

Everybody has their own agendas and we always have stupid feel good agendas embedded that distract us from what is important. And nobody seems to feel that stealing from tax payers is stealing.

The axis of evil is still strong. That was and should have remained the focus. We knocked Iraq down, but not for the count and that was stupid. North Korea is still in self destruct, but Dennis Rodman will help them out :lol3: And Iran, our idiot president is going to talk with them so they can secure the time they need to build some nukes. The only hope is that they insult him personally and he feels dis'ed and reacts in anger, but I think they are way too smart and he is too stupid.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15867
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby assateague » Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:45 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
assateague wrote:I don't care who buys it to "support the crazies", as long as it's not us.
If you buy any of it, you are buying all of it. It's a world market, but if a certain type of accounting makes you feel better, I guess there is value in that.


This is just a silly statement. It's a world market as far as the commodities trading goes, but I assure you, if Chevron buys $10 million dollars worth of oil from Pete's North Slope Oil Company, that $10 million dollars does not go to folks who support our destruction. If Chevron buys $10 million worth of oil from the Riyadh Oil Development Company, it does. Not sure how you don't get that.

SpinnerMan wrote:It is not the root cause problem and I don't think it even has a second order beneficial effect on international islamo-fascist terrorism. I don't think you can even say for certain that higher oil prices does not reduce it. Can't say the opposite either. It's just not a major factor. Look at the huge drop in oil revenue in Iran and they are the center of most of it. Maybe we should try that in Saudi Arabia too. Maybe this time it will help. :no:


Oil money basically financed al Qaeda and the Taliban in general, and bin Laden specifically. It continues to do so today. Back door contributions to both the Pakistani ISI and arms purchases funded by petro dollars established the fundamentalist takeover of Afghanistan, and damn near did the same in Pakistan. Petro dollars support Islamic terrorists from Jakarta to Marrakesh. I agree it's not a "root cause" problem (since the "root cause" is simply the existence of islam), but it most certainly enables terror groups to act as they do, and enables them to achieve goals beyond their means in the ABSENCE of the petro dollars. It is simply stupid to buy one barrel of oil from a country that supports terrorists when we have the ability to do otherwise.

If any other country does buy it, fine, so be it. But for us to do it is assheaded.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:55 am

assateague wrote:If Chevron buys $10 million worth of oil from the Riyadh Oil Development Company, it does.
Only if someone else does not buy that $10M worth of oil, and I guarantee it will get sold. It makes no difference who buys it. It will be sold and sold at the same price regardless of who buys it.

assateague wrote:Oil money basically financed al Qaeda and the Taliban in general, and bin Laden specifically. It continues to do so today. Back door contributions to both the Pakistani ISI and arms purchases funded by petro dollars established the fundamentalist takeover of Afghanistan, and damn near did the same in Pakistan.
A miniscule fraction of those dollars.

Has Iran had any shortage of funding for terrorists despite their huge drop in oil revenue after the crazies took over? Nope. They have more. :huh:

assateague wrote:I agree it's not a "root cause" problem (since the "root cause" is simply the existence of islam), but it most certainly enables terror groups to act as they do, and enables them to achieve goals beyond their means in the ABSENCE of the petro dollars.
We will never stop those petro dollars. We will never make a dent sufficient to have an impact. We can do feel good things that will have no impact, but that is all they will be.

assateague wrote:If any other country does buy it, fine, so be it. But for us to do it is assheaded.
It's not assheaded. It's just reality. Pointless exercises are pointless and I believe there is nothing more assheaded than patting yourself on the back for doing something pointless.

It's no different than claiming government is not funding abortions while they fund "other things" for abortion providers.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15867
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby assateague » Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:01 pm

It's not about making a "dent". It's about not contributing. Does the fact that I don't donate $20 to the DNC make a dent in their pocketbook? Nope. But it's the principal that I in no way want to support that which flies against my beliefs. I could give a crap who else donates- I'm not gonna.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:10 pm

assateague wrote:It's not about making a "dent". It's about not contributing.
Your demand contributes to keeping their price up. So you will always be contributing :thumbsup:

But if the accounting gimmicks make you happy :beer:

assateague wrote:Does the fact that I don't donate $20 to the DNC make a dent in their pocketbook?
Yes.

Does buying grain not contribute to the price of grain regardless of which farms the actual individual seeds came from? Yes.

assateague wrote:But it's the principal that I in no way want to support that which flies against my beliefs.
It's not possible. There is no way that you can do this.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15867
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby assateague » Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:14 pm

So you believe that announcing we're going full speed ahead on domestic oil exploration and recovery would not cause prices worldwide to drop?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:29 am

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:So, if we currently have the technology and infrastructure to be a net exporter of crude oil, why are we importing about 4,000,000,000 barrels yearly?


Simple-because the dollar is the worlds reserve currency and to support that, we must be a net importer of goods and services to supply dollars to the rest of the world.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56340
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:57 am

assateague wrote:So you believe that announcing we're going full speed ahead on domestic oil exploration and recovery would not cause prices worldwide to drop?

Yes and it would have no significant impact on funding for terrorists.

What does full speed ahead mean? Subsidizing ethanol reduces demand for oil and therefore price but it is a dumb idea. Subsidizing oil production would be a dumb idea as well. The federal, state, and local government should get out of the way. It should not get behind and push.

I believe we want the same thing in this regard. I just don't believe there is any evidence that there is a positive correlation between oil prices and the threat of terrorism to the U.S.

I know there is no way to reduce the value of the oil produced by the Middle East to anything less than a huge amount of money and they would never notice billions being siphoned off to fund the terrorists.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15867
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: US Oil Production/Consumption

Postby Drakenstien » Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:17 pm

Growth in economy is bad for big government because they need a state of worriedness for people to be desperate and trust someone(aka government), which gives the government more power. That's why the government puts on regulation after regulation like stopping fracking ,which even the gov says it has no effect on the water supply, and stopping the permits for the keystone pipeline and new oil rigs. There is also high taxes, strict regulations on the way to do things, and very expensive fines if you violate them. That's why the big oil companies don't invest in our oil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Drakenstien
hunter
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:10 pm

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests