Drill baby Drill!

[dmarc117]

Because energy is critical to the economy and security of the nation and the whole country shouldn't be subject to the whims of companies larger than most countries and their desire for profits.

 

It use to be that corporations so large that they can hold the whole country hostage were considered anti-American. Now we have trillion dollar bank bailouts and companies too large to fail because the whole damn system would fall apart if we held them accountable for their mistakes. That seems like a bad idea, really.

 

 

so are drug prices, costs of higher education, etc. where do you start and where so you stop?

[Azazello1313]

This has got to be a joke. We do this. It doesn't work.

 

As a person who isn't an idiot, how much money do you propose that we give to a single company that made 40.6 billion dollars in 2008 to convince them to change their behavior? What dollar amount is going to matter to them? What if there are 4 of these companies? How much should we pay them? Give me the number.

 

The current direction is taking away these oil subsidies because oil companies don't need them, they don't affect behavior, and they make alternative energy sources less competitive.

 

I'm not really even talking about "giving them money" with new tax credits...maybe just not ending the current ones like obama is proposing. hmm, we use too much foreign energy, clearly the solution is to impose higher taxes on domestic energy production!

 

but more importantly, if we want companies to produce more domestically while prices are relatively low (which, again, is the basic premise of bush's original article), maybe the best way to do that is to allow them to produce it in some of the areas we don't allow them to produce it now where it could be profitable at current prices. I mean, yeah, maybe they opened up a bunch of leases they aren't using....I would assume they aren't drilling on them because they don't think doing so will be profitable based on current economic realities and projections. you can't induce businesses to undertake actions that they feel will hurt their bottom line simply by frowning at them. not in a somewhat free country, anyway. I suppose you could always just nationalize them, which seems to be the answer to everything these days.....

Edited April 15, 2009 by Azazello1313

[bushwacked]

The current administration and make up in congress is not conducive to drilling.

 

And currently the shareholders in big energy aren't either. It's nice to see you agree with Tford. Now you and the "open up more land for drilling to keep gas prices down" dittoheads can see the error of your ways.

[Perchoutofwater]

And currently the shareholders in big energy aren't either. It's nice to see you agree with Tford. Now you and the "open up more land for drilling to keep gas prices down" dittoheads can see the error of your ways.

 

Not at all. Drilling on current leases is not cost effective at this point due to where the oil is, and what it will take to get it out. If new areas of exploration were opened, it is very likely that easily accessible oil would be found, and would be more cost effective to drill.

[Azazello1313]

And currently the shareholders in big energy aren't either. It's nice to see you agree with Tford. Now you and the "open up more land for drilling to keep gas prices down" dittoheads can see the error of your ways.

 

how the hell do you figure? the only way this makes sense is if you somehow consider every piece of land equal as far as drilling potential. the fact that they own leases to land they aren't drilling means only that they don't believe drilling there now will be profitable. doesn't mean it isn't and/or won't be profitable in other places. this whole "they already have land they aren't drilling" argument is completely vapid.

[westvirginia]

how the hell do you figure? the only way this makes sense is if you somehow consider every piece of land equal as far as drilling potential. the fact that they own leases to land they aren't drilling means only that they don't believe drilling there now will be profitable. doesn't mean it isn't and/or won't be profitable in other places. this whole "they already have land they aren't drilling" argument is completely vapid.

 

Don't confuse the issue with facts Az, their minds are made up.

[Tford]

I like that.

 

"We're making money off this here black gold, but what's that? You can't afford groceries because we doubled gas prices over night? Go drill yourself or $tfu."

 

But there's no surprise they were allowed to do that under Bush. I'm sure Bush's friends are doing well.

 

I love how "we" doubled gas prices. As if my CEO and a bunch of other CEOs gather in a room and decide that they are going screw everyone over on gasoline. As far as making money goes, yeah we did. Sorry you take offense to that but that's capitalism. And doing any less than that is a disservice to the shareholders that own the company. We can't do anything but try to make money because that's the standard that shareholders hold us to.

 

As far as the current environment goes, here's something you need to remember.

 

Oil price /= Gasoline price

 

They are related but the spread can be huge depending on how fast the market rises and falls. You are paying for gasoline that was made with oil bought 6 months ago. Oil that was bought at $100/BBL. And guess what? Until the public buys up that gasoline and it is replaced with gasoline that was made for $70/ BBL oil as so on and so on, you won't see a drop in gasoline prices. No amount of production of oil will change that.

 

Type in "oil price vs. gasoline price" in your favorite search engine and do a little reading. You are clearly over your head in this thread. Whining about how you can't fill up your Gremlin because Big Oil set the gasoline too high is not only a weak argument, it's simply not true.

[westvirginia]

I love how "we" doubled gas prices. As if my CEO and a bunch of other CEOs gather in a room and decide that they are going screw everyone over on gasoline. As far as making money goes, yeah we did. Sorry you take offense to that but that's capitalism. And doing any less than that is a disservice to the shareholders that own the company. We can't do anything but try to make money because that's the standard that shareholders hold us to.

 

As far as the current environment goes, here's something you need to remember.

 

Oil price /= Gasoline price

 

They are related but the spread can be huge depending on how fast the market rises and falls. You are paying for gasoline that was made with oil bought 6 months ago. Oil that was bought at $100/BBL. And guess what? Until the public buys up that gasoline and it is replaced with gasoline that was made for $70/ BBL oil as so on and so on, you won't see a drop in gasoline prices. No amount of production of oil will change that.

 

Type in "oil price vs. gasoline price" in your favorite search engine and do a little reading. You are clearly over your head in this thread. Whining about how you can't fill up your Gremlin because Big Oil set the gasoline too high is not only a weak argument, it's simply not true.

 

Tford - when you're thinking of replying to watertard, just remember the following:

 

 

• Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

• Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.

 

The points you've made previously are cogent enough that I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at. TIA.

[Tford]

Well that's certainly your argument. It's not mine. You can't seriously think that oil companies don't have undo influence on our government. If we're going to use my tax dollars to protect oil interests abroad then the oil companies owe us something in return. After 8 years of the country being run by an oil man president, and oil man VP, and an Exxon exec sec of state, this is a weird argument to make.

 

Oil is necessary to the economy and security of our country, and it shouldn't be subject to the whims of the profits of companies that can effectively make or break the country's economy on their own.

 

Your ideals only work if America was the only place to produce oil/gas. If you punish Big Oil through taxation or what have you, what's stopping them from shifting their production to foreign oil plays? Many companies already are doing so based on labour costs and less stringent environmental and economic regulation.

 

Look at my province. I live in Alberta, Canada. We are the only province to have no debt, mainly due to oil and gas production. There was a comfortable royalty structure that worked for both sides ( Big Oil and our government). Up until recently, the royalty structure was changed by our new Premier. The thinking was "You got fat off of us for years, now we want more to feed our provincially funded programs etc."

 

Guess what happened? The least number of new well licenses applied for in recent memory. A record number of new licenses in Saskatchewan (neighbouring province with less stringent royalties but more difficult oil to get). Alberta is stagnating and Saskatchewan is booming. You can't force Big Oil's hand or you will be met with a "take my ball and go home" attitude. You may not like it, but there really isn't anything you can do about it. Oil companies are forced to be prudent with their spending as mandated by shareholders. And if drilling in Kazakhstan (where my Dad is drilling for an American company at the moment) is cheaper than drilling in the USA because of taxation, guess where the bit turns?

 

Many may not like the situation as is but the American government has such little leverage at this point, what are you really expecting to happen?

 

 

This has got to be a joke. We do this. It doesn't work.

 

As a person who isn't an idiot, how much money do you propose that we give to a single company that made 40.6 billion dollars in 2008 to convince them to change their behavior? What dollar amount is going to matter to them? What if there are 4 of these companies? How much should we pay them? Give me the number.

 

The current direction is taking away these oil subsidies because oil companies don't need them, they don't affect behavior, and they make alternative energy sources less competitive.

 

 

You are right, no dollar amount will matter. But the point is, how much do you value the little drilling that is happening? Are you willing to risk the little domestic growth there is over those subsidies? What makes more sense? Principle or growth, however small it is?

 

Like it or not, nobody is going to drill very much right now in the current price environment. And if oil subsidies are removed, the only outfit drilling in America will be nationalized one because there are so many other countries willing to allow oil companies into their lands to drill for a fraction of what Canada and the USA cost them to.

[bushwacked]

Don't confuse the issue with facts Az, their minds are made up.

 

Helloooooooooooooo Pot......

[Tford]

Tford - when you're thinking of replying to watertard, just remember the following:

 

 

• Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

• Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.

 

The points you've made previously are cogent enough that I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at. TIA.

 

Thanks for the pointers but I'd wager that there are many lurkers reading this thread who did not know the same information I laid out. So while it may seem as though I am arguing with a fool, I am in fact providing the masses with a "The More You Know" NBC moment. Or maybe I'm just arguing with a fool period.

 

I like this thread. One of the few threads where I can argue for the "bad guy" point of view, for lack of a better term. If anything, I hope some of you can relate to how things work on the other side of the fence.

[WaterMan]

Just wanted to add that I do not work for Exxon and can't comment on what criteria that their companies use to evaluate whether to drill or not.

 

So who do you work for?

 

]

Oil price /= Gasoline price

 

So which side are you on? I'm hoping you work for the drillers and not the sellers. If that is so, then why are you upset over people being upset over high prices?

[chester]

their minds are made up.

 

This applies to every political thread on this site.

I don't recall any Republican or Democrat changing their views based on discussion at the huddle.

[Jimmy Neutron]

This applies to every political thread on this site.

I don't recall any Republican or Democrat changing their views based on discussion at the huddle.

 

True, but in rare cases some good discussion has taken place.

[Tford]

So who do you work for?

 

So which side are you on? I'm hoping you work for the drillers and not the sellers. If that is so, then why are you upset over people being upset over high prices?

 

I work for a Canadian company but I won't divulge the name. They are an oil and natural gas producer (driller). We do no refining.

 

You are well within your right to be upset about high prices of gasoline, but misplaced and uninformed criticism of companies who are not at the root of the high prices is unfair.

[AtomicCEO]

Your ideals only work if America was the only place to produce oil/gas. If you punish Big Oil through taxation or what have you, what's stopping them from shifting their production to foreign oil plays? Many companies already are doing so based on labour costs and less stringent environmental and economic regulation.

 

You are right, no dollar amount will matter. But the point is, how much do you value the little drilling that is happening? Are you willing to risk the little domestic growth there is over those subsidies? What makes more sense? Principle or growth, however small it is?

 

You have jumped to the false conclusion that I desire lower oil prices. I don't.

 

What I want is stable prices not rising on a whim to crash the US auto market, and then slamming back to the cheap end after the damage is done. You can't deny the effect this has had on our country.

 

I know from the lesson of Enron that a company can create a false shortage to their own advantage and hold people who need energy hostage for higher prices. It's this false manipulated price variation that I want to stop... not high prices because drilling is legitimately hard. It's going to get harder and harder, and the prices should reflect that honestly free from artificial shortages or subsidies.

 

If it's not profitable to drill, don't drill. If your prices get too high, people will take the train and buy smaller cars... I don't need to give extra money to oil companies to convince them to go out and increase their supply. If it is profitable to drill, then do it. I'm not in favor of penalizing profits either. I think that the profits of 2008 did a lot to hurt the oil companies. If they crash because people suddenly drop their demand for oil, I never want to hear word one about a bailout though.

Edited April 16, 2009 by AtomicCEO

[Tford]

You have jumped to the false conclusion that I desire lower oil prices. I don't.

 

What I want is stable prices not rising on a whim to crash the US auto market, and then slamming back to the cheap end after the damage is done. You can't deny the effect this has had on our country.

 

I know from the lesson of Enron that a company can create a false shortage to their own advantage and hold people who need energy hostage for higher prices. It's this false manipulated price variation that I want to stop... not high prices because drilling is legitimately hard. It's going to get harder and harder, and the prices should reflect that honestly free from artificial shortages or subsidies.

 

If it's not profitable to drill, don't drill. If your prices get too high, people will take the train and buy smaller cars... I don't need to give extra money to oil companies to convince them to go out and increase their supply. If it is profitable to drill, then do it. I'm not in favor of penalizing profits either. I think that the profits of 2008 did a lot to hurt the oil companies. If they crash because people suddenly drop their demand for oil, I never want to hear word one about a bailout though.

 

I wasn't trying to insinuate that you do want lower oil prices. But your comment was that you feel that oil companies owe the country something after recent history and that oil is so critical to the country's wellbeing that oil companies wield too much power. My thinking was that you aren't going to find a way to extract that "payback" from oil companies without some kind of backlash.

 

I will agree with you on both price stabilization and relying on a simple supply/demand scale to determine price as that seems to look for most every other commodity. And generally stable primary industry (price and production) creates a ripple effect of stability for secondary and tertiary industry. I even agree with you of artificial shortage being a problem to a certain extent with the exception of one thing.

 

Who do you believe performs the most manipulation on the oil price? Domestic companies or OPEC? I think criticism on that point is aimed at the wrong entity.

[dmarc117]

I wasn't trying to insinuate that you do want lower oil prices. But your comment was that you feel that oil companies owe the country something after recent history and that oil is so critical to the country's wellbeing that oil companies wield too much power. My thinking was that you aren't going to find a way to extract that "payback" from oil companies without some kind of backlash.

 

I will agree with you on both price stabilization and relying on a simple supply/demand scale to determine price as that seems to look for most every other commodity. And generally stable primary industry (price and production) creates a ripple effect of stability for secondary and tertiary industry. I even agree with you of artificial shortage being a problem to a certain extent with the exception of one thing.

 

Who do you believe performs the most manipulation on the oil price? Domestic companies or OPEC? I think criticism on that point is aimed at the wrong entity.

 

 

goldman sachs

[WaterMan]

I work for a Canadian company but I won't divulge the name. They are an oil and natural gas producer (driller). We do no refining.

 

You are well within your right to be upset about high prices of gasoline, but misplaced and uninformed criticism of companies who are not at the root of the high prices is unfair.

 

Ok I see what you're saying. I admit when people say "dang oil companies and their oil prices!" they mean to say, "dang refineries/gas stations and their gas prices!"

[AtomicCEO]

Who do you believe performs the most manipulation on the oil price? Domestic companies or OPEC? I think criticism on that point is aimed at the wrong entity.

 

I thought about that after I posted it. As far as I remember, OPEC reacted very worriedly to the price spike and did increase production. I can't speak for American oil companies and whether or not they increased production or exploration at that point. Can you?

[Ursa Majoris]

You can't force Big Oil's hand or you will be met with a "take my ball and go home" attitude. You may not like it, but there really isn't anything you can do about it.

Kudos on your very coherent and well thought out informational responses.

 

I would, however, point out that your statement above is in error - there is a very great deal that can be done about it. Don't run away with the idea that Big Oil is THAT big.

[Tford]

Kudos on your very coherent and well thought out informational responses.

 

I would, however, point out that your statement above is in error - there is a very great deal that can be done about it. Don't run away with the idea that Big Oil is THAT big.

 

Understood. But I have not seen the idea nor the person who can execute such an idea successfully in a posiiton to do so.

 

Is Obama that person?

 

 

^^^^ Not a hypothetical question, I am really asking, my knowledge of American politiics is weak.

[Big John]

Understood. But I have not seen the idea nor the person who can execute such an idea successfully in a posiiton to do so.

 

Is Obama that person?

 

 

^^^^ Not a hypothetical question, I am really asking, my knowledge of American politiics is weak.

Is the double "I" a Canadian spelling?

[bpwallace49]

With the majority of the US infrastructure and its industry based upon oil and the dependence upon the automobile, the US doesnt have a leg to stand on when it comes to gas prices. The US has one of the lowest prices in the world compared to other countries in Europe, yet we complain of the price goes up 5 cents in 4 days.

 

I am more disappointed in the US not doing more to explore other power sources and alternative energy to reduce our dependence on oil. The US car industry is hopelessly inept and cant innovate a realistic electric car (BTW, the electricity tends to come from OIL anyways . . .) and hybrids are a stopgap, not a solution.

 

I cant hate on the oil companies too much at all. They KNOW they have a product that they will always be able to sell . . . . their markets are growing with India and china industrializing, and they will only continue to make profits for their shareholders. It is a great way to get (and stay) rich.

 

Why do you think the Bush family has been so tight with the Saudi royal family for so long? For all the shortcomings of the Bush family, they know where the money is, and then they firmly affix their lips to its rear-end.

 

Thios isnt Venezuela where the oil industry is nationalized. It iis hard for me to hate an industry that is the playing the game to win . . . and winning.

[AtomicCEO]

The US has one of the lowest prices in the world compared to other countries in Europe.

 

I am more disappointed in the US not doing more to explore other power sources and alternative energy to reduce our dependence on oil.

 

These two points are related.