- Joined
- Nov 10, 2016
- Messages
- 14,607
- Reaction score
- 9,303
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That doesn't work for Alaska. 95% of the oil Alaska produces does go to the lower-48. 2% stays in Alaska, while 1.5% goes to Taiwan and 1% goes to Japan, and 0.5% goes to South Korea. However, due to the lack of demand in the lower-48, the coal that Alaska exports goes primarily to China.How about a law that requires all oil and gas produced in the USA to be sold for use in the USA. Most of the drilling is on land owned by the USA and if you want a law that really puts the USA and its needs first, this would be the law and add that any drilling permits not used, ie drilling started, in 6 -12 months would be resold with no refund for any up front money.
WASHINGTON— New federal data shows the Biden administration approved 3,557 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first year, far outpacing the Trump administration’s first-year total of 2,658That doesn't work for Alaska. 95% of the oil Alaska produces does go to the lower-48. 2% stays in Alaska, while 1.5% goes to Taiwan and 1% goes to Japan, and 0.5% goes to South Korea. However, due to the lack of demand in the lower-48, the coal that Alaska exports goes primarily to China.
You are aware that the President has illegally placed a hold on all oil and gas permits, right? So you would steal those permits away from their owners? Sounds suspiciously like you are trying to nationalize the oil and gas industry and take it away from the private owners. Truman tried that with the steel industry in 1952 and the Supreme Court slapped him down hard.
Consider the source. It is obviously Fake News.WASHINGTON— New federal data shows the Biden administration approved 3,557 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first year, far outpacing the Trump administration’s first-year total of 2,658
Now, new data from the Bureau of Land Management shows that, despite industry fear mongering, oil companies have nearly 10,000 approved, but unused public lands drilling permits, an all-time high in recent memoryConsider the source. It is obviously Fake News.
You are talking about permits that were issued that contain no oil. So that is yet another lie by leftist filth, as expected.Now, new data from the Bureau of Land Management shows that, despite industry fear mongering, oil companies have nearly 10,000 approved, but unused public lands drilling permits, an all-time high in recent memory
The only thing fake is the right wing filth outrage.Consider the source. It is obviously Fake News.
It is also outside the constitutional authority of Congress. Unless you nationalize the oil and gas industry, which the Supreme Court has already shot down as unconstitutional, then Congress cannot dictate how a product produced by the private sector may be sold. We do not live in a totalitarian fascist state, as much as you leftists might desire it.Only works if they are required to sell it at less than world market price.
oppose this well intended approachHow about a law that requires all oil and gas produced in the USA to be sold for use in the USA. Most of the drilling is on land owned by the USA and if you want a law that really puts the USA and its needs first, this would be the law and add that any drilling permits not used, ie drilling started, in 6 -12 months would be resold with no refund for any up front money.
You are talking about permits that were issued that contain no oil. So that is yet another lie by leftist filth, as expected.
That was something that always puzzled me. New York City is one of Alaska's biggest oil consumers, but we have to ship it from Valdez, AK via the Panama Canal to New York City. How could that be cheaper than buying oil directly from Mexico? Most of Alaskan oil is off-loaded on the west coast, but a substantial amount does make it to the Gulf of Mexico ports and ports on the east coast. I can understand off-loading in the Gulf of Mexico ports, because they are closer to where all the major refineries are located, but I don't understand how Alaskan oil could be cheaper on the east coast than from other non-US sources.oppose this well intended approach
those who own/control the oil know what works best for their ownership entity
if it is more profitable to export oil from one place in the USA while more profitable to import oil from another place outside the USA, the ownership interest should be able to so conduct their business
Not sure you are grasping the concept that oil is sold at world market prices regardless of from whence it originatesThat was something that always puzzled me. New York City is one of Alaska's biggest oil consumers, but we have to ship it from Valdez, AK via the Panama Canal to New York City. How could that be cheaper than buying oil directly from Mexico? Most of Alaskan oil is off-loaded on the west coast, but a substantial amount does make it to the Gulf of Mexico ports and ports on the east coast. I can understand off-loading in the Gulf of Mexico ports, because they are closer to where all the major refineries are located, but I don't understand how Alaskan oil could be cheaper on the east coast than from other non-US sources.
Yes, they are either have no oil or gas at all, or the amount they do have would be too expensive to produce. The oil companies have no idea what is under the land they lease, until after they have leased the land and drilled to discover what is available. Sometimes it pays off, but most of the time it doesn't.Flesh that out a bit. I keep hearing this 9000+ lease talking point. Are you saying they are all dry holes? If so, that is an incredible claim.
I know a water witch with a better record than that...Flesh that out a bit. I keep hearing this 9000+ lease talking point. Are you saying they are all dry holes? If so, that is an incredible claim.
Those market prices include the cost of shipping. Given that the price of oil per barrel in Alaska is almost identical to the price of oil per barrel in Mexico, it has to be cheaper for New York City to buy its oil from Mexico rather than Alaska. So why New York City is one of Alaska's biggest oil consumers defies logical explanation. It must be one of those insane leftist ideas.Not sure you are grasping the concept that oil is sold at world market prices regardless of from whence it originates
I said New York City, not State, and yes. Entire supertankers are shipped from Valdez, AK, to NYC, NY via the Panama Canal. Which makes no logical sense.New York State buys oil directly from producers?
Yea, and is there a reason someone applies for a permit or lease for a dry hole?Flesh that out a bit. I keep hearing this 9000+ lease talking point. Are you saying they are all dry holes? If so, that is an incredible claim.
I don't know that to be true but if so it must because it is cheaper. However I find it a stretch to believe that NYC is buying most of its refined oil from Mexico. However, given that is your claim I have no reason to disbelieve you but a factual source would be helpfulI said New York City, not State, and yes. Entire supertankers are shipped from Valdez, AK, to NYC, NY via the Panama Canal. Which makes no logical sense.
So you are America first unless it hurts your energy company friends. And there are permits out there not being used because why pump more oil when the price is so high for what you have to sell. Sell less, make more, to me it is called prive gauging. Take away the permits if they do not use them and give them to someone who will. You want more oil and lower gas prices, then do something about it.That doesn't work for Alaska. 95% of the oil Alaska produces does go to the lower-48. 2% stays in Alaska, while 1.5% goes to Taiwan and 1% goes to Japan, and 0.5% goes to South Korea. However, due to the lack of demand in the lower-48, the coal that Alaska exports goes primarily to China.
You are aware that the President has illegally placed a hold on all oil and gas permits, right? So you would steal those permits away from their owners? Sounds suspiciously like you are trying to nationalize the oil and gas industry and take it away from the private owners. Truman tried that with the steel industry in 1952 and the Supreme Court slapped him down hard.
Oil companies have a pretty good idea what parcels of land have oil on them before they even bid on a leaseFlesh that out a bit. I keep hearing this 9000+ lease talking point. Are you saying they are all dry holes? If so, that is an incredible claim.
You are talking about permits that were issued that contain no oil. So that is yet another lie by leftist filth, as expected.
Which of your above two contradictory claims is a lie?Yes, they are either have no oil or gas at all, or the amount they do have would be too expensive to produce. The oil companies have no idea what is under the land they lease, until after they have leased the land and drilled to discover what is available. Sometimes it pays off, but most of the time it doesn't.
Actually, I support profit first. Since it is the product of the oil companies, they are entitled to make as much money for their product as the market will bear.So you are America first unless it hurts your energy company friends. And there are permits out there not being used because why pump more oil when the price is so high for what you have to sell. Sell less, make more, to me it is called prive gauging. Take away the permits if they do not use them and give them to someone who will. You want more oil and lower gas prices, then do something about it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?