• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How about a real USA first law on oil

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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
 
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
Consider the source. It is obviously Fake News.
 
Consider the source. It is obviously Fake News.
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
 
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
You are talking about permits that were issued that contain no oil. So that is yet another lie by leftist filth, as expected.
 
Only works if they are required to sell it at less than world market price.
 
Only works if they are required to sell it at less than world market price.
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.
 
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.
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
 
You are talking about permits that were issued that contain no oil. So that is yet another lie by leftist filth, as expected.

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.
 
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
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.
 
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.
Not sure you are grasping the concept that oil is sold at world market prices regardless of from whence it originates
 
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.
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.

The $15 million the oil companies paid for the 365,000 acres in the 1002 Area leases in ANWR may contain no oil or gas. They will not know until they actually drill on the site. Out of that 365,000 acres of land, they may find 100 to 200 acres that are profitable, or will at least allow them to slant drill under land they have not leased to get at the oil and gas.

At this point they don't know because Biden has illegally placed a hold on all oil and gas leases in Alaska.
 
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...
 
Not sure you are grasping the concept that oil is sold at world market prices regardless of from whence it originates
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.
 
New York State buys oil directly from producers?

"Petroleum products consumed in New York are supplied by refineries in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, by pipelines from the Gulf Coast and the Midwest, and by imports, mostly from Canada. New York Harbor, which includes terminals on both the New York and New Jersey shorelines, is the largest petroleum products hub in the Northeast, with bulk storage capacity exceeding 75 million barrels. Petroleum products delivered to the harbor are redistributed by truck or by barge to smaller ports on Long Island and upstate along the Hudson River, as well as to western New England. Western New York receives refined petroleum products from Pennsylvania and the Midwest through pipelines and from Canada through the Port of Buffalo.88
 
Last edited:
New York State buys oil directly from producers?
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.
 
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.
Yea, and is there a reason someone applies for a permit or lease for a dry hole?
 
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.
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 helpful
 
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.
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.
 
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.
Oil companies have a pretty good idea what parcels of land have oil on them before they even bid on a lease
They are not as stupid as some people on the right think they are.
Have a nice day
 
You are talking about permits that were issued that contain no oil. So that is yet another lie by leftist filth, as expected.
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.
Which of your above two contradictory claims is a lie?

Or are both lies?
 
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.
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.

Permits are not being used because they either have no oil or gas on them, or the oil and gas they do have are too expensive to produce and not profitable. Only a very tiny fraction of the land that is leased is ever used. Currently the oil companies are not allowed to produce their leases because of Biden's illegal moratorium, but I suspect that will eventually end when Biden's impeachment begins.

Out of the 365,000 acres leased in the 1002 Area of ANWR, only a few hundred acres will ever be used. If the USGS is to be believed, then from those few hundred acres the oil companies will be able to produce between 6 and 8 billion barrels of oil. Once they produce that oil they are free to sell it to whomever wishes to buy it, as long as they pay royalties for taking Alaska's resources.

With regard to revoking a lease, that depends on the lease itself. Alaska has issued lots of leases for State lands, and some include a time limit (when the amount of resources are known), and other leases do not include a time limit (when the amount of resources are unknown). The leases the federal government issues do not include a time limit. If you want to change that take it up with Congress.
 
Back
Top Bottom