Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Canada sends it's crude south and the us ships back the refined oil you export it to Canada from crude that came from canada
Well according to conservatives on here. That is not what is happening because we lack refineries because of the govt. Of course, even if that were so, what about exports to other countries besides Canada, which we don't import from?
Well according to conservatives on here. That is not what is happening because we lack refineries because of the govt. Of course, even if that were so, what about exports to other countries besides Canada, which we don't import from?
my guess china buys the rest up and canada might go ahead with building nuclear power plant just to help refine the alberta oil sands it is supposed to be online by 2019-2020 if it gets approved and it will also have a massive new pipeline network built that sends refined oil down south.
Then why drill, if there are no guarantees that is going to go here and help our economy instead of multi national oil companies?
As luck would have it, we have had an expert answer that very question:
Quote:
Oil of coal, of course, is a fungible commodity and they don't flag, ya know, the molecules where, where it's going to, where it's not, but and in the, in the sense of the Congress today they know our very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first. So I believe that what Congress is going to do also is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it's Americans who get stuck holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here; it's gotta flow into our domestic markets first.
Well the question remains. Why don't we buy all of it. Why does 3% go somewhere else?
Because we are able to get a better price from the other countries I mentioned. When they factor in their transportation costs to import crude from the middle-east, they can afford to pay more than the lower-48 for our oil and still save on what it would cost them to import oil from elsewhere.
Even though the price per barrel is not much different since that is determined by the global market, the difference in transportation costs is huge. As a result, we can get more money from our exports to other countries nearby, and they still pay less than it would have cost them to import their oil from the middle-east.
Government, even the "big government" that scares everyone, cannot regulate where every barrel goes. If it costs less to ship it from Alaska to Taiwan than to the US, it will be shipped there. The world price of oil is about the same everywhere. Yes, the US is a NET importer, but that doesn't mean some won't be exported. Another fact: we both import and export electricity from Mexico and Canada.
Government, even the "big government" that scares everyone, cannot regulate where every barrel goes. If it costs less to ship it from Alaska to Taiwan than to the US, it will be shipped there. The world price of oil is about the same everywhere. Yes, the US is a NET importer, but that doesn't mean some won't be exported. Another fact: we both import and export electricity from Mexico and Canada.
Precisely. We would export more than 3% if there was a market for it, but since the best price we can get for the vast majority of our crude comes from the lower-48, that is where we sell 95% of what we produce. From Alaska's perspective we are still exporting our oil.
Some refineries in US cannot process some high sulfur oil now.That is one reason we do not import alot of Saudi oil for example but sweeter canadian oil.Oil is sold on contract to the world market long before is delivered.There are projects now being completed that will process more sour crude plus sand atrs and pipelines to get it to the refineries being done now.Even the crude oil market is changing on what will be processed in the future.Most at higher cost unfortunately.Much of the difference i cost is from shipping by pipeline and alot in the differe3nces in state taxes. Some states make more per gallon than the refiners.
There is no shortage of oil I agree. What there is a shortage of is refining capacity. No refineries have been built in the US since 1976. Thank the EPA for that one. Add in the fact that there are 12 different blends that need to be made for US consumption depending on what part of the country you live in. This is one reason say California always has a higher cost for gas than most of the country not all refineries can produce the blend their laws require. Heck look at Iran. They import almost all their gas because they don't have any refining capacity. The EPA has been slowly destroying the energy sector in this country and if they shove through this carbon garbage we are all in some serious trouble. Quick fix to gas prices build more refining capacity. If it could only be so simple though.
Look at I think it was Shell who spent like three years and 4 billion dollars to start up drilling off Alaska and after going through all the red tape and EPA stuff they were shut down because some town of a couple hundred people where within some distance the EPA deemed was unacceptable. There's four billion Shell is gonna have to come up with somewhere and its our wallets for sure.
Okay, I get it that you hate EPA and would like to model the American corporate model after China's, but at least be consistent about the point you make. On one side you say there is no shortage of oil and on the other, you're blaming EPA getting in the way of drilling when it was going to affect "only a few" people? How about you explain why the number of refineries has gone down to 50% over last three decades? You would think that oil companies will hold on to refineries considering the demand and challenges in getting permits for new ones?
Then why drill, if there are no guarantees that is going to go here and help our economy instead of multi national oil companies?
Because "drilling" is meant to be a political weapon, and has nothing to do with the realities. In fact, that was one of Bush's mantras as well as it gets the non-thinkers to dance to the tune. And he was criticized even by Cato institute.
"At the heart of each of these Bush plans, however, is the call for increased domestic production. Bush, after all, is a former small-time oil man, and like all members of "Little Oil" (the so-called "independents" that dominate the southwestern political landscape) the Texas governor looks askance at oil imports. OPEC market power, he contends, can only be combated by energy independence secured by increased domestic production. It's one of the central premises of what passes for Republican energy policy. And it is beyond nonsense. To paraphrase Jeremy Bentham, it's nonsense on stilts."
Then why drill, if there are no guarantees that is going to go here and help our economy instead of multi national oil companies?
For one very good reason - To reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Unless you enjoy fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere in order to stabilize the region. The only reason why Democrats continually push for more and more imported oil is because their goal is to destroy the US from within. What better way to accomplish that goal than to flat out refuse to develop energy domestically, like they have done for the last 20 years?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
