U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-22-2012, 05:45 AM
 
Location: Central CT, sometimes NH.
3,736 posts, read 5,554,932 times
Reputation: 4109

Advertisements

Last night on the The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly proposed placing an export tax on oil produced here and exported to other countries, like China, to obtain the highest price.

Do you think that the US, like many other oil producing countries, should place an export tax on oil produced but not used domestically?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2012, 07:57 AM
 
12,869 posts, read 13,685,772 times
Reputation: 4453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lincolnian View Post
Last night on the The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly proposed placing an export tax on oil produced here and exported to other countries, like China, to obtain the highest price.

Do you think that the US, like many other oil producing countries, should place an export tax on oil produced but not used domestically?
sure.

(from a 2007 research report) where oil exporters are the "lucky ones".

This has helped to sharply improve the current account balances of net oil exporters and put appreciation pressure on nominal and real exchange rates. Table 1 on the following page shows that in countries like Malaysia, Colombia, Mexico and Russia, where oil accounts for less than a third of total exports, a US$1/bbl increase in the yearly average oil price leads to a current account improvement of up to 0.3% of GDP, while in countries like Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela, where oil exceeds 80% of total exports, the external gain from such a sustained price increase can exceed 1% of GDP.

of course, we really should be working harder on developing our natural gas reserves which would be a win-win for us.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2012, 08:15 AM
 
141 posts, read 288,477 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lincolnian View Post
Last night on the The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly proposed placing an export tax on oil produced here and exported to other countries, like China, to obtain the highest price.

Do you think that the US, like many other oil producing countries, should place an export tax on oil produced but not used domestically?
NO!!!!!!!!!! O'Reilly doesn't understand how imports and exports, and the energy industry work. I watched the show last night and anytime he opens his mouth about the energy industry he makes a fool of himself. I wish someone would go on there and call him on it.

The US exports about 1.3 million bbls of oil a day because:
1. Some of it doesn't meet US clean air requirements for refining (so we couldn't use it anyway)

2. US demand is down due to the recession-- we are coming out of a recession so demand is expected to increase in the next 1 - 2 years

3. Both importing and exporting a product is a part of being involved in global trade in the modern world. If you drill for and refine oil in North Dakota (Bakken) and have excess capacity, it would make no sense to pay all the transportation costs to send it to California. Much easier to just ship it across the border to Canada. In turn, Canada will ship some of their oil across the border to us from Vancouver... Canada both imports and exports oil. Hell, even California both imports and exports strawberries. In the modern world, there is no such thing as simply "exporting" or simply "importing"-- you have to do both.

The real question O'Reilly should be asking is... Why did Obama not approve the Keystone Pipeline?
My theory is that Warren Buffet (Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway-- who own BNSF railroad... who's main business comes from shipping crude on trains) told him not to. In turn, Buffet would support Obama's "Buffet Tax" initiative. Very dirty politics. There is no feasible reason for us to not build the pipeline.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2012, 03:29 PM
 
12,869 posts, read 13,685,772 times
Reputation: 4453
Quote:
Originally Posted by J152cc2 View Post
NO!!!!!!!!!! O'Reilly doesn't understand how imports and exports, and the energy industry work. I watched the show last night and anytime he opens his mouth about the energy industry he makes a fool of himself. I wish someone would go on there and call him on it.

The US exports about 1.3 million bbls of oil a day because:
1. Some of it doesn't meet US clean air requirements for refining (so we couldn't use it anyway)

2. US demand is down due to the recession-- we are coming out of a recession so demand is expected to increase in the next 1 - 2 years

3. Both importing and exporting a product is a part of being involved in global trade in the modern world. If you drill for and refine oil in North Dakota (Bakken) and have excess capacity, it would make no sense to pay all the transportation costs to send it to California. Much easier to just ship it across the border to Canada. In turn, Canada will ship some of their oil across the border to us from Vancouver... Canada both imports and exports oil. Hell, even California both imports and exports strawberries. In the modern world, there is no such thing as simply "exporting" or simply "importing"-- you have to do both.

The real question O'Reilly should be asking is... Why did Obama not approve the Keystone Pipeline?
My theory is that Warren Buffet (Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway-- who own BNSF railroad... who's main business comes from shipping crude on trains) told him not to. In turn, Buffet would support Obama's "Buffet Tax" initiative. Very dirty politics. There is no feasible reason for us to not build the pipeline.
another example of our overzealous legislators crippling our own industries.

i can guess why oreilly didn't ask why obama didn't approve the keystone pipeline.

my guess is that the same excuse is being used as in every other excuse for lack of energy independence-it's the "environment", although i fail to see how wars to get access to oil (if that is what we are even pretending they are anymore) are environmentally friendly at all.

we should be working on both oil and natural gas energy independence simultaneously. there is certainly room for multiple job creating industries in the united states, and i certainly don't think we are anywhere near being out of the "recession". we haven't stopped the flow of "laborers" into this country, nor created new industries to supply the new jobseekers.

handing out government cash is NOT the same as economic growth.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2012, 10:04 PM
 
28 posts, read 61,190 times
Reputation: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by J152cc2 View Post
NO!!!!!!!!!! O'Reilly doesn't understand how imports and exports, and the energy industry work. I watched the show last night and anytime he opens his mouth about the energy industry he makes a fool of himself. I wish someone would go on there and call him on it.

The US exports about 1.3 million bbls of oil a day because:
1. Some of it doesn't meet US clean air requirements for refining (so we couldn't use it anyway)

2. US demand is down due to the recession-- we are coming out of a recession so demand is expected to increase in the next 1 - 2 years

3. Both importing and exporting a product is a part of being involved in global trade in the modern world. If you drill for and refine oil in North Dakota (Bakken) and have excess capacity, it would make no sense to pay all the transportation costs to send it to California. Much easier to just ship it across the border to Canada. In turn, Canada will ship some of their oil across the border to us from Vancouver... Canada both imports and exports oil. Hell, even California both imports and exports strawberries. In the modern world, there is no such thing as simply "exporting" or simply "importing"-- you have to do both.

The real question O'Reilly should be asking is... Why did Obama not approve the Keystone Pipeline?
My theory is that Warren Buffet (Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway-- who own BNSF railroad... who's main business comes from shipping crude on trains) told him not to. In turn, Buffet would support Obama's "Buffet Tax" initiative. Very dirty politics. There is no feasible reason for us to not build the pipeline.
The keystone oil is going to be shipped to china, plus the keystone barrel are already on the world market , they are just being transported so it will not approve additional barrels that will bot lower the price.

and to get the price the U.S would need to produce 4 million more barrels
and even with shell drilling the best we could do is 1.5 milllion thats including the florida everglades.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2012, 02:28 PM
 
141 posts, read 288,477 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikestylez View Post
The keystone oil is going to be shipped to china, plus the keystone barrel are already on the world market , they are just being transported so it will not approve additional barrels that will bot lower the price.

and to get the price the U.S would need to produce 4 million more barrels
and even with shell drilling the best we could do is 1.5 milllion thats including the florida everglades.
It wasn't going to be shipped to China.

You really think they are going to build a pipeline to Port Arthur, Texas... then sail all the way from Texas to China with a tanker?

Wouldn't it make more sense to pipe it to California if they were going to "send it to China"?

Here is a map of the world:
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2012, 04:19 PM
 
12,869 posts, read 13,685,772 times
Reputation: 4453
are we so job rich as a country that the administration can turn down job opportunities for americans?

really?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2012, 06:49 PM
 
48,508 posts, read 88,484,687 times
Reputation: 18187
Quote:
Originally Posted by J152cc2 View Post
It wasn't going to be shipped to China.

You really think they are going to build a pipeline to Port Arthur, Texas... then sail all the way from Texas to China with a tanker?

Wouldn't it make more sense to pipe it to California if they were going to "send it to China"?

Here is a map of the world:
Right now since pipeline was nixed you will see new train depots being built in port arthur. The Candain government is now looking at approving a pipeline thru Canada to its west coast where it will be shipped by tanker to China. The Chinese are saying they will sign contracts( I would also beleive supply cheap money) to have this oil under contract. There are also now plans to build off shore or land based oil tanker unloading facities in Port Arthr to feed part of the the new amounts need in those huge refinery capacity increases which will be saudi oil.I would say with the increase in capacity on gulf coast projects that many refieries arounfd the country will be evntually closed down as demand i US is predcited to grow that much. One refinery in Port Arthru wilol double output with only 400 more employees whcih now is at 2000 employees. National oil comanies ahve changed alot since the days they prodcue all the oil they refined. that is why crude was the black gold;not the product as far as profit.California is not practical for permit reasons that make any refinery project impossible to even time or cost to figure.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2012, 08:16 PM
 
20,194 posts, read 21,518,398 times
Reputation: 9233
I think that would be unlawful in international treatises with the WTO... China would complain that the US is using unfair trade tactics (and they would be right) and the US would be punished... its pretty obvious it would be illegal...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
16,517 posts, read 21,977,509 times
Reputation: 8726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lincolnian View Post
Last night on the The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly proposed placing an export tax on oil produced here and exported to other countries, like China, to obtain the highest price.

Do you think that the US, like many other oil producing countries, should place an export tax on oil produced but not used domestically?
Soundss like an excellent idea, one that would lower gas prices here
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:12 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top