Reply With Quote
How much, gtown?
How much, gtown?Just the fact that we would have more supply into the market would lower the price of oil.
Having US oil companies being able to move regulations away and drill domestically would save tremendously on shipping costs and other fees.
Just the fact that we would have more supply into the market would lower the price of oil.
How much, gtown?
How much, gtown?Just the fact that we would have more supply into the market would lower the price of oil.
Whatever the market values it to be.
How much lower would the market value it to be with the changes you described in your post?
Let us know what kind of numbers we can see with these dramatic changes you describe compared to what we have now. The world wants to know and you will make a much stronger case if you can actually quantify it to a certain degree. No one is asking for exact numbers -- just ballpark it for us.
My argument isn't based on quan y, that's your argument. My argument is based on proven economic law that increased supply lowers price. But even if lets say we were to have close to 90 percent output of our oil supply, demand is not stagnant like your question implies. The demand for oil will increase thus raising the price.
I advocate drilling in our land as a right, damn what the environmentalist say. And if you removed regulations and law banning offshore drilling, it would be feasible and we could have more jobs. How many exact jobs, i don't know.
Your question implies that one has to be an expert or a researcher in the field to even discuss things with you. I don't know if anyone is, or if you are either. What you're asking is not unreasonable, the question itself is not an unreasonable one. But your inferrence and your implication is unreasonable. No one in here claims to be fellow at an ins ute for which even they, pro or con on the debate couldn't accurately predict the quan y you want.
what happens to the price when oil producing countries cut their production?
Tell that to the people in the Gulf Coast fishing and tourism industries.
Chump, it's not fair to ask right-wingers for facts. They live in fantasy land, making up whatever suits their emotions and ideology.
Obviously someone in some ins ute has done something along these lines. Why do we never read these things here?
It could be that it wouldn't make as much of a difference as some here would like to believe.
Also, assuming that production would skyrocket just because areas were open might not even be realistic. If the price of oil goes down to a certain level, it doesn't make economic sense to extract it from many areas. Production could decrease until the price goes up again.
And no one has taken refining into consideration either. I might buy a pure crude oil supply and demand model others are trying to push here if utilization of US refining capacity hadn't gone down last month.
You have simply oversimplified the issue.
First of all, i listed the fact that because demand is rising, it would be hard to lower oil prices for long to past levels, and that we can't predict exact figures because of too many variables.
You have simply not read my response.
Also I'd like to add that I'm for the right of american citizens, and companies to drill on our shores regardless of price. Since you or i don't know the exact figures or what types of oil could be extracted, along with other details, none of us are gonna convince each other.
Is there an ins ute you'd like to show to prove your point saying that opening our shores to oil would raise the price of oil?
I don't have to tell them anything, trade with China for cheaper s fish will be the end of them.
Tell that to the people in the Gulf Coast fishing and tourism industries.
Can you get fresher s fish from China?
Did the closest market for gulf seafood suddenly go away?
It's not like the preference for fresher food is destroyed by cheaper frozen Chinese s fish, still less the willingness to pay for quality, the scenic beach rental and the frou-frou restaurant.
I'm confused, are you for importing cheap chinese s fish? Did you give up on the Whig party thing?
That's ok with me.
What party? I never came across any other Whigs.
I originally conceived it as a themed drinking club anyway. Whatever the virtues of whiggism may be, it's not a very sturdy platform for a 21st century political movement.
( , I couldn't even sell it to my drinking buddies.)
The way to do it would be to develop a line of kitschy merchandise. Hipsters with highly evolved joke religions will eventually feel the need to start joining ersatz political movements. So will a lot of other pretenders and disaffected people.
With the right marketing and merchandise behind it, Whiggism could perhaps make a minor comeback. (The owl is more or less fine, use it. The log cabin and barrel of hard cider would probably have to be repackaged for the 21st century, tho. Easy-up and a beer keg?)
I didn't say it would raise the price of oil.
You simply have not read my response.
You pretend there aren't a half dozen countries already out there drilling.
Tell that to the people in the Gulf Coast fishing and tourism industries.
Good, and no one claimed to know the exact amount of prices resulting in allowing offshore drilling.
You seem to take it real personally when your own medicine is applied to yourself.
Oil executive A: You know, we could make a LOT of money if we could drill offshore. Too bad the government won't let us.
Oil executive B: Yeah, I know. People worry way too much about our past spills. I wish we could think of a way to get that ban lifted.
Marketing Guy: We just need to think of an argument that we can attach to some hot-button emotion. Those make for the most effective slogans. All you need is some hook that will lure people in and get them to repeat it.
Oil executive A: Hmmm. Well, if could drill there, we could slightly increase production over the medium term.
Marketing Guy: That's IT! We claim that letting us drill in those areas increases supply!
Oil executive B: I guess it will, but only by a fairly small percentage globally. I mean, even if we doubled our production, we would only be producing a fraction of what the rest of the world does.
Oil executive A: Yeah, we would still have to import some oil, and would still be subject to the global nature of the oil market. Global supply, global demand, global prices. The only way to avoid that would be to somehow get the government to grant us a monopoly and prohibit all oil imports. Nice, but not even our lobbyists could get that through.
Marketing guy: Well, that is the brilliance of that slogan. It has a grain of truth, but leaves out the part that doesn't support our goals.
Oil executive B: True. The average person in the US barely can find the rest of the world on a map, much less knows how much oil we produce or import relative to the global supply.
Marketing guy: Exactly. The actual effect might be what exactly?
Oil executive A: A few pennies at the retail level, if that, given total global supply and total global demand.
Marketing guy: We'll leave that part out. "Increasing supply" is easy to understand, easily repeatable, and works for us. If we work hard we can attach it not only to the unquestioning worship of the "free market", but to patriotism or something.
Oil executive B: Marketing Guy, I think we can slide you a bigger bonus this year. It takes a special kind of evil to take advantage of people's stupidity.
Oil executive A: This just sets the bar for next year pretty high. You're going to have to work especially hard to top that.
Marketing guy: Well, I have been working on a little project that lets us blame the government for our oil spills...
Oil executive B: Maybe next year. For now, let's hammer on the "more drilling is more supply" thing.
Did you read this to your cuckolding wife and her lover while they were plowing and you were cowering in the corner?
Let's get a couple of things back into focus.
1) Oil is a global commodity. Price is determined by total global supply and total global supply.
2) US production represents a fraction, 10% or so if memory serves, of global production. Even if we were to instantly double that, all other things held equal it would only amount to 18% of global production.
The best analogy I have heard is that oil gets dumped into a giant bathtub by producers, and buyers simply open up the spigot to get what they want to buy.
You can't differentiate who produced what at the spigot. (see "fungible")
Nah, I read it to your girlfriend while you were.
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/...oil-production
US supplies 10% of global total. (2007 data)
We do that using oil platforms that cost $1bn to build. That makes the oil we do produce a bit more expensive on a per barrel basis than a lot of other sources.
Such costs are very small relative to the total costs of production, from what I understand after having read a few oil company annual reports.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-e...gas-price1.htm
•Distribution and Marketing: 11 cents (out of a dollar)
Distribution and marketing - Crude oil is transported to refineries, and gasoline is shipped from the refineries to distribution points and then to gas stations. The price of transportation is passed along to the consumer. Marketing the brand of the oil company is also added into the cost of the gasoline you buy.
11% of the price of gasoline includes transportation of finished product and marketing costs.
So the ultimate amount saved would have to be less than 11%.
To be fair call transportation half of that. 5.5%
Now transporting gasoline by truck is WAY more expensive than tranporting crude in huge tankers, per gallon, even if the distance is shorter.
Let's say half of that was transportation costs of the crude oil. 2.75%
Some of that woulld still be needed simply to get it from the oil platform to the refineries in the US. Drilling it offshore would save shipping from our main supplier, Venezuala, but not by much.
Call it, to be generous, half of that. 1.375% That's just of the COST.
Remember retail prices of finished goods get a hefty mark-up. End result would be somewhere on the order of reducing costs of gas by 1% or so, using reasonable/generous assumptions.
Sure it would reduce OIL costs in the US by a percentage point or two, at best.
This would be offset by the massive capital investment required. New deepwater oil platforms cost on the order of a $1,000,000,000 each or so.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
