heritage.org, oilco !!
so US can export oil and refined products because the gas/oil prices are so low and supply is so high?
The data is obviously cherry-picked... Apparently there's enough oil to go around to be a net-exporter of it. He conveniently missed mentioning that.
heritage.org, oilco !!
so US can export oil and refined products because the gas/oil prices are so low and supply is so high?
Heritage foundation is lying to you. Do you want me to tell you how?
Not that I think you will listen or care, sadly.
(edit)
The ironic thing is that they are, in essence using half-truths themselves to do it.
This has been done to death, so I am going to go off my memory as much as possible.
Datapoints and given important principles, numbered for quick reference.:
1)Oil is fungible, and a global market. All inputs get dumped into the same tub, and taken out by buyers, who don't care where it comes from. PRICES ARE GLOBAL.
2) US produces 10% of global supply
3) US consumes 25% of global supply
4) In 1993, China was an exporter of oil. In 2009, it passed Japan as the #2 importer. It is projected to surpass the US within 10 years if current trends continue. Combine these two datapoints, and 100% of Chinese imports represent completely new demand that was not there 20 years ago.
This is a lie because it omits the small detail that this oil will get to market somewhere, somehow. Keystone or not. THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE WILL HAVE NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON THE GLOBAL PRICE OF OIL.
Added to this is that the oil that is "off limits", usually a code word for offshore, require billion-dollar ships and platforms to get to. There is a huge backlog in building the ships. The bottleneck is not having enough area to drill in, it is getting the ships online. Oil companies are hesitant to spend too much on these things, because they got burned in the 1990's by low oil prices and are leery of large capital expenditures.
"off limits" also generally refers to ANWAR, another tried and true vacuous talking point. ANWAR, if extracted would supply the US with less than four months supply of oil. Then it would be gone. It is simply not large enough to make a difference in the long run.
It mixes in some truth, but omits some key points. Either the author doesn't know how the market works, or is leaving it out.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 03-19-2012 at 09:22 AM. Reason: Civility. I have to learn to stop posting while cranky and tired.
This is another collection of lies by omission.
Technically recoverable = possible
Technically recoverable does not equal economically recoverable.
You can get all the oil you want to get at $1000 bbl, but no one will buy it.
Yes it would. The big question is whether those reserves will increase faster than they are drilled out of the ground. Globally, we have pumped oil out of the ground faster than we have discovered it since 1984.If the massive quan ies of U.S. oil are made available to explore and produce, the current estimated reserves of 20 billion barrels would certainly increase,
The really big, easy to drill formations were sucked dry of oil a long time ago. What is left requires more effort, more drills and more money to get at, even with all the fracking you want. As the size of the deposits goes down, you have to find more and more at faster rates to maintain production rates.
Again, leaving out a few things. Sonic imaging vastly improved in the time, as has drilling technology. We have reached the diminishing returns portion of the production curve. Sorry. There will be no magic to save oil production going forward.In 1980, the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980 through 2010, it produced over 77 billion barrels of oil.
The other portion left out is that the reserves they are pumping up and cherry-picking data to make their case with tend to be locked up on oil sands. Oil sands have gotten a lot more economical because of gas prices (the oil must be heated by burning natgas), but getting that full "technically recoverable" figure means strip mining HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES. Possible yes, but at a huge cost, even if one incorrectly ignores the environmental costs.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 03-18-2012 at 07:12 PM.
If one assumes that the US doubles production TOMORROW, we would still produce only 19% of global supply, and still have to import oil.
All the permits in the world aren't going to magic up the drilling rigs and trained operators to run them.
All the reserves in the world don't mean anything if they cost more to get out of the ground than you can sell it for. "Te ially recoverable" includes the subset of oil that will, quite literally, require $1,000 per barrel OR MORE to get out of the ground.
If you don't have data on what is economically recoverable in the next 5 to 10 years at roughly the same oil prices we have now, you do not have the data you need to view the topic with any degree of clarity.
Doing good research is not incompatible with cherry picking data.
They do this, because they know people suck it up and then turn around and present it to the uninformed, who usually know even less then the people who sucked it up in the first place.
A few minutes of critical thinking, and realizing that heritage is promoting a definite narrative would provide someone with a good reason to be somewhat skeptical and wonder what was being left out.
If this sounds like I'm bustin' yer balls, I am. You let yourself get suckered.
Obama's "all of the above" approach is about right.
You can't assume Heritage is inaccurate. You can assume they aren't telling you the full truth.
Not what he says at election time. What has he done? What exactly has he done to be an "all of the above"?
Your own opinion, which is all you have stated, says that obama is fudging numbers with how much we produce/consume. Congrats.
Also you are acting as if the oil is dictated by the free market and not by a cartel. But so far all your gotcha seemed to fall short.
snc, who or what do you think that heritage represents?
You don't seem to get there's not just one cartel in the oil business.
And hand waving is not arguing.
but firms do collude through fronts like the heritage foundation. thats why i ask snc why he thinks that they should dictate policy like this. they are political leaders for him. why does he look to them for leadership?
You are making alot of assumptions. What does leadership have to do with this? What firm exactly are you presuming is funding heritage to come up with there fact checking of bho. Why do you keep trying to make this about me?
Maybe you missed this earlier.
http://www.heritage.org/about
Here is the about page of heritage. They maintain their conservative principals pretty consistently. I guess if companies who agree with them want to contribute to get higher profits (without govt. intervention) they can go to this page:
http://www.heritage.org/about/herita...hip/membership
And yes I agree with 95% of their stands and am a member. However I know what I believe and don't wait for them to make a stance on an issue for me to figure mine out.
Exxon/Mobil and Chevron are substantial donors. There could certainly be others that remain anonymous.
You'd already know this if you had an ounce of intellectual curiosity, but you enjoy being spoon fed by folks you prefer to tell you what to believe.
As mentioned above, they already have.
Looks like they are getting their money's worth.
I think it's safe to say both sides have an agenda.
Believe Obama if you will. I will not.
That said, I do agree with most of your arguments this time... How often does that happen?
Why do you go only to them to get who and what they are? They get most of there money from anonymous donors. ther corporate donors are a whos who of american and foreign industrialists.
whats awesome is that you say that you agree with 95% of what they say and still think that you think for yourself.
Just because the donors are from certain types of industry, class, etc. doesn't mean they are to be ignored. You have to look deeper, into if their reasons are legitimate or not. they often are.
WC, maybe you could take a stab at this one.
Sorry but i do not take advice on ethics or philosophy from fools.
The OP is a sales brochure for the pipeline that is funded in no small part by the firms that own the gulf coast refineries that never once talks about the trade surplus for petrol.
Naivete of this nature is justified in children after a certain point it becomes willful ignorance and stupidity.
I'll take it on poor judgement on my part that you are actually asking a serious question.
They have a balance to find for maximum profit. They will desire the highest price they can get, but they have compe ion as well.
Leo Yau (Yau Leopoldo) taught me how Intel maximizes profits. It's an interesting game of cat and mouse between you and your compe ion. It often occurs by finding a cheaper way of doing things, but keeping your retail price in line with the compe ion until you have extra production capacity and want to increase market share. Then you drop your price, but you pick a strategic time. I'm not going to bother making a proper graph to illustrate the Intel process, and it probably doesn't work in the oil industry the same way.
I honestly don't know what works best for the oil industry, except for one thing. Supply and demand rules in the free market. You lower your price vs. the compe ion to gain market share, but if they can match you, you lose profits. Therefore, it requires a development in new technology, or a way of getting your base materials (resources) for less money. Just getting your resources for less alone will increase profits, and if you can reduce your sales price more than your compe ion, then it's a win in volume.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 03-19-2012 at 06:20 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)