Posted on 07/06/2008 12:13:17 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan
• "Even if drilling works, it'll take a decade or more for the oil to flow."
This is quite an argument coming from the Democratic Party, which has made keeping oil off the market a linchpin of its energy policy for decades.
If President Clinton hadn't vetoed the idea of drilling in ANWR back in 1995, we'd have that oil on the market today. Ditto if Congress had approved ANWR drilling in 2002, when President Bush requested it.
Even so, the larger point is false anyway. New oil will be flowing in some cases within three to four years, according to industry estimates. But the impact on prices will be immediate. Why? Because markets would suddenly have to discount future oil prices for the expected gain in oil supply. That would cause oil prices, especially in futures markets, to drop.
By the way, this isn't just conjecture. President Reagan, within a week of his inaugural in 1981, removed domestic controls on oil. Energy prices began tumbling almost immediately, with oil falling from $34 a barrel in early 1981 to just $11 by 1986.
It worked before, and it'll work again
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
If it is going to take 10 years, shouldn't we get started? Drill here, drill now, pay less |
Order the uncapping of existing wells that were capped 20 - 30 years ago that were pumping just fine back then, it only takes a few weeks to get them back into production.
If a general directive to uncap the existing wells were to come from the White House today, prices would start to fall by Tuesday.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Old wells get uncapped all the time if they are economically viable. Why would you have the president order unprofitable wells be uncapped? Would you have him order other businesses to engage in unprofitable production?
“Order the uncapping of existing wells that were capped 20 - 30 years ago that were pumping just fine back then, it only takes a few weeks to get them back into production”
Tell us all about these mythical “capped” wells. Include some sources too
Good point. I’ve wondered about old oil wells that have been capped. I thought many were capped because their production tapers off as time goes on. But if there is still recoverable oil in these wells, let’s get started. In the supply/demand equation, this can only help because then supply is increased.
Are Democrats/liberals/radicals in favor of this? They should be because Democrats got p.o.ed because oil companies aren’t drilling enough on land already leased for that purpose, and they want to see that happen before considering new leases for oil drilling.
You don't have to order people to make a profit. I have confidence that at $140 per barrel somebodys going to smell the coffee.
Ronald Reagan used to make the point that businesses don’t actually pay taxes, but that the customer who buys whatever goods and services are produced by the business are the ones who pay any business related taxes. The businesses pass along any tax as a cost of doing business.
And Ronald Reagan was attacked for making that point, because he was allegedly in bed with big business and against the “little guy”.
But the laws of economics are as immutable as the laws of physics. No business can stay in business indefinitely if they aren’t making a profit. And they can’t just “eat it” if gov’t comes along and decides to levy new taxes against business. Whether it’s payroll taxes on the hired help, business license fees, property taxes, exise taxes, or any other tax, you the customer, are paying those taxes through higher prices on everything you buy.
Makes sense.
A valid question. A post last week mentioned that these are small wells of low productivity.
So true, yet the Dim-O-RATS can’t understand that. They think tax payments comes out of some hidden corporate stash.
DRILL HERE DRILL NOW AND KEEP DRILLING.
SPOIL THE SOCIALIST AGNEDA TO DESTROY AMERICA BY DENYING IT OIL.
“The businesses pass along any tax as a cost of doing business.”
People say that all the time, but there’s a huge problem with it. A monopoly could sure pass along any tax increase, or any other increase in expenses. But in a competitive economy, what if one producer of a good or service is much more efficient than another producer of the same good or service? The inefficient producer probably can’t pass along tax increases because the increased price would make him less competitive, or non-competitive with his more efficient competitor.
Can a corporation also, automatically pass on all increases in salary and wages, in material or raw material costs, and all the other expense of doing business.
It’s a myth, or a half-truth at best, that any and every increase in business operating expenses can be passed on to the consumer.
And, also, if taxes increases can be passed on, on and on, why all talk about reducing corporate taxes? How would that make corporations more competitive if they can just pass the increases on?
They can’t just pass the increases on automatically.
The big event in that three-year period was in 1977 when an Atlantic Richfield oil executive told him, “We have just drilled into the largest pool of oil in North America—[and] in the world!”
That pool was Gull Island. It was said that there was enough natural gas to supply America for 200 years. But to this day, “not one drop” of that oil has been released to American refineries, Williams said.
10 bpd sounds about right for most of these small wells. It’s probably breakeven, but won’t make a dent in the supply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.