Posted on 05/01/2005 7:51:43 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Blame the environazis.
Got it in one. There's LOTS of oil in un-tapped areas---especially offshore of Calfornia and the Atlantic coast of Florida---but they are "off-limits" to drilling---despite the fact that safety methods for platform drilling are orders of magnitude better than when the offshore wells along the Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida Gulf Coasts were drilled (and where drilling still goes on today).
Not enough oil. And it doesn't matter. Even if we drilled here it would still go at "market rate" since it's a commodity.
Good one to stuff in the libs pocket. Taxes are actually higher than stated in the article. They post the actual taxes on the pump but not all the hidden taxes. I'll bet it comes closer to 50%
Bob Brinker said on "Money Talks" last night that they WILL drill Anwar.
I guess Jeb is an environazi then, because he's the main guy standing in the way of drilling off Fla.
IMHO the author is a litttle misleading, because I'm pretty sure he includes oil shale in his estimate of US reserves. As has been stated on many FR, the breakeven cost to develop shale is still way, way above the current price of oil. And the process used to exctract oil from shale is so environmentally damaging as to give even the most ardent-prodevelopment conservative considerable pause--in a nutshell,, you end up with 50% more waste rock than you started with.
For shale to be even remotely practical we're going to have to find an extraction process that's both cleaner and cheaper than the way it's done now.
There is one way to look at this: we are using other countries' oil while pretty much retaining ours. To me, this is very smart and strategic. Although it is doubtful we will run out of oil from the Middle East in the forseeable future, I would rather have the oil stores than some other country.
My wife has been in the oil industry since 1969. She has been pointing out many of the points in this article. It is a shame that so few understand the petroleum industry. When she took me on a tour of her Texaco World offices in Harrison, NY; there was an entire floor filled with tax accountants, trying to abide by Federal laws.... The list goes on. Ad neauseum.
http://economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3914915
Worth reading, as is the entire issue featuring oil.
transportation costs would be lower.
The thing is, a company pumps oil out of Alaska. The price of crude worldwide is, let's say, $50 per barrel. That company is not going to turn around and say, "Hey, it's American oil, let's sell it to the U.S. for $35 per barrel." They are going to put it on the global market and get as high a price for it as they can, because that's what they're in business to do.
While several factors come into play, the current price of crude oil, which is now around $50 a barrel ...While we're on this subject, let's be clear about this: THIS the price for light, sweet, easy-to-refine crude ...
'Sour' crude goes for than sweet - here's an article excerpt from late last year (sorry, couldn't find something from this year on short notice!)
Opening excerpt:
US refiners get rid of sour oilby Steve Everly
17-11-04 In a year that has seen oil prices reach record highs, it may seem odd that producers have been offering discounts to get rid of the stuff. But that has been happening with crude oil known as "heavy sour," which is different from the "light sweet crude" whose per-barrel price is most often quoted as the price of oil.
In fact, more than three-fourths of US refinery capacity can process heavy sour, which typically sells for a few dollars less than light sweet crude because it is not as easily refined.
And this year, as Persian Gulf producers have flooded the market with additional supplies of the heavier sour crude, the sweet and sour price gap has grown even wider, reaching $ 17 to $ 18 the last week of October.
It looks to me as if this is more a matter of regional economic power that is keeping us from developing a more self-sufficient energy policy. New ideas like wind and ethanol shift the energy economy to midwestern and mountain states. I think that is why NE senators block them, really.
I think we're edging toward a better energy policy, but it'll have to be one that make economic sense.
For the record, I recently rode in a hybrid car. It was an outstanding ride, but the dumbest looking vehicle I have ever seen in my life. What we need is more ideas like the hybrid better executed.
I don't know about NE senators blocking energy policy because energy sucks a lot of money out of the economies in the NE states, i.e. winter and transportation of goods.
But it would increase supply which is the main factor in prices.
There would have to be a whole lot of it to increase supply enough to lower prices on the world market. From what I've read, there isn't another Saudi-sized strike waiting up there. And, too, why would the oil companies flood the market with a commodity in quantities that would lower the price of their product?
It will be on the global market, but when it is purchased the transportation costs will be lower because it is domestic.
Per how stuff works :::
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. Together, these two factors account for about 13 percent of the price of gasoline.
So, you think the oil companies are evil? BTW, I've seen you're other posts.
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.