« Tax all earnings to save Social Security | Main | Keeping KC clean »

March 23, 2011

End foreign oil dependency

Why don’t we stop buying oil from the Middle East? We have oil in this country — enough to last, according to reports that I have read.

We need jobs. Let’s put people to work in the oil industry here. We need to stop this fake “save the planet” stuff and save our country.

It seems as if ours is the only nation that is trying to cut back on pollution. China is building its economy and not worrying about pollution. The rest of world is playing us for suckers, and we’re falling for it.

Tom Swope
Kansas City

Comments

varmit

Cassady, that is what the Democrats keep saying and have for years. It will take years to get the oil ready to go. If we had started 15 years ago we would have alot more oil and import a lot less. Obama said in one of his speeches that the oil companies have millions of acres leased. He then ask why don't they drill on that land. The federal government won't allow companies to just lease where the oil is. They have to lease tracts and hope there is oil there. Government gets their lease money even if the oil is never found. This is stupid. Alaska and North Dakota have alot of oil. Obama won't let them drill there. He want Brazil to drill more. Soros owns some of the oil companies in Brazil. Strange isn't it?

varmit

This is all well and good. Most all of the oil from the Alaska pipeline doesn't stay in America. They ship it off. It makes no sense to me to import 55 to 60 percent of our oil and then export some to other countries. Let them get their oil from the sand countries. The way they price gas is stupid anyway. When the price goes up on Monday say it is for Aprils oil. They have millions of barrels in storage and they charge the new price for the old oil. They shouldn't be able to charge the new price until they get the new oil. If they would put temperature sensing pumps at all gas stations in America they would make sure we get all the gas we pay for. Canada did it because with all the cold weather the consumer was getting more than the pump said. When it gets hot we get less. They are making billions off of this. Buy gas in the morning when it is cool since they won't change the pumps.

Even Smarter

hey smarter...you didn't mention the cost of oil, but others did. The one thing you guys always seem to overlook is the very same thing you overlooked back in 1978, when "the worst president ever" vowed never to import a drop more oil than we were back then. That we need to CONSERVE.

Sure, lets drill, but if we don't start doing something NOW because "we've got all this oil available to us", we aren't going to do much to help the economy, since the price of oil - even drilling here and drilling now - won't drop oil prices all that much - especially if we export all those extra barrels to the highest bidder. But alternatives are pooh poohed by the right...we're tree huggers and moonbats and whatever other word du jour you care to use.

Anybody ready to conserve? I didn't think so. We weren't in 1978, we aren't today. I wonder...had we done what Carter asked all those years ago, would we have found ourselves at the mercy of the middle east today?

Smarter Than You

If you were "even smarter" you would notice that my arguments had little to do with the effect on cost of oil or complete independence. While there may be some benefit in those areas there are numerous other advantages to utilizing our domestic resources (previously posted).

You also would have noticed that your anti-drilling crowd are reduced to platitudes like "but it will run out in 20 years," "we'll export oil" or blatantly false talking points like "drill every inch."

May I suggest you work on that reading comprehension to go with your superior cutting and pasting skills.

Even Smarter

Nope Smarter...not at all. BUT...if anyone believes that drilling every inch of America tomorrow for oil will bring back the days of dollar a gallon gasoline, they are terribly misguided. It MIGHT drop the price of gas a dime. BUT...do the "drill here drill now" folks not have a problem with exporting 20% of what we DO drill?

Smarter Than You

so the liberal position is that ee should not drill what is readily available, with the revenue and jobs advantages on top of increased domestic availability of this resource because in 20 years or so ee may have to try harder to get the tougher to recover oil?

no wonder you thought the stimulus would cap unemployment at 8%. you just copy anything in your talking points from the mother ship and repeat it. "Klattu, barrada liberal."

spuds

John S...if we drilled every square inch of America TOMORROW, gas prices might drop by a dime. Because oil..even our untapped reserves...is a LIMITED resource. And the "easy to get to" oil isn't all that much (yes, that includes ANWR and offshore). Add to that - out of our CURRENT production, we EXPORT 20% of it. After all, isn't the name of the game in capitalism is "highest bidder wins"? And once we start tapping that "harder to get at oil", it's going to COST more to get it. Are you suggesting that the oil companies will eat that additional cost in the name of low gas prices for Americans?

Wild Man

You have a pretty exact number there. What makes up that number? kem

You seem to have access to the web brother, that's where I found it. If you find something different, please let me know.

John S

Who cares what all of those numbers and statistics that the left brings up might mean. Cut to the chase! More drilling and production here means cheaper gas for Americans. I care about my pocketbook. If we had started drilling in 2008 when the left was saying it "will be 10 years before those wells come in" we would now be three years closer instead of the same 10. Do the math folks. Don't let the left play you for a jackass!

whispering_to_kc

"China is building its economy and not worrying about pollution."

Only because China (the PRC) is an authoritarian communist state and our "capitalists" are only eager to tap their slave labor for personal gain at public environmental expense.

ggbridge

Have fun sty. Only know that if my name was Jimmer I would have chnged it sooner than later.

Smarter Than You

There are other reasons, besides the “only 20 years” of oil, to drill Alaska.

Wouldn’t the US government, as the rights holder of record for ANWR, get paid by the oil companies for every barrel of oil produced? In the 80’s, when the Mrs. was with ARCO, the payouts to individuals with small holdings were fairly staggering with oil at less than $30 a barrel.

If the oil companies were actually producing more of their product in the US, then they would necessarily have more of their profit and tax liability US based. I mention this because Exxon paid over $15 billion in income taxes last year, outside the US.

So besides moving towards energy self sufficiency drilling could also be a potential windfall for the government on several levels (rights fees, taxes, jobs).

As for Exxon and taxes, I will defer to FORBES:
“And for all you commenters outraged that Exxon isn’t paying taxes in the U.S., don’t worry, it is. Our article only focused on income taxes, but it’s worth noting that the 10-k also records $7.7 billion in other taxes in the U.S.”

With that, I’m out the door to go watch hoops with friends. Ya’ll have a great night!

kem

Wild man.....you talk about 36 billion in energy industry subsidies and tax breaks. But what are they? You have a pretty exact number there. What makes up that number?

spuds

Jack said:

>

The problem is that most of the "we've got billions of barrels of oil" folks don't bother reading that even the estimates THEY cite show that we've only got about 20 years worth of oil in Alaska and Offshore AT OUR CURRENT RATE OF CONSUMPTION. After that, we have to start using tar sands and shale oil and other things that are going to cost more to produce, which means that you'd better get used to $4 a gallon gas. And even THAT isn't the billions of barrells....no, in those reports those billions "have yet to be discovered".

Talk about a moonbat.

Read more: http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/2011/03/end-foreign-oil-dependency/comments/page/3/#comments#ixzz1HYUs2C3o

LL

Well David... I have to admit that I had not seen that information. So basically, the loan is specifically to finance drilling equipment by Petrobras of (U.S.-made) oilfield equipment and services and to encourage trade...his trip was supposed to promote trade (makes more sense now)
...Thanks

David

LL - I see that a couple of times you have referenced Obama giving $2 Billion to Brazil for promoting their own offshore drilling. You might want to check out these links on that urban legend.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/bogus-brazilian-oil-claims/

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_offshore_drilling_brazil.htm

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp

Casady

Hey WM. I think I sort addressd that in my initial post but perhaps not as directly as you put it (i.e. producers do not have the incentve to drill when the market price for crude falls below incremental or extraction costs).

I didn't know about the new technique for drillng shale oil. I'll look into that. Thanks for the heads up. But don't we still face high refining costs?

LL

Casady...I don't pretend to understand exactly how this global demand works with oil and you seem quite knowledgable...but I see your last sentence seems to agree with me to continue drilling while looking for alternatives.

-------------------------------------------
ggbridge...I understand your reluctance to drill after seeing how the BP spill effected our beautiful shores and oceanlife
last summer...and still today in some ways...but are you aware that on our president's recent trip to Brazil he gave them 2 billion dollars to promote their off-shore drilling - and also Cuba is now doing off-shore drilling...this, while he will not allow us to continue, offering only one permit for off-shore drilling in the US.

..do we not understand that people in the gulf need to go back to work? ...and that
the oil drilled off-shore from Brazil or Cuba is no different "environmentally" than if we were doing the drilling ourselves?

Wild Man

Casady,

I think you have some valid points, but I think that you overlook a reason that domestic oil is not being produced for this country. The cost of production has been more expensive for the last forty years than the cost of importing oil. As oil prices rise the expenses of drilling deeper and pressurizing the reserves will be more manageable. They also recently announced the perfection of a new drilling technique for acquiring shale oil which is less expensive, although some environmentalists have problems with it.

Yesterday there was a posting about Exxon/Mobil taxes. As you stated, EM paid $15 billion in taxes, but none of it went to the US. The taxes were paid to the 122 countries that EM has set up subsidiaries around the world. EM paid no taxes in the US in 2009.

And kem asked about some of the subsidies paid to oil companies. Last year the Obama administration asked Congress to end $36 billion dollars of tax breaks and subsidies give to oil companies. The money that the corporations receive is at a time when they are receiving record or near record profits. US consumers seem to be paying for their oil twice.

David

good explanation Casady, drilling in the US doesn't mean that oil stays in the US. It goes on the open market for whoever wants to buy it. Just like the corn that grows in the US doesn't stay in the US.

Additionally, if we jump in and start producing millions more barrels, the Saudis wil just turn the spigot down a little. Why would they maintain their production levels and lower the price?

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright