- Thread starter
- #41
REALLY?
We cant escape the fact that we control only 2% of the worlds oil. This is a common refrain among anti-drilling Democrats and environmentalists, and its repeated enough that many people accept it as true. In reality, its 100% false. The number comes from a highly conservative estimate from the Energy Information Administration totaling Americas proven reserves where we are already drilling. It does not include the 10 billion barrels available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It does not include most of the 86 billion barrels available offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, most of which President Obama has placed under an executive drilling ban. And it does not include the 800 billion barrels of oil we have locked in shale in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Those shale resources alone are actually three times larger than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, so the claim that the U.S. only has 2% of the worlds oil is clearly false.
Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they arent producing a thing. President Obama adds to this whopper by saying he wants to encourage companies to produce [on] the leases they hold. While this sounds like a common sense fix, its actually just blind rhetoric reserved only for people with a shocking ignorance of drilling. You can read more about this here and here, but it basically boils down to this: A lease is for exploration and production, not just production, and because oil is not equally distributed across the globe, one parcel of leased acreage may not hold any oil. Moreover, due to the circuitous and needlessly complicated permitting process, it can take years for companies who own a lease to complete their exploration activities. To get to the production phase, it could take as long as ten years. Ironically, President Obama wants to tax companies for not producing on their leases, even if the federal governments refusal to grant permits is the reason why those companies are not drilling.
Last year our oil production reached its highest level in 7 years. This is pure spin. President Obama is deliberately trying to take credit for actions unrelated to his policies. The increased level of production is due to the actions of previous administrations and production in the Dakotas where most drilling is occurring on private land. By contrast, the Energy Information Administration projects that there will be a decline in production of 220,000 barrels of domestic oil per day in 2011, and in 2012 America will produce 150 million fewer barrels in the Gulf of Mexico, all because of President Obamas policies to discourage or ban domestic drilling. In addition, President Obamas drilling moratorium (and subsequent refusal to issue drilling permits) has forced at least 7 rigs to leave the Gulf and sign contracts in other countries, taking much needed jobs and revenue with them.
Remember when Presidents held press conferences to clarify issues?
Oil goes to companies that lease land in the US. I suspect that most of those companies are "foreign", like BP.
That oil then goes on the "open market". Add the tens of billion in subsidies oil companies get from the US, and you can see, they have it "sweet". The American public? Not so much.
If the price goes down, oil companies hold back their reserves to drive the price back up. Sweet.
The only way to stop this is to produce energy here not based on oil. Like nuclear, wind, wave, hydraulic or solar. I don't see any other answer. Why the right wing supports being "gouged" is beyond me.
80% of the wells drilled in the U.S. are done so by independents. Not foreign, not "big oil".
The vast majority of wells are drilled on private lands - not public lands. Public lands are off limits thanks to the enviro-leftists.
100% of the oil produced from leased acreage belongs to the mineral interests until it is transferred to the first purchaser. At that time, the mineral interests are paid a royalty based upon a previously executed contract agreement. This royalty is free and clear of any costs associated with drilling and producing the oil.
Oil companies don't "get" subsidies from the U.S. They are afforded treatments under the tax code the same as they have been for decades. And most of these "subsidies" are also extended to other industries.
Taking less revenue from a business isn't a subsidy. Robbing half as much from a bank than you normally would doesn't mean you're contributing to the success of that bank.
I am un-sure why any-one would think a Toyota built in Texas (as they are) is being built by the Japanese?
and when it comes to them taking there profits back overseas there paying taxes prior to doing that
in addition many of the drillers in this country are, from this country
Every excuse I have heard means so little in a country in which jobs is the very thing this event would create