Programmer
Senior Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 918
- 119
I know we like new ideas, but sometimes it is a good idea to look at why some of our economic strategies already work. Why we don't do everything the same as Norway and China and why we are better for it.This promotes localizing refinement of our oil to the United States in the first place. There's always going to be competition for U.S. refiners, but there's always going to be a market. Essentially this makes BP a US refinery when they want to exploit our resources. Before this Rabbi guy got all crazy, I made the point that consumer economies (of which energy we are) favor contrary trade policy to export driven economies.I'm referring to the trade restriction on exporting crude oil. This policy benefits US refiners and is part of our energy and national security policy. It's a very significant player when it comes to the price of energy. Our strategic oil reserves play roles from national security to currency here in the U.S.Protection doesn't include exports because of the definition of protection, nimrod. Who does limiting exports "protect?"
How does restricting oil exports benefit U.S. refineries?
You failed to explain how it benefits refineries. What do they care if the oil they refine is domestic or imported? They make the same amount of money in either case. How does "making BP a domestic refinery" benefit BP? The distinction between "consumer economies" and "export driven economies" is entirely superfluous. Some countries have high tariffs. Some countries have low tariffs. Consumers in the former have to pay higher prices on imported goods. That's the only distinction.
Well the theory is........... If we allow oil to be exported, then refineries will lose business because people who buy US oil, will no longer be forced to use US refineries to refine it, because they are now able to export the raw oil.
So a tanker load from Alaska for example, right now, can't go to a refinery in China to be refined. It must come to a US based refinery.
If we allow oil to be exported, then a tanker load of oil from Alaska could be purchased by say... China, and sent to a Chinese refinery, instead of to the US.
Quite frankly, if that were really a big issue, the oil companies would not be pushing to end the ban.
And beyond that even...... crap guys... I've heard for 10 years, people screaming about how we have a trade imbalance with China, and how horrible and awful, and doom and gloom over trade deficit with China. Chicken little screaming in circles about trade with China, the sky is falling, we're all doomed.
To all you fruits out there, well here you go..... shut up and sell them some oil. That will change the trade imbalance for sure.
By far, the currency, national security and energy policies that rely on the crude export restriction are the reasons why it is in place, overshadowing protections businesses are lobbying for. The oil crisis 40 (!) years ago will require an apocalypse now because of this policy. What y'all should understand is that smaller refiners and retailers support this ban, while multinational crude producers would prefer to drill here and export the crude, then bring it back. This concept of big oil/little oil was publicized in the 2008 presidential election, but there's no coincidence why Dallas and Dynasty were about oil tycoons in the 80s, right after lil' oil hit it big here again. People can tend to think that all companies in an industry look at their competitiveness the same way, but that's not how it works.
Re: energy prices: Because dom. crude producers will find higher crude prices internationally, but they can't make those sales, we have an unnatural market when it comes to selling crude here, even imported international crude. We regulate the whole oil world with our reserves. Our trade relations with Saudi lately, really locks this in. Remember having to beg for more production out there? Not lately. They're on board with our glut strategy. Remember chickenshit oil exporters like mexico looking so promising? Not lately. Not at these prices. As idealistic it is to think that laissez faire makes realities like that, it's the State Department and energy independence (superiority) policy kickin ass. Mexico has to laissez faire the consequences on the floor of our 'open' oil market.
As far as benefitting BP, as above, this was designed to benefit the US, so BP having to set up shop here and make investments helps our economy. We have the decency to demand that international businesses grow our economy, rather than what's going on under Nigeria's less fettered energy policy. BP shows up because we have a reliable, lucrative market for drill/refine/distribute operations like them. They're not crying even though they'll spend a billion on lobbying.
Regarding trade deficit panic. We would be at a disadvantage by literally fueling China or Europe, instead of our own economy. If the energy is that valuable for this and that reason, why not see to your constituents and their businesses having first dibs? Energy is for making trillions in GDP, not just selling for billions in one industry. Leave this oil exporter BS to economies run by idiots.