|
Post by middleoftheroad on Nov 3, 2013 10:33:57 GMT -5
I call BULLstuff. If American oil companies have enough oil and gas to sell it to other foreign companies why the F do we need to open up new areas so they can make more profit? that's crazy! Sorry. I for one and probably majority of Americans do not want to open up our national parks, take risk with drilling offshore, just so oil companies can take the oil and gas and then sell it to foreign countries. That obviously tells you we have enough oil. Actually, what oil exporting means is that there are nations out there with insufficient oil supplies that are willing to pay more for imported oil than the oil companies can get in the US market. The only way too deal with an imbalanced market is to flood it with enough product that the imbalance becomes immaterial or to find a new product. Technology will eventually complete the later, it is simply insuffuciently advanced to do so right now. And I agree, most Americans would prefer not to open the parks and shore line to oil exploration, at least, right up till the time you tell them that the energy market comprises, directly or indirectly, a significant piece of their retirement portfolio; their ethic changes when they realize they may have to work an additional 10 or 15 years.
|
|
|
Post by dsummoner on Nov 3, 2013 10:35:26 GMT -5
A large portion of US foreign policy is not predicated upon oil but rather the currency in which the trade of oil occurs. Every blue moon, a government official exhibits a moment of honesty in regards to mentioning the importance of the USD as the global reserve currency. Without the USD as the global reserve currency, the trade of US fiat for hard commodities (such as oil) goes by the wayside and with it would go the use of foreign currency reserves (i.e. USD held by foreigners) for the purchase of US government debt issuance. Without that extra 0.40 cents per dollar of US government spending, the US would no longer be able to afford the costs of the domestic socialism that has overflowed from the pit latrine and encrusted itself on the American psyche.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 10:46:03 GMT -5
I call BULLstuff. If American oil companies have enough oil and gas to sell it to other foreign companies why the F do we need to open up new areas so they can make more profit? that's crazy! Sorry. I for one and probably majority of Americans do not want to open up our national parks, take risk with drilling offshore, just so oil companies can take the oil and gas and then sell it to foreign countries. That obviously tells you we have enough oil. Actually, what oil exporting means is that there are nations out there with insufficient oil supplies that are willing to pay more for imported oil than the oil companies can get in the US market. The only way too deal with an imbalanced market is to flood it with enough product that the imbalance becomes immaterial or to find a new product. Technology will eventually complete the later, it is simply insuffuciently advanced to do so right now. And I agree, most Americans would prefer not to open the parks and shore line to oil exploration, at least, right up till the time you tell them that the energy market comprises, directly or indirectly, a significant piece of their retirement portfolio; their ethic changes when they realize they may have to work an additional 10 or 15 years. "Is to flood it". Lol You are the oil companies "b". Excuses excuses. If the oil companies have enough oil and gas to sell the foreign countries they don't need to open jack here in this country.
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Nov 3, 2013 10:49:10 GMT -5
I'm in favor of not opening up the vast oil fields for now. Oil is power, and once we use up the rest of the world's supply, we will have all the power.
Only problem with this is then everyone will be attacking us instead of the Middle East.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Nov 3, 2013 10:55:26 GMT -5
Actually, what oil exporting means is that there are nations out there with insufficient oil supplies that are willing to pay more for imported oil than the oil companies can get in the US market. The only way too deal with an imbalanced market is to flood it with enough product that the imbalance becomes immaterial or to find a new product. Technology will eventually complete the later, it is simply insuffuciently advanced to do so right now. And I agree, most Americans would prefer not to open the parks and shore line to oil exploration, at least, right up till the time you tell them that the energy market comprises, directly or indirectly, a significant piece of their retirement portfolio; their ethic changes when they realize they may have to work an additional 10 or 15 years. "Is to flood it". Lol You are the oil companies "b". Excuses excuses. If the oil companies have enough oil and gas to sell the foreign countries they don't need to open jack here in this country. No excuses at all, moses, just the harsh reality of life. Commodity markets rise and fall on the immutable laws of supply and demand. And companies, from the smallest mom and pop to the largest international corporation work on the the premise of generating some degree of profit; additional sales makes that possible and stock holders, often in the form of retirement accounts, demand such as approach. Wishing it were different isn't going to make it so, however righteous that might make you feel. ANd if you're to quote something I post, at least have the intellectual honesty to use the whole quote and not just part of it.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 11:02:47 GMT -5
"Is to flood it" says it all . I'm sure you have 1 million reasons why these oil companies can do what they can do you'll defend them at every turn. Can you imagine the same oil company selling oil to foreign countries During World War II and having their financial excuses of why they felt like they could sell that same oil. Fact is this company shouldn't be selling oil to foreign companies if it is such a valuable resource. Instead of opening up ANWR and sensitive areas to oil drilling why don't we just not sell the oil and gas to foreign countries. I don't give a damn about your financial excuses.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Nov 3, 2013 11:19:02 GMT -5
"Is to flood it" says it all . I'm sure you have 1 million reasons why these oil companies can do what they can do you'll defend them at every turn. Can you imagine the same oil company selling oil to foreign countries During World War II and having their financial excuses of why they felt like they could sell that same oil. Fact is this company shouldn't be selling oil to foreign companies if it is such a valuable resource. Instead of opening up ANWR and sensitive areas to oil drilling why don't we just not sell the oil and gas to foreign countries. I don't give a damn about your financial excuses. Clearly, you recognize that you have lost the argument and you're now flailing around with foolish comments. First of all, some facts; US oil companies did sell oil to foreign nations during WW II; England, Australia, France, Canada, just to name a few. In many cases, they gave the oil away as part of the war effort. And after WW II, we could not sell enough oil to these nations as they worked to rebuild their economies. Now if you are trying to create the false argument that I suggested we should be selling oil to nations that don't share our interests, I never posted that; you've created that position - you own it. You argue that if oil is such a valuable resource, we shouldn't be selling it. I would point that oil in the ground has no value at all; it's value only emerges when it rises from the ground. We sell oil and gas to fireign nations now and places such as ANWR, or the Dakotas' shale fields or the Pennsylvania gas fields all offer greater opportunities meet an increasing demand for product. Finally, what you see as "excuses" reflects how far from a solid argument you have run; stock and such investents provide the tax revenues from which the government gets its ability to meet the needs of those citizens unwilling or unable to fend for themselves. That moses, is another harsh reality of life. Unless we are generating increasing levels of wealth, the revenues needed for these programs will be even more insufficuent than they currently are; your approach does nothing but kill the goose providing the golden eggs that funds government prgrams. You can't have these large programs without creating the wealth to fund them.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 11:36:18 GMT -5
"Is to flood it" says it all . I'm sure you have 1 million reasons why these oil companies can do what they can do you'll defend them at every turn. Can you imagine the same oil company selling oil to foreign countries During World War II and having their financial excuses of why they felt like they could sell that same oil. Fact is this company shouldn't be selling oil to foreign companies if it is such a valuable resource. Instead of opening up ANWR and sensitive areas to oil drilling why don't we just not sell the oil and gas to foreign countries. I don't give a damn about your financial excuses. Clearly, you recognize that you have lost the argument and you're now flailing around with foolish comments. First of all, some facts; US oil companies did sell oil to foreign nations during WW II; England, Australia, France, Canada, just to name a few. In many cases, they gave the oil away as part of the war effort. And after WW II, we could not sell enough oil to these nations as they worked to rebuild their economies. Now if you are trying to create the false argument that I suggested we should be selling oil to nations that don't share our interests, I never posted that; you've created that position - you own it. You argue that if oil is such a valuable resource, we shouldn't be selling it. I would point that oil in the ground has no value at all; it's value only emerges when it rises from the ground. We sell oil and gas to fireign nations now and places such as ANWR, or the Dakotas' shale fields or the Pennsylvania gas fields all offer greater opportunities meet an increasing demand for product. Finally, what you see as "excuses" reflects how far from a solid argument you have run; stock and such investents provide the tax revenues from which the government gets its ability to meet the needs of those citizens unwilling or unable to fend for themselves. That moses, is another harsh reality of life. Unless we are generating increasing levels of wealth, the revenues needed for these programs will be even more insufficuent than they currently are; your approach does nothing but kill the goose providing the golden eggs that funds government prgrams. You can't have these large programs without creating the wealth to fund them. We sold oil to our allies during a world war. Huge difference. And stop lecturing me... The only reason oil companies now sell oil to other countries is profit. Has nothing to do with probably why we sold oil to other countries during World War II. What a stupid comparison. I brought up World War II as a reminder how valuable oil is. The fact that we are selling it to other countries now seems almost treasonous. These countries aren't necessarily our allies. They could be potential enemies. The simple fact that we have enough oil and gas produced in this country to sell to other countries tells you immediately we don't need to open up any other areas.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Nov 3, 2013 11:49:35 GMT -5
I'm not lecturing you moses, but your understanding of how markets work is, at best, weak.
You ceated the WWII issue; I merely pointed out that we did, in fact, sell oil during WWII.
You then "argue", I think, that we are selling oil to foreign nations that are now our enemy. I freely admit that such could be the case, though I think you would be hard-pressed to proove your statement. That aside, you need to remember that oil is a fungible commodity; in effect; if we sell to country "A", more oil becomes available to country "B" from some other source. In short, who we well oil to is almost immaterial. I could even create the argument that causing a dependency for US oil from a potential enemy is a strategic benefit.
And you're correct in that the only reason oil companies sell oil is for profit; the same reason grocery stores sell food and hospitals sell care. The reality is, that for good or evil, profit, or at lease self-interest, is what makes the world go 'round.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 12:25:52 GMT -5
Speaking of greenhouse gasses -- just went to El Salto, had a big-ass Mexican dinner....currently farting my own personal hole in the ozone layer...... ......feels good to contribute!!!!! I've always wanted a whole house gas generator HA!! Always told me wife the one we bought from BGE was a rip....just feed me tacos and stick a funnel on me!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 12:27:47 GMT -5
Clearly, you recognize that you have lost the argument and you're now flailing around with foolish comments. First of all, some facts; US oil companies did sell oil to foreign nations during WW II; England, Australia, France, Canada, just to name a few. In many cases, they gave the oil away as part of the war effort. And after WW II, we could not sell enough oil to these nations as they worked to rebuild their economies. Now if you are trying to create the false argument that I suggested we should be selling oil to nations that don't share our interests, I never posted that; you've created that position - you own it. You argue that if oil is such a valuable resource, we shouldn't be selling it. I would point that oil in the ground has no value at all; it's value only emerges when it rises from the ground. We sell oil and gas to fireign nations now and places such as ANWR, or the Dakotas' shale fields or the Pennsylvania gas fields all offer greater opportunities meet an increasing demand for product. Finally, what you see as "excuses" reflects how far from a solid argument you have run; stock and such investents provide the tax revenues from which the government gets its ability to meet the needs of those citizens unwilling or unable to fend for themselves. That moses, is another harsh reality of life. Unless we are generating increasing levels of wealth, the revenues needed for these programs will be even more insufficuent than they currently are; your approach does nothing but kill the goose providing the golden eggs that funds government prgrams. You can't have these large programs without creating the wealth to fund them. We sold oil to our allies during a world war. Huge difference. And stop lecturing me... The only reason oil companies now sell oil to other countries is profit. Has nothing to do with probably why we sold oil to other countries during World War II. What a stupid comparison. I brought up World War II as a reminder how valuable oil is. The fact that we are selling it to other countries now seems almost treasonous. These countries aren't necessarily our allies. They could be potential enemies. The simple fact that we have enough oil and gas produced in this country to sell to other countries tells you immediately we don't need to open up any other areas. We sold oil to Japan. One reason Pearl Harbor occurred is we were starting to cut that back. Selling oil to "enemies" means getting their money into our coffers. Never a bad thing. And if we make them dependent, we can do what we did to Japan-- hur their war machine by cutting off the tap.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 12:44:13 GMT -5
We sold oil to our allies during a world war. Huge difference. And stop lecturing me... The only reason oil companies now sell oil to other countries is profit. Has nothing to do with probably why we sold oil to other countries during World War II. What a stupid comparison. I brought up World War II as a reminder how valuable oil is. The fact that we are selling it to other countries now seems almost treasonous. These countries aren't necessarily our allies. They could be potential enemies. The simple fact that we have enough oil and gas produced in this country to sell to other countries tells you immediately we don't need to open up any other areas. We sold oil to Japan. One reason Pearl Harbor occurred is we were starting to cut that back. Selling oil to "enemies" means getting their money into our coffers. Never a bad thing. And if we make them dependent, we can do what we did to Japan-- hur their war machine by cutting off the tap. So we have enough oil to sell that tells you we don't need to drill more what the heck . add it up yourselves. And lose all the excuses why this is happening
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 12:46:55 GMT -5
We sold oil to Japan. One reason Pearl Harbor occurred is we were starting to cut that back. Selling oil to "enemies" means getting their money into our coffers. Never a bad thing. And if we make them dependent, we can do what we did to Japan-- hur their war machine by cutting off the tap. So we have enough oil to sell that tells you we don't need to drill more what the heck . add it up yourselves. And lose all the excuses why this is happening We always need more!! It's a global market, not a limited-to-US market.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 12:54:11 GMT -5
So we have enough oil to sell that tells you we don't need to drill more what the heck . add it up yourselves. And lose all the excuses why this is happening We always need more!! It's a global market, not a limited-to-US market. We always need more! Why are you guys such willing lackeys for every industry thats out there ? they don't give a damn about you !
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Nov 3, 2013 15:31:05 GMT -5
We always need more!! It's a global market, not a limited-to-US market. We always need more! Why are you guys such willing lackeys for every industry thats out there ? they don't give a damn about you ! Doesn't have anything to do with being a lackey moses; you can't change reality if you are unable to recognize it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 15:33:45 GMT -5
I don't think we should go to war for oil We don't go to war for oil, hugs; we go to war for air-conditioned homes, gas-powered lawn trimmers aircraft vacations to Hawaii and the Bahamas and trucks that get 10 MPH. If the national "we" are ready to give those things up, oil's value falls off quickly. Computers and internet............ don't forget Computers and internet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 15:35:01 GMT -5
We always need more! Why are you guys such willing lackeys for every industry thats out there ? they don't give a damn about you ! Doesn't have anything to do with being a lackey moses; you can't change reality if you are unable to recognize it. So you built your computer and heater out of rocks and sand?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 15:40:21 GMT -5
Doesn't have anything to do with being a lackey moses; you can't change reality if you are unable to recognize it. So you built your computer and heater out of rocks and sand? After a little bit of mining and processing, yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 19:34:25 GMT -5
We always need more! Why are you guys such willing lackeys for every industry thats out there ? they don't give a damn about you ! Doesn't have anything to do with being a lackey moses; you can't change reality if you are unable to recognize it. Commodities and markets will always exist...even hunter and gatherers swapped dried meat and hides!!
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Nov 4, 2013 4:43:06 GMT -5
A large portion of US foreign policy is not predicated upon oil but rather the currency in which the trade of oil occurs. Every blue moon, a government official exhibits a moment of honesty in regards to mentioning the importance of the USD as the global reserve currency. Without the USD as the global reserve currency, the trade of US fiat for hard commodities (such as oil) goes by the wayside and with it would go the use of foreign currency reserves (i.e. USD held by foreigners) for the purchase of US government debt issuance. Without that extra 0.40 cents per dollar of US government spending, the US would no longer be able to afford the costs of the domestic socialism that has overflowed from the pit latrine and encrusted itself on the American psyche. Nice post. Too many of us fail to realize that the "price" of oil is in reality just a reflection of the value of the dollar.
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Nov 4, 2013 7:54:43 GMT -5
Israel must make 'fateful decision' on Iran strike Israel does not have much time to make a “fateful decision” about whether to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said Sunday in a radio interview. “Israel, I think, now faces the fateful decision whether it will allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, thus constituting a true existential threat to Israel,” he said. “I don’t think Israel has much time,” Bolton continued. “Frankly, they should have done this years ago because we all know intelligence is imperfect and Iran may have a more developed capacity than we know about, perhaps in cooperation with North Korea.” Bolton spoke amid U.S. outreach to Iran and amid reports Iran’s Revolutionary Guard announced Saturday they are committed to the slogan, “Death to America.” The former U.N. ambassador reacted to a statement by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who said Thursday the while U.S. has “implemented unprecedented sanctions and pressure on Iran, we may very well have to use military force to back up our policy.” Bolton retorted: “If there is anybody left in Israel who thinks that the U.S. will use military force against Iran’s program, they really need to seriously re-examine their basic values. It isn’t going to happen under the Obama administration. I’ll just say it again. It isn’t going to happen.” www.wnd.com/2013/11/bolton-israel-must-make-fateful-decision-on-iran-hit/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2013 8:14:46 GMT -5
Actually, what oil exporting means is that there are nations out there with insufficient oil supplies that are willing to pay more for imported oil than the oil companies can get in the US market. The only way too deal with an imbalanced market is to flood it with enough product that the imbalance becomes immaterial or to find a new product. Technology will eventually complete the later, it is simply insuffuciently advanced to do so right now. And I agree, most Americans would prefer not to open the parks and shore line to oil exploration, at least, right up till the time you tell them that the energy market comprises, directly or indirectly, a significant piece of their retirement portfolio; their ethic changes when they realize they may have to work an additional 10 or 15 years. "Is to flood it". Lol You are the oil companies "b". Excuses excuses. If the oil companies have enough oil and gas to sell the foreign countries they don't need to open jack here in this country. Only true of the only purpose of oil was to power US. It's not. It exists to enrich us, to prop up the dollar, influence friends, punish enemies- also it's used to create fertilizers, plastics, Vaseline, pesticides, industrial lubricants, artificial and natural flavorings (yep), and numerous other petrochemicals. Useful stuff! Drill frak drill frak drill frak frak frak!!! Yay!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2013 8:16:50 GMT -5
Israel must make 'fateful decision' on Iran strike Israel does not have much time to make a “fateful decision” about whether to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said Sunday in a radio interview. “Israel, I think, now faces the fateful decision whether it will allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, thus constituting a true existential threat to Israel,” he said. “I don’t think Israel has much time,” Bolton continued. “Frankly, they should have done this years ago because we all know intelligence is imperfect and Iran may have a more developed capacity than we know about, perhaps in cooperation with North Korea.” Bolton spoke amid U.S. outreach to Iran and amid reports Iran’s Revolutionary Guard announced Saturday they are committed to the slogan, “Death to America.” The former U.N. ambassador reacted to a statement by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who said Thursday the while U.S. has “implemented unprecedented sanctions and pressure on Iran, we may very well have to use military force to back up our policy.” Bolton retorted: “If there is anybody left in Israel who thinks that the U.S. will use military force against Iran’s program, they really need to seriously re-examine their basic values. It isn’t going to happen under the Obama administration. I’ll just say it again. It isn’t going to happen.” www.wnd.com/2013/11/bolton-israel-must-make-fateful-decision-on-iran-hit/I'm an avid supporter of Israel. They have the most to lose if Iran gains nukes- if they wish to strike, that's up to them. They've struck in Syria on their own, they've struck in Iraq on their own, they can do this on their own, too. Israel can take care of itself. US gives more money to Arab states if you combine the total--- think of all that cash wasted on Egypt and Pakistan....
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Nov 4, 2013 11:14:31 GMT -5
If Israel strikes which i fully support, then you can bet the US will be involved.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 4, 2013 11:21:20 GMT -5
If Israel strikes which i fully support, then you can bet the US will be involved. I trust Isreal, with the billions in hardware that they've either bought or have been given, is more than up to the task if they decide Iran poses a threat to their security. If they're not, perhaps they should reevaluate their invasion plans.
|
|