Oil Companies Defend Profits To Congress

[M14 Shooter]

You're taking the highest estimate of all recoverable and irrecoverable oil.

413 was the averagre

He estimated that the Bakken was capable of generating between 271 and 503 BBbls of oil with an average of 413 BBbls.

The lowest estimate is still a good amount of oil. A better estimate would be about 40+ years of reserves, if you take the high end of the conservative estimate. It's a good amount of time, but my kids and most likely me will still be alive when we run out of oil. What then?

Beats me. But it does remove our dependence on foreign oil for quite some time.

 

[Shogun]

The reason oil is high is not because of capitalism.




whatever you say, dingdong.


Anyone catch my Theory on how to break the chokehold of Petroleum with modified super golf carts for driving in speed zones less than 35?


I mean, who wouldn't sport their own electric Batmobile with all the internal bells and whistles? a KITT? Death Race 2000? If the capitalists are going to try like bitches when congress tries to alleviate the majority of us who feels the gas crunch then the only other option is to bottom out the value of oil products.

 

[Paulie]

The reason oil is high is not because of capitalism.




whatever you say, dingdong.


Anyone catch my Theory on how to break the chokehold of Petroleum with modified super golf carts for driving in speed zones less than 35?


I mean, who wouldn't sport their own electric Batmobile with all the internal bells and whistles? a KITT? Death Race 2000? If the capitalists are going to try like bitches when congress tries to alleviate the majority of us who feels the gas crunch then the only other option is to bottom out the value of oil products.

Well, it's not BECAUSE of capitalism. The "high price" happens to be a product of a capitalistic free market, mixed together well with a dose of detrimental monetary policy.

The price of oil is not going up, per se, the value of the dollar is going down. It now takes more Dollars to buy the oil, because the dollar is worth less. You'll notice that on a day when the dollar rises, oil, gold, and other commodities drop. It's because the market is seeing money move from commodities into cash.

The price of oil will be "lower" if we change our monetary policy and stop printing money to fund an empire that quite frankly, is on the brink.

Until people become aware of the situation in this regard, nothing will change. Prices of goods don't go "up". They adjust with inflation. You can still take the same amount of gold today and purchase the same amount of goods that you could with that gold 50 years ago. That's because the value of gold holds steady. It's "price" goes up as more dollars are necessary to own it, but it's still worth what it will always be worth. Everything you buy has the same price in dollars as people paid 50 years ago, the only difference is that when adjusted with inflation, it now takes more of those dollars to buy it.

That may seem like it doesn't make sense. But it does. If we were to yank 500 billion dollars out of the system, your dollar would be worth more, and therefore the prices you see on goods will drop. But they didn't really drop, they stayed the same. It just took less dollars to buy it. Those goods are still worth the same intrinsic value.

 

[Shogun]

I understand that... but, the dollar is not the only currency to see a price increase. Gas prices have increased in euro as well. As we all know, the value of the euro is not on the decline.

In my estimation there are two bottlenecks at play: one is opec and the other are petroleum companies perfectly willing to gouge the market while they can get away with it. Such is, and always will be, the product of greed which is the prime motivating factor in capitalism. Not that this is a free market, per say, when it comes to oil refining and auto manufacturing... two butt buddies enjoying this ride. Again, if the value of their products were bottomed out then they would have to actually compete rather than hide behind fake capitalist talking points that don't accurately convey the current situation. The question isn't weather or not Big Oil is jabbering excuses while their hands are in the cookiejar, we see them for what they are, the question becomes how much bullshit are we willing to endure until other viable options become worthwhile.

 

[Toro]

Once again.

The reason oil is high is not because of capitalism. It's because the libs refuse to allow us to access our own oil. It's because the libs refuse to allow us to build refineries. It's because the libs think it's a good idea to take food from our own mouths to put into our gas tanks INSTEAD of accessing what is readily available. You don't have to be a genius to understand this: capitalism leads to lower prices, not higher. But when you start messing with people's ability to access/develop their own land, when you tax exhorbitantly those who provide jobs and commodities, THEN you get an out-of-whack economy, and the little guy feels the crunch.

But you guys don't care about the little guys, or you'd realize it's a GOOD thing to harvest our own resources, and be self-sufficient.

This couldn't be more wrong. Its because of capitalism.

But that's fine. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. For many years, the return on capital for the energy companies was lower than the cost of capital. Capital left the industry and exploration was crimped. Now, the industry is earning more than its cost of capital.

And since prices are high, money is flowing into the industry again - not only into oil but into all sorts of alternative energy sources. That's ultimately good because higher prices create more incentives to develop new sources of energy.

Governments shouldn't try to regulate prices. It should allow the pricing system to work and allow capital to flow to the areas of highest return.

Tax breaks for exploration should be scrapped, however. They were instituted when oil was $20 a barrel and are no longer needed.

 

[AllieBaba]

If it was a situation where we absolutely needed to get the oil to survive, then I'd say go for it. But it's an issue where I think the loss far outweighs the benefits if it's only being done to ease our dependence. 5% for only 22 years isn't much of an ease.

Oddly enough though, the majority of the citizens, mostly native Alaskans, in the ANWR areas support the drilling. I've always thought that was strange. I'd expect them to be more preservationist about their natural habitat. Perhaps because they realize the economic benefits to them especially.

We do need it to survive. I think it's a pretty bad sign when we start using food to fuel our cars..when we have the resources to run our cars without depleting our grain stores.

But that shows you exactly where the emphasis is. People aren't important. Caribou are.

 

[Toro]

I saw that there are ~400B barrels of recoverable oil, untapped, under North Dakota.

http://www.nd.gov/ndic/ic-press/bakken-form-06.pdf

We import 14M BPD. At that rate, said deposit would last 78 years, and remove us from our dependence on foreign oil.

Let the Envirowhining begin....


Environmentalists are like watermellons.
Green on the outside, red in the middle.

Shale is decades away from any mass production.

 

[Toro]

The federal government makes more from a gallon of gas than the oil company.

In Europe, the government take from gasoline is 70%-80%.

 

[AllieBaba]

This couldn't be more wrong. Its because of capitalism.

But that's fine. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. For many years, the return on capital for the energy companies was lower than the cost of capital. Capital left the industry and exploration was crimped. Now, the industry is earning more than its cost of capital.

And since prices are high, money is flowing into the industry again - not only into oil but into all sorts of alternative energy sources. That's ultimately good because higher prices create more incentives to develop new sources of energy.

Governments shouldn't try to regulate prices. It should allow the pricing system to work and allow capital to flow to the areas of highest return.

Tax breaks for exploration should be scrapped, however. They were instituted when oil was $20 a barrel and are no longer needed.

An interesting justifcation, but wrong all the same.
You cut off a resource, even though it "forces" us to use other resources, and you're going to hurt the economy, somewhere. It never works out. And I'm telling you straight up, when people who are dependent upon excess grain stores to feed welfare recipients and starving people of other countries begin to use those stores for frivolous purposes, taking that food out of circulation and causing what's left to skyrocket, you're asking for a melt down.

It's pretty basic.

 

[Paulie]

We do need it to survive. I think it's a pretty bad sign when we start using food to fuel our cars..when we have the resources to run our cars without depleting our grain stores.

But that shows you exactly where the emphasis is. People aren't important. Caribou are.

Sooner or later, there has to be an alternative that takes over as the main source. Whether or not oil is finite isn't even an argument either, because no matter what, that idea is always going to be held over our heads.

I agree about not using our food stores. I've also seen you argue against hemp, which can provide numerous different resources.

Do you argue against solar, wind, and nuclear as well? I mean, what's going to replace oil when the reserves are used up, and the rest of the world has been invaded and annihilated from wars over energy and food?

No one's making a real effort in this country. It's all talk, no action. Until the companies that have the biggest strangehold over our energy policy agree to loosen the reigns and allow REAL pursual of alternate energy, we're at the mercy of ultimate doom. I'd completely be for drilling in other areas, if it were going to be a way to keep us independent of foreign oil while we perfect and finalize new methods of creating energy.

 

[Shogun]

We do need it to survive. I think it's a pretty bad sign when we start using food to fuel our cars..when we have the resources to run our cars without depleting our grain stores.

But that shows you exactly where the emphasis is. People aren't important. Caribou are.

INFINITE resources, baba? Or just enough to get us to the tribulation?

Yes, people ARE important.. but less important is their bloated consumerism (suvs) and refusal to introduce new technology to the masses (American car companies). Should your great, great, great grandchildren go without because YOU want to open anwr up for the sake of your SUV?

 

[AllieBaba]

You can blab about the SUVS when they're able to actually prove oil is a limited resource.

No proof that it is. Won't keep the libs from starving us to prevent us from accessing it though. I don't see the problem with using it up before we starting chewing our own limbs off.

 

[Paulie]

and refusal to introduce new technology to the masses (American car companies).

This is my beef as well. I don't see anyone making a real attempt to attract people TO the alternate sources. The auto industry certainly isn't making an effort. Hybrid cars are so ugly that most people would rather NOT buy them. Now, does that make it RIGHT that they don't buy them because of that? No, of course not. But the auto industry already KNOWS that.

If we're going to be conditioned to accept alternate energy, the market is going to have to be willing to cater to our desires. Right now, no one is desiring what Shogun likes to call "super charged golf carts". And he's right about that.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's one thing to "introduce" new technology. It's another to force it upon the masses.

Meanwhile, the "masses" get to pay $3.50/gallon for stove oil, which means $350/month for those homes which heat with oil. We don't all have our heat included in the rent. Those who heat with wood also are looking at skyrocketing prices, because the gas it takes to get up to the woods to bring in firewood has made the price per cord double.

Add that to expensive flour, eggs, chicken, beef, and milk.

But hey, anyone who wants to "force" new technology on the people, at the expense of the people, isn't going to listen to reason.

 

[Shogun]

This is my beef as well. I don't see anyone making a real attempt to attract people TO the alternate sources. The auto industry certainly isn't making an effort. Hybrid cars are so ugly that most people would rather NOT buy them. Now, does that make it RIGHT that they don't buy them because of that? No, of course not. But the auto industry already KNOWS that.

If we're going to be conditioned to accept alternate energy, the market is going to have to be willing to cater to our desires. Right now, no one is desiring what Shogun likes to call "super charged golf carts". And he's right about that.

Indeed.. I'm trying to think of solutions that don't cause the government to act like an enforcer. If local governments would pass codes that allowed non-petroleum vehicles, which I would argue can be decked out in all the bells and whistles for the interior, to drive on speed limited streets we'd see an actual drop in the price of gas rather than asphyxiate on the greed of a single market. Hell, even 10% of a market buying these kinds of vehicles would send a message that just isn't being heard in this current "free market". I really don't have a single iota of pity for bastard Enron types who know that they will get theirs while the rest of us are thrown to the wolves of capitalism. American Auto Industry claiming that SUVs are what people want? sure, if you don't make the slightest attempt at offering something else.


I wish I were privileged like that.. You'd see Missouri become an American beacon.

 

[Paulie]

@ baba

Who's saying FORCE? Introduce is good enough. But introduce and ENTICE, don't just make a feable attempt at pretending to care about alternate energy by introducing the crappiest product you can, while you sit back and watch the consumers say "nah".

All those commodities you mentioned are up because the dollar is down. Oil is up because the dollar is down. When you're the world's reserve currency, you're at the mercy of the world market.

 

[BrianH]

Indeed.. I'm trying to think of solutions that don't cause the government to act like an enforcer. If local governments would pass codes that allowed non-petroleum vehicles, which I would argue can be decked out in all the bells and whistles for the interior, to drive on speed limited streets we'd see an actual drop in the price of gas rather than asphyxiate on the greed of a single market. Hell, even 10% of a market buying these kinds of vehicles would send a message that just isn't being heard in this current "free market". I really don't have a single iota of pity for bastard Enron types who know that they will get theirs while the rest of us are thrown to the wolves of capitalism. American Auto Industry claiming that SUVs are what people want? sure, if you don't make the slightest attempt at offering something else.


I wish I were privileged like that.. You'd see Missouri become an American beacon.

If they would just hurry up and put teleportation devices on the market, we'd be better off. "Snotty, beam me to work!" (Snotty reference to Space Balls)

 

[AllieBaba]

You're forcing it when you refuse to allow the people to access the resources they have.

 

[Shogun]

It's one thing to "introduce" new technology. It's another to force it upon the masses.

Meanwhile, the "masses" get to pay $3.50/gallon for stove oil, which means $350/month for those homes which heat with oil. We don't all have our heat included in the rent. Those who heat with wood also are looking at skyrocketing prices, because the gas it takes to get up to the woods to bring in firewood has made the price per cord double.

Add that to expensive flour, eggs, chicken, beef, and milk.

But hey, anyone who wants to "force" new technology on the people, at the expense of the people, isn't going to listen to reason.

WHO forces anything? Would an option of non-petroleum cars really be FORCING new tech onto the fat pigs in the FORD ceo circle? Conicco-Phillips?

NOtice that my idea hinges on letting tye masses decide what they want to drive. Right now, you simply don't have a choice beyond driving a gas-powered vehicle or being told too ******* bad.

 

[Shogun]

You're forcing it when you refuse to allow the people to access the resources they have.

oh bullshit. You can cry about ******* ANWR for another 50 ******* years, baba. Recources that YOU have? praytell,. when did you sign a deed to our NATIONAL RESOURCES? You don't HAVE Anwr. Your republican buddies crying for the last 20 years don't have a claim to the land OR it's development. ANWR is not the cause of our current clusterfuck at the pump and It sure as hell would NOT be a long term solution.