You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why drill in Alaska?
- Thread starter cybtropic
- Start date
Quote from Brandonf:
Who are you to say what is a "fair" price?
Well, we know how much it costs to drill right? and we know how much oil companies use to sell oil for right? There you go, that is your fair price.
You're jumping to conclusions I think as most here are. I am not saying U.S. should determine world oil prices. That can stay the same as it is now. But the oil the U.S. drills would just be converted to gasoline etc, and never put on the world market. That is all.
you guys act like the oil is there waiting for us to be pulled from the ground. far from the case...no one actually knows what type of reserves are there or how much, its only speculation. at the same time it would take years for us to create infrastructure to actually get supplies up there and have the ability to pump oil out of the ground. by the time we actually experience increased supply, more likely than not alternative energies will have taken a large portion of energy supply in our nation. ten years down the road when we will actually start to see the increased supply in our gas prices, it mostly likely will only by 15-20 cents a gallon and that is with the expectation that our refiners will actually be able to handle the increased supply. so maybe we should rethinking destroying the only part of our planet that hasnt be destroyed by the greedy hands of man.
Quote from burritobob:
you guys act like the oil is there waiting for us to be pulled from the ground. far from the case...no one actually knows what type of reserves are there or how much, its only speculation. at the same time it would take years for us to create infrastructure to actually get supplies up there and have the ability to pump oil out of the ground. by the time we actually experience increased supply, more likely than not alternative energies will have taken a large portion of energy supply in our nation. ten years down the road when we will actually start to see the increased supply in our gas prices, it mostly likely will only by 15-20 cents a gallon and that is with the expectation that our refiners will actually be able to handle the increased supply. so maybe we should rethinking destroying the only part of our planet that hasnt be destroyed by the greedy hands of man.
WEll, this was my initial point, why drill in alaska, when
#1: oil companies will take that oil and sell it for $137 instead of $138 on the world maket.
#2. you would be destroying national wildlife
#3. benefit you would get would be couple cents a gallon, maybe
Would there actually be any benefit to actual AMERICANS by drilling in Alaska?
Yes it will be $4/gallon - because the refineries are private companies and gas is a global commodity and is priced as such.Quote from cybtropic:
Every heard of refining oil to gasoline? Then when you drive to fill up, it won't be $4/gallon. I know that is not what you want though.
This would be a bad idea, I know, because no one would be making tons of money.
Did you think that they were going to sell it at below market prices just because they got the oil cheap?
If so - great I will buy all the cheap US gasoline I can and then turn around and sell it on the world market for an easy profit.
Short of govt price-fixing what are you proposing doesn't make sense.
Apparently you don't know the definition of subsidizing - it does not include a requirement to raise taxes.Quote from cybtropic:
No, U.S. would NOT be subsidizing anything since you (and everyone else) would NOT be paying more taxes for this.
Getting a grant from the us govt to do anything is a windfall and it is frequently not properly allocated at market prices.
It is frequently allocated by bribes or campaign payments.
---
1. Why does networks get to make billions of our airwaves? Should'nt they at least give up some political campaign time.
We could then allocate the airtime to candidates as we remove the rights of corporations and foreign governments to "lobby"
2. Why should the mining company with the best lobbying get to take minerals out of federal lands.
Lets auction off the rights and keep a royalty. We could use that royalty to invest in alternative fuels and conservation efforts.
If you believe in the market than you have to be disgusted with the way gov't resourses are allocated. They should not be given away based on bribes and connections.
Oil companies have to share revenues with other countries - and private land owners - why should anyone get it free from our gov'ts land. I am not advocating socialism - I am advocating an intelligent way to allow the market to allocate resources.
It is frequently allocated by bribes or campaign payments.
---
1. Why does networks get to make billions of our airwaves? Should'nt they at least give up some political campaign time.
We could then allocate the airtime to candidates as we remove the rights of corporations and foreign governments to "lobby"
2. Why should the mining company with the best lobbying get to take minerals out of federal lands.
Lets auction off the rights and keep a royalty. We could use that royalty to invest in alternative fuels and conservation efforts.
If you believe in the market than you have to be disgusted with the way gov't resourses are allocated. They should not be given away based on bribes and connections.
Oil companies have to share revenues with other countries - and private land owners - why should anyone get it free from our gov'ts land. I am not advocating socialism - I am advocating an intelligent way to allow the market to allocate resources.