Drilling (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DomYngBlk -> Drilling (10/18/2012 7:15:36 AM)

I don't even know if the facts he was spouting was correct or not. But I will stipulate for discussing purposes they are. The typical Republican mantra is that Gov't should not be involved in business. However, Gov. Romney and all other Republican commentators seem to want Gov't somehow involved in helping them drill for more oil. Why? If the original premise that Gov't should stay out of business is true then shouldn't be also true that the Oil Business should develop their own resources and not look for Gov't handouts of land that are owned by all the people to increase their profits?

It is strange dichotomy to hear on one hand that investing in Sylondra(sp?) is bad but that giving resources that are owned by all the people of the US to Oil Companies is ok........Why shouldn't the people then consider Oil Companies to be the ultimate Welfare Queens?



mnottertail -> RE: Drilling (10/18/2012 7:18:26 AM)

a third or is it two thirds of leased land lay idle.   The Obama administration has authorized more drilling than Ws administration.

I dont stipulate that shit.   I dont buy the assumptions, so I dont buy the deal.




DomYngBlk -> RE: Drilling (10/18/2012 7:20:34 AM)

Yeah yeah, but even if .....why should it be offered to them. Each American gets miniscule benefit while Oil Companies get huge rewards.



mnottertail -> RE: Drilling (10/18/2012 7:24:16 AM)

OH, my cavil was with the first statements, since they are not true, and shouldn't be stipulated. I agree with the balance of your sentiments.



cloudboy -> RE: Drilling (10/18/2012 9:40:27 AM)


Good point. I could not agree more. I think most Americans would bend the rules for lower gas prices. It relfects their myopia.



DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Drilling (10/18/2012 9:49:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

Yeah yeah, but even if .....why should it be offered to them. Each American gets miniscule benefit while Oil Companies get huge rewards.

Well there you go, Dom. It's all about corporate profits, which is why the Radicals are forever howling about more defense spending. Add to that, I suspect they are motivated by the obsession to undo everything tainted by Teh Kenyan, including his minimal effort to shift us over to sustainable energy.

Don't look for logic or common sense in interpreting Radical policy - look for the best possible combination of greed and scorched earth absolutism.
[sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]



LookieNoNookie -> RE: Drilling (10/18/2012 5:50:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

I don't even know if the facts he was spouting was correct or not. But I will stipulate for discussing purposes they are. The typical Republican mantra is that Gov't should not be involved in business. However, Gov. Romney and all other Republican commentators seem to want Gov't somehow involved in helping them drill for more oil. Why? If the original premise that Gov't should stay out of business is true then shouldn't be also true that the Oil Business should develop their own resources and not look for Gov't handouts of land that are owned by all the people to increase their profits?

It is strange dichotomy to hear on one hand that investing in Sylondra(sp?) is bad but that giving resources that are owned by all the people of the US to Oil Companies is ok........Why shouldn't the people then consider Oil Companies to be the ultimate Welfare Queens?


Actually, what Romney has said over and over is...."let's let them drill....let's produce our own energy...let's be energy sufficient".

He never said "let's pay for it with govt. stipends" he said "let's go get it".

The market will.

I concur.



LookieNoNookie -> RE: Drilling (10/18/2012 5:52:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

a third or is it two thirds of leased land lay idle.   The Obama administration has authorized more drilling than Ws administration.

I dont stipulate that shit.   I dont buy the assumptions, so I dont buy the deal.




That's a fact....under Obama's reign there has been more exploration than under any other administration than any other in our known history.

And we still import the bulk of our energy.

Let's go get some more.



vincentML -> RE: Drilling (10/19/2012 6:01:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

a third or is it two thirds of leased land lay idle.   The Obama administration has authorized more drilling than Ws administration.

I dont stipulate that shit.   I dont buy the assumptions, so I dont buy the deal.




That's a fact....under Obama's reign there has been more exploration than under any other administration than any other in our known history.

And we still import the bulk of our energy.

Let's go get some more.

Agree!!! Which oil producing nation haven't we invaded lately? Iran? That would be a possibility. Venezuela would be easier I think.

quote:

giving resources that are owned by all the people of the US

Whoa, YDB, that sounds awfully close to a socialist comment. Yanno that's not allowed in the Ayn Rand New World Order [8|]



DarkSteven -> RE: Drilling (10/19/2012 6:35:25 AM)

A major chunk of the oil is drilled from lands that are federally owned. So the Feds must lease the rights to drill.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Drilling (10/19/2012 6:38:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
a third or is it two thirds of leased land lay idle.   The Obama administration has authorized more drilling than Ws administration.
I dont stipulate that shit.   I dont buy the assumptions, so I dont buy the deal.

That's a fact....under Obama's reign there has been more exploration than under any other administration than any other in our known history.
And we still import the bulk of our energy.
Let's go get some more.

Agree!!! Which oil producing nation haven't we invaded lately? Iran? That would be a possibility. Venezuela would be easier I think.


Why go that far? Canada is pretty close. Rumor is that they have slant-wells that extend under Lake Erie for the massive nat. gas reserves there, too. Would be a huge economic boon, as far as energy goes. Then again, Romney makes sure he states, "North American" Energy independent, or something like that. He corrected himself in the second debate once when he left out the "North American" part.

Aren't we already getting the bulk of our imported oil from Canada? This info is a bit dated (10-1/2 months old), but it's pretty clear that we aren't all that far off from being oil independent from outside the continent, our largest supplier being Canada and Mexico isn't too far off from being 2nd.

quote:

quote:

giving resources that are owned by all the people of the US

Whoa, YDB, that sounds awfully close to a socialist comment. Yanno that's not allowed in the Ayn Rand New World Order [8|]


Leases are paid for through royalties on the value of the oil/gas developed.
    quote:

    Yes. In order to obtain federal leases, companies agree to pay a royalty to the government based on the value of the oil and gas produced. For onshore leases, the Minerals Land Leasing Act prescribes that a royalty share of one-eighth of the value of production be paid to the government. For offshore leases, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act sets forth a royalty rate of not less than one-eighth the value of production. The offshore rate for leasing beginning in 2008 is set at 18.75%.


So, for every 100 barrels of $100/barrel oil from on-shore public lands, the MMS would either get their payment of $12.5/barrel ($1,250 of every $10,000 developed), or 12.5 barrels. As noted above, off-shore development royalty is an increase of 1/16th over the on-shore royalty. So, the US Government is getting at least 12.5% of the developed value from the production on public lands. Considering the amount of risk and work put into the venture by the general public, it would seem the average Citizen is getting one helluva return.



subspaceseven -> RE: Drilling (10/19/2012 8:10:46 AM)

But the oil companies are sitting on over 7000 approved permits, the only ones stopping them from drilling is themselves, hence less oil more profits



DomYngBlk -> RE: Drilling (10/19/2012 8:13:20 AM)

Sorry we are getting fucked in that deal. We should get the royalty plus a 50/50 split on margins on that barrel of oil. Sitting on that Oil is only going to make it worth more in the future. If we allow drilling now we are allowing the wealth of these United States to drop by "x" amount. It is no different than any other raw material that is on Federal Lands. We've given the wealth of the nation away to Corporations for long enough. If they want it bad enough they will pay. If not, we can sit on it and wait and the value goes up. If Romney was such a good fucking business man it would be slapping in him in the face. .....But actually the reverse is true.



DomYngBlk -> RE: Drilling (10/19/2012 8:14:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subspaceseven

But the oil companies are sitting on over 7000 approved permits, the only ones stopping them from drilling is themselves, hence less oil more profits


And the oil companies are doing exactly what I am advocating. They aren't drilling cause they know the value is going to go up not down.......They ain't stupid.

All current approvals should be revoked and renegotiated.



vincentML -> RE: Drilling (10/19/2012 8:16:20 AM)

quote:

Why go that far? Canada is pretty close. Rumor is that they have slant-wells that extend under Lake Erie for the massive nat. gas reserves there, too. Would be a huge economic boon, as far as energy goes. Then again, Romney makes sure he states, "North American" Energy independent, or something like that. He corrected himself in the second debate once when he left out the "North American" part.

I thought of Canada for a fleeting instant but they are mostly white folk and we seldom attack white folk. Then there is Mexico, as you mentioned. We haven't invaded them in more than 100 years so yeh they're due. Problem is nobody knows the name of their Presidente. However, just everybody thinks Hugo is a piece of shit so maybe we can invent WMDs for Venezuela.

quote:

So, the US Government is getting at least 12.5% of the developed value from the production on public lands. Considering the amount of risk and work put into the venture by the general public, it would seem the average Citizen is getting one helluva return.

Well, I'm still waiting for my royalty check. Did you get yours? And I wonder if that 12.5% return covers restoring the fucked up environment, or does the driller bear that responsibility?

A segue . . . guy down the street had a business selling Chevron gas with a convenience store and a Subway shop included. Wasn't making any money on the gas as a franchisee b/c Chevron undersold him with their own nearby retail gas pumps. One day the guy took a gas delivery from Chevron. The truck driver stuck the hose into a receptical and went off to the bathroom. Had to take a poo. thousands of gallons of gasolene seeped into the water table. Chevron declined responsibility b/c Florida has a clean up fund. The gas station guy was on the hook for a ten year wait. Nobody would buy his business until JP Morgan Chase knocked it down to put up a bank. The land is still polluted and the business guy had to sink a dozen wells to keep tabs on the pollution. Clean-up can be a bitch. Chevron didn't owe a dime tho. Yup, those oil companies got it rough.[8|]



DomYngBlk -> RE: Drilling (10/19/2012 8:21:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

I don't even know if the facts he was spouting was correct or not. But I will stipulate for discussing purposes they are. The typical Republican mantra is that Gov't should not be involved in business. However, Gov. Romney and all other Republican commentators seem to want Gov't somehow involved in helping them drill for more oil. Why? If the original premise that Gov't should stay out of business is true then shouldn't be also true that the Oil Business should develop their own resources and not look for Gov't handouts of land that are owned by all the people to increase their profits?

It is strange dichotomy to hear on one hand that investing in Sylondra(sp?) is bad but that giving resources that are owned by all the people of the US to Oil Companies is ok........Why shouldn't the people then consider Oil Companies to be the ultimate Welfare Queens?


Actually, what Romney has said over and over is...."let's let them drill....let's produce our own energy...let's be energy sufficient".

He never said "let's pay for it with govt. stipends" he said "let's go get it".

The market will.

I concur.


I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying we were paying for it. What we are doing is taking the treasure that we own as a country and giving it away for nickels. Its just not oil I am talking about either. Kasich in Ohio is wanting to give the rights to drill on state parks for natural gas away as if they aren't worth something. Another alledged "businessman" politician. Save us from those.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Drilling (10/19/2012 2:26:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

So, the US Government is getting at least 12.5% of the developed value from the production on public lands. Considering the amount of risk and work put into the venture by the general public, it would seem the average Citizen is getting one helluva return.

Well, I'm still waiting for my royalty check. Did you get yours? And I wonder if that 12.5% return covers restoring the fucked up environment, or does the driller bear that responsibility?


I doubt the drillers have anything to do with cleanup. I mean, BP didn't have to pay anything, right?

And, the US Government gets the money, not you or I. That's the way it's done. At least we didn't have to borrow quite as much these last 11 years.

quote:

A segue . . . guy down the street had a business selling Chevron gas with a convenience store and a Subway shop included. Wasn't making any money on the gas as a franchisee b/c Chevron undersold him with their own nearby retail gas pumps. One day the guy took a gas delivery from Chevron. The truck driver stuck the hose into a receptical and went off to the bathroom. Had to take a poo. thousands of gallons of gasolene seeped into the water table. Chevron declined responsibility b/c Florida has a clean up fund. The gas station guy was on the hook for a ten year wait. Nobody would buy his business until JP Morgan Chase knocked it down to put up a bank. The land is still polluted and the business guy had to sink a dozen wells to keep tabs on the pollution. Clean-up can be a bitch. Chevron didn't owe a dime tho. Yup, those oil companies got it rough.[8|]


You segued to something that isn't the same. But, where does that cleanup fund come from? Who is dumping cash into it? I'd be surprised if the Oil Companies weren't paying some sort of "premium" for that. But, it's yet another case of unintended consequences from government intrusion.



LookieNoNookie -> RE: Drilling (10/19/2012 3:38:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

I don't even know if the facts he was spouting was correct or not. But I will stipulate for discussing purposes they are. The typical Republican mantra is that Gov't should not be involved in business. However, Gov. Romney and all other Republican commentators seem to want Gov't somehow involved in helping them drill for more oil. Why? If the original premise that Gov't should stay out of business is true then shouldn't be also true that the Oil Business should develop their own resources and not look for Gov't handouts of land that are owned by all the people to increase their profits?

It is strange dichotomy to hear on one hand that investing in Sylondra(sp?) is bad but that giving resources that are owned by all the people of the US to Oil Companies is ok........Why shouldn't the people then consider Oil Companies to be the ultimate Welfare Queens?


An interesting conundrum but, one that requires actual knowledge about facts.

1) The govt. doesn't drill.

2) The govt. doesn't pay companies to drill.

3) The govt. leases land to oil companies so that oil companies can drill on said land, and it's for a "duration". Once that "duration" ceases, a new lease is then required by the oil companies, from the U.S. Govt. to allow them to continue pumping oil from said lease (and dispersing revenues to the U.S. govt. based on current market conditions).

4) When they (private companies) drill, the govt. gets a piece of the action, via the lease.

5) If there is no oil produced, the govt. still gets revenue from the lease, but no revenue from produced oil as a tariff.



LookieNoNookie -> RE: Drilling (10/19/2012 3:47:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

a third or is it two thirds of leased land lay idle.   The Obama administration has authorized more drilling than Ws administration.

I dont stipulate that shit.   I dont buy the assumptions, so I dont buy the deal.




That's a fact....under Obama's reign there has been more exploration than under any other administration than any other in our known history.

And we still import the bulk of our energy.

Let's go get some more.

Agree!!! Which oil producing nation haven't we invaded lately? Iran? That would be a possibility. Venezuela would be easier I think.

quote:

giving resources that are owned by all the people of the US

Whoa, YDB, that sounds awfully close to a socialist comment. Yanno that's not allowed in the Ayn Rand New World Order [8|]


Why would we need to invade anyone (that's what this whole gawdamn thing is about....we don't NEED to invade ANYONE)?

We have a few hundred years of energy here....now.

We just need to go get it.

HERE!!!!!!

If we spent 1/5th of what we now spend protecting all these fucks that hate us and spent it here....finding our own oil, fixing our cars so they got better mileage (that's one area I have an issue with Romney on) and started insulating homes, a million things that I could spend weeks espousing....we would be shipping oil elsewhere.



kdsub -> RE: Drilling (10/19/2012 3:58:14 PM)

I don't know about you but the politics of both parties have never made a lot of sense to me. We need a new party who's platform specifies those who are members will not accept money from lobbyists of any kind.

Only way we will get a true government for the people in my opinion.

Butch



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.711914E-02