09/03/2010 06:06:03 PM EST

us and natural ressources

posted by aristo

one thing i dont understand about the us maybe you all can enlighten me

you have oil and gas reserves yet you give it away to companies like bp and whine about beeing dependent on forign oil,why dont you take a more sane aproach like norway and take the oil,gas etc yourself and use the profits for the us people to pay for shit like health care etc ?

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
< What will they say?? | Fantasy Football League >
 Display:
us and natural ressources | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 hidden)
Why don't we take a more sane approach? (none / 0)
Privatization (ie, giving away) our natural resources is the American Way. Taking those profits from the hard-working oil and gas industry who pump our resources out of the ground everyday? That would clearly be Communism. In fact, we have a tax system set up whereby the most profitable businesses in the world that steal our natural resources get money from the government instead of paying taxes to the government.

And using the money we take from them for health care or a safety net to bolster the middle class? Why, that would be Communism!

Why don't we take a more sane approach? Because we are not sane.

by Capitalocracy on 09/03/2010 08:15:18 PM EST

You got it wrong (none / 0)

 

Taking those profits from the hard-working oil and gas industry who pump our resources out of the ground everyday? That would clearly be Communism.

 

Taking the profits would threaten marriage and  gun ownership silly.

by MRFred on 09/03/2010 10:02:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It clearly demonstrates (none / 0)
how much of a corporatocracy we are and how little democracy.

We should STFU and be satisfied with the few crumbs our masters, the corporations, let drop from their tables.

by salassian on 09/03/2010 10:27:05 PM EST

For clarity, I should add... (none / 0)
***SNARK//***

by salassian on 09/03/2010 10:39:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
State comanies are not trustworthy either (none / 0)

As Mexican i know.

1. We pay like 3.2 dollars per gallon of gasoline.

I read a while ago an interesting story. A young guy went to one of the top clubs in Miami in a Ferrari, and some1 asked who was he, someone respended he was the son of the owner of Pemex (the oil state company). But it was weird since Pemex has no owner, turns ot he was the son of the Pemex union leader.

 Anyway, i think the best way is to have state companies with uncorroptible supervision. Maybe take them out and beat the with a stick a couple of times.. they will do.

by Vittorio2 on 09/03/2010 11:09:57 PM EST

healthcare? (none / 0)
...but you have single payer healthcare...

$3.20 is still cheap compaired to europe.  That said, I would start with Geithner if Obama ever decides to pick up that stick.

by sisco66 on 09/04/2010 09:45:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Resources? (none / 0)
US oil reserves and production are now tiny relative to consumption, because the reserves were wasted. (Middle East wars now, remember?) In due course the remaining reserves will likely be nationalized, but that will be a whole different world.

Gas is more complicated.

Mexico's oil reserves are rapidly depleting. Since Mexico is (currently) the third biggest source of US oil imports, but will likely have to stop exporting within a few years, that has obvious implications.

But hey, there's gas in the pumps today, at affordable prices (if you have a job), so there can't be a real problem. Right?

by Landbeyond on 09/05/2010 04:08:31 AM EST

History and Property Rights (none / 0)

The first oil well in the world was drilled in PA in 1859, so a lot of laws about mineral rights in the US date back to that time period or even earlier.  While it varies by state, for the most part you own whatever is on or under your land, be that timber, gold, copper, oil, gas, etc.  Basically the owners of the land can do with the resources as the please and they pay taxes the same as any other business.

Now these days quite a bit of oil and gas is on public land like offshore leases or BLM land.  In this case the public does actually own the resources and companies bid to lease various blocks of land and then have to pay a royalty of a certain amount.  In general though the system is designed to maximize the production rate of these resources which while it may have made sense in the 1800's and early 1900's when production was very low, the resource base was "huge", and the benefits of using the energy was so great (read industrial revolution).  Of course things have changed just a bit in the past century and a half....  

by alphasigmookie on 09/06/2010 10:27:19 PM EST

Where does it go? (none / 0)
Do you happen to know what happens to the bulk of the actual oil and gas (rather than the financial proceeds) extracted from public land? Logic would suggest it gets refined and used within the US. It's my understanding that the US exports a fairly small amount of oil, but I don't know its origin.

Also, do you know whether the lease/royalty system is fixed in law, or could the government, at least in principle, retain (or regain) possession of the oil and gas under public land and pay companies to extract it?

by Landbeyond on 09/07/2010 12:52:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Depends (none / 0)

For the most part oil and gas pretty much go to the nearest refinery of processing facility and is then piped around the country wherever it is needed.  The basic idea is to minimize the transportation costs.  For the most part all oil and gas produced in the US is used here, although there are some export flows, mainly of processed fuels (gasoline or diesel) since we generally have larger refining capacity than we need and there are certain locations say in Canada or Mexico that may be closer to a US refinery than a Mexican or Canadian refinery so we "export" to them, but on net we import more from both countries. 

As for royalties and taxes, those things can and are changed like any other law.  I also know many states charge "severance taxes" on natural resources extracted within their state, even if it's on private land. 

by alphasigmookie on 09/07/2010 02:08:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That all makes sense (none / 0)
Thanks a lot.

So when Cenk says, "It's not our oil!" he's technically correct, but it's not as though the country has no further benefit once the lease has been signed.

by Landbeyond on 09/07/2010 05:32:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Where does it go? (none / 0)
Do you happen to know what happens to the bulk of the actual oil and gas (rather than the financial proceeds) extracted from public land? Logic would suggest it gets refined and used within the US. It's my understanding that the US exports a fairly small amount of oil, but I don't know its origin.

Also, do you know whether the lease/royalty system is fixed in law, or could the government, at least in principle, retain (or regain) possession of the oil and gas under public land and pay companies to extract it?

by Landbeyond on 09/07/2010 12:55:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oops (none / 0)
Sorry about the double posting - pc glitch.

by Landbeyond on 09/07/2010 01:03:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
us and natural ressources | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: