What Industries Should the US Nationalize?

[Patroklos]

I could care less if we drill in ANWR. Because it's not going to affect the price at the pump. The oil companies are not drilling on the territory already open to them, so why should we be rusing into giving them more territory?

Again, the oil CEOs . .. .. .. .. . slapped Congress democrats over this. The point is not to drill everywhere and anywhere, but where it makes economic sense. Right now it doens't make economic sense to squeeze minimal oil out of currently leased lands when it is easy pickings in ANWAR and the shelf. That may change if prices go up drastically, but if they go up so high to make some places profitable oil will be the least of our worries.

This is really kindergarten stuff people.

 

[Cutlass]

The kindergarten part is that the oil companies haven't bothered to drill in the US because it costs them less to import. Giving them more area to drill on does not change the fact that the Mid East is the worlds low cost producer.

 

[Theige]

The kindergarten part is that the oil companies haven't bothered to drill in the US because it costs them less to import. Giving them more area to drill on does not change the fact that the Mid East is the worlds low cost producer.

You sure about that?

Then why does anyone care about drilling in ANWR and parts of the shelf?

 

[History_Buff]

Right now it doens't make economic sense to squeeze minimal oil out of currently leased lands when it is easy pickings in ANWAR and the shelf.

Before I start, let me point out that I'm not in any position to evaluate whether drilling the existing leases is actually viable or not, and I haven't the slightest idea as to what the numbers actually are. But:

Cut that bolded part out, and look at the sentence again. Whether or not to undertake a project is not, I repeat, not, based on whether there are better alternatives. Each project must be evaluated independantly before you can compare the rate of return and choose the better investment.

That's university level project economics. Them refusing to drill the lands they already hold leases for in hopes that the shelf and ANWR will become available is gaming the market in hopes of strong-arming the government. And personally, if I was the regulator here, there's no way I'd open up new drilling areas without the oil companies relinquishing the leases they hold now. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too as they say.

 

[Cutlass]

You sure about that?

Then why does anyone care about drilling in ANWR and parts of the shelf?

Because they want the rights. And because it's a distraction. The major oil companies have not attempted to increase the supply of oil in 20+ years. ANWR might have a lot of oil, but that is unproven. And it is not going to be cheap to get, because Arctic drilling is expensive and a new pipeline (2 ) have to be built. But by focusing on ANWR all the time they can shift and control the terms of the debate.

 

[Patroklos]

The kindergarten part is that the oil companies haven't bothered to drill in the US because it costs them less to import. Giving them more area to drill on does not change the fact that the Mid East is the worlds low cost producer.

Ummm...eactlly? So, you want them to drill on leased land for loss instead of buying from or drilling themselves in foriegn sources and think that is a good thing for prices? Really?

Them refusing to drill the lands they already hold leases for in hopes that the shelf and ANWR will become available is gaming the market in hopes of strong-arming the government.

Thats not what they are doing. Oil companies have no speacial dislike for carabou that makes them seek out ANWAR oil for shits and giggles. If someplace is profitable to exploit they do, if not they don't. ANWAR would be profitable, so they want to drill there, some places they have leases on aren't so they don't. Just because ANWAR is off limits doesn't automatically make other places profitable.

And personally, if I was the regulator here, there's no way I'd open up new drilling areas without the oil companies relinquishing the leases they hold now. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too as they say.

Its a good thing you don't have a say, because you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Because they want the rights. And because it's a distraction. The major oil companies have not attempted to increase the supply of oil in 20+ years.

Please take your tinfoil hat off. If supply hadn't increased in 20 years then gasoline would cost 100x what it does now. Let go of the childish conspiracy theories.

ANWR might have a lot of oil, but that is unproven.

ANWAR and areas of the shelf are proven.

And it is not going to be cheap to get,

Whether it is cheap or not is not the point, whether it is profitable is all that matters. To both them AND you. ANWAR and the shelf are known to be profitable, currently leased land is known to not be AT CURRENT PRICES.

But by focusing on ANWR all the time they can shift and control the terms of the debate.

"They" eh? Only one group is using shaddy logic and round about reasoning to mask and agenda, and it is people like yourself.

 

[Cutlass]

"They" eh? Only one group is using shaddy logic and round about reasoning to mask and agenda, and it is people like yourself.

So why did you make this statement knowing full well it is an entirely fictitious statement?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I personally am opposed to drilling anywhere. If all businesses were nationalized (I'm waving the red flag here ) , then we could accomplish Al Gore's carbon-neutrality-by-2018 goal.

 

[Patroklos]

Until you can make a reasoned arguement based on actual economics and buisness practices, you fail. Right now you are saying oil companies are acting contrary to their interests becaus they are TEH EVAL!!! "They," seriously? Really?

I personally am opposed to drilling anywhere. If all businesses were nationalized (I'm waving the red flag here ) , then we could accomplish Al Gore's carbon-neutrality-by-2018 goal.

I can't wait to move into my cinder block housing block with its never ending supply of ramen noodles but nothing else. How many hundred of us will have to share the open pit outhouse? Well, at least we are carbon nuetral, right?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

No, I mean if we switch to wind, solar, hydrogen cars, for all our energy and then, say, buy Brazil or something an replant the rainforest, or at least sponser enough carbon-intaking projects overseas (rainforest planting, etc.) , and yes make a few sacrifices, we an be carbon neutral.

But we can still have indoor plumbing, largish homes (no mansions), etc.

 

[Patroklos]

That is not what nationalization of buisness means. What do you intend to do with the millions of people living where the rainforests used to be?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

It is mostly cattle ranchers. BTW, I just wouldn't touch Manaus.

I know what nationalization of business. It means the gov. controls the business' operations rather than CEOs. Thus, the gov. can make environmental standards and hear no opposition from greedy CEOs and their servants in DC.

 

[Patroklos]

I know what nationalization of business. It means the gov. controls the business' operations rather than CEOs. Thus, the gov. can make environmental standards and hear no opposition from greedy CEOs and their servants in DC.

No, it means the government OWNS the business, not runs it. And it means it does so regardless of market pressures of economic sense and instead substitutes ideological doctrine, and in most cases results in catasrophic inefficiency and if wide spread enough a collapse in the standard of living. Yay!

Case in point, History Buff wants companies to drill in areas where it is not profitable in order to increase supply, even though doing so will increase prices instead of moderate them. Why would he do such a thing when it makes no sense economically? Because he cares about sticking it to the evil "theys" of the world, not providing energy at stable prices for the consumer.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

But large corporations only care about profits, profits, profits. The (democratic) government cares about people. It isn't made up of people like Stalin. People can vote these people out of office. Also, our government knows how the economy works!

 

[Princeps]

No, it means the government OWNS the business, not runs it. And it means it does so regardless of market pressures of economic sense and instead substitutes ideological doctrine, and in most cases results in catasrophic inefficiency and if wide spread enough a collapse in the standard of living. Yay!

No. Many sectors of the economy have been nationalized, in many countries, with positive results. Many of these pro-statist arguements do not ignore elementary economics. Private corporations are not the only forms of institutions that are effective in resource extraction -- a point proven by the presence of a number of public companies (from various countries) in oil and other resource sectors. Private companies have to make a profit and their incentives can be distorted to cause overall public harm.

 

[Patroklos]

But large corporations only care about profits, profits, profits.

Hardly, they care about sustainable and marketable profits, which is why Exxon is not gouging you right now. Economics is a reality whether the government is doing it or buisness is doing it. The difference is buisness has few if any incentive to not opperate under economic realities, while governments can and often do go out of their way to spurn economic realities (Dems against drilling and nuclear power, for instance).

The (democratic) government cares about people. It isn't made up of people like Stalin. People can vote these people out of office. Also, our government knows how the economy works!

You poor niave soul

 

[History_Buff]

No, it means the government OWNS the business, not runs it. And it means it does so regardless of market pressures of economic sense and instead substitutes ideological doctrine, and in most cases results in catasrophic inefficiency and if wide spread enough a collapse in the standard of living. Yay!

It need not substitute ideology. Look at Norway's oil companies. They're operating like every other oil company on the planet, except the profits are all flowing into a massive public trust fund. That's how things should be.

Case in point, History Buff wants companies to drill in areas where it is not profitable in order to increase supply, even though doing so will increase prices instead of moderate them. Why would he do such a thing when it makes no sense economically? Because he cares about sticking it to the evil "theys" of the world, not providing energy at stable prices for the consumer.

That's not what I said at all, and you know it. I questioned whether the existing fields were at all profitable, or whether the oil companies simply wanted access to ANWR and the shelf because it would be more profitable for them. Nor would drilling in new American fields moderate world oil prices; because it fights world supply, the effect would be negligible, and opening those areas in hopes of reducing prices in the States is foolhardy political pandering. And where, where did I claim corporations were evil? Perhaps we could avoid senseless trolls in the future?

 

[Patroklos]

That's not what I said at all, and you know it. I questioned whether the existing fields were at all profitable

No, you didn't. You stated that they were, despite the fact that they are not being drilled proves by itself that they are not.

Nor would drilling in new American fields moderate world oil prices

You have been thouroughly boot stomped on this point several times now. Increased supply fullfills demand which moderates prices. The only question is how much it will moderate prices, the fact that it will is not up for debate.

because it fights world supply

Fights world supply? In a cage match? Where can I buy tickets?

and opening those areas in hopes of reducing prices in the States is foolhardy political pandering.

Or in reality, simple economic sense.

And where, where did I claim corporations were evil? Perhaps we could avoid senseless trolls in the future?

Oh, you know, when you claimed that oil companies were purposely gouging the world by not drilling in currently leased land that you think is profitable. Then when you claimed that not only were they gouging us, but they were also not after ANWAR and the shelf because there was economically viable oil there, but because they were on a quest to dominate the world through exclusive extraction rights (again, at the expense of profit). "They" are apparently Bondesque super villian types bent on world domination (for no reason)!

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Hardly, they care about sustainable and marketable profits, which is why Exxon is not gouging you right now.

Just "sustainable and marketable." I feel terrible for all the companies that made less-than-sustainable profits. Like every company, ever.

Bad day to make the "oil companies don't care about 'profits, profits, profits'" argument.

Cleo

 

[Patroklos]

Bad day to make the "oil companies don't care about 'profits, profits, profits'" argument.

Actually I was waiting for Buff to step on that landmine (I'm sorry it was you) because rate of return remains the same proving my point yet again. So again, no gouging, simple consistant profits from a stable mark up. It should also be noted that that record profit amount is barely over last 4th quarter, If they were gouging us with the increas in oil shouldn'g it be double?