Why drill in Alaska?

Discussion in 'Economics' started by cybtropic, Jun 6, 2008.

  1. Maybe I am a bit slow but what is the point of drilling in alaska, if oil companies will then simply take that oil and put it up for sale on the world market for $137 instead of $138?

    Why would we let oil companies drill our oil, american oil, to lower the price for oil for the whole world?

    If you want to drill in Alaska, fine with me, BUT that oil goes to america for a fair price like $40/barrel, NOT for sale on the world market. Oil was being sold for $20/barrel just a few years ago. There is no reason for us to drill oil and put it up for sale on the market, we need the oil, OPEC countires don't need the oil, they live byselling it.
  2. you obviously don't understand how the oil market works. Its international, and the oil companies will sell it here, but at the going market price. They wouldn't drill otherwise. The only way to get a different price is:

    A) for the government to subsidize the price like China does. Unfortunately, the US does not have the money to do this.

    B) nationalize the oil companies. This won't happen in America as it did in Russia. its tantamount to taking a company away from its owners. Won't ever happen.

    the argument to drill here is that it adds more to the international market, and does make the US less reliant on foreign sourced oil, even though it won't affect prices much. But this does make it more difficult for another country to "cut the US off".
  3. If you were starving, would you sell the food you had? IT doesnt make any sense to sell something that you need to live. The market is for people who want/need to sell something, not for people to sell what they need.

    It reminds me of that guote about the capitalist who would sell you a piece of rope, knowing you would use it to hang him.
  4. We aren't starving. There is plenty of oil. This is not a supply problem. If it ever gets to the point that the US can't get oil, then it may be a different matter (but it would probably just force use of alternatives).

    As I already said, the oil companies would sell the oil in the US, but it would be at market prices. The US could easily set a price for crude like China does, but the government would have to foot the bill to cover the spread between the cap cost and market cost. The last time the US tried a true cap vs simple subsidizing, we had lines a mile long, and you could only get gas every other day. I know cause I waited in those lines. (1979).
  5. ya you don't understand capitalism, do you?

    everything including people are tools

    tools for what?

    for serving

    people serve for money, money for what? money to be able to continue serving

    what is the point? there is no point, it is a system that utilizes the human desire, which human desire? the strongest desire, which is root to many other desires; the desire to continue living

    what is the point of the system? if I had created it, I'd say it's fun watching pathetic humans go round and round till they fall and die and take their worthless dreams to their graves, for all I care f* humans
  6. About that market price:

    " In general, like all other commodities, the price is based on supply and demand. If the only players were oil producers and refiners, the market would be well-behaved and would be far more responsive to consumer demand. It used to be that prices would be determined by a balance between spot prices (shipments of crude oil that are on the way to refiners but, for whatever reason, become available for sale), and the price refiners can get for their total product slate on the wholesale market. Spot prices would be determined by looking at the recent prices paid for shipments as reported in a couple of industry newsletters, such as Platts Oilgram or Argus reports.

    The introduction and recent popularity of trading crude oil and refined product futures changed the market. Here, traders who have no possible way of receiving or refining crude oil purchase contracts and hold them to trade on price fluctuations, at a profit, and before delivery. In theory, the futures market provides a trading ground where a willing buyer and seller agree on a price and the price is instantly public, thereby setting a marker for the industry. Unfortunately, this market was simply overlaid on top of an already functional market with well-entrenched pricing practices. It is the duplication of systems that provides fertile ground for speculative games.

    First, speculation in this market is very expensive, because oil is traded in 1,000-bbl contracts. It is a game fit only for investors with lots of money and willing to take large risks, primarily wealthy traders and those operating high-risk investment and hedge funds. As it turns out, several players of this ilk entered the energy market during the brief Enron era, where they learned the tricks of the trade.

    The California energy crises provided a special training ground for savvy energy commodities traders who quickly learned how to work the information system. Specifically, they learned that they could drive up natural gas prices incrementally by purchasing one natural gas spot market contract and submitting the trade to one of the journals that collects and publishes market trade prices. At the time, there was no method of validation, so the trade price was published. In the meantime, the same investors could be holding several natural gas futures contracts. The price of the futures would increase on the report of the spot trade price that was reported.

    Since it was only one contract, the investor could then sell the spot contract at market value, even at a loss, not report the sale and reap the benefit of the rise in the futures market resulting from the report. The utilities that purchase natural gas depended on the prices for spot trades reported in the journals to accurately reflect what others (utilities) were paying for natural gas. In fact, it was common to write contracts between suppliers and utilities to reference certain prices in reputable journals as benchmarks for contract valuation on a day-by-day basis. Using this system, futures prices could be driven to lofty heights in a very short period. The opportunity to pull off a similar run up in prices still exists in the all too trusting oil markets.

    In this situation, there is no reason for oil companies, or foreign producers, to get involved in driving prices up. All they have to do is sit back and sell oil at the prices created by investors. For months now, major oil companies and even OPEC members have pointed out that prices are being set in the futures markets by speculators. However, producers should note that the entire process described above can be reversed, and the speculators can make money on puts as they drive prices down, leaving producers holding the bag.

    There are producers and refiners out there selling and buying crude oil, in part, based on prices set by speculators in the futures market. Each time a trade is made in that market, refiners and producers note the price, up or down. This becomes the price against which spot pricing is weighed, i.e., a buyer in the spot market looks at the current price in the futures market and reasons "if I have to purchase oil today at market price, the futures price is the amount established in the current market," and weighs this price against the most recently reported spot price in the preferred journal. Thus, the futures price and spot price are used as a measure to begin negotiations for a spot market delivery."
  7. What's your point?

    This is common knowledge.
  8. You're confusing 'you' as in 'us, the people', with 'you', as in 'you' the oil producers. The oil producers aren't starving. The oil producers don't need cheap oil to live.

    An honest question - have you ever been attracted to any kind of socialist political philosophy?
  9. I was a strong conservative until Bush came into office and I witnessed the biggest rape and looting of the U.S. treasury in U.S. history. Of course Bush was only the enabler, the looters are the corporations.

    When I say, let the oil companies drill in Alaska, that does not mean give the land to the oil companies. That oil does not belong to them unless they buy the land. If they want to buy the land, then let them pay a reasonable price based on estimate of how many barrels of oil x price of oil. Otherwise they are drilling OUR oil and therefore should not be able to just simply sell it on the world market until they paid us (us as in U.S.) for it. When I say "pay us for it" I don't mean PENNIES on the dollar.
  10. Is it really?

    You said : "The only way to get a different price is: A) for the government to subsidize the price like China does. B) nationalize the oil companies."

    when my article clearly states that the problem has nothing to do with oil companies and everything to do with speculators churning paper barrels.
    #10     Jun 7, 2008