Is this true? If so what the H have we been talking about, if we drill we don't get the oil?

[rainy]

Found this at Alternet.org


If We Drill in the U.S., We Don't Get the Oil
By Cenk Uygur, Huffington Post
Posted on August 1, 2008, Printed on August 7, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/93619/

One thing has been driving me crazy about this drilling debate -- everyone seems to assume that if we drill for oil in the US, that we will get the oil. And hence, we won't be dependent on foreign oil anymore. But we won't get anything, Exxon-Mobil will.

The oil that comes from that drilling will not be United States property (Republicans aren't suggesting we nationalize the oil companies, are they?). It will be the property of whichever oil company got the rights to that contract. They can then sell it to whoever they like -- and they will. They will sell it on the world market, so the Chinese will have just as much access to the oil that comes out of the coast of Florida as we will.

Rest of article here:

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/93619/

[liberal N proud]

1. The oil in currently taken from Alaska goes to mostly Japan

The offshore oil will be sold to the highest bidder and never see landfall in the US.

[central scrutinizer]

23. Can you document that?

This report says the opposite:

http://opencrs.com/document/RS22142

West Coast and Alaska Oil Exports
May 06, 2005

Download Locations:

Summary:

As a reaction to oil price and supply concerns, questions about the export of crude oil produced on Alaska's North Slope are often directed at Members of Congress. The export of this oil had been prohibited by the 1973 law allowing the construction of the pipeline system now transporting oil to the ice-free, southern Alaska port of Valdez. But following a period of depressed oil prices, legislation was enacted in 1995 permitting export. Relatively small amounts -- never more than 7% -- of Alaskan crude were sold to Korea, Japan, China, and some other countries. These exports stopped by 2000. Currently, no crude is exported from the West Coast. Ownership of Alaskan oil fields has changed. BP Amoco and Arco merged in May 2000, and as part of this transaction, Arco's one-third stake was sold to Phillips. BP Amoco is using the formerly exported crude in California refineries acquired in the Arco deal. And Phillips (now part of ConocoPhillips) exports no Alaskan oil and has said it has no plans to do so. The crude oil export issue keeps recurring, especially in West Coast states, where gasoline prices have been higher than in the rest of the nation. Concerns about exports contributing to regional fuel price differentials have been voiced, and opponents of oil leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) fear oil production from this environmentally sensitive area could be exported. This report will not be updated.

[truedelphi]

28. I woul d love to believe that the oil from Alaska comes to the USA,

But if it did, it is logical to believe it would come to the West Coast. But no one on the West Coast sees any of this oil.

And Californians, even people in the Bay Area who live close to refineries owned by Chevron and others, pay a good forty cents more than the rest of the country.

I think it is lies and more lies.
As part of my documentation about how the media lies about Big Oil issues, please read this:
http://www.sethreturns.com/b2evolution/blogs/index.php/a
You need to scroll down to the second article about the Associated Press.

[central scrutinizer]

35. Snopes link: No Alaska oil is exported

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/alaskaoil.asp

which says the same thing: No oil from Alaska has been exported since 2000. Of course that doesn't mean that the oil is refined in the US and then exported as gasoline or

[ihavenobias]

39. And we keep focusing on Alaska but the big thing is off'-shore drilling of our coasts n/t

[NightWatcher]

2. more oil doesnt mean cheap oil. It only means there will be more to sell us at $4 a pop

plus no one can make the oil companies drill.

Dont believe the hype

[Buzz Clik]

3. It's always been the case.

That's why many of these arguments are so strange. (It's also why Obama's very nuanced stance on offshore drilling reflects reality whereas McCain is spewing hysterical hogwash.)

Likewise, it's why an oil embargo threatened by a single country is laughable.

[SujiwanKenobee]

4. Right~!

This is exactly what I have been arguing as well. THat oil is a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder. If not nationalized, that oil is just going to feed the appetites of whoever is competing in the market with us--and with our dollar so sunk in value, well... So, remind me, what is the use of drilling instead of going full bore on alternatives, again?

[baldguy]

5. This is how it works

Public land has oil under it.

The US Govt sells leases to the oil companies for pennies.

The oil companies pump the oil out, and can do whatever they want with it.

[DrDan]

6. the argument they are using is that it will significantly increase supply, and

hence significantly lower the price.

Just more profits for the oil companies. That is what they are not admitting to.

[DailyGrind51]

11. Exactly! They just want more oil to sell at a high price.

[wvbygod]

22. Then make a law that US oil stays in the US

Make the deal contingent that we get the oil at a reasonable price. Problem solved.

[LSK]

30. but that would go against their free markets ideology

Not happening with this bunch.

[Chulanowa]

37. The armchair economists amuse me

The price of crude has little to no impact on the price of refined product. "Supply and demand" only applies to the crude itself. The supply of gasoline, deisel, and others, is not determined by drilling, but by production.

Saying that increasing drilling will lower the price at the pump is thus rather like saying planting a bunch of cedar trees will reduce the cost of fancy cabinets.

[ihavenobias]

7. It's true, and it's yet another reason to love Cenk of TYT n/t

[rainy]

8. I was going to email this to all my list because it is so outrageous, but, first

I had to see if it's true. I can't believe this isn't being discussed in the media along with all the talk about drilling. It is unbelievable.

[Jim__]

15. Oil companies are big media advertisers.

The media will not report news that displeases their advertisers.

[fasttense]

9. Yup, the oil pumped out of American soil will not go to Americans.

It will belong to the five oil monopolies to do with as they see fit. So far they haven't seen fit to be concerned about the American economy or the American people. So I seriously doubt they will sell it back to America at a reduced rate. (Which is what they should be forced to do if we had a functional government.)

The off shore drilling republicon plan is just another cultivation of ignorance. As Obama pointed out, the republicons are proud of their ignorance.

[MiniMe]

10. I was shocked, but Snopes says this is mostly false

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/alaskaoil.asp

[rainy]

12. this seems to be saying that Alaskan oil is shipped to US refineries.

What happens to it after that? Is it then sold on the world market? Or does that mean we burn and use it here?

[truedelphi]

47. I think it is then shipped off to the fairy land where the gold dust is added

I would think that we in California would or should be the beneficiaries of the Alaskan oil. And we certainly have plenty of refineries in this state.

But we pay more than any other group of Americans - sometimes as much as forty cents more.

Only explanation I can think of is this: the oil fairies add gold dust to the oil.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Not entirely true. Crude is fungible, which means...

that an extra supply anywhere in the world increases world supplies. In fact, the crude cargo in a tanker often changes hands several times before it is delvered.

For instance, Alaskan oil had long been sold to Japan, simply because we didn't have enough West Coast refineries to handle all of it. So, we get money from Japan to buy Middle East oil and it all evens out.

(That the oil companies may be a bunch of scumbags is entirely irrelevant to the economics of oil moving around from the oilfield pump to the gas pump.)

[JerseygirlCT]

14. Yup.

They're just figuring that more of it around means lower prices.

I don't think they're sufficiently figuring in the increased demand.

And all at what cost?

I think that along with any drilling rights should go ironclad responsibliity to put the land back to pristine condition once the oil is gone. That should end those adventures.

We need new sources. Renewable sources.

And most of all, we need to use less oil.

[dysfunctional press]

16. back in the 70's, when world oil prices shot up due to the arab embargo...

i seem to remember that the american oil companies pumping american oil were selling it at world market prices.
they were not doing their "patriotic duty" to help the american consumer by keeping american oil prices lower.

don't expect them to be any more beneficial to us this time around, either.

[Brundle_Fly]

17. Corporations are responsible to their shareholders

not the american people.

We wont see a drop beyond what is allocated for us.

[dysfunctional press]

19. and every drop will go to the highest bidders.

china needs more and more and more...and has some VERY DEEP pockets to pay for it.

[eallen]

18. Oil trades in a global market. Which is why the issue of US offshore drilling is bogus.

Take a globe, and color with a dry marker the coastal areas protected by the moratorium. Compare that to the expanse of the globe. You will see why no one familiar with the oil markets think it much matters to the future price of oil.

:hippie:

[Serial Mom]

20. The MSM will not make this point to the idiots who believe IT WILL ALL BE OURS

My husband has been saying this for weeks! It should have been made clear each and every time the old fart brought up "we must drill for oil on our own shores"!

[wvbygod]

26. All we need to do is DEMAND the oil stays here and then start drilling

We will need more oil until alternatives take hold and that is an undeniable fact.

Americans can not reduce enough consumption until alternatives are a reality and that is a reality.

[ihavenobias]

29. I do agree that IF the Dems cave on off-shoe drilling that they should ONLY do it if they demand

that, along with environmental protections and increased royalties.

But the point is that as it stands, that's not what's on the table. The Republicans are pushing none of those things and much of the American public is unaware of that fact. They think that it's "our" oil.

[Serial Mom]

34. How do you believe that could happen?

Where is the world do think we could keep corps from selling on the global market?

Not enough votes in Congress much less the US to DEMAND that!

No, bettter MPG, smaller cars, NEW methods to power vehicles could happen sooner if needed!

[wvbygod]

21. This is partly why huffington post is becoming a joke

They are no better than drudge or the other scare tactic rw blogs. Just because they
have a liberal bent does not give them freedom to bullshit us with a clue.

debunked here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/alaskaoil.asp

Why not just tell the fucking truth to begin with?

[ihavenobias]

24. Bullshit. #1 it IS better than Drudge and Right Wing Blogs (doesn't mean they're always right) &

#2 Cenk's article doesn't even MENTION Japan.

Yet you come in guns blazing with a snopes article debunking the idea that Alaskan oil is sold to Japan? Come on. I don't think you even read the HuffPo article to be honest.

I'm willing to forgive you if you pretend you were joking.

:)

[wvbygod]

25. I was almost joking :o)

But seriously, HufPo insults my intelligence by promoting some dishonest manifestations
that only a shoe size IQ pious believer could buy into. There is enough truth out there
to bury mccain and make Obama shine without the BS.

My scientific mind will not allow me to buy a bottom line fabrication even if it is wrapped in the most altruistic recycled gift paper possible.

[ihavenobias]

27. If you're referring to the fact that in addition to hard hitting news, they also cover gossip stuff

I understand.

But my take on that is just don't read it! :)

HuffPo generates far more views and money precisely because they do cover the gossip/celebrity/wacky stuff which allows them to get more exposure for all the GOOD stuff they do. It reminds me of Countdown with Olbermann. He includes celebrity/wacky stuff which helps increase ratings. You don't have to like it (I generally don't but sometimes I do) but understand that it overall helps keep him prominent and on the air a few times a day.

It's the reality these days. Also, more and more in the MSM are starting to reference stories and reports from HuffPo, which is great step in the right direction considering they normally always go to the conservatively biased Drudge.

Now, if you want to argue that they should reference neither you can, but I'm sure you agree that it's better to have Huffington Post putting a check on Drudge than it is to have Drudge alone informing the opinions out there. Right?

[truedelphi]

31. Snopes is not infallible. And I really do not believe that the oil

From Alaska comes to the USA. Or maybe it goes to our refineries, but is then shipped out.

Check out the second article on this blog. I wrote it and stand behind it.

The media lies through its teeth to protect big oil interests.
http://www.sethreturns.com/b2evolution/blogs/index.php/a

[ihavenobias]

32. That's a good article, I've read it before! n/t

[entanglement]

33. This is precisely why Canadians are paying high prices for gasoline despite being oil exporters

Oil is 'fungible' and producers will sell it to the market where they can command the highest price. It is folly to expect a(ny) capitalist to sell the oil below the price quoted in various global exchanges. That's why the oil we import from the 'nice' Canadians costs about the same as that from the 'nasty' Arabs...the producers (capitalists) are looking to maximize profits in both cases.

In other words, additional oil drilled out the ground will have a less than expected moderating effect on *US* average oil prices...it will reduce global oil prices though (unless oil exports are forbidden or something).

[magellan]

36. The title to that article would more precisely read "We don't necessarily get the oil"

We certainly wouldn't get all of it. US oil exports are up 33% this year (from a deleted Forbes article).

We're told oil is fungible. Pardon my skepticism, but I'd like to see a breakdown of the costs to the American taxpayer of these trades on the global market. "Trade" implies an exchange of like value for like value but as we know, "free trade" is not the same as "fair trade". I expect we're getting the shaft while the oil companies get the graft.

However, the most important thing to focus on in the argument about opening up more drilling is that it won't make a real dent in prices for many years. Bush**'s own Energy Dept said in a 2007 report:

"For AEO2007, an OCS access case was prepared to examine the potential impacts of the lifting of Federal restrictions on access to the OCS in the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

(snip)

"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017." There would be an increase in oil production, but the report adds: "Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

[Leopolds Ghost]

38. How Many People on this thread understand what FREE TRADE even means?

How many people on this thread AGREE with Free Trade and
consistently attack "Anti-Globalization radicals" and "Protectionists"?

How many of the above are HYPOCRITES who want oil drilled in the US
to be kept off the export market?

How many DUers are middle class service and information workers
and professionals who belive staunchly in the benefits of Clinton-style
free trade... except when YOUR ox gets gored?

Did you know Clinton took credit for the Enron bill?

(And Telecom Deregulation, and Banking deregulation,
and the NSA program, and ending welfare, etc.)

I would like to see a new Democratic Party that actually
cares about principle and doesn't just advance unjust ideas
like free trade when they benefit us and are unjust to others,
but attack oil companies for what Clinton and the free traders
in the party wanted them to be doing, when and only where
it is unjust to US.

[rainy]

40. Can you point me to any info that proves that we don't get the oil as this, to

me, is such a big deal and no one is mentioning it.

[ihavenobias]

41. The point wasn't that it's physically impossible for us to get the oil

The point is that our oil is not nationalized as it is in some other countries, like Venezuela. "We" don't own the oil.

Whoever drills for the oil has the oil and they can sell it to the highest bidder. Granted, technically the US *could* pay the most for the oil, but the whole goal for most Americans is to have cheaper gas (through more/cheaper oil).

So 10-22 years from now the large oil companies get oil from Alaska/off-shore drilling and they sell it to the highest bidder. World oil supplies increase slightly, enough to ultimately lower the price of gas by pennies per gallon at best.

This issue is a huge gimmick. And that's not even mentioning that just because the oil companies get the rights to drill doesn't actually mean that they have to or that they will. They can sit on the land and do nothing to keep supply low and prices high.

PS---This is .

[truedelphi]

43. Free trade now has several meanings depending on

Whom it is using the term. I can imagine that everyone from a conservative Goldwater Republican to Santa Claus to the original Adam Smith would have vastly different meanings for the words "free trade"

And their definitions would be far more valid than those that top 1% would offer up as their definition of free trade.

I see nothing what so ever wrong with the notion that there be what some DU'ers define as "Free trade" regarding OUR oil.

This natural resource is in the ground in OUR NATIONAL PARKS.

Let's friggin' nationalize it. We own the National Parks, we breathe the polluted air from the refineries and have to keep our kids inside when there is yet another "minor incident" in Martinez or Richmond CA.

We should get the benefits.

Instead as a population of people we are ENSLAVED by those who claim the oil is theirs.

Oil owns our media, it owns our foreign policy, it owns our politicians, it owns our two party electoral process, (A party system which is really one big tent for the top one per cent.)

PLEASE Check out the second article on this blog. I wrote it and stand behind it.
The article is "THE CORRUPTION OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS" - you need to scroll down past the election malfeasance story to see it.

The media lies through its teeth to protect big oil interests.
http://www.sethreturns.com/b2evolution/blogs/index.php/...

[robinlynne]

42. We export a lot of our oil. But that isn't even the point Cenk is amking. The bigger point is that

it is our natural resource. It belongs to we the people. And yet Exxonmobil takews and sells it back to us at the biggest profit in history. Interestingly enough, in Venezuela, the gov't keeps 80% of the oil profits, and the oil profits are still so huge that all the big oil companies stand in line for more.
Alaska, the state is now proposing keeping 25% of the oil profits and the oil companies are going ballistic.
Around the US the royalties paid by the big 5 vary from 6-12%. (not 100% sure about those numbers, but if not completely accurate, they are close.)
And in some cases no royalties are paid.

In toher words, we vote to let exxon drill on our land. They pay 11% royalties to the governemnet, keep the other 88%, even though the oil does NOT belong to them, then get tax concessions from the government, so that they, the biggest profiteers ever in history, won't have to pay as many taxes as we do, on the money gained from exploiting OUR resources.
That, I think, is Cenk's most important point.

Natural resources should simply be nationalized as they were and are in many countries. of course whenever a nation protects its resources in any way, the US overthrows the government.


Even if it were ours, and oil prices went down to 50 cents a gallon I would still be against drilling anyway.

[truedelphi]

44. Good for Alaska. Now I understand the need to have Stevens indicted

As far as I am concerned, all of them have something they can be indicted for.

Spitzer stood up to Monsanto and the other big businesses that want to throttle our health and pocket book. He was about to take on Wall Street interests and expose the bank bailouts as the scheme of socialistic bail outs for the rich. It is nothing more than the transfer of tax payer's monies to the wealthiest inner circle of banking families.

Then he was "outed" in that sex scandal involving prostitutes.

I wondered why they wanted Stevens. Now I know. We certainly cannot allow 25% of oil revenue going to the people!

[robinlynne]

45. The Democratic governor did it, not Stevens.

[robinlynne]

46. P.S. I think they wanted Stevens out because he had no chance in the next election. Now they

have time to create a new nominee....