(06-25-2014 05:06 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:01 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I can only see positives in America "exporting" damn near anything. That includes fossil fuels.

Only the economically ignorant would disagree with your statement.

I think I disagree with that. If those fossil fuels can be used in the U.S. it can lead to lower prices here. That would be economically advantageous for the citizens here, even if not for the energy companies.

(06-25-2014 07:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:06 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:01 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I can only see positives in America "exporting" damn near anything. That includes fossil fuels.

Only the economically ignorant would disagree with your statement.

I think I disagree with that. If those fossil fuels can be used in the U.S. it can lead to lower prices here. That would be economically advantageous for the citizens here, even if not for the energy companies.

You are correct in your assertion..but incorrect in your application of it. It just is not that simple. It is a global market. Our best avenue is to be a part of that market...not...separate from it. I hope you are not inferring we should "nationalize" or resource?

I wonder how many years before the oil in the middle east runs out. Personally I would rather wait till that happens so they can go back to being irrelevant again.

(06-25-2014 09:15 PM)TStatebobcat Wrote:  I wonder how many years before the oil in the middle east runs out. Personally I would rather wait till that happens so they can go back to being irrelevant again.

Not in any of our lifetimes. The oil reserves are immense.

Exporting oil will just give Obama more spending power.
Lower our gas prices under a dollar and to heck with exporting.
Would create tons of jobs.

Folks, we're not exporting enough to make a difference. And we're still importing over 10 million barrels a day, net. The more we export, the more we import. All that's happening is that with fracked natural gas production you get some liquids (condensate) which tend to be very light. In some cases, either there are no refineries close by or the refineries close by are not set up to handle condensate efficiently. So you send that overseas to refineries that are better set up for it, and take back in exchange heavier crude from somewhere else that goes to our refineries. So the more we export, the more we import, with minimal net effect, if any.

(06-25-2014 10:29 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Exporting oil will just give Obama more spending power.
Lower our gas prices under a dollar and to heck with exporting.
Would create tons of jobs.

So...Welcome to Venezuelan style nationalism? No thanks.

(06-25-2014 10:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:29 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Exporting oil will just give Obama more spending power.
Lower our gas prices under a dollar and to heck with exporting.
Would create tons of jobs.

So...Welcome to Venezuelan style nationalism? No thanks.

If we have low cost gas again I don't care what you call it.

We need to export natty gas not oil

(06-25-2014 10:41 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:29 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Exporting oil will just give Obama more spending power.
Lower our gas prices under a dollar and to heck with exporting.
Would create tons of jobs.

So...Welcome to Venezuelan style nationalism? No thanks.

If we have low cost gas again I don't care what you call it.

So you are suggesting nationalization of the oil industry? Really?

(06-25-2014 07:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 07:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:06 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:01 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I can only see positives in America "exporting" damn near anything. That includes fossil fuels.

Only the economically ignorant would disagree with your statement.

I think I disagree with that. If those fossil fuels can be used in the U.S. it can lead to lower prices here. That would be economically advantageous for the citizens here, even if not for the energy companies.

You are correct in your assertion..but incorrect in your application of it. It just is not that simple. It is a global market. Our best avenue is to be a part of that market...not...separate from it. I hope you are not inferring we should "nationalize" or resource?

It is only a global market if we are exporting this new shale oil. If we don't then gas prices are cheaper here and citizens here benefit, at least in the short run.

OK, we're not really exporting anything here. Let's say we use 20 million barrels a day. 7.5 million is domestic oil production, 1.5 million is ethanol, 1 million is something called refinery gain (when you separate the crude stream into its components, the sum of the volumes of the components exceeds the volume of the stream), and 10 million is imported. If we export 1 million, then we have to import 11 million to balance the equation, and we're in the same place, net. It's not like we have some product that we are exporting excess domestic production, we are just moving product around to make the system flow more efficiently.

(06-25-2014 10:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 07:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 07:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:06 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:01 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I can only see positives in America "exporting" damn near anything. That includes fossil fuels.

Only the economically ignorant would disagree with your statement.

I think I disagree with that. If those fossil fuels can be used in the U.S. it can lead to lower prices here. That would be economically advantageous for the citizens here, even if not for the energy companies.

You are correct in your assertion..but incorrect in your application of it. It just is not that simple. It is a global market. Our best avenue is to be a part of that market...not...separate from it. I hope you are not inferring we should "nationalize" or resource?

It is only a global market if we are exporting this new shale oil. If we don't then gas prices are cheaper here and citizens here benefit, at least in the short run.

Not sure if it would work that way. The price is set globally even if we don't export. So Exxon is suddenly going to lower the price voluntarily below the global market price? Why would they entertain that idea?

(06-25-2014 10:52 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 07:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 07:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:06 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Only the economically ignorant would disagree with your statement.

I think I disagree with that. If those fossil fuels can be used in the U.S. it can lead to lower prices here. That would be economically advantageous for the citizens here, even if not for the energy companies.

You are correct in your assertion..but incorrect in your application of it. It just is not that simple. It is a global market. Our best avenue is to be a part of that market...not...separate from it. I hope you are not inferring we should "nationalize" or resource?

It is only a global market if we are exporting this new shale oil. If we don't then gas prices are cheaper here and citizens here benefit, at least in the short run.

Not sure if it would work that way. The price is set globally even if we don't export. So Exxon is suddenly going to lower the price voluntarily below the global market price? Why would they entertain that idea?

Read my posts. This is not an export in the classical sense, where we are producing more than we need, so we export the excess. We use about 10 million barrels a day more than we produce. If we don't export any, we import 10 million barrels. If we export 1 million barrels, we import 11 million. If we export 100,000, then we import 10,100,000. And no matter what we do, we are subject to the world market.

(06-25-2014 10:52 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 07:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 07:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 05:06 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Only the economically ignorant would disagree with your statement.

I think I disagree with that. If those fossil fuels can be used in the U.S. it can lead to lower prices here. That would be economically advantageous for the citizens here, even if not for the energy companies.

You are correct in your assertion..but incorrect in your application of it. It just is not that simple. It is a global market. Our best avenue is to be a part of that market...not...separate from it. I hope you are not inferring we should "nationalize" or resource?

It is only a global market if we are exporting this new shale oil. If we don't then gas prices are cheaper here and citizens here benefit, at least in the short run.

Not sure if it would work that way. The price is set globally even if we don't export. So Exxon is suddenly going to lower the price voluntarily below the global market price? Why would they entertain that idea?

If the oil companies can't export the shale oil then it's not sold on the global market, therefore the price is not set on the global market. I'm sure the oil companies wouldn't like that, but if they're still making a sufficient profit, they'll still drill and refine the oil, even if the profit isn't as much as it would be on the world market.

That might affect the world market, in that U.S. demand would decrease and lower the world market, but that wouldn't affect the U.S. market much, is my reading of it.

(06-25-2014 11:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If the oil companies can't export the shale oil then it's not sold on the global market, therefore the price is not set on the global market. I'm sure the oil companies wouldn't like that, but if they're still making a sufficient profit, they'll still drill and refine the oil, even if the profit isn't as much as it would be on the world market.
That might affect the world market, in that U.S. demand would decrease and lower the world market, but that wouldn't affect the U.S. market much, is my reading of it.

Number one, it's not a choice whether or not to produce the condensate, which is very light oil. It's a by-product of the shale natural gas production, so as long as they produce the gas, the oil happens. The question is what to do with it. We can use it domestically and import less, or export it and import more. In some cases, it's more efficient to export the condensate and import heavier crude for our refineries. Either way, we are in about a 10 million barrels per day NET import position and that oil is all subject to the world market. If we export zero, we import 10 million barrels; if we export 1 million, we import 11 million. So the relatively small amount we export doesn't give us much in the way of relief from the world market.

(06-25-2014 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If the oil companies can't export the shale oil then it's not sold on the global market, therefore the price is not set on the global market. I'm sure the oil companies wouldn't like that, but if they're still making a sufficient profit, they'll still drill and refine the oil, even if the profit isn't as much as it would be on the world market.
That might affect the world market, in that U.S. demand would decrease and lower the world market, but that wouldn't affect the U.S. market much, is my reading of it.

Number one, it's not a choice whether or not to produce the condensate, which is very light oil. It's a by-product of the shale natural gas production, so as long as they produce the gas, the oil happens. The question is what to do with it. We can use it domestically and import less, or export it and import more. In some cases, it's more efficient to export the condensate and import heavier crude for our refineries. Either way, we are in about a 10 million barrels per day NET import position and that oil is all subject to the world market. If we export zero, we import 10 million barrels; if we export 1 million, we import 11 million. So the relatively small amount we export doesn't give us much in the way of relief from the world market.

The theory commented upon in this thread was that it would be stupid for an American citizen to not want to export. Even if the impact of not exporting was small, that would still make for a rational incentive for U.S. citizens to not want to export, at least in the short run.

(06-25-2014 11:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If the oil companies can't export the shale oil then it's not sold on the global market, therefore the price is not set on the global market. I'm sure the oil companies wouldn't like that, but if they're still making a sufficient profit, they'll still drill and refine the oil, even if the profit isn't as much as it would be on the world market.
That might affect the world market, in that U.S. demand would decrease and lower the world market, but that wouldn't affect the U.S. market much, is my reading of it.

Number one, it's not a choice whether or not to produce the condensate, which is very light oil. It's a by-product of the shale natural gas production, so as long as they produce the gas, the oil happens. The question is what to do with it. We can use it domestically and import less, or export it and import more. In some cases, it's more efficient to export the condensate and import heavier crude for our refineries. Either way, we are in about a 10 million barrels per day NET import position and that oil is all subject to the world market. If we export zero, we import 10 million barrels; if we export 1 million, we import 11 million. So the relatively small amount we export doesn't give us much in the way of relief from the world market.

The theory commented upon in this thread was that it would be stupid for an American citizen to not want to export. Even if the impact of not exporting was small, that would still make for a rational incentive for U.S. citizens to not want to export, at least in the short run.

The impact is not small. It's somewhere between microscopic and nonexistent.

(06-25-2014 11:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If the oil companies can't export the shale oil then it's not sold on the global market, therefore the price is not set on the global market. I'm sure the oil companies wouldn't like that, but if they're still making a sufficient profit, they'll still drill and refine the oil, even if the profit isn't as much as it would be on the world market.
That might affect the world market, in that U.S. demand would decrease and lower the world market, but that wouldn't affect the U.S. market much, is my reading of it.

Number one, it's not a choice whether or not to produce the condensate, which is very light oil. It's a by-product of the shale natural gas production, so as long as they produce the gas, the oil happens. The question is what to do with it. We can use it domestically and import less, or export it and import more. In some cases, it's more efficient to export the condensate and import heavier crude for our refineries. Either way, we are in about a 10 million barrels per day NET import position and that oil is all subject to the world market. If we export zero, we import 10 million barrels; if we export 1 million, we import 11 million. So the relatively small amount we export doesn't give us much in the way of relief from the world market.

The theory commented upon in this thread was that it would be stupid for an American citizen to not want to export. Even if the impact of not exporting was small, that would still make for a rational incentive for U.S. citizens to not want to export, at least in the short run.

The impact is not small. It's somewhere between microscopic and nonexistent.

Importing 10 million vs. 11 million is a 9% difference. It's small, but hardly microscopic and certainly not nonexistent.

(06-25-2014 11:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If the oil companies can't export the shale oil then it's not sold on the global market, therefore the price is not set on the global market. I'm sure the oil companies wouldn't like that, but if they're still making a sufficient profit, they'll still drill and refine the oil, even if the profit isn't as much as it would be on the world market.
That might affect the world market, in that U.S. demand would decrease and lower the world market, but that wouldn't affect the U.S. market much, is my reading of it.

Number one, it's not a choice whether or not to produce the condensate, which is very light oil. It's a by-product of the shale natural gas production, so as long as they produce the gas, the oil happens. The question is what to do with it. We can use it domestically and import less, or export it and import more. In some cases, it's more efficient to export the condensate and import heavier crude for our refineries. Either way, we are in about a 10 million barrels per day NET import position and that oil is all subject to the world market. If we export zero, we import 10 million barrels; if we export 1 million, we import 11 million. So the relatively small amount we export doesn't give us much in the way of relief from the world market.

The theory commented upon in this thread was that it would be stupid for an American citizen to not want to export. Even if the impact of not exporting was small, that would still make for a rational incentive for U.S. citizens to not want to export, at least in the short run.

The impact is not small. It's somewhere between microscopic and nonexistent.

Importing 10 million vs. 11 million is a 9% difference. It's small, but hardly microscopic and certainly not nonexistent.

But you're not importing 11 million unless you are also exporting 1 million. So you export 1 million at world prices and import an addition 1 million at world prices. The net effect is zero. Not exactly, because of gravity differentials and shipping costs, but not enough to have any material impact. 11 million imports at the world price minus 1 million exports at the world price equals 10 million net imports at the world price, either way.