It's true. But the article failed to point out the #1 reason why it's true. Oil is a commodity, and all commodities are up in price, especially when priced in US dollars. Supply isn't a problem.
I'd also like to see escrow accounts set up to handle the reasonable costs of handling a major spill, so that on Day Two of a spill government seizes the escrow account, takes over, and contracts the clean-up to, say, Halliburton or the like at cost-plus with the escrow money. Keeps out those who cannot afford to pay for the clean-up and eliminates both the waiting period where the company tries the cheaper but less likely to succeed stuff at first. As it stands, it's far cheaper for an oil company to buy politicians and shift the burden onto the taxpayer than to clean up a spill.
At stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That’s how much the U. S. Geological Survey believes is in the U.S. portion of the Arctic Ocean.
LOL - So when supply goes up you are saying that prices won't go down?
Laughable.
Cost plus is indeed very dangerous and highly susceptible to abuse, and thus must be carefully watched. My point was that a cost plus contract would therefore be an excellent motivator to an oil company to not only NOT cut corners and to have a plan, but to actually have the people and components ready to swing into action at a moment's notice. You can bet that had BP known that Halliburton was going to have a stack of blank BPO checks on the first major leak, corners would NOT have been cut and all required tests would have been performed and performed again.Is cost plus not a very dangerous system that should only be used by integer people ?
LOLFoxnews fail, and thread title fail. That is the estimated total amount of oil in "the U.S. portion of the Arctic Ocean," not an estimate of the amount that Shell could drill if this particular drilling project were approved. Doubtless the actual production "at stake" is a miniscule portion of that.
- wolf
When it comes to oil its laughable. Here is the raw truth. The American companies charge us the same amount for a barrel oil that the Mideast cronies do. So it really is of no benefit to destroy Alaska or drill anywhere else in America, because we will not see one penny of savings. At least Alaska will still be clean. Fuck the American oil companies, they are the biggest racketeers in the country.
LOL
Yeah, I'm sure oil companies are gonna be lining up to buy permits for the rest of that oil after Shell got the shaft. That oil is TOTALLY unaffected by this decision. Everyone knows this.
Cost plus is indeed very dangerous and highly susceptible to abuse, and thus must be carefully watched. My point was that a cost plus contract would therefore be an excellent motivator to an oil company to not only NOT cut corners and to have a plan, but to actually have the people and components ready to swing into action at a moment's notice. You can bet that had BP known that Halliburton was going to have a stack of blank BPO checks on the first major leak, corners would NOT have been cut and all required tests would have been performed and performed again.
You've got your progressive nose so out of joint that you can't even recognize sarcasm. Lighten up.Do you know what the word "recover" means? He's talking about taking money from criminals and giving it back to victims. No shock that conservatives are against that, I guess.
Who holds the escrow account? The government? The bankers? The oil companies? The Fed? (Threw that last one in for effect. )I'd also like to see escrow accounts set up to handle the reasonable costs of handling a major spill, so that on Day Two of a spill government seizes the escrow account, takes over, and contracts the clean-up to, say, Halliburton or the like at cost-plus with the escrow money. Keeps out those who cannot afford to pay for the clean-up and eliminates both the waiting period where the company tries the cheaper but less likely to succeed stuff at first. As it stands, it's far cheaper for an oil company to buy politicians and shift the burden onto the taxpayer than to clean up a spill.
Gotta admit though, the BP Gulf spill was major over-played. Most of the BP trust fund has not been used, and as Darwin said the economic damage of the spill has been less than the economic damage of the moratorium.
I love the liberal whines of "It's the speculators!".
Did it ever occur to you that those evil speculators take into count Obama's continued anti-oil policy decisions that could affect the speculative prices? Do other oil impacting events not change the price? Oh, but somehow Obama's EPA is immune to it?
This recent event is good ammunition against him. We need to continue to document his failures, incompetence and ineptitude as president and as a person. Listen to what he says, watch what he does, pay attention to his words, deeds and actions - these are the behaviors of somebody hell bent on harming or "fundamentally transforming" America. There can be no other explanation, nobody is that stupid. He is doing this on purpose.
Of course when somewhere on the planet something happens with the crude oil, traders and speculators of oil get nervous and jumpy and make decisions. That has nothing to with Obama.
You can add bunny to your signature as a way to hide your nature, but it does not change how limited you are.
LOL - So when supply goes up you are saying that prices won't go down?
Laughable.
Even though Obama is the one purposefully limiting supply?
Do you REALLY believe this? Logically you cannot.
When you put your house on the market, does that make house prices go down? Maybe by 2 cents. That's what you drill baby drill people don't seem to understand... We don't control the entire global supply of oil, only a tiny portion of it.
Fixed it for you.Yes, when more houses are on the market and the demand is low the price drops, and drops quickly.
When there are fewer houses on the market and a large demand, then there are bidding wars and prices go up.
When there is a limited amount of oil and countries are competing for that limited supply, the price goes up.
When entire orange crops are wiped out what happens to the price of OJ?
(hint: it goes up because oranges are in limited supply)
Common sense is something you people don't seem to understand.
We need to get our sorry asses off oil altogether. At this point, there's no reason technologically why we should continue to burn it while our entire planet is bombarded every second with unlimited, clean energy.
However, until we are able to switch to that alternative, we should drill for oil domestically so long as it can be done safely.
I love the liberal whines of "It's the speculators!".
Did it ever occur to you that those evil speculators take into count Obama's continued anti-oil policy decisions that could affect the speculative prices? Do other oil impacting events not change the price? Oh, but somehow Obama's EPA is immune to it?
This recent event is good ammunition against him. We need to continue to document his failures, incompetence and ineptitude as president and as a person. Listen to what he says, watch what he does, pay attention to his words, deeds and actions - these are the behaviors of somebody hell bent on harming or "fundamentally transforming" America. There can be no other explanation, nobody is that stupid. He is doing this on purpose.
I work on WS, it's the speculators. It's not Obama, it's not Bernanke directly, it's the speculators.
Obama didn't cause the last speculatory oil bubble, he didn't cause this one. Speculators caused both.
Whines the liberal scream against the speculators.
Your anger is misplaced. It should be directed at this fucking president.
Hardly. It's plain fact. The market is well supplied with oil, it's been well supplied with oil. This issue and the remainder are like a pimple on an elephant's ass for prices. The difference is speculation. Go look at the growth in outstanding interest in oil futures over the last decade you dunce.
How, exactly, did Obama do the same thing back in 2007/2008? Wasn't that Bush? Explain, bitch.