USA: oil exports

Dr. Hess wrote: Gasoline is not Crude Oil.

THANK you. I can't stand when the two are synonamously used just because some of the big names in oil exploration also have some gasoline refining capacity.

They are 2 ridiculously far-apart steps in the processing of a raw material. so many things are made by refining crude into different things, not just gasoline. And gasoline is by comparison a highly refined product from crude.

The first problem America has however is not and hasn't realistically been supply-side. Its been refining capacity, and for any petroleum products, not just fuel. Running full tilt toward drilling would have eventually had a ripple effect on markets of oil trade worldwide, but not so much domestically.

Part of the reason we're exporting oil is because it nets us more money than trying to hold onto it until we can refine it at this time. Other nations will refine it and sell it back to us in some form quicker/cheaper than keeping it in our borders. I don't think domestic demand is a driving factor in this compared to overall cost. And cost is more directly tied to our stagnant refining capacity.

oldsaw wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: Rich people define economic health by GDP growth. The rest of us define it by what we perceive as the general health of the country, with employment being a big factor.

If I define the economy based on what I see, it's pretty rosy. But that's too narrow a world view. I don't have any friends without a college degree and I don't have any friends who are out of work, or struggling to pay bills, at risk of losing their house. The largest employer in Tulsa, the American Airlines maintenance facility is getting ready to cut a significant % of their people........but I guess since I don't know any of them, it doesn't matter that something like 1000 well paying jobs are about to be lost. So yeah, nearly 20% of the rest of the labor being unemployed or underemployed, isn't a problem.

I am not following you. Unemployment certainly is a problem.

A few posts back you asserted that unemployment is more a social problem than economic - perhaps so. But, that social issue wouldn't be as debilitating if real employment was at a higher rate. The social issues are a symptom of an economic disease.

Agreed.

z31maniac wrote: "While Obama crows about 200,000 jobs created last month, the most for a month during his entire Administration, in September, 1983 the Reagan recovery less than a year after it began created 1.1 million jobs in that one month alone. Under Obama, we are still almost 6 million jobs below the peak before the recession started over 4 years ago!< In the second year of the Reagan recovery, real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years." http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/01/12/the-worst-economic-recovery-since-the-great-depression/2/ Yep, the economy is much better.

That is typical conservative media bias! I'm only halfway kidding.

Here is an interesting article in the Economist about this same issue. Executive summary = "The truth, as Mr Baker explains, is that neither the Republicans' nor the Democrats' policy proposals have much chance of having a significant effect on prices. Your taxis and town cars and commutes are not going to be made any cheaper—at least in the near-term—by ending oil company subsidies or drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The real goal of these types of policies, as we explained in The Economist in March, is to reassure voters that your party is trying to do something about gas prices, and the other party is responsible for the problem."

..but if you're against welfare I'm sure you're against welfare for the oil industry. They obviously don't need it so why, as taxpayers, are we giving them welfare money? We all know that any government money given away only helps to create dependance on the welfare state all while making the recipient more lazy and needy. Right? That's the conservative line so it must apply here as well.

I also find it ironic that Fox did some news reports about how the President isn't responsible for oil prices a few years ago. Now, they've changed their tune. Hypocritical dumb a$$es. Link.

Datsun1500 wrote: And the counter to that... http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2012/02/28/media-double-standard-high-gas-prices?intcmp=obnetwork

And they found that the three networks, the broadcast networks ran four times as many stories about gas prices rising when President Bush was president than now when President Obama was president. I'm shocked by that, by the way.

Why is this shocking? Exactly how many posts have you seen here recently complaining about high gas prices? Compare that to 2008, guess what you will find?

The reason why it is not as big of a story is because it has been going on for a LONG time and everyone is pretty used to it now. When gas passed $4 a gallon, everyone freaked. Now it just more high gas prices. You really can't have the SAME shocking story multiple times, it's just not very shocking after a while.

Of course it's more interesting if it's a conspiracy....

...shouldn't we be freaking out about a Mosque at ground zero...

...or about Obama indoctrinating our children.... or....

Xceler8x wrote: ..but if you're against welfare I'm sure you're against welfare for the oil industry. They obviously don't need it so why, as taxpayers, are we giving them welfare money? We all know that any government money given away only helps to create dependance on the welfare state all while making the recipient more lazy and needy. Right? That's the conservative line so it must apply here as well.

I am, but I'm not a conservative.

As far as my tax policy, www.fairtax.org

aircooled wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: And the counter to that... http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2012/02/28/media-double-standard-high-gas-prices?intcmp=obnetwork

And they found that the three networks, the broadcast networks ran four times as many stories about gas prices rising when President Bush was president than now when President Obama was president. I'm shocked by that, by the way.

Why is this shocking? Exactly how many posts have you seen here recently complaining about high gas prices? Compare that to 2008, guess what you will find? The reason why it is not as big of a story is because it has been going on for a LONG time and everyone is pretty used to it now. When gas passed $4 a gallon, everyone freaked. Now it just more high gas prices. You really can't have the SAME shocking story multiple times, it's just not very shocking after a while. Of course it's more interesting if it's a conspiracy.... ...shouldn't we be freaking out about a Mosque at ground zero... ...or about Obama indoctrinating our children.... or....

When Bush was in office, prices rose because he and Cheney had ties to "big oil", the mantra for his opposition. That smells like an allusion to conspiracy.

People get used to high prices; they change their lifestyles and adjust their budgets. Local demand drops while global demand increases so the US sees a rise in petroleum exports. That's not (necessarily) a good thing the US economy.

Oh, and people also get used to the double-standards applied by media-types and their sycophants. People recognize them for what they are: hypocrites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qKdScVerrBU

...but Obama's a socialist if he tries to regulate the speculators.

I think new benchmark will be when it hits $5/gal in the northeast. All hell will break loose again--don't worry.

It's so clear the speculators are playing around again--and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

You are mistaken. Just because I understand the root of the problem and realize that nothing has been done over the last 4 years to fix it in no way means that I wish for the economy to be bad. I disagree with just about everything you posted, but you are certainly entitled to your opinions even if they are founded on propaganda and fly in the face of facts.