Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Should U.S. lift the partial ban on exporting domestically produced oil and gas?

Posted 9 months ago on Feb. 2, 2014, 11:51 p.m. EST by grapes (3444)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

North Dakota Bakken Shale oil boom and fracked shale oil/gas have created what the oil/gas companies called a glut. There is a decades-old ban on the export of crude oil/gas and other hydrocarbons to foreign countries (excluding Canada) as a reaction to the Arab Oil Embargo of the 1970's. Should this partial ban be lifted?

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-07/republican-murkowski-urges-end-to-u-s-crude-export-ban.html

67 Comments

67 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by Nevada1 (4835) 9 months ago

No. All exports should be banned.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

Even including the exports to Canada currently allowed?

[-] 4 points by Nevada1 (4835) 9 months ago

Good petitions----Good site. http://www.rootsaction.org/home

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22331) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 months ago

Should U.S. lift the partial ban on exporting domestically produced oil and gas?

HELL NO

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

What are the reasons? How do you rank them in importance?

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 months ago

don't we need other countries oil ?

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

Absolutely, we import crude to cover our shortfall since we reached Hubbert's peak in the 1970's.

Some say Hubbert's theory is wrong as the U.S. oil/gas booms in Bakken, Barnett, and Marcellus Shales have proven. Can "Drill, Baby, Drill!" be able to evade natural resource constraints?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22331) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 months ago

Used-ta-was - but - now how could they justify exporting if we still are needing to import?

[-] 2 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

Supposedly the lighter sweet crude from Bakken is ill-suited for U.S. refineries according to the article cited. It may actually be due to the price difference between lighter sweet crude and heavy (also called sour) crude. Lighter sweet crude does not require as much sulfur removed as heavy crude so Europe uses it more but is their source from the North Sea drying up? The U.S. oil production peaked at least three decades ago so the U.S. refineries had to make do with poorer grade of crude, the heavy crude.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 months ago

how can we be against exporting when when take other peoples oil ?

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (22331) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 months ago

The idea has always been - use no more than we need - because of the pollution (? heh ya right ) - also - it was always - use someone else s before even thinking about dipping into our reserves ( yep - run em all dry - then make em beg ). Now it is like = The world is getting seriously sick of continuing to burn fossil fuel as well as getting seriously concerned about continuing to do so. So NOW our fossil fuel companies want to unload it from their reserves before there is a serious pull back from use world wide ( sell sell SELL - damn it their gonna ban the stuff - SELL ).

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 months ago

we go to war with countries that want national oil control

but you know good ol' USA

the world is our battlefield

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22331) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 months ago

We ( the USA's powers that be ) go to war with other countries to maintain control.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

It is because Canada and Mexico are benign enough for the U.S. armed forces to venture far from home. A simple way to stop that is to make both Canada and Mexico hate the U.S. Our delaying Keystone XL has already ticked off Canadian investors. That may not be so bad considering Canada's ignoble "leadership" withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol. It is just tit-for-tat.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 months ago

they can't help it if their frozen

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

Canada was doing just fine until they went hogwild with their Athabasca bitumen in the Alberta oil sand. Maybe that was when the Canadian 1% hijacked Canada and turned it into a plutocracy.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 months ago

is oil why russia was considered a super power ?

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

You mean the former Soviet Union was considered a super power, not Russia?

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 months ago

I think the military industrial complex needed the US people to think we needed to keep building

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

Russia is still very important oil/gas-wise but it pales when compared to the whole of the Middle East and Southern Asia. Russia though a bit brittle is not as bad as the bloc which is not only brittle but explosive. We can do business and diplomacy with Russia reasonably easily but you know how many decades the U.S. has engaged in FRUITLESS diplomacy with the bloc.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 months ago

cold weather makes a country difficult to dominate

but limits resources

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

If Russia digs deep to discover more of oil/gas, it will definitely find far more but it is mostly land-locked and brutally cold without much transportation available. That differs greatly from the shallow easily available (by ships) oil/gas of the volatile Middle East. Russia has tremendous amounts of natural resources although they are very inacessible. It may actually be the country together with Canada whose melting permafrost can release enough methane to cause severe global warming.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

Many other countries are not as chummy as Canada is to us. I see world interest in exporting our oil/gas to the EU to help them stand firm on sanctioning Iran. There is more than enough enriched uranium and plutonium already from decommissioned nuclear weapons and used nuclear fuels.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 months ago

I never checked

I thought there might be

we should do what the french do

steam power

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

What makes the steam, aside from water?

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 months ago

heat radiation

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

From what? Sun? Nuclear power? Coal burning?

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 months ago

nuclear fuel

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

The U.S. made the decision not to reprocess used nuclear fuels to reduce terrorism and costs, etc. We are far more concerned about preventing terrorism than what we can gain by reprocessing used nuclear fuels to extra the plutonium. We have already done that enough to make the nuclear weapons.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 months ago

nuclear engineer takes a dedicated team

which may be why only states and nations can pull it off

[-] 2 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

I wish what you said were true but advancing technologies have already warped the realm of the possibilities. We must therefore seek widespread enlightenment to avoid the nuclear genie getting out of control.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 months ago

I'm not worried

technological advance are in communication

not physics

[-] 2 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

The technological progress that is potentially troublesome is the miniaturization and synchronization. Part of it comes from communication-related advances. It is true that physics has not changed much but chemistry/material sciences have.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 months ago

It's ALL physics.

Everything.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

I don't worry much, either, because very few people have the knowledge, wealth, and will to do nuclear projects on their own right now although the possibilities are already out there. Let us hope that malicious nuclear projects never come to pass.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 months ago

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/24/usa.science

There was another one built before the internet, but the story has disappeared.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

I read that businessmen are talking of building a pipeline to supply propane to Alberta, Canada. It will help meet the export target of geoduck of Washington.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 months ago

No. They are going to reverse the one that used to provide propane for rural regions of the midwest, to send something to Alberta for tar sands production!!

WE just can't have enough global warming..what do clams have to do with it?

[-] 2 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

Alberta oil/gas industry was thinking of getting the fuel needed to upgrade the bitumen from Alaska through a pipeline so that did not work out, eh?

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 months ago

Is that where the clams came from?

[-] 2 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

This is a closed-book test.

It IS ALL physics and discrete but that does NOT mean that we cannot talk about other subjects with their own languages such as chemistry or biology. We can use the older terminologies as long as we know what they map to on the concrete physical level. There was some drift in meanings over the decades but if we know enough we can tolerate the apparent ambiguities.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 months ago

Physics, doesn't change, only our understanding of it.

"It is true that physics has not changed much "

Is a false statement.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

The theoretical physical principles underlying the design and construction of nuclear weapons have not changed for many decades. The particular means to attain different types of nuclear weapons has changed.

For example, the equation for computing whether a runaway nuclear chain reaction happens has not changed but the means of achieving it has certainly changed. You can see a little bit of this evolution in the nuclear bomb development in India and more recently in North Korea.

By drift in meanings I was thinking of nuclear reactions being considered as the domain of physics but more recently they have been considered as part of chemistry (nuclear). The boundaries between biology and chemistry have likewise had some ambiguities. Is the metabolism of yeast chemistry or biology? These ambiguities and drifts are actually symptoms of the underlying unity of ALL. Every subject is about the Cosmos or our information about it or subset of it. There are many ways of describing the Cosmos but they do not have to be exclusive of each other.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 months ago

All it takes is the math to describe it, and even that thought process can be described by physics.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

Yeah, psychics, physics, what is the difference? They nearly use the same letters of the alphabets.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 months ago

Amazingly correctable too.

Typing while eating spaghetti, is not recommended.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

Hey, have you had any epiphany about the verity of string theory by eating spaghetti? Did the Spaghetti Monster in the Sky shine enlightenment on you? I had a mythical encounter drinking a cup of hot tea with milk and sugar being added to it.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 months ago

No. Just a bout of typos.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

Maybe the Spaghetti Monster in the Sky is telling you that you should delve into permutations to understand physics psychically.

[-] 0 points by samantha (12) from New York, NY 9 months ago

I'm a scientist and the view that the laws of physics don't change has been questioned quite a bit in the last few years. I don't think we should make any assumptions. It's a big debate between my colleagues.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2056018/Laws-physics-change-depending-universe.html

[-] 2 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

Another possibility is that Planck's Constant is NOT constant across large swaths of space, contributing to the change in the fine structure constant across the same swaths. Perhaps Planck's Constant is just an average of the energy influences around the location where it is measured.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 months ago

The laws changing, is in our observations, all that's needed is the math to describe it.

The speed of light, isn't as constant as they like to tell us.

But for the sake of the math, they treat it as such.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

Reversing the flow direction of a pipeline makes more economic sense than building a new one.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 months ago

It's like getting charged $5,000 for a student loan I can't pay

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 months ago

Yep. Folks in rural america will be be charged $10- $20,000 a year to heat their homes.

But hey, there'll more bitumin, who's production will exacerbate the wonders of polar vortexes.............fun

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

It is what the geeks or nerds call "positive feedback." It is part of "free trade" with our chum.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 months ago

How wonderfully noncommittal.

Would you be the geek, or nerd you're talking about?

[-] 2 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

By exporting propane, domestic prices of propane to rural residents will increase which allows more profits to be made. These profits can fund the production of more Athabasca bitumen with the propane exported to upgrade this bitumen so it can be shot through to the Gulf Coast refineries to be turned into petroleum distillates such as gasoline. There is NO restriction on the export of refined hydrocarbons such as gasoline, probably to Europe through New Orleans. More propane (another byproduct) will then be sent to Athabasca for more bitumen production. The burnt hydrocarbons may create more polar vortices through instabilities and propane prices can spike sometimes from a high base already.

The rural U.S. will see higher propane and gasoline prices, and fewer jobs (companies returning jobs to both banks of the Mississippi are attracted by the cheap natural gas and propane prices there).

There are at least two sides to every issue. It is "positive feedback" one way and "negative feedback" another way. Do you feel clammy with all of the feedbacks? You are not alone. There is the export target of geoduck of DouchingCity to meet.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 months ago

$20,000 is a lot of money for home heating.

Why don't they just borrow the money from Wallstreet, like we're told they do?

Why raise our prices for their gamble?

[-] 1 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

The $20000 to heat their homes probably includes where they keep their pigs. Pigs are very human-like in biology so a pig farmer may have a huge building to heat. They are business owners and they almost certainly borrow money from Wall Street. Ultimately, the cost is passed on to the consumers. Pig farmers take risks because it is their chosen business for making money. The derivatives market can parcel out the risks to investors so derivatives really have a proper and useful function in our economy. It is the ABUSE of derivatives fueled by Greed which was the real cause of the Great Recession.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 months ago

I know people out State that are already having trouble paying for the stuff, and they've never raised livestock in their lives.

the POINT IS they are doing this not only to sell stuff to Alberta, but to purposely raise those prices here.

Just like they plan to do with KXL.

It's all about manipulating the market.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

It's all about bowing to the mighty dollar to quench the unquenchable Lust.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 months ago

It's all about manipulating the market.

That's what they're actually doing.

You've spent a lot of time and effort, justifying it.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3444) 9 months ago

It was an educational exercise, not a justification. If you honestly answer yourself, how much of your education was actually justified by real-life experience to be worth the efforts to gain it? I say very little but the value of an education is NOT whether it would be practically applicable but rather to provide a frame of reference or paradigm to think about or deal with novel problems.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 months ago

I take it you don't need to fill a propane tank to heat your home?

[Removed]