Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DavesM who wrote (675747)	3/18/2005 12:08:04 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 769670

A retarded Congress trying to move oil where it doesn't naturally flow is like a retarded Congress trying to make the ocean TIDE run backward-or put troops on the Mexican border to "fight terrorism", or tax "windfall profits". In other words, it destroys the whole purpose of drilling ANWAR, which is NOT to deliver oil to Kucinich voters in Ohio, but to add oil to the world markets and pressure the price down. If the oil flows more efficiently to Asia, THAT'S where it SHOULD flow. And the oil further west, that is then BACKING UP because Asia is buying from Alaska, flows efficiently here. And given that the pants-wetting California RUMP RANGERS refuse to build refineries, no ANWAR oil will flow efficiently to the west coast-even though its the CLOSEST market. Over the last 30 years-far more unnecessary energy costs have been created by demagoging motor-mouth politicians refusing to comprehend the global market-than by all the ragheads and speculators combined. And their victims are the blank-eyed protectionist fools...

To: DavesM who wrote (675747)	3/18/2005 10:51:57 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"O.K. I looked at the bill (SJR2), and it does not prohibit the export of oil from ANWR." Right. Like I said. "But neither does the bill authorize or approve a new pipeline." Correct: NO NEED TO! The new pipeline was authorized LAST YEAR in a different bill. (As a matter-of-interest... because the new pipeline is desired so much by various US politicians and oil executives, the Canadians have recently seized upon it's construction as a point of leverage they can exert over the US --- to get the US government to stop ignoring rulings of the NAFTA court, mostly with respect to the tariffs the US imposes on Canadian softwood exports. The Canadians have 'leaked' the news that is the US doesn't start implimenting the NAFTA rulings (which have gone Canada's way) then Canada might 'slow down' the construction of the new pipeline across B.C. with delays in getting permits, etc.) "This means that the oil is expected to be transported thru the Trans Alaskan pipeline." Some, and in part... but the new pipeline is intended to move the bulk of it over time. "Once again, I believe the exportation of oil from that pipeline is prohibited (I believe that a bill has been submitted prohibiting exporting ANWR oil just to clarify things)." Not yet law. Probably will not be passed at all. "I also found out, that in 1995, a law was passed allowing the export of oil from the Trans Alaskan pipeline (during the Clinton Administration), a small amount of oil was legally exported (less than 10%)." Yep. "So, I believe it was illegal to sell the oil from the Alaskan North Slope from 1973-1995, and from 2000 till now." Er, nope: Firstly, from the beginning there was no law restricting exports from the pipeline and Valdez. (Congress in the seventies debated such a ban, but oil industry executives assured them that 1) choosing the route to Valdez would allow quicker construction then the free route Canada offered to take oil to the upper midwest. Turns out that assurance was WRONG, as construction took longer then the engineering estimates for the Canadian route had predicted. And, 2) that all the Alaskan oil would go to 'hungry' US refineries on the West Coast. But, once the oil was loaded on tankers, the oil industry found out (or already knew) that higher profits could be made by delivering to some foreign buyers --- at that point-in-time, primarily Japan --- and so began to sell oil there. Secondly, this began to become a scandal... so Congress later passed the band on exports which you referred to earlier. (Which makes the trans-Alaska-to-Valdez-route choice rather foolish, since there is much less risk of spillage with a pipeline that doesn't end in a port for trans-shippage... such as the proposed Canadian route to the Mid-West oil pipeline nexus would have given us... and the midwest is the ONE US region that is subject to shortage-enduced price spikes, so says the US Dept. of Energy. But, of course, with ocean-going tankers you have more options for customers to deliver to... and the potential for better prices. But if exports are banned, then the Valdez route seems to be a dog with fleas compared to the all-over-land Canadian route.) Thirdly, as you pointed out, in 1995 the ban on foreign sales of Alaskan oil was removed.... "Canadian synthetic oil (oil sands) are sent to Colorado, and can now be sent to the Chicago area - with expansion of Canadian pipelines planned." Like I pointed out: Canada just inked an agreement to sell 49% interest in a new pipeline to the Chinese government. Purpose is to export oil sands production to China. (They also authorized the Chinese to invest in oil sands production companies.) Obviously, the US will not be the 'only' export market for Canadian oil for long....