Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling

[Cool Beans]

Wall Street Journal article on how we are funding off shore oil drilling in Brazil. Here's one excerpt from it "The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount."

Why can't we invest in our own resources?

President Obama Finances Offshore Drilling in Brazil - WSJ.com

[Redsoxticket]

There is only a finite amount of oil on this planet. Depleteing the oil resorces of other countries before tapping into US resources will be our gain in the far future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raven]

we need oil for all the future robots hydraulics

or else they will be rusty in a field like the tin man

of OZ

move on to HYDROGEN quicker

[Joe]

Now I know I have a heart; because it's breaking.

[Fishpart]

What they don't say is that one of the Obama insiders (who has plenty of billions in his bank account) is on the Petrobas board and he is the guy who got the administration to put OUR MONEY at risk rather than his own.

I know I am short on the details, but I am sure one of the more talented searchers can dig up the answer..

[justplugit]

Hey BTW, what ever happened to Waxman's holabaulo and threats to investigate
Haliburton if the Democrats got control of cogress. He's had 8 months now.

They seem to be doing business as usual.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Fishpart

What they don't say is that one of the Obama insiders (who has plenty of billions in his bank account) is on the Petrobas board and he is the guy who got the administration to put OUR MONEY at risk rather than his own.

I know I am short on the details, but I am sure one of the more talented searchers can dig up the answer..

Is it a coincidence that Obama backer George Soros repositioned himself in Petrobras to get dividends just a few days before Obama committed $2 billion in loans and guarantees for Petrobras’ offshore operations? Hmmmmmmmmmm.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

Wall Street Journal article on how we are funding off shore oil drilling in Brazil. Here's one excerpt from it "The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount."

Why can't we invest in our own resources?

President Obama Finances Offshore Drilling in Brazil - WSJ.com

Interesting...I can't find a single news report on this story.

I did find a response to the WSJ Opinion piece linked to above.

Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that.

That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that American—not foreign—
workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years.

Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards.

We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress.

At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer.

Fred P. Hochberg

Chairman and President

Export-Import

Bank of the U.S

Washington

I'd note that the USA is a BIG exporter of oil exploration technology and equipment. Many of these companies are my companies customers.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Interesting...I can't find a single news report on this story.

I did find a response to the WSJ Opinion piece linked to above.



I'd note that the USA is a BIG exporter of oil exploration technology and equipment. Many of these companies are my companies customers.

-spence

How does this answer Coolbeans question "why can't we invest in our own resources?" and/or let the oil cos. do so (without burdening the U.S. taxpayer)--Anwar and offshore, etc.? If jobs are so important, wouldn't that also create many many jobs and help to keep oil prices from spiking up?

[striperman36]

the price is detached from the supply cost by market speculation.
Look how low natural gas costs have gone, down 54 pct.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How does this answer Coolbeans question "why can't we invest in our own resources?" and/or let the oil cos. do so (without burdening the U.S. taxpayer)--Anwar and offshore, etc.? If jobs are so important, wouldn't that also create many many jobs and help to keep oil prices from spiking up?

We do. The government gives large tax breaks for companies to invest in drilling and mitigates the risk of dry wells through write offs. This investment by the taxpayer leads to more oil and more jobs in the supply chain.

The question I think you're after is why doesn't the government allow more drilling in prohibited areas. This is a different question.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by striperman36

the price is detached from the supply cost by market speculation.
Look how low natural gas costs have gone, down 54 pct.

Surely, supply has SOME effect on market speculation. Anyway, the main point was the JOBS. I thought that the underwriting was supposed to be about saving or creating American jobs. Drilling for our own oil resources would, surely create more American jobs.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

We do. The government gives large tax breaks for companies to invest in drilling and mitigates the risk of dry wells through write offs. This investment by the taxpayer leads to more oil and more jobs in the supply chain.

The question I think you're after is why doesn't the government allow more drilling in prohibited areas. This is a different question.

-spence

So, if the Republicans could get the kind of lock on the Federal government that the Democrats have, the areas wouldn't be prohibited, and we could have more American jobs.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, if the Republicans could get the kind of lock on the Federal government that the Democrats have, the areas wouldn't be prohibited, and we could have more American jobs.

Over the last 8 years, they have.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Over the last 8 years, they have.

No, they have not. They have never had a filibuster-proof senate.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, they have not. They have never had a filibuster-proof senate.

True, not filibuster proof. But a healthy majority. When they had that majority, why weren't the proposals presented.

Some of this is irrelevant though as much of it is managed through Executive Orders.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, if the Republicans could get the kind of lock on the Federal government that the Democrats have, the areas wouldn't be prohibited, and we could have more American jobs.

Yes, assuming the people want the potential trade offs. It's been more than just hard core environmentalists blocking expansion of exploration in US territory.

I think even Jeb Bush has been against drilling off the FL gulf coast up until recently.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

True, not filibuster proof. But a healthy majority. When they had that majority, why weren't the proposals presented.

What healthy majority? The Senate during Bush II was basically 50/50. In mid 2000 the House voted to allow drilling in ANWR. In April 2003 the Democrat controlled Senate rejected it. In 2005, the Republican controlled House included Arctic Refuge drilling as part of the energy bill. That provision was removed by the House-Senate conference committee due to pressure by conservationists and the defection of TWO Republican Senators (one being Lincoln Chafee who is more Dem than Repub). The Republican controlled Senate passed Arctic Refuge drilling on March 2005 as part of the federal budget resolution for 2006, but that was removed during the reconciliation process as Dems in the Hoiuse stated they would oppose any version of the budget that had Arctic Refuge drilling in it. In Dec. 2005, Republican Ted Stevens, Alaska, attached an Arctic Refuge drilling amendment to the defense appropriations bill, but a group of Democrat Senators led a succesful filibuster of the bill and the language was removed.

Some of this is irrelevant though as much of it is managed through Executive Orders.

Bush II removed the executive order that placed a moratorium on offshore drilling, but that cannot override the congressional moratorium.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, assuming the people want the potential trade offs. It's been more than just hard core environmentalists blocking expansion of exploration in US territory.

I think even Jeb Bush has been against drilling off the FL gulf coast up until recently.

-spence

Yes, there are states who would reject drilling for fear of damage to their tourism revenues. Some could be convinced that drilling can be done in ways to mitigate that fear. Other states don't have that problem. The majority of Alaskans are in favor of ANWR drilling. If individual states reject drilling, fine. But why block it when the citizens are for it?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, there are states who would reject drilling for fear of damage to their tourism revenues. Some could be convinced that drilling can be done in ways to mitigate that fear. Other states don't have that problem. The majority of Alaskans are in favor of ANWR drilling. If individual states reject drilling, fine. But why block it when the citizens are for it?

ANWR is a good example here as you have legitimate environmental concerns given the unique habitation of that area. Does this mean that it's possible to extract oil without disrupting the ecosystem? Maybe, but at the least making things difficult will ensure every measure is taken to protect a very special place.

It wouldn't surprise me at all that the people of Alaska want to drill in ANWR, they all stand to personally see financial benefits.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

ANWR is a good example here as you have legitimate environmental concerns given the unique habitation of that area. Does this mean that it's possible to extract oil without disrupting the ecosystem? Maybe, but at the least making things difficult will ensure every measure is taken to protect a very special place.

It wouldn't surprise me at all that the people of Alaska want to drill in ANWR, they all stand to personally see financial benefits.

-spence

Financial benefits is the point of drilling ANYWHERE. Alaskans are no different in that respect, nor should that motive be considered negative. The underwriting referred to in this thread was supposed to be about American jobs--financial benefits to Americans. And the financial benefits to those immediately involved in the drilling process, and delivery process, and refining process, and distribution process, and the use of the product, financially benefit the entire American economy. And wasn't that your point about drilling being accepted by various states--if the trade-off was worth it? That different states may or may not accept drilling if the financial benefit was worth the trade-off?

As far as legitimate environmental concerns, ALL drilling evokes "legitimate" environmental concerns. From what I've read, the Caribou don't have that much to fear from well done ANWR drilling. And if ethics and hypocrisy in our face to the world are a concern to you, I would think that the double standard of restricting drilling here because of the environment, while funding drilling elsewhere might well be looked at by the rest of the world as hypocritical.

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Financial benefits is the point of drilling ANYWHERE. Alaskans are no different in that respect, nor should that motive be considered negative.

No, no, no Debutch, you are not reading between the lines on what he posts. "Capitalism is BAD! Socialism is GOOD"
If you make too much profit they label you as evil (like the CEOs who's companies agree to pay that much). If the people of Alaska make a financial gain, they are "evil"... Unless perhaps all the money went into the government hands and Obama was allowed to use it on various social programs for minorities, then it would be ok.

You have to think like a communist now, oops, I mean like a Socialist, oops, I mean like a Progressive,,, ah hell just think like Spence....

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Financial benefits is the point of drilling ANYWHERE. Alaskans are no different in that respect, nor should that motive be considered negative.

The Alaska State Constitution provides that the full time residents share in the oil revenues gained by the state, at times this has meant a $5,000 check to a typical family.

There is no other state in the Union that shares such an entitlement, and to think this wouldn't bias the citizens isn't being negative, it's just common sense.

The underwriting referred to in this thread was supposed to be about American jobs--financial benefits to Americans. And the financial benefits to those immediately involved in the drilling process, and delivery process, and refining process, and distribution process, and the use of the product, financially benefit the entire American economy.

You're also talking about underwriting corporate earnings.

Hell, if I didn't know better you seem to be advocating government stimulation of the private sector.

And wasn't that your point about drilling being accepted by various states--if the trade-off was worth it? That different states may or may not accept drilling if the financial benefit was worth the trade-off?

The point really was just that there are tradeoffs.

As far as legitimate environmental concerns, ALL drilling evokes "legitimate" environmental concerns. From what I've read, the Caribou don't have that much to fear from well done ANWR drilling. And if ethics and hypocrisy in our face to the world are a concern to you, I would think that the double standard of restricting drilling here because of the environment, while funding drilling elsewhere might well be looked at by the rest of the world as hypocritical.

There are various environmental reasons, but ANWR is a bit different in that it's one of the last places on earth with a perfectly balanced ecosystem. I would think that even with minimal disruption to the environment some would reasonably argue that the oil companies are not a natural part of that ecosystem and hence it would be spoiled to some degree.

This is a more unique example than most other environmental concerns which are founded on the possibility of an accident.

As for being hypocritical...is there concern that the drilling off of Brazil will cause great environmental harm?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The Alaska State Constitution provides that the full time residents share in the oil revenues gained by the state, at times this has meant a $5,000 check to a typical family.

There is no other state in the Union that shares such an entitlement, and to think this wouldn't bias the citizens isn't being negative, it's just common sense.

I just don't see what is bad about all that. More power to the citizens of Alaska. Aren't progressives all about business sharing their profits with the people. I would think that progressives would use Alaska as a model. I'm certainly not jealous of any personal gain they receive from oil profits. It's a trade-off for living in a short-summer state with a lack of all the goodies offered by a state such as, say, Massachusetts. I don't see a mass migration to Alaska because of its "entitlement."

You're also talking about underwriting corporate earnings.

Hell, if I didn't know better you seem to be advocating government stimulation of the private sector.

I'm not the one who was trying to provide cover for the Brazil deal. I'd rather the government would keep its prod as far away from the private sector as possible.


The point really was just that there are tradeoffs.

And when tradeoffs are defined: financial benefits versus environment, scenery, political power, etc.

There are various environmental reasons, but ANWR is a bit different in that it's one of the last places on earth with a perfectly balanced ecosystem. I would think that even with minimal disruption to the environment some would reasonably argue that the oil companies are not a natural part of that ecosystem and hence it would be spoiled to some degree.

This is a more unique example than most other environmental concerns which are founded on the possibility of an accident.

Perfect balance, probably, cannot exist but for a moment, granted that geologic moments are longer than mundane ones. And, since everything, as you say, is on a spectrum, along that constantly shifting spectrum one momentary perfect balance is replaced with another momentary perfect balance. We are always, temporarily in a state of balance, but interruptions to that balance always occur and we evolve to newer balances. If environmentalists think they can produce stasis on earth rather than heaven, the devil has a warm seat available to them.

As for being hypocritical...is there concern that the drilling off of Brazil will cause great environmental harm?-spence

Environmentalists and progressives believe that all extraction of oil causes environmental harm. Whether the harm is "great" is not the relevant question. All drilling is to be stopped and alternative ways to create energy is the only option.