Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling

[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.

[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.

[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 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 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