Obama Drilling Ban causes Oil Rigs to leave the gulf

[Melensdad]

Well looks like the gulf states may be losing a couple hundred thousand more jobs if Obama gets his way. Not only will hundreds of thousands of jobs be lost, but oil tax revenues will be lost, sales tax revenues will be lost, income tax revenues will be lost, and no doubt families and communities will be destroyed if President Obama's drilling moratorium is not stopped.

So far his moratorium on deep sea drilling was rebuked by federal courts, it was appealed and the courts again denied the moratorium. So rather than accept the laws of the land, President Obama invoked a NEW moratorium on drilling but didn't limit it to deep water.

So what happened, rigs are now leaving American waters and taking their jobs and taxes with them!

First rig sails away over drilling ban
Lawmakers and experts fear loss is only the start of offshore exodus
By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY
WASHINGTON BUREAU / http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7101738.html
July 9, 2010, 8:28PM

WASHINGTON — Diamond Offshore announced Friday that its Ocean Endeavor drilling rig will leave the Gulf of Mexico and move to Egyptian waters immediately — making it the first to abandon the United States in the wake of the BP oil spill and a ban on deep-water drilling.

And the Ocean Endeavor's exodus probably won't be the last, according to oil industry officials and Gulf Coast leaders who warn that other companies eager to find work for the now-idled rigs are considering moving them outside the U.S.

Devon Energy Corp. had been leasing the Endeavor to drill in the same region of the Gulf as BP's leaking Macondo well, which has been gushing crude since a lethal blowout April 20.​

Oh this should make the environmental wackos so happy as they destroy the economy that pays their bills:

Another oil rig moves out of the Gulf
Associated Press
Published: July 13, 2010
http://www2.nbc13.com/vtm/news/local/article/another_oil_rig_moves_out_of_the_gulf/166568/

HOUSTON (AP) - Diamond Offshore Drilling has pulled another rig
out of the Gulf of Mexico due to the deepwater petroleum drilling
moratorium.

The Houston-based company said that it has ordered the Ocean
Confidence rig to the Republic of Congo. The rig departed the Gulf
over the weekend.

Diamond Offshore said it rewrote a drilling contract with Murphy
Exploration and Production Co. Its current contract with Murphy was
changed to a one-year commitment in the Gulf that will begin when
Murphy is confident it can get permits to drill.

In exchange, the companies signed a new agreement to drill off
the coast of the Republic of Congo.​

And then there are the politics played by our Obama administration, they are simply telling workers to move to foreign lands if they want jobs because there will be no jobs left here in the US.

The New-Old Drilling Ban
Salazar to Gulf workers: Move to Egypt.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704288204575363471285220604.html

When it comes to a showdown between jobs and ideology, the Obama Administration never fails to choose the latter. The latest example is Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's decision yesterday to reimpose a ban on Gulf drilling after the courts had declared his first moratorium illegal.

Federal Judge Martin Feldman in late June halted the Administration's six-month deep water drilling moratorium, saying it was arbitrary, ignored science and underestimated the economic harm to the Gulf region. Last week the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the ban.

Mr. Salazar's response is to fiddle with the ban's details in the hope of passing judicial muster. Instead of banning all drilling deeper than 500 feet, he now bans all drilling by floating rigs (the only equipment that drills in deep water). He also set a firmer moratorium deadline of November 30. The bottom line is that deep water drilling remains off-limits for months to come.

Mr. Salazar hopes this ban will fly in the courts because he now has an "extensive record" showing that drilling "would pose a threat of serious, irreparable, or immediate harm or damage to the marine, coastal and human environment." None of that impressed Senator Mary Landrieu (D., La.), who slammed the new-old ban, pointing out that industry had safely drilled 42,000 other Gulf wells, making the BP spill the "exception." She also noted that the ban threatened tens of thousands of Gulf jobs.

Even as Mr. Salazar retooled his moratorium, the first deep water drilling rig was preparing to leave the Gulf in the wake of the U.S. ban. Diamond Offshore said it is relocating its Ocean Endeavour drilling rig to Egypt, immediately, in a contract that will run at least through mid-2011. Diamond CEO Larry Dickerson said "We greatly regret the loss of U.S. jobs that will result from this rig relocation."

No doubt Louisiana will, too, not that the Obama Administration seems to mind.

 

[muleman]

Less jobs for Americans and more money for muslims and muslim leaning governments. It also makes us more dependent on foreign oil imports and discourages building new refineries in the gulf region. They just don't get it in Washington.

 

[Galvatron]

Obama dropped a Bollock here as i guessed he would...

He should have called for oil companies to work on capping solutions when BP and their counter-parts fooked up and not mouthed off and sent BP's shares plummeting that in return got drillers worried and abandoning ship.

Just as many share holders are in the US as around other parts of the world have been affected by his bad press releases and poor judgement,he could have made the US a major profiteer in all this but in my view put his own political career first(and that went tit's up).

Way to much is invested in the Middle east,oil aint the rise and fall of everything.

 

[mak2]

Of those 11 people killed, how many were American?

 

[Galvatron]

Of those 11 people killed, how many were American?

The sad fact is politicians have forgotten them lost souls.....they should be ashamed.

 

[mak2]

I dont even know if they or American or not. I am also not sure where they drill makes that much difference to US. Just wondering.

 

[Melensdad]

I'm not sure what the nationality of the 11 men who died has to do with this thread? However I know at least several of them were LA natives so at least some were Americans.

In any case it appears that the jobs of the survivors are now in serious risk as rigs are starting to leave the gulf. If a rig leaves it may be a decade before it is replaced, if it ever will be. And there are literally hundreds of jobs DIRECTLY tied to each rig with employees on the rig. Then there are the THOUSANDS of support jobs tied to the rigs as crews bring food, supplies, relief crews, etc by both boat and helicopter.

 

[mak2]

I'm not sure what the nationality of the 11 men who died has to do with this thread? However I know at least several of them were LA natives so at least some were Americans.

In any case it appears that the jobs of the survivors are now in serious risk as rigs are starting to leave the gulf. If a rig leaves it may be a decade before it is replaced, if it ever will be. And there are literally hundreds of jobs DIRECTLY tied to each rig with employees on the rig. Then there are the THOUSANDS of support jobs tied to the rigs as crews bring food, supplies, relief crews, etc by both boat and helicopter.

What I was driving at is the risks worth the benefits? So there are 100's of jobs on each rig? Is the worth the thousands and thousnads out of a job right now?

 

[Melensdad]

What I was driving at is the risks worth the benefits? So there are 100's of jobs on each rig? Is the worth the thousands and thousnads out of a job right now?

Well near as I can tell there are 800 to 1000 jobs on each of the drilling platforms (includes those on duty and those off duty). There are a few hundred platforms off our coast? And 11 people died in this recent accident. There are probably many other hazards on those rig platforms but overall we don't hear of a lot of deaths. So from a statistical standpoint the rig is probably a fairly safe job if safety protocols are followed.

We then have many thousands of jobs related to those rigs that will also be lost as the rigs pull out. We have entire communities that exist ONLY because of those rigs. In fact there are refineries with many thousands of jobs that exist ONLY because of those rigs. The state economy of Texas is directly related to oil, much of it from offshore.

So is it worth the risk?

Yes.

 

[mak2]

Did not know, had not heard it discussed and just wondered. I dont think it really matters much where the oil comes from. I think employemnt is the important part for the local economy. I was just thinking about 11 dead Americans, then realized I wasnt sure if they even were American.

 

[Melensdad]

I dont think it really matters much where the oil comes from. I think employemnt is the important part for the local economy.

I think that the more oil we can produce here the less our national trade deficit will be, the less funding there will be for governments that may not necessarily be our friends, the more jobs we will have locally, the more tax dollars we that can be generated. The employment is far beyond local, it is regional and beyond. The University of Texas is funded by oil revenues, as are much of the entire infrastructures of the states of Texas, Oklahoma and Alaska. Refineries from the shores of Lake Michigan to the state of Washington to the gulf coast depend on oil and provide jobs well beyond LOCAL economies.

 

[mak2]

Was the US getting some revenue from the BP oil well in the gulf? I will look into it. Interesting thinkg to think about.

 

[joec]

Well here are some subsidies based on 2007 numbers. As far as I know they haven't been lowered at all as of yet. BP from what I understand gets twice in subsidies from the US government as it put in the pot to help those this leak hurt. Oh and most oil regardless of where it comes from goes on the world market though the US buys 25% of the total world market a year.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/01/18/how-large-are-federal-oil-subsidies/

 

[Melensdad]

Was the US getting some revenue from the BP oil well in the gulf? I will look into it. Interesting thinkg to think about.

Yes, the oil shipped to the US is taxed and refined and taxed again.

Well here are some subsidies based on 2007 numbers. As far as I know they haven't been lowered at all as of yet. BP from what I understand gets twice in subsidies from the US government as it put in the pot to help those this leak hurt. Oh and most oil regardless of where it comes from goes on the world market though the US buys 25% of the total world market a year.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/01/18/how-large-are-federal-oil-subsidies/

Joe, you are correct the oil goes into the 'world' market but the reality is that oil used by the nation that produces it usually stays pretty close to that nation. The oil from the gulf (US, Mexico, and South American producers) is largely consumed here in the central and north American markets as well as the caribbean region. Canada, for example, does not buy oil from the gulf because it is an exporter of oil, much of it to the US. Alaskan oil, on the other hand often ends up on our west coast, or shipped to Japan and the pacific rim. Alaskan oil that ends up on the 'world' market, for example, is unlikely to end up in Jamaica.

Further, the concept of 'subsidies' is often misunderstood. I'm NOT defending them, but much of the 'subsidies' for oil are for NATIONAL SECURITY issues and to protect foreign transportation of oil to our shores.

In fact the article you linked to clearly states that the Democrats screwed up and could have cut subsidies but also showed that the subsidies are largely in the form of protecting foreign supplies inbound, not actually for supporting oil companies in some way here in the US.

A lot of people think that the Democrats left a lot of money on the table. Today in the Christian Science Monitor, for example, economist Doug Koplow argues that the biggest subsidy left untouched by Pelosi & Co. relates to the military protection of oil producing facilities and shipping lanes abroad, a mission which costs the taxpayer at least $19 billion a year.

While the Ds certainly were less than thorough in their anti-oil-subsidy crusade, I’m not so sure that the subsidies are anywhere near as large as many people think. . .

To be sure, if the termination of the American “oil mission” implied the termination of all military, police, and court services in the region, petroleum extraction investments would become more risky, extraction of oil might decrease, and prices would increase.