Pros And Cons Of Vote Of 261

There has been some talk about an “oil-extraction tax.” With this tax in place, it would force companies to fork out more of the tax instead of the consumer. If higher taxes are put in place for the producer ultimately they are not the ones paying the higher price the consumer is. Either way producers will receive revenue and in order to do that they will just raise their prices. The demand for fuel is based on necessity forcing consumers to pay outrageous prices because they need it. In addition to the tax, oil companies would have to disclose more information about their supplies and prices. Since the companies have market power, some believe with the tax in place it would reduce the price of the good.

By increasing the areas allowed for domestic oil drilling, the United States can cut the amount of oil it most import each day in half.

Since we are able to make wholesale purchases and get large discounts on our gasoline, we no longer have to markup our gas prices and we can keep a very low profit margin on our gasoline, which will in turn attract customers. With the increase in customers, we should be able to reasonably expect our in store sales to increase as well, which is where we expect a majority of our profit to come in from anyways. Moreover, from Chevron’s perspective, we should be worried that the current ruling does not get appealed because if it does we potentially can be worse off than we were before because of being forced to change our prices drastically which has a negative impact towards our market.

If the government decides to continue with the drilling of new sites or expand the Keystone XL Pipeline there are environmental dangers and concerns to follow and still not enough oil production to fuel the countries demand. The importing of oil from foreign countries would still be a necessity. For now the prices of gasoline are still on the rise and with use of the oil money future tool prices are sure to continue rising. As it seems in this current economic crisis, consumers need to make their voice heard with the government and hope something will change with the way oil is produced and imported to lower the cost for everyone.

Those that argue against the statement that offshore drilling benefits the economy say that the potential damage from the BP blowout had the costs estimated at $2.2 billion with the highest possible adjustments, paraphrased from the paper written by Bailey, Ronald, titled "Offshore Drilling Remains a Risk worth Economy". Contrary to what the title states, just by looking at the summary of a passage from the text, it's clear that offshore drilling can really hurt the economy through damaging the environment, and that it is not a sound decision to continue because of the chance of a spill. The second point they argue against is whether or not offshore drilling really lowers energy prices in the U.S. From the article written by Hassett, Kevin A., titled "Offshore Drilling Will Lower Energy Prices", a quote from President Barrack Obama is referenced, "Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices five years from now." - President Barrack Obama. The president believes that energy prices will not lower because of offshore drilling even in the future. The third and final point that some would argue against, is offshore

Drilling supporters still argue that there are benefits to drilling that may outweigh environmental harms. In addition to helping America gain energy independence, drilling has economic benefits. For Alaskans, tax money is important. Other Americans worry that gas prices are too high. According to Senator George Allen, these high prices come from a reliance on OPEC   (US Fed News Service

Benjamin Sovacool explains in his article that over the period of twelve years, the United States shale gas production increased 24.5 times the amount it produced in 1998. From 0.2 trillion cubic feet to an enormous 4.9 trillion cubic feet. Natural gas is also a huge financial benefit to North America. Before this drastic increase of fracking and natural gas production, the United States imported a clear majority of its oil and energy sources from the Middle East. This caused the middle east to obtain a control over the United States economic situation. For example, the 1979 oil embargo caused by OPEC (organization of petroleum exporting countries). According to Kimberly Amadeo, their decision to increase oil prices by a meager ten percent, caused oil rationing in the United States and worsened the already declining economy at this time. Since the increase in fracking and natural gas production, the U.S. has become decreasingly reliant on imported energy sources. Richard Janson denotes, that the impact of this influx of cheap gas has had many positive impacts on not only the economics of the energy industry, but foreign policy and the United States domestic policy. With the downfall in the need for imports for energy and the rise of hydraulic

In the recent news headlines, the oil crisis and the plummeting gas prices have caused a concern among many. The topic of the oil industry and gas prices are such a controversial matter that has been debated for years on what should be done. On a positive note if gas prices continue to drop, those that do not work in the oil industry will be pleased with this result. With the gas prices dropping to a significant low in the past couple of years, President Obama feels as though he needs to improve this situation.

By reducing imports of foreign oil, our country is no longer increasing the coffers of foreign governments that do not hold the same values as America or even subsidizing terrorists’ groups with oil money. After reading Amadeo’s account of the 1970s stranglehold OPEC had on our country during its oil embargo, motorists waiting tiredly at gas pumps and the ridiculous increase in gasoline prices; Americans were hostages to foreign control of energy supplies. We are now in control of our

Chevron and other major oil companies may initially disagree with this step and state that the economic gains are too substantial to just drop fracking. What those big companies need to understand is that just because fracking is good for the economy now,

As Americans search for alternatives to purchasing oil and gas from overseas, the increase of fracking to extract compressed natural gas has risen dramatically. Remarkably, the public can only access limited research from independent scientists who list both the negative and the positive effects fracking is having on the environment and citizens’ health (Rosenberg, Phartiyal, Goldman, & Branscomb, 2014, p. 75). Moreover, the American public and their elected officials are denied the chance to make informed choices about this undertaking because a fuller analysis is needed (Rosenberg, Phartiyal, Goldman, & Branscomb, 2014, p. 75). Some argue that the lack of comprehensive regulations of unconventional oil and gas development at the federal

Drivers realize that the price of gas is tied to the market value of crude oil, and has a direct impact to their daily commutes, errands, and vacations. However the reality is that the price of fuel has implications much grater than most consumers realize. Fuel prices affect nearly everything we purchase. For example, the price of farm commodities and food increase because farmers pay more for the fuel for their farm equipment and trucking firms pay more for fuel to get the commodities to market. These shipping “fuel surcharges” impact all goods

According to Dews (2015) “As fracking grows, natural gas prices are dropping”. Fracking according to Dews led to almost a 50 percent drop in natural gas prices; allows consumers access to a far cheaper resource that is more efficient than comparable sources. Dews states that “as a result of increased fracking gas bills have dropped 13 billion per year, which adds up to $200 per year for gas consuming households.” (Dews, 2015) Thus all energy users including industries and businesses, as well as residents have started to save money due to the increased fracking. Not only have multiple consumers benefitted, but multiple regions as well; Dews accurately describes the natural thought that “one would expect colder states that use natural gas for space heating to benefit most from shale gas [yet] the West South Central region (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) gained the most at $432 per person in consumer benefits.” States who widely embraced the fracking innovations were rewarded moreover than those who were reluctant. Dews also adds his opinion about the potential safety hazards, “a great deal of uncertainty remains regarding pollution from fracking.” According to Fred Dews, the benefits of fracking are tangible while the dangers are only potential and

“I will lift the restrictions on the production of 50$ trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.” And here is why.

The US consumed 142 billion gallons of gasoline in 2007 and the tax applied on it is 18. 4 cents on one gallon. All around the US, there are around 162,000 retail gasoline outlets. With the price of crude oil hovering around $100 a barrel, it is no wonder that concern is growing about the gas prices being so high. After all, modern economies are kept moving by this lifeblood. For instance, in the United States alone personal vehicles consume more than 140 billion gallons of diesel fuel and gasoline per year.However, there are several factors that contribute to the gas prices being so high. Given below are a few of them. Increasing Demand for Oil One of the main catalysts for the incessant rise in gas prices has been one of the most