Do you think we should ban the export of oil drilled in America to only be used by Americans?

Today, the House voted on the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands (DRILL) Act, H.R. 6515, a bill to promote the responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas, particularly in 20 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. While 244 Members voted for the bill, it failed to get the two-thirds support necessary for passage.

There are 68 million acres of federal land already leased by oil companies for energy production now but sitting idle. That’s 75% of leased lands, sitting idle. Oil companies should drill what they have leased—and lease lands already open for drilling first. But instead, President Bush and Congressional Republicans want to make this a fight about our beaches and our threatened wilderness areas, in an apparent attempt to help the oil companies lock up more public lands before he leaves office.
70% of Alaskan North Slope Oil is currently exported to Japan.

14 Responses to “Do you think we should ban the export of oil drilled in America to only be used by Americans?”

  1. roadster9879 Says:

    Yes, undoubtedly. And, by the way, shouldn’t we be raising the price of our corn, wheat and other exports to compensate for the gauges. Remember the world needs us more than we need them. We should be using that fact.

  2. ryan Says:

    if ur question is that any oil we drill here should stay here for us and not to sell? then yes i think we should keep our oil to stay in america, y give it to other countries when ours needs it
    4.18 a gallon isnt cuttin it for most americans

  3. pablo_asawa Says:

    I don’t thing legally they could do this.

    What you would have is a violation of fair trade

    you got NAFTA and Global Community agreements with

    fair trade won’t go down..its would make us more

    screwed cause the Arabs would do the same to US?

  4. Michelle S Says:

    There is a law that we can keep the oil here if we wanted to.
    However, we would have much better relations to add to the world pool.
    This would increase our outward trade, and increase the dollar value. SO it helps not only with supply, but the value of the dollar.

  5. Dick H Says:

    I agree with the ban and that is about it. I want them to drill wherever it is easiest to drill because the oil is cheaper and I pay less at the pump. If it was cheap to drill on the leased land, they would have done it already. DRILL DRILL DRILL. Vote out all who don’t want to drill wherever we can (the democrats).

  6. Grant M Says:

    Any more ideas you want to copy from North Korea?

  7. It's That Guy Says:

    It shows you how the whole issue is manipulated by the Republicans, the Bush Administration, and the ‘liberal’ media.

    15% of American oil is exported. We did have a law against exporting Alaskan oil, but it expired during Clinton’s terms and was not renewed. In fact all that ANWR oil is planned to be sold in China and Japan because it’s cheaper to transport it there than to the West Coast of the US. For some reason this is never mentioned in the discussions of ANWR in the media, or by Pres. Bush.

    The fact is, there is no real shortage of oil. The cost of production hasn’t risen. If the rise in the cost of oil is not based on shortage or production cost, then why do we expect increased production (at higher cost) to lower prices? Bush is doing here what he’s done ever since he came to office–using an emergency or crisis as a justification to do what wanted to do to begin with. Oil is $4./gal? Let’s destroy ANWR and invade Iran! Oh, and another big tax cut for rich people will help too!

  8. Angela D Says:

    Not a bad idea……maybe other countries should adopt your idea also.

    Imagine if the Arab countries who produce oil decided not to export it.

  9. Think 1st Says:

    That defeats the so called free market system.

    I think most of Alaska’s oil goes overseas already. Japan if I recall correctly.

    Besides, why would the "local" oil companies charge less per barrel?

  10. snowyjimbob Says:

    1 month ago Republicans were criticizing Democrats for the Dems not allowing drilling in Alaska. Those dam dems now realize that republicans were right all along but dont want to admit it. So instead of drilling in ANWR where most of the oil is and where the gas companies have said they would get the most oil (and profit) the dems want to dril in an area 20 miles away from ANWR to make republicans seem wrong. I am an independent and even I can see what happened here!!!
    Republicans are not arguing about wilderness!!! That’s what pelosi wants you to think!
    Republicans just want to drill in ANWR where we can make more profit.

  11. LadySnowbird Says:

    Interesting how Bush and the Republicans say one thing in public then …we discover they do another in private.

  12. aoao Says:

    No it is done that way because it is both more ecpnomical and energy efficient. What happens if OPEC bans sales to the US in favor of th Europeans who pay twice what we do for gas and in favor of the Asians who own most of American debt and whose economies are growing by leaps and bounds.

  13. Tmess2 Says:

    The problem with your arguments are two-fold.

    First, oil and gasoline are mostly fungible. If I don’t export my oil, then that is less oil on the world market for me and other people to buy. That would raise prices for the remaining oil I need to import except I need to import less oil which will reduce the number of buyers. The net effect cancels each other out.

    Second, oil companies drill where it is profitable to drill. I grew up in Texas where a lot of oil fields shut down when prices collapsed in the 1980s. It just wasn’t profitable to try to pump more oil out of those wells.

    However, I think the U.S needs to be more intelligent about leasing land for mineral exploitation — whether oil or coal or whatever. That land belongs to the public and the public should get reasonable royalties for it. It does not belong to the big energy companies.

    The debate about drilling is, of course, a red herring. It will take 15-20 years before that oil will come on line in sufficient quantity. As such, any impact on current prices would be minimal at best. If we have not followed the lead of other countries and started to take steps to reduce the importance of oil to our transportation system (and it is already only a minor part of our electricity system) by that time, you might as well stick a fork in us because we will be on the verge of regressing to Third World status.

  14. hot tramp Says:

    Yes definitely . As far as free trade no problem . As long as we get what we want. And that would includes all there money flowing in the door instead of our money flowing out the door that’s all good to . We do have a big debt to china to pay off you know the money would come in handy. It may even trigger gas wars like it did in the 60s