US Domestic Energy / Energy policy

[AMDScooter]

That's great scooter, you're a regular reader of sources I don't read. I prefer to simply check Google each morning since I don't have the time. Another fail at mind reading.

Because ur definitely no a libberal democrat. You only sound like one parroting talking points from them outlets. Check.

I do get the HotAir news sent to me. I see you post from them regularly. All I do is ignore your constant C&P or respond to the words from your post instead of whining about it. Try that some time. This sidetrack, as usual, shows all you can do is shift into adhom mode to ignore the topic.

I did reply to the topic. If you had been able to stay on-topic we'd surely have been able to avoid a discussion of how you dislike me pointing out the other libberal talking points you decided to toss in.

Like much of what you claim... volumes of your replies to my Hotair story linkage filled with them "adhom mode" attacks you claim to hate so much tell an entirely different story. You do as piss poor a job of ignoring my Hotair posts as you do convincing anyone you are a centrist/libbertarian.

[AMDScooter]

Recent DOE loans are surely going to come up. Seeing as the current administrations use of them to line his campaign bundlers pockets push ill advised and habitually non economically viable "green" jobs programs by making highly suspect loans.

Solyndra is a black eye for the DOE’s clean power support

Even though I wrote these two stories “Solyndra Spells Disaster for DOE Loan Guarantee Program,” (Nov. 2010) and “Was the DOE Loan Guarantee for Solyndra a Mistake?” (May 2010), I was still shocked by the news this morning that Solyndra plans to file for bankruptcy. It’s about the worst outcome possible for a company that the Department of Energy has touted as a game-changing solar tech company, and which received an unusual amount of government support and attention.

The DOE gave Solyndra a flagship $535 million loan guarantee in 2009, and in September 2009, held a press conference and ground-breaking ceremony with speeches by Vice President Joe Biden, then-California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and DOE Secretary Steven Chu (see photo above). Biden said to the audience back then: “These are jobs that won’t be exported,” and “You guys have figured it out” to Solyndra execs. Fast-forward about two years to this morning, and neither of those things are true.

A half-year after Solyndra’s ground breaking ceremony in 2009, President Obama visited the company’s factory in the spring of 2010. That was actually the spark for my original article wondering: If Solyndra has one of the highest manufacturing costs of its solar peers, and Obama attaches his administration to the company, what happens if those costs never come down? Something bad. We’ll start to see the full blow-out of that choice over the coming weeks, but it immediately means a whole lot of finger-pointing by the Republicans at President Obama, the DOE, the DOE’s clean power support programs, and in particular, the DOE’s loan guarantee program.
Loan guarantee program

The loan guarantee program by its nature picks winners and losers, in contrast to other subsidies programs that provide incentives for general sectors and not individual companies. Loan guarantees essentially serve as a promise by the government to make good on a loan if the company can’t, and typically enable better interest rates and lower costs than would otherwise be available to a company for project financing. Often, these loan guarantees have turned into a loan from the Treasury.

Even before the Solyndra disaster, the loan guarantee program has come under attack for a variety of reasons like that it hasn’t been keeping electronic records as detailed as it should. The Inspector General found earlier this year that the loan guarantee program could “not readily demonstrate … how it resolved or mitigated relevant risks prior to granting loan guarantees.” In other words, it couldn’t explain how it decided one company would be a more successful technology that should receive funding, vs, say, a competitor.

Frustratingly, the DOE hasn’t answered many questions about Solyndra. DOE loan chief Jonathan Silver previously maintained in interviews with us that the Solyndra deal was a solid one (see video of his talk at Green:Net 2011 below). And the DOE has also decided to not disclose much about the review process or terms of the Solyndra deal.

I predict that, unfortunately, Solyndra could be the nail in the coffin for the DOE loan guarantee program. The program itself is already controversial and is facing budget cuts by Republicans, and Solyndra’s bankruptcy is the perfect weapon to be used to make that cut.

Watch live streaming video from greennet2011 at livestream.com
Republican outcry

Solyndra has also been the target of an investigation by House Republicans, spearheaded by the Energy Committee’s Republican chair, Rep. Fred Upton. Upton started an investigation into the DOE loan guarantee to Solyndra back in February. And in July of this year, the Committee approved a resolution to move forward with a subpoena for the Office of Management and Budget to get access to documents about the Department of Energy’s $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra.

Upton is now loudly saying the equivalent of “I told you so.” In a statement released on Wednesday, he writes:

We smelled a rat from the onset. As the highly celebrated first stimulus loan guarantee awarded by the DOE, the $535 million loan for Solyndra was suspect from day one. Our investigation to protect American taxpayers has revealed that in the rush to get stimulus cash out the door, despite repeated claims by the Administration to the contrary, some bets were bad from the beginning. . . It is clear that Solyndra was a dubious investment, but DOE doubled down in March of this year and restructured the loan, possibly further increasing taxpayers’ liability. That is a question we want answered. In this time of record debt such disregard for taxpayer dollars cannot be tolerated.

Obama was supposed to talk about clean energy in a speech next week, and Vice President Joe Biden said at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas this week that the state of the clean power industry in the U.S. “is at a crossroads.” I am very interested to see how exactly the DOE will explain such a high-profile bad bet, that some in the media like myself, clearly saw as a mistake.

So at the same time the administration was pushing hundreds of millions in loans to already failing "green" companies it's EPA was been hard at work hamstringing real energy producers. Add the administrations illegal gulf drilling ban based on altered documents and it's impossible to see any angle where this administration can be seen as anything but anti energy.

[AMDScooter]

From an existing permit... Another example of companies doing well in spite of the disastrous policies of this administration

Chevron hits new deepwater oil reserves

What cost have we paid for the president’s permitorium on new lease auctions (only just ended this summer) and drilling permit approvals which are still well below the levels we need? Unlike many rhetorical questions, this is one which we will eventually learn the answer to. A piece of the puzzle fell into place this week when Chevron, finally getting back to work after long delays, announced the discovery of another, potentially significant US energy deposit in the gulf.

SAN RAMON, Calif., Sept. 6, 2011 – Chevron Corporation (NYSE: CVX) today announced a new oil discovery at the Moccasin prospect in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico.

The Keathley Canyon Block 736 Well No. 1 encountered more than 380 feet of net pay in the Lower Tertiary Wilcox Sands. The well is located approximately 216 miles off the Louisiana coast in 6,759 feet of water and was drilled to a depth of 31,545 feet.

“The Moccasin discovery underscores the importance of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico as a source of domestic energy for the United States and as a focus area for Chevron’s worldwide exploration portfolio,” said George Kirkland, vice chairman, Chevron Corporation. “Moccasin is an important addition to our queue of high-quality opportunities around the globe.”

Lest you think this is a sign that things are now back to business as usual, this was not a “new permit” striking black gold. Chevron started work on this site in March 2010 with a valid, normal permit. Work was stopped only three months later when the permitorium went into effect, though no problems had been encountered on the Moccasin site. They were unable to get their permit renewed until March of this year when existing – not new – permits began to be reactivated at a snail’s pace.

This is good news for our domestic energy prospects, but it leaves us to wonder… would we already be obtaining energy resources today, reducing our dependency on foreign sources, had these delays not been encountered while the middle east erupted in turmoil? How much closer to a state of relative energy independence might we be today without these delays? What other resources are waiting to be tapped which we might have already found?

As I said. We’ll know those answers eventually… just much later than we would have with a sane, productive domestic energy policy in place for the last two years.

[BlackDragon24]

From an existing permit... Another example of companies doing well in spite of the disastrous policies of this administration

Chevron hits new deepwater oil reserves

How much closer to a state of relative energy independence might we be today without these delays?

I would say not closer....at all

But when I ask questions like this about tax cuts, like, "How much less debt would we have if we hadn't enabled the Bush tax cuts?," I usually get some sort of derogatory response about how it doesn't cost anything.

Just sayin'

[AMDScooter]

I would say not closer....at all

But when I ask questions like this about tax cuts, like, "How much less debt would we have if we hadn't enabled the Bush tax cuts?," I usually get some sort of derogatory response about how it doesn't cost anything.

Just sayin'

It's really not my fault any opposition to libberal ideology is seen as "derogatory" to the faithful.

BTW.. your contention is that lower tax rates have an associated "cost". You'll have to spin a lot harder to make that argument fit here in regard to the discovery of new oil reserves and the amount of oil being extracted.

just sayin'

[tucker]

I would say not closer....at all

But when I ask questions like this about tax cuts, like, "How much less debt would we have if we hadn't enabled the Bush tax cuts?," I usually get some sort of derogatory response about how it doesn't cost anything.

Just sayin'

In my opinion the deficit and the debt would be higher. If the money is there they will spend it and borrow or print an equal amount or more. When you’re spending somebody else’s money and there is no limit on your credit card the spending has no limit.

If you don’t believe it take a good look at California.

[AMDScooter]

What could go wrong? If you liked Solyndra.. you are sure to love the Genesis Solar Project in California.

Feds to guarantee loan for another solar-power project

[BlackDragon24]

It's really not my fault any opposition to libberal ideology is seen as "derogatory" to the faithful.

BTW.. your contention is that lower tax rates have an associated "cost". You'll have to spin a lot harder to make that argument fit here in regard to the discovery of new oil reserves and the amount of oil being extracted.

just sayin'

I was just trying to answer some of the ridiculous questions posed by your article. You'd think that the guy who wrote it would understand how the world oil markets work before he posts something as ridiculous as he did.

Does he have any math to suggest that x amount of oil on the world market would cause the cost of gasoline to drop to price y?

Does he have any math to suggest that drilling = American jobs?

I've got lots of math to suggest that oil companies aren't hiring new people even with record profits and tax breaks if you wanna see it, but you already know that's true

[AMDScooter]

I was just trying to answer some of the ridiculous questions posed by your article. You'd think that the guy who wrote it would understand how the world oil markets work before he posts something as ridiculous as he did.

Yes.. you tried. But it was a piss poor attempt to compare the Bush/Obama tax rates to rebut a post about an oil reserve discovery in the gulf and the cost of Obama's illegal drilling ban. The question is hardly "ridiculous" though I can see why you'd like to have it framed that way seeing as Obama is going to have to answer for his utterly stupid moves in the gulf since the spill. The author does state there is a cost associated by the illegal moratorium that is yet unknown.

Does he have any math to suggest that x amount of oil on the world market would cause the cost of gasoline to drop to price y?

Why would the author post "math" to support of a position he never took? Looks like a classic strawman setup to me.

Does he have any math to suggest that drilling = American jobs?

Math to suggest? America’s oil and natural gas industry supports 9.2 million jobs throughout the economy and 7.5 percent of our GDP. You do the math.

Those points aside.. IMHO the thrust of the article was energy independence and how the ill advised and illegal drilling ban Obama instituted based on doctored information has impacted us getting closer to that goal. Do I need to conjure a pie chart to prove the point that if we produce more oil here we'll need less from elsewhere?

I've got lots of math to suggest that oil companies aren't hiring new people even with record profits and tax breaks if you wanna see it, but you already know that's true

Of course oil companies are not hiring... you don't need new employees to work on oil rigs that don't have permits due to Obama's illegal ban on drilling:

An Illegal Drilling Ban
Does Ken Salazar think he's above the law?

You also don't need new employees to work on oil platforms leaving for greener pastures due to that same illegal Obama ban either:

Ten Oil Rigs Have Exited Gulf Since Obama Moratorium Went Into Effect

Odd those facts never seem to creep into your OMFGBIGOIL narrative.

Record profits? Yes oil companies are profitable. But it's not like they are raping with obscene profit margins. They simply sell a f*cktonne of oil:

Oil Company Earnings: Reality Over Rhetoric

Do I need to supply "math" to show how simple supply and demand works? Or will you simply concede yet another rather retarded talking point?

Hey.. how about those "green" companies who wither and die without huge injections of taxpayer subsidies? They get Billions in subsidies and tax breaks.. never turn a profit.. don't generate anything remotely close to what the oil industry does in actual energy, taxes or jobs. "green energy" is a much richer target for real outrage as opposed to the disingenuous and baseless rhetoric constantly leveled at oil companies. Oh wait.. that won't play so well for the (D)emorats to campaign on.. never mind.

Tax breaks. Ya.. I'd love to see your information there. In the past who benefited the most from those "tax breaks" and "subsidies" were... wait for it... GREEN ENERGY! Yup those same companies that never turn a profit.. don't generate anything remotely close to what the oil industry does in actual energy, taxes or jobs! Oh wait.. we're not supposed to talk about that.. keep walking.. nuthin' to see here. Oh.. and another minor detail you might wanna continue to keep on the down low. Those "tax breaks" actually resulted in a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies!

Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks

Both candidates are referring to H.R. 6, the 2005 energy bill that contained $14.3 billion in subsidies for energy companies. However, as we’ve reported numerous times, a vast majority of those subsidies (all but $2.8 billion) were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research. In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the tax changes in the 2005 energy bill produced a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies, as we’ve reported time and time and time again. They did get some breaks, but they had more taken away.

So I can expect you'll be jumping on demonizing those 33bil renewables now right? Thought not.

As far as the effective tax rate for oil companies? looks to be about 41% on average:

The truth about America’s oil & gas companies — Part I

Further, U.S. oil and natural gas companies pay considerably more in taxes than the average manufacturing company. According to data found in the Standard & Poor’s Compustat North American Database, the industry’s 2009 net income tax expenses — essentially their effective marginal income tax rate — averaged 41 percent, compared to 26 percent for the S&P Industrial companies. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) concludes that, as an additional part of their tax obligation, the major energy-producing companies paid or incurred over $280 billion of income tax expenses between 2006 and 2008.

The U.S. oil and natural gas industry also pays the federal government significant rents, royalties and lease payments for production access — totaling more than $100 billion since 2000. In fact, U.S. oil and natural gas companies pay more than $86 million to the federal government in both income taxes and production fees every single day. In addition, since 2000, the industry has invested almost $1.7 trillion in U.S. capital projects to advance all forms of energy, including alternatives, while reducing the industry’s environmental footprint.

That's an average of 41%. Hardly what I'd identify as a tax dodging enterprise. Feel free to stick with your opinion.

As far as current tax breaks. The biggest one I can find information about is
section 199 domestic manufacturing/production deduction. Yet it's not "oil company" specific at all. Instead it applies to all companies that produce things in the United States:

Internal Revenue Code Section 199
Income Attributable to Domestic Production Activities

Thems the facts...

[BlackDragon24]

Yes.. you tried. But it was a piss poor attempt to compare the Bush/Obama tax rates to rebut a post about an oil reserve discovery in the gulf and the cost of Obama's illegal drilling ban. The question is hardly "ridiculous" though I can see why you'd like to have it framed that way seeing as Obama is going to have to answer for his utterly stupid moves in the gulf since the spill. The author does state there is a cost associated by the illegal moratorium that is yet unknown.



Why would the author post "math" to support of a position he never took? Looks like a classic strawman setup to me.



Math to suggest? America’s oil and natural gas industry supports 9.2 million jobs throughout the economy and 7.5 percent of our GDP. You do the math.

Those points aside.. IMHO the thrust of the article was energy independence and how the ill advised and illegal drilling ban Obama instituted based on doctored information has impacted us getting closer to that goal. Do I need to conjure a pie chart to prove the point that if we produce more oil here we'll need less from elsewhere?



Of course oil companies are not hiring... you don't need new employees to work on oil rigs that don't have permits due to Obama's illegal ban on drilling:

An Illegal Drilling Ban
Does Ken Salazar think he's above the law?

You also don't need new employees to work on oil platforms leaving for greener pastures due to that same illegal Obama ban either:

Ten Oil Rigs Have Exited Gulf Since Obama Moratorium Went Into Effect

Odd those facts never seem to creep into your OMFGBIGOIL narrative.

Record profits? Yes oil companies are profitable. But it's not like they are raping with obscene profit margins. They simply sell a f*cktonne of oil:

Oil Company Earnings: Reality Over Rhetoric

Do I need to supply "math" to show how simple supply and demand works? Or will you simply concede yet another rather retarded talking point?

Hey.. how about those "green" companies who wither and die without huge injections of taxpayer subsidies? They get Billions in subsidies and tax breaks.. never turn a profit.. don't generate anything remotely close to what the oil industry does in actual energy, taxes or jobs. "green energy" is a much richer target for real outrage as opposed to the disingenuous and baseless rhetoric constantly leveled at oil companies. Oh wait.. that won't play so well for the (D)emorats to campaign on.. never mind.

Tax breaks. Ya.. I'd love to see your information there. In the past who benefited the most from those "tax breaks" and "subsidies" were... wait for it... GREEN ENERGY! Yup those same companies that never turn a profit.. don't generate anything remotely close to what the oil industry does in actual energy, taxes or jobs! Oh wait.. we're not supposed to talk about that.. keep walking.. nuthin' to see here. Oh.. and another minor detail you might wanna continue to keep on the down low. Those "tax breaks" actually resulted in a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies!

Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks



So I can expect you'll be jumping on demonizing those 33bil renewables now right? Thought not.

As far as the effective tax rate for oil companies? looks to be about 41% on average:

The truth about America’s oil & gas companies — Part I




That's an average of 41%. Hardly what I'd identify as a tax dodging enterprise. Feel free to stick with your opinion.

As far as current tax breaks. The biggest one I can find information about is
section 199 domestic manufacturing/production deduction. Yet it's not "oil company" specific at all. Instead it applies to all companies that produce things in the United States:

Internal Revenue Code Section 199
Income Attributable to Domestic Production Activities

Thems the facts...

All that work and it still doesn't answer the fundamental questions I'm trying to get at.

Can anyone prove that more drilling is going to get us closer to energy independence (given the way the world oil markets work)?

Can anyone prove that more drilling is going to equal American jobs?

For example....those ten oil rigs that have left the gulf of Mexico....did they fire all of their American employees before they headed off for South America?

If Obama lifted his supposed illegal moratorium on drilling, would the oil companies hire more American workers to drill?

Do you have any interest in making sure that the oil companies would hire American workers if they would be drilling off of American shores?

[AMDScooter]

All that work and it still doesn't answer the fundamental questions I'm trying to get at.

My previous post addressed every talking point you tossed at the wall. And I imagine resulted in this "fundamental question" post. A post conspicuously lacking any of the above "record profits"... "tax breaks"... etc... rhetoric or any inkling of a response to the several "green energy" questions I posed in response to your post.

Can anyone prove that more drilling is going to get us closer to energy independence (given the way the world oil markets work)?

Pretty sure I know where you are going with this one as well.. I've seen the "world oil market" point used before in conjunction with the amount of oil reserves argument. My take.. the more energy we produce here the less we are subject to the volatility of the energy we import. Drilling for oil would be a good start... but we have many other untapped resources as well.

Can anyone prove that more drilling is going to equal American jobs?

For example....those ten oil rigs that have left the gulf of Mexico....did they fire all of their American employees before they headed off for South America?

If Obama lifted his supposed illegal moratorium on drilling, would the oil companies hire more American workers to drill?

I can show what the inverse does:

Obama’s Drilling Ban by the Numbers

33: the percent that capital spending dropped on account of the deepwater moratorium
60,000: number of jobs lost due to the moratorium
190,000: number of jobs that could be created by 2013 if the Gulf is open to drilling
140: the percent that capital expenditures could increase by if the Gulf is open to drilling
70: the percent increase that the offshore oil and gas industry would spend
45 billion: total dollars of GDP contribution that would come from a return to drilling
6: the number of months President Obama held a moratorium on offshore drilling
9: the number of months since the moratorium was lifted, without a return to drilling
33: the number of shallow-water permits for new wells issued since 6/8/2010
5: the number of permits issued for deepwater wells that were in the process before moratorium
1: the number of new deepwater wells issued since 10/12/2010

Here we have a very clear view of hundreds of thousands of jobs that could be created, nearly 200,000 of which would be created in the next 18 months, yet this administration drags their feet and instead focuses on “the future.” That is, not jobs now or soon, but jobs in the next couple decades. All the while they deny creating jobs now.

Do you have any interest in making sure that the oil companies would hire American workers if they would be drilling off of American shores?

Nope. Why should we hold oil companies to a different standard than we do our own gubberment? Last I checked we have millions of illegals from Mexico here taking American jobs as is with the gubberment nearly entirely complicit in the enterprise.

**edit to add**
Do you think subsidizing other countries drilling is a good plan?

Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling
Too bad it's not in U.S. waters.

You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

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. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.

The Bush Administration's five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. But in 2007 environmentalists went to court to block drilling in Alaska and in April a federal court ruled in their favor. In May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department was unsure whether that ruling applied only to Alaska or all offshore drilling. So it asked an appeals court for clarification. Late last month the court said the earlier decision applied only to Alaska, opening the way for the sale of leases in the Gulf. Mr. Salazar now says the sales will go forward on August 19.

This is progress, however slow. But it still doesn't allow the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts, which could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter. Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won't allow at home.

[otoc]

**edit to add**
Do you think subsidizing other countries drilling is a good plan?

Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling
Too bad it's not in U.S. waters.

....the WSJ covered this in 2009? That's a bad reflection on them....

Bogus Brazilian Oil Claims


September 18, 2009





Q: Did Obama loan $2 billion to Brazil’s oil company to benefit China and George Soros?
A: The president had nothing to do with the loan, which the Export-Import Bank approved for Brazil to buy U.S.-made equipment and services.
FULL QUESTION

I received this in an e-mail. Is it true?

Today even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for oil for this country. He signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil. The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and not the USA. The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil".
We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever.
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏
Wait it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American Billionaire, George Soros, Liberal businessman who is a radical left wing supporter, finances MoveOn.org <http://moveon.org/> as well as other liberal programs and was President Obama’s largest and most generous supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was on any of the other news networks.

FULL ANSWER

This claim stems from a "preliminary committment" made back on April 14 by the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. The bank intends to loan up to $2 billion to finance exports to the Brazilian oil company Petróleo Brasileiro S.A., known as Petrobras, over the next several years.
The e-mail is false on two counts.

• The message falsely says the decision was due to an "executive order" by the president. No presidential order was required. Furthermore, none of President Obama’s appointees had joined the Ex-Im board at the time of the vote, which was unanimous, and bipartisan. The Ex-Im Bank states: "In fact, at the time the Bank’s Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush."
• The message falsely claims that "we have absolutely no gain" from the loan. In fact, the loan is being made specifically to finance purchase by Petrobras of U.S.-made oilfield equipment and services. The mission of the Ex-Im Bank is to encourage exports by making such loans.

The bank’s chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, underscored the purpose of the loan during a trip to Brazil at the end of July:

Ex-Im Bank President Hochberg, July 29: I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services

Obama appointed Hochberg to the Ex-Im Bank on April 20, nearly a week after the board voted to approve the loan. He was confirmed May 14 and sworn in May 21.
The message claims that George Soros would "benefit most" from the loan, but that is also a baseless accusation. Soros is a favorite whipping boy of conservatives because of his early financial help to the liberal group MoveOn.org. And he is indeed a major investor in Petrobras, through his New York-based hedge-fund firm, Soros Fund Management LLC. But the hedge fund recently sold 22 million shares of common stock in the company (which carry voting rights) while buying 5.8 million shares of preferred stock (which is non-voting.) As reported by Bloomberg News, Soros reduced his stake in the company before any of the Ex-Im Bank’s promised loan has been dispensed.
There is some truth to the claim that China would benefit, but not much. Brazil recently agreed to export 200,000 barrels of oil per day to China in coming years. But that was in return for a loan by China of $10 billion, five times more than the U.S. Ex-Im Bank is lending to finance purchase of U.S. gear.
The Ex-Im Bank also would like it known that no loan has yet been made, and that the "preliminary commitment" could eventually result in either a direct loan or a loan guarantee. Either way, the Ex-Im Bank states, "no taxpayer dollars are involved." The bank is self-sustaining.
-Brooks Jackson
Sources

Export-Import Bank of the United States. "Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans for Petrobras’ Brazilian Offshore Oil Exploration and Development." 20 Aug 2009, acccessed 17 Sep 2009.
"Ex-Im Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg in Brazil to Promote Financing for Purchases of U.S. Exports." News Release. Export-Import Bank of the United States. 29 Jul 2009.
Kishan, Saijel and Andres R. Martinez. "George Soros Cut Petrobras Stake in Second Quarter." Bloomberg.com. 14 Aug 2009.

[AMDScooter]

^^^ It's a bad reflection... but not on the WSJ. The WSJ article makes no mention of Soros.. China or an EO. Didya even skim the WSJ article prior to posting the FC response to an email?

[Dutchcedar]

Did you mean [no] mention?

I also didn't see anything about an executive order. But its not as if the administration had no toes in the oil water:

Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

We've seen it before... set up a bunch of straw and knock it down for the win.

[BlackDragon24]

Nope. Why should we hold oil companies to a different standard than we do our own gubberment? Last I checked we have millions of illegals from Mexico here taking American jobs as is with the gubberment nearly entirely complicit in the enterprise.

This right here is why you are impossible to argue with. And by mean impossible, I mean it makes absolutely no sense to. Your reasoning for not wanting to hold oil companies accountable for hiring American workers is backed by flawed immigration policy that you constantly rail against as well.

How do you even keep it all straight?

You obviously don't think it is a good idea for

millions of illegals from Mexico here taking American jobs as is with the gubberment nearly entirely complicit in the enterprise.

But then you use that as justification to not hold oil companies accountable for hiring American workers if they want to drill off American shores? I guess we should all just start flinging poop at each other then eh? Because there is no rhyme of reason to your argument

It's ok Scoot you are a republican. You don't need to take any real position that holds you accountable