quote Originally posted by newf: So still can't read can you? I said both sides were biased. I didn't give credit to US and Obama being 3rd. YOU DID!!! Holding back? Facts are yes the Saudi's have plenty of immediate production capacity and way way more reserves so I would say the Saudi's are holding back while the U.S. doesn't seem to be, at least not equally. Sorry you can't seem to have a discussion about something if someone disagrees with you. Shows the character of some I guess, maybe you should start using graphics and name calling as well.

Still playing words games. I stated that the US is #3 as a fact. It was you who accredited Obama with it.

I see you are doubling down on your inconsistency. So US is #3 therefore Obama can't be reducing oil production but Saudi Arabia who is #2 is holding back.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: I think it is clear by your inconsistency that you are clearly trolling in this thread. The others were right about you.

It's a recurring theme in every thread he posts in. Don't take my word for it, just do a search on his screen name to see for yourself.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Still playing words games. I stated that the US is #3 as a fact. It was you who accredited Obama with it. I see you are doubling down on your inconsistency. So US is #3 therefore Obama can't be reducing oil production but Saudi Arabia who is #2 is holding back.

OK now I'm confused I thought he was the President and was responsible for everything? I assumed that's why his name was brought up in the title? No?

Inconcsistency how exactly? I just said that Saudi Arabia is known to have massive oil reserves and plenty of extra production capacity at the ready, as far as I know the U.S. doesn't have that (not without large lead times and huge expenditures that is).

I don't see the problem, please feel free to state your case though.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-12-2011).]

US clears more deepwater oil drilling in Gulf

quote NEW ORLEANS — The U.S. government is allowing deepwater drilling to resume on another Gulf of Mexico well as the region recovers from BP's devastating oil spill. BHP Billiton PLC said Saturday that the permit will allow it to get back to work in its Shenzi field, located about 120 miles (193 kilometers) off Louisiana's coast. The well, about 4,300 feet (1,300 meters) below the surface, began production in March 2009, but drilling stopped last year amid the backlash to the April 2010 blowout of a BP PLC well in the Gulf of Mexico. The explosion resulted in the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, raising questions about the safety of deepwater drilling. This is the second deepwater permit that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement has issued in the Gulf within the past two weeks. Noble Energy Inc. had already received clearance to resume drilling on a well about 70 miles (113 kilometers) southeast of Venice, Louisiana. They're the first permits to be granted in the Gulf since the agency imposed a moratorium on exploration in waters deeper than 500 feet (150 meters) last June. The moratorium was lifted in October, but deepwater drilling couldn't resume without government clearance. Oil industry executives and some U.S. lawmakers had already been pressing regulators to issue new permits before a recent spike in oil prices magnified the pressure. The first new permit came the week after oil prices surpassed $100 per barrel and gasoline prices soared to their highest level in two and a half years.

That's two.

Oil prices are not up because there is a shortage--they are up because there is volatility in the mideast. It's no secret that Saudi has plenty of spare capacity, but they are right in the middle of the very boiling cauldron that caused the raised price, so I doubt them suddenly pumping more would have much real affect on the global market price, since it is currently a price reflecting uncertainty--not supply or demand. There is talk of tapping the Strategic Reserves to lower the price here in the US---that won't work either. Unsustainable and it will have zero affect on the root of the problem--unrest in the Mideast and N.Africa.

Bill Clinton: Drilling delays 'ridiculous'
http://www.politico.com/new...ries/0311/51150.html

quote Former President Bill Clinton said Friday that delays in offshore oil and gas drilling permits are “ridiculous” at a time when the economy is still rebuilding, according to attendees at the IHS CERAWeek conference. Clinton spoke on a panel with former President George W. Bush that was closed to the media. Video of their moderated talk with IHS CERA Chairman Daniel Yergin was also prohibited. But according to multiple people in the room, Clinton, surprisingly, agreed with Bush on many oil and gas issues, including criticism of delays in permitting offshore since last year’s Gulf of Mexico spill. “Bush said all the things you’d expect him to say” on oil and gas issues, said Jim Noe, senior vice president at Hercules Offshore and executive director of the pro-drilling Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition. But Clinton added, “You’d be surprised to know that I agree with all that,” according to Noe and others in the room. Clinton said there are “ridiculous delays in permitting when our economy doesn’t need it,” according to Noe and others. “That was the most surprising thing they said,” Noe said. The two former presidents both generally agreed on the need to get offshore drilling workers back on the job. Clinton and Bush also agreed on the need for more domestic shale gas production, with Clinton noting that it has been done safely for years in his home state of Arkansas. Bush — who referred to oil and gas in the discussion as “hydrocarbons” — described the anti-hydrocarbon sentiment in Washington as “dangerous.” He said while there is a need to develop new energy technologies, “we have to be prosperous in order to afford those technologies and, in order to be prosperous, we need to drill,” according to Noe. Clinton was more cautious about expanding nuclear energy production, noting that can take a long time and is expensive. He also praised Bush for expanding wind energy in Texas as governor. Energy only came up among the last couple of questions from the audience, with the discussion dominated by talk of the geopolitics of the Middle East and anecdotes and memories. Clinton also said he was supportive of enacting a no-fly zone in Libya at a time when the Obama administration and other experts in the region are urging caution, according to witnesses. The panel with the two presidents closed out the weeklong IHS CERA, which included more than 2,200 Obama administration officials, industry executives, former diplomats and others. The Clinton-Bush event was the only one at the conference that was closed off to the media, at the request of the former presidents. Friday, President Barack Obama pushed back against Republican critics who blame his administration's policies for high gas prices. Obama said that domestic oil refiners aren't seeing a supply shortage — they're operating at near-full capacity. Instead, he said the recent price increases come from global market unease and economic recovery in fast-growing China, India and Brazil.

quote Originally posted by newf: Please bring it on, remember to at least back it up with facts though.. Really what's getting old is the same partisan BS where everything on oneside is wrong but everything on the other is right. Old and pathetic.

Just quoting your own words on this one. You DO provide a VERY one sided "spin" on everything political that you enter. Your sentence can be said from both side of the isles, but I am afraid that you only see your side of this broad spectrum. While I am not a Democrat, I do not put all of my eggs into one specific basket. I unilaterally think that most politicians in this crumbling infrastructure that we call a country, are only out for themselves. It is human nature to take care of yoursel first, and foremost.

2%. A number being thrown around, and leaving the US with not nearly enough oil to survive. I, for one, do not believe that we have only 2% of the available oil that this world has to offer. Of course I am not a geologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Innn last night. That belief that we only are ever able to get 2% of the worlds oil from our lands, is absolutely proposterous. Has Newf ever looked at a globe? The scale of the North American Continent should allow your head to wrap around the fact that it is impossible to get that 2% number.

(Now, I need to spend my damn Sunday researching crap to prove my points. Arrgh. Should have never turned this dang computer on. I wonder what percentage of America's available oil drilling reserves I used by waking up this morning. Like Obama, I will make up a number, and say that i have used nearly 28% of our available oil reserves. Why not? Dems can say anything that they want. Repub can say anything that they want. See where this is going?)

Tony

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: Newf, I too saw your new ratings bar, and had given you a positive many a thread ago. Without discussion, there can be no advancement. While I may not (ever) agree with you, I know that you make folks think. And that is deserving of a positive rating by me. Tony

Thanks for the + but I really don't mind if people give me a - I would hope it is for good reason when they do. Believe it or not even though I wasn't on this forum at the time I wasn't a fan all the people hating and bashing Bush and how "stupid" he was and so on I defended him many many times in converstions. It may seem like I always pick up for the Democrats or Obama but I hope that's not the case regardless of what they do. I think part of it, IMO, is that here on PFF there are so many willing to believe and trumpet the right wing side no matter what they claim or do while denigrating the left that I'm sure when I challenge or oppose those opinions that it may be construed as me being a loyal leftest.

Now having said that I'm sure many of my stances on some issues are in tune with predominately "left" thinking and some in tune with the right but I like to take each topic on it's own accord and not just wait for what some political mouthpiece or party has to say about it. When I vote I vote my concious and who I think will represent me the best regardless of political stripe, I admire politicians/people that think for themselves and aren't afraid to speak their mind about issues no matter what the general consensus of the party.

I'm sure I may get carried away with the pettiness and childishness that can occur on here and even fall into it myself at times but I honestly would consider many of my posts as more playing devils advocate at times or challenging things that I believe to be false assumptions or accusations.

Anyways if people get offended by me challenging them on their info or point of view on issues, I think they would be better off starting a blog and only allowing opinions that they agree with because if one is going to put it on here I figure it's fair for anyone to comment.

Is this really what they think? I think they need a reality check.
More Drilling in U.S. is ‘A Problem, Not A Solution’ to Creating Jobs, Says Democrat Member of House Labor Subcommittee
http://www.cnsnews.com/news...blem-not-solution-cr

quote Rep. Rob Andrews (D-N.J.) said that increasing oil drilling “off the coast” is “a problem, not a solution” to creating jobs in the United States. Andrews recommended that House Republicans bring legislation to the floor if they think more drilling will create jobs. Appearing at a press conference with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) on job creation, Rep. Andrews said, “I agree with my colleague and friend that drilling for oil off the coast is a problem, not a solution, but let’s get back to the main point here that if the Republicans really believe that was really a job-creating idea, why don’t they put it on the floor?” Andrews, the ranking member of the House Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee, continued, “I mean, walking into this room and having a discussion about it is one thing, but we’re in the minority. We can’t get our ideas on the floor but they can. So if that’s such a great idea, they ought to do it. I wouldn’t vote for it because I think it’s a poor idea. But it says what they think of the idea if they don’t put it on the floor.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of the House Budget Committee, said there would be no “immediate” reduction of gas prices from more drilling. “We need to be reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and, in general, specifically, we need to reduce our dependence on oil, foreign oil. But adding to our dependence on fossil fuels is not the answer,” she said. “We need to be taking a long-term view,” she said. “It’s been proven over and over again that there would no immediate return on a reduction in gas prices or a significant expansion of our energy resources by beginning drilling for more oil right now -- and that to me is not the real responsible way to explore creating jobs.” Wasserman added, “It’s just another example of how they [House Republicans] can have all the press conferences they want but they still have no legislation that would create jobs – not even that.” According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the total proved reserves and technically recoverable amount of oil in the United States, as of 2009, was 164.6 billion barrels. The United States consumes about 6.8 billion barrels of oil each year (of which about 60 percent is imported). As for natural gas in the United States, the CRS report, using data from the federal Energy Information Administration, shows there are 1,407.4 trillion cubic feet – America consumes 22.74 cubic feet of natural gas per year. As for coal, the report shows that the United States has a technically recoverable amount of 261 billion short tons; the country consumes about 1 billion short tons per year. Not counting technological advances in locating new deposits of fossil fuel and discounting any imports from other countries, the United States by itself, given current demand, has at least enough oil for 24 years, enough natural gas for 62 years, and enough coal for 261 years. Those numbers do not include new deposits of fossil fuels that may be found in the future and as technology advances. Nor do the numbers include the estimated worldwide reserves from selected nations (Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Venezuela), which total 1.3 trillion barrels of oil; 6.6. trillion cubic feet of natural gas; and 930 billion short tons of coal, according to the CRS report. When those fuels are converted into one source of measurement, such as barrels of oil, says the CRS, then worldwide reserves from those six nations equal 5.7 trillion barrels of oil. On a related note, potentially recoverable reserves of oil from shale – an expensive and currently cost-prohibitive operation – are estimated to be between 800 billion and 1.38 trillion barrels in the United States alone, according to the CRS report. These recoverable reserves – not counting imports -- could potentially meet current U.S. demand for oil for another 147 years.

More liberal nonsense.

Democrats Oppose Natural-gas Production
http://thenewamerican.com/i...tural-gas-production

quote Congressional Democrats have once again declared their opposition to weaning America off the dangers of foreign oil, this time by introducing into Congress the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act. The proposed law, introduced this week in Congress for the third time, would require energy companies to disclose chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, and most importantly, close a loophole that exempts drilling operators from drinking water regulations. It is being hailed by environmentalists as a step toward increasing the power and regulatory reach of the Environmental Protection Agency, which in turn, will increase the national deficit, boost government spending, and increase the reach of the federal government. The legislation seeks to regulate and ultimately eliminate the practice of hydraulic fracking, which is the process by which natural gas is obtained in the United States from regions that have the proper geological composition conducive to natural-gas production. In fracking, fractures are created in rocks, and are extended by internal fluid pressure which opens the fracture and causes it to extend through the rock. Man-made fluid-driven fractures are formed at depth in a borehole and extend into targeted formations. The fracture width is typically maintained after the injection by introducing a proppant into the injected fluid. Proppant is a particulate material, such as grains of sand or ceramic, that prevents the fractures from closing when the injection is stopped. The technique of hydraulic fracturing is used to increase or restore the rate at which fluids such as oil, gas, or water can be produced from a reservoir, including unconventional reservoirs such as shale rock or coal beds. Hydraulic fracturing enables the production of natural gas and oil from rock formations deep below the earth's surface (generally 5,000-20,000 feet). This method of harvesting natural gas has raised numerous criticisms from environmentalists, who believe that hydraulic fracturing causes ground water contamination, air pollution, the migration of waste materials and dangerous chemicals to the surface (soil pollution), and the mishandling of industrial waste. Such individuals continue to raise criticism against natural-gas production in the United States, even documenting these claims in the 2010 documentary Gasland. This despite the EPA’s 2004 report, which concluded that the process was safe and didn't warrant further study because there was "no unequivocal evidence" of health risks, and the fluids were neither necessarily hazardous nor able to travel far underground. In addition, a 2009 Energy Department report concluded that the chemicals in use have been adequately disclosed through Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) available on the OSHA website and that additional regulation is burdensome. Currently, under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, there is an exemption from regulation of hydraulic-fractured wells being re-classified as injection wells, which would place them under federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which was originally intended to regulate disposal wells. Despite these realities, Democrats are firmly against the practice of hydraulic fracturing, and believe that the regulatory exemption under the 2005 Energy Policy Act should be done away with. The FRAC Act would eliminate the exemption and might allow producing wells to be reclassified as injection wells, placing them under federal jurisdiction in states without approved regulatory laws, thus increasing the power, size, scope, and budget of the federal government and its leviathan regulatory arm. According to petroleum industry experts, this additional measure of government oversight and regulation is unnecessary, repressive, and cumbersome. The energy industry contends that the FRAC Act, which removes the Safe Drinking Water Act exemption, amounts to an additional layer of regulation that is unneeded and burdensome. States do an adequate job of regulating hydraulic fracturing already, according to the Independent Petroleum Association of America, and industry research estimates that complying with federal oversight would add approximately $100,000 to the cost of each new natural gas well in the United States. "Such action runs counter to the nation's energy goals — increasing the supply of American oil and natural gas — by making it too costly to produce," maintained Lee Fuller, vice president of government relations for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, in an e-mail. "Statements that hydraulic fracturing is unregulated are simply not true. It's been regulated assiduously by the states for more than 50 years." EPA officials in Washington say the section of the Safe Drinking Water Act that governs the oil and gas industry allows for flexibility and already defers oversight of drilling to the states. According to the industry and a recent industry-affiliated study, most state programs already have regulations in place. Despite the fact that experts say the states already do an adequate job of regulating hydraulic fracturing practices, Democrats are not content with the current levels of regulation, which leave the states in control to decide how they can best meet their own economic and environmental needs, and instead, are opting for an unconstitutional policy of strengthening the EPA and the federal government, which is one of the inherent goals of the environmental movement. In June 2009, the FRAC Act was first introduced in the House by Representatives by Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), and in the Senate by Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.). The 2009 bill was cosponsored in the House by 68 Democrats and one Republican (former Rep. John McHugh of N.Y., who is currently the Secretary of the Army), and in the Senate by seven Democrats. The version of the bill reintroduced this week in the House amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate hydraulic fracturing that occurs in states that have not taken primacy in natural-gas fracturing regulation, and also requires the energy industry to reveal what chemicals are being used in the sand-water mixture. Rep. DeGette says that the 2011 FRAC Act will be debated inside the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the bill may proceed alone, or she could attach it to a larger piece of legislation. "Frankly we are leaving all the options on the table for moving this bill forward," she noted after hearings on the issue last week. In an e-mail sent to the anti-fracking group ProPublica, bill sponsor Rep. Jared Polis said the following: Families, communities, and local governments are upset that the safety of their water has been compromised by a special interest exemption, and we join them in that frustration. The problem is that dangerous chemicals are being injected into the earth, polluting our water sources, without any oversight whatsoever. The American Natural Gas Association (ANGA) declares that state regulatory agencies have the appropriate expertise and on-the-ground experience to conduct effective oversight of natural gas production activities specific to their local geology: Additionally, the natural gas community has stepped forward and pledged its support for public disclosure of the chemical components used in the hydraulic fracturing process. This is a new and positive development since this legislation was last introduced. This disclosure will occur through a public online registry being developed by state regulators who are responsible for protecting local water and ensuring responsible development of natural gas in their communities. It is expected to launch next month. With regard to the increasingly extreme claims being made by activist Josh Fox, the notion that natural gas production is not regulated is patently false. Federal, state and local regulations cover everything from initial permits to well construction to water protection. His continuing denial of the veracity of forensic water testing done by state regulators and the Environmental Protection Agency is an affront to anyone who believes sound science should remain at the center of our energy and environmental policy conversations as a nation. Hinchey responded, noting that "the industry tried to narrow the scope of the EPA study, they tried to cover up the fact that they were using diesel fuel, and they denied the contamination risks of radioactive wastewater. If they're willing to voluntarily disclose the chemicals they use, why should they fear a provision that requires them to do it? If they're so sure that their process is safe, what do they have to fear ... being held accountable to the same rules that every other industry has to play by?" Despite efforts to wean America off foreign oil by developing domestic energy supplies — through such commonsense measures as drilling for oil in Alaska and off the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, and harvesting natural gas through hydraulic fracturing — the environmental lobby apparently opposes these efforts, and continues to place their narrow agenda over the long-term safety and security of the United States. The belief that federal environmental regulations must be stringently applied in a manner that cripples the economic viability of the American energy industry continues to wreak havoc, under the deceptive guise of clean water regulations and anti-pollution measures. The true intentions of the environmentalist menace are becoming more manifest on a daily basis, and measures such as the reintroduction of the FRAC Act in the 112th Congress are a testament to this truth. The FRAC Act is not expected to make any significant advances through Congress, as indicated by the near-total lack of any Republican support for the measure when it was introduced in the last Congress.

More nonsense from Obama. Let's help some other country develop their resources and forget about ours.
Obama: Drill, Brazil, Drill!
http://www.investors.com/Ne...e.aspx?id=566719&p=1

quote Energy Policy: While leaving U.S. oil and jobs in the ground, our itinerant president tells a South American neighbor that we'll help it develop its offshore resources so we can one day import its oil. WHAT?!? With Japan staggered by a natural disaster and a nuclear crisis, cruise missiles launched against Libya in our third Middle East conflict and a majority of U.S. senators complaining about a lack of leadership on the budget, President Obama decided it would be a good time to schmooze with Brazilians. His "What, me worry?" presidency has given both Americans and our allies plenty to worry about. But in the process of making nice with Brazil, Obama made a mind-boggling announcement that should make even his most loyal supporter cringe: We will help Brazil develop its offshore oil so we can one day import it. We have noted this double standard before, particularly when — at a time when the president was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies — we supported the U.S. Export-Import Bank's plan to lend $2 billion to Brazil's state-run Petrobras with the promise of more to follow. Now, with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska's continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico — and a de facto moratorium covering the rest — Obama tells the Brazilians: "We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers." Obama wants to develop Brazilian offshore oil to help the Brazilian economy create jobs for Brazilian workers while Americans are left unemployed in the face of skyrocketing energy prices by an administration that despises fossil fuels as a threat to the environment and wants to increase our dependency on foreign oil. Obama said he chose Brazil to kick off his first-ever visit to South America in recognition of that country's ascendancy. He has also highlighted one of the reasons for America's decline — an energy policy that through the creation of an artificial shortage of fossil fuels makes prices "necessarily skyrocket" to foster his green energy agenda. In an op-ed in USA Today explaining his trip, Obama opined: "Brazil holds recently discovered oil reserves that could be far larger than ours. And as we seek to increase secure-energy supplies, we look forward to developing a strategic energy partnership." Yet in his alleged quest for "secure-energy supplies," he refuses to develop oil and natural gas resources in U.S. waters. His administration has locked up areas in the West where oil shale reserves are estimated to be triple Saudi Arabia's reserves of crude. His administration is even stalling on plans to build a pipeline to deliver oil from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. market. That project would build a 1,661-mile pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to U.S. refineries near Houston. It would create 13,000 "shovel-ready" jobs and provide 500,000 more barrels of oil per day from an ally. Yet it's now being held up by the State Department because it crosses an international border, on the grounds that it needs further environmental review. Shipping oil by tanker from Brazil is safer and more secure? If Brazil had copied our current energy policy, it wouldn't have discovered in December 2007 the Tupi field, estimated to contain 5 billion to 8 billon barrels of crude, or its Carioca offshore oilfield that may hold up to 33 billion barrels. Haroldo Lima, head of Brazil's National Oil Agency, estimates that Carioca might hold as much as five times the reserves of Tupi. Somehow the Brazilians aren't too worried about oil spoiling the pristine beaches of nearby Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro in the tourist season. We suggest that President Obama return home and start worrying about an unapologetic American renaissance in which we focus more on American energy and American jobs and less on mythical environmental hazards and foreign accolades.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: More nonsense from Obama. Let's help some other country develop their resources and forget about ours. Obama: Drill, Brazil, Drill! http://www.investors.com/Ne...e.aspx?id=566719&p=1

*Sigh*...

Companies do this all the time. They go in, spend billions to develop rigs in countries with no previous oil experience, then when they educate the country on everything that needs to be done, and build expensive rigs, they get kicked out by the country and told they need to buy it

I hate it.

But the Administration is now basically WILLING to do this... It's very interesting. It COULD be profitable if the Brazilians aren't smart enough to neglect us when we're done but I highly doubt they won't. We'll be just like every other buyer... 'cept we spent money to get them there.

At least someone has the sense to question this.
Senator Questions $2-Billion Loan to Brazil for Offshore Drilling as Domestic Production Languishes
http://cnsnews.com/news/art...-billion-loan-brazil

quote Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) is questioning how the United States has benefited from a $2-billion loan the Export Import Bank of the United States made to a Brazilian oil company for its offshore drilling operations. How has that loan, made several years ago, helped U.S. companies, the senator asked in a March 17, 2011 letter to Fred Hochberg, president of the Export-Import Bank. “I am sure you can understand the frustration Louisianans have with a $2 billion loan to produce energy offshore Brazil,” Vitter wrote to Hochberg – especially given the “ongoing de facto moratorium” on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The Obama administration has approved only three permits for drilling new deepwater wells in the Gulf of Mexico since it lifted its moratorium on issuing permits last October– seven months after the BP rig explosion and oil spill. “I would appreciate a full accounting for the return on investment the American taxpayer has received, and is anticipated to receive, on the $2 billion loan to this Brazilian petroleum company,” Vitter wrote to Hochberg. “I want to understand why permitting domestically is nearly stalled, and if there is at least a return on this investment over the last year and a half for supporting production offshore Brazil.” When Vitter first inquired about the loan to Brazil’s Petrobras two years ago, the Export-Import Bank responded to Vitter’s staff by telephone, explaining that the U.S. would benefit from the loan through the increased export of U.S. drilling products and services. The Export-Import Bank of the United States, the official export credit agency of the United States, helps finance the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. Specifically, Vitter now wants to know: -- The name of all U.S. companies that have increased exports based on this loan. -- The specific product exports that have increased based on this loan. -- The return on investment for this loan during the next 5 and 10-year windows. -- The name of all U.S. and foreign investors, including institutional investors, that increased their shareholdings in Petrobras in excess of $50 million within a 6 month period before and after the ExIm loan. “Given that U.S. offshore oil and gas reserves are estimated at nearly triple the 40 billion barrels estimated offshore Brazil, a thorough response from you would be helpful in understanding why permitting domestically is nearly stalled, and if there is at least a return on investment for supporting production offshore Brazil,” Vitter wrote. President Obama was in Brazil over the weekend. On Monday, he arrived in Chile, and from there he’ll stop in El Salvador. The White House says the South American trip is intended to seek out “job creating opportunities.” Export-Import Bank President Hochberg is among the delegation accompanying the president to Brazil, Chile and El Salvador.

Job creating opportunities? for who, them or us?

Obama cost the nation $2.7 Billion thanks to his six month moritorium and thousands of jobs. Thank you Mr. President.

http://www.noia.org/website/download.asp?id=40016

quote The effective six-month moratorium on offshore oil and natural gas production will result in the loss of approximately $2.1 billion in output, 8,169 jobs, over $487 million in wages, and nearly $98 million in forfeited state tax revenues in the Gulf states alone. Additionally, although a significant portion of oil and natural gas production is localized in the Gulf, the U.S. is a fully integrated economy, so there is an expectation that the loss will “spill-over” into other states. From this spillover effect, there could be an additional loss of $0.6 billion in output, 3,877 jobs, and $219 million in potential wages nationwide. Moreover, the federal government stands to lose $219 million in tax revenue. These losses are dramatic in both the context of local economies in which the oil industry operates, and on a national scale.

Newf, I feel bad for you. It must be hard being Canadian and having Coc*k envy of the U.S.

[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 03-22-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Obama cost the nation $2.7 Billion thanks to his six month moritorium and thousands of jobs. Thank you Mr. President. http://www.noia.org/website/download.asp?id=40016

I think the blame is more on British Petroleum than on Obama.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-22-2011).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: I think the blame is more on British Petroleum than on Obama.

Read the document that I linked. It explains a lot.

What the White House did was state that all deep water oil rigs were unsafe because one rig failed. That is flawed reasoning which is why the appeals court ruled against the Obama administration. From the document that I posted:

quote Critics claim that this policy is unjustified, arbitrary, and capricious given the economic harm it will inflict upon communities dependent upon offshore drilling for jobs and revenue.8 Accordingly, a federal judge in New Orleans blocked enforcement of the moratorium, writing that “[t]he blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger,”9 justifying the taking of economic value from private sector jobs and firms. Although the Obama administration has already filed an appeal with a higher court, the judge’s decision demonstrates the need to consider how the moratorium on offshore drilling will affect the economies of the Gulf states (Louisiana,Texas, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi), as well as the nation as a whole. Despite these legitimate concerns, the Obama administration issued a new moratorium on July 12th, 2010 – which in fact expands on the original moratorium to include all floating facilities.10

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: Newf, I feel bad for you. It must be hard being Canadian and having Coc*k envy of the U.S.

hahahaha if you are talking about by making such a statement that you are being a giant D*ck. You are right I don't think I could ever compare.


You are welcome to debate the topic of the thread with me but just calling me out by making a statement like that is not welcome.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-22-2011).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Job creating opportunities? for who, them or us?

Them

The Obama regime has been trying to level the world playing field for over 2 years now. I cant believe the people that elected this guy are still blind to whats going on. Jimmy Carter finally got the break he has been waiting decades for. He can now go to his grave knowing he didnt go down as the worse president of all time.

[This message has been edited by fieroX (edited 03-22-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Can you dispute the claims by the white house that last year American production of oil reached it's highest level since 2003, and that oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all time high? (please use reputible facts if you do) Honest question BTW,

Don't go clouding up the thread with facts!

quote Originally posted by newf: hahahaha if you are talking about by making such a statement that you are being a giant D*ck. You are right I don't think I could ever compare. You are welcome to debate the topic of the thread with me but just calling me out by making a statement like that is not welcome.

;-) your most very welcome.

quote Originally posted by newf: As for the 2% number I would assume that this number is fairly accepted as I haven't heard many with any expertise really doubting it but hey new reserves are found everyday. I would think that the number is based on current projections however and I'm sure we could all come up with a number if we like but one needs to have some basis for it. I'm sure someone can drum up all kinds of links to where so and so disagrees but what is the general consensus from the experts? (I know.... I know, majority of scientists again )

Here is an article which refutes your numbers, and has plenty of references (links) to back it up:

Obama’s Curious Claims on Oil Production

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Here is an article which refutes your numbers, and has plenty of references (links) to back it up: Obama’s Curious Claims on Oil Production

They don't give links for the 2% argument, though.

I, for one, believe that the U.S. only controls 2% of the world's oil. When you take into account that Saudi Arabia and Canada together hold about 40%, it dims our numbers... Canada's oil reserves are HUGE, taking second place to Saudi Arabia. However, this oil is pretty much really crappy. It's very hard to refine, and takes a lot to get it to premium levels. That's why you don't hear too much about it...

The U.S. has oil, it's just nothing compared to other countries. 2% actually isn't that bad when you consider how much is in the world. What we DO have, however, is natural gas. That is what we really need to start banking on.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: They don't give links for the 2% argument, though..

Sorry.

Here: http://www.americanthinker....oil_reserves_li.html

and

Here: http://www.kiplinger.com/bu...d_Bounty_080630.html

quote Originally posted by newf: hahahaha if you are talking about by making such a statement that you are being a giant D*ck. You are right I don't think I could ever compare. You are welcome to debate the topic of the thread with me but just calling me out by making a statement like that is not welcome.

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: ;-) your most very welcome.

I Smell a Love Connection!!!

Brad

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Sorry. Here: http://www.americanthinker....oil_reserves_li.html and Here: http://www.kiplinger.com/bu...d_Bounty_080630.html

You mean the one that says this?

quote reservoirs which energy experts know exist, but which have not yet been tapped and may not be attainable with current technology

Not much good if you can't get or can only get it at a price that makes no sense.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-23-2011).]

A Man-Made Energy Crisis
Obama’s policy is working . . . to raise energy costs.
http://www.nationalreview.c...-victor-davis-hanson

quote Gas is well over $4 a gallon in most places in California — and soaring elsewhere as well. But are such high energy prices good or bad? That should be a stupid question. Yet it is not, when the Obama administration has stopped new domestic offshore oil exploration in many American waters, curbed oil leases in the West, and keeps oil-rich areas of Alaska exempt from drilling. Last week, President Obama went to Brazil and declared of that country’s new offshore finds: “With the new oil finds off Brazil, President [Dilma] Rousseff has said that Brazil wants to be a major supplier of new stable sources of energy, and I’ve told her that the United States wants to be a major customer, which would be a win-win for both our countries.” Consider the logic of the president’s Orwellian declaration: The United States in the last two years has restricted oil exploration of the sort Brazil is now rushing to embrace. We have run up more than $4 trillion in consecutive budget deficits during the Obama administration and are near federal insolvency. Therefore, the United States should be happy to borrow more money to purchase the sort of “new stable sources of energy” from Brazil’s offshore wells that we most certainly will not develop off our own coasts. It seems as if paying lots more for electricity and gas, in European fashion, was originally part of the president’s new green agenda. He helped push cap-and-trade legislation through the House of Representatives in 2009. Had such Byzantine regulations become law, a recessionary economy would have sunk into depression. Obama appointed the incompetent Van Jones as “green-jobs czar” — until Jones’s wild rantings confirmed that he knew nothing about his job description “to advance the administration’s climate and energy initiatives.” At a time of trillion-dollar deficits, the administration is borrowing billions to promote high-speed rail, and is heavily invested in the federally subsidized $42,000 Government Motors Chevy Volt. Apparently the common denominator here is a deductive view that high energy prices will force Americans to emulate European centrally planned and state-run transportation. That conclusion is not wild conspiracy theory, but simply the logical manifestation of many of the Obama administration’s earlier campaign promises. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu — now responsible for the formulation of American energy policy — summed up his visions to the Wall Street Journal in 2008: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” I think Chu is finally figuring out the “somehow.” A year earlier, Chu was more explicit in his general contempt for the sort of fuels that now keep Americans warm and on the road: “Coal is my worst nightmare. . . . We have lots of fossil fuel. That’s really both good and bad news. We won’t run out of energy but there’s enough carbon in the ground to really cook us.” In fairness to Chu, he was only amplifying what Obama himself outlined during the 2008 campaign. Today’s soaring energy prices are exactly what candidate Obama once dreamed about: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Obama, like Chu, made that dream even more explicit in the case of coal: “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” There are lots of ironies to these Alice-in-Wonderland energy fantasies. As the public becomes outraged over gas prices, a panicked Obama pivots to brag that we are pumping more oil than ever before — but only for a time, and only because his predecessors approved the type of drilling he has stopped. The entire climate-change movement, fairly or not, is now in shambles, thanks to serial scandals about faked research, consecutive record cold and wet winters in much of Europe and the United States, and the conflict-of-interest, get-rich schemes of prominent global-warming preachers such as Al Gore. The administration’s energy visions are formulated by academics and government bureaucrats who live mostly in cities with short commutes and have worked largely for public agencies. These utopians have no idea that without reasonably priced fuel and power, the self-employed farmer cannot produce food. The private plant operator cannot create plastics. And the trucker cannot bring goods to the consumer — all the basics like lettuce, iPads, and Levis that a highly educated, urbanized elite both enjoys and yet has no idea of how a distant someone else made their unbridled consumption possible.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Sorry. Here: http://www.americanthinker....oil_reserves_li.html and Here: http://www.kiplinger.com/bu...d_Bounty_080630.html

Sorry I didn't see this before.

Okay, this has some grossly misleading information. First off, we hold 2% of the world's oil by all reasonable accounts because while we do have some more than that, it's not usable. The oil shales that they talk about are primarily natural gas shales. They do have a little bit of oil at the very bottom, as with every reservoir, but the gas cap is extremely tall. When there is that much gas, the oil goes from attainable oil to oil that won't move. We have been learning about this type of thing in my classes, and how to avoid it. But it happens naturally in reservoirs with that much gas.

That tar oil they talk about is SUCH low quality that it's literally not worth getting. I don't doubt that some may be on federal land, but most of it is due to the cost of refining that oil. Canada has horrible oil themselves, but it's at least better than the tar oil we have. It would be economically stupid to try to get that oil and use it.

What the article does mention that isn't totally misleading is Alaska's oil and our offshore oil. We don't have TONS of offshore oil, but we have a bit. Alaska's oil is also very prominent. These two things.... make up 2% We have around 25 billion barrels altogether... that we've found. I will not include oil that is speculated to be there, such as the article does. We do not have 100 billion barrels of proven oil in Alaska, and definitely not in our oceans. Sure, there might be a bit more, but then when you take into account every other country that hasn't found their oil yet, it's still a simple ratio and will come out to around 2%.

My Petroleum professors and I, a Petroleum student agree that the U.S. only controls about 2% of the world's oil. I don't know who wrote that article or not, but I'm only saying that I disagree and find some of their ideas wildly misleading and bordering preposterous.

Get ready for higher gas prices, again!
Barack Obama moves to slash oil imports
http://www.politico.com/new...ries/0311/52176.html

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Get ready for higher gas prices, again! Barack Obama moves to slash oil imports http://www.politico.com/new...ries/0311/52176.html

Is this just more proof that you don't actually read the stuff that you copy and paste.

Please explain how you come to the conclusion when the article clearly states the goal is to reduce imports by developing domestic means of energy???

quote Obama aides said Tuesday that the president expects to meet his oil import goals in part through more domestic energy development, especially by creating new incentives to use leases already given to the oil and natural gas industry. On the White House blog, Obama energy adviser Heather Zichal touted an Interior Department report that found more than 70 percent of offshore oil leases are inactive, including 24 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico. Onshore, about 45 percent of all leases — about 57 percent of all leased acres — are inactive. Obama also has other methods to cut oil imports, including major new financial investments and regulations to spawn cleaner-burning technologies such as natural gas and biofuels. Building off a landmark 2009 agreement on fuel economy, the president will outline plans for a new round of negotiations with the auto industry, states, environmentalists and lawmakers on the next phase of standards to last through 2025.

quote Originally posted by newf Is this just more proof that you don't actually read the stuff that you copy and paste. Please explain how you come to the conclusion when the article clearly states the goal is to reduce imports by developing domestic means of energy???

Actually I did read the article. I only posted a link to it to see if others would read it. What is going to replace all these imports we will be eliminating and why is our president hell bent on unnecessary cap and trade legislation? We aren't developing our own existing oil resources (look at the drilling ban in the gulf) and there isn't anything of sufficient quantity (hybrid cars, ethanol, etc) in place to replace these imports. I can only see this ending up raising the price of gas, not lowering it. We do need to lower our dependency on foreign oil, but this administration is going about it the wrong way. I guess you didn't hear about our president's remarks made last week in Brazil that showed support for that country’s domestic oil exploration efforts. From the article

quote we’ve got the administration looking for just about any excuse it can find to lock up our own energy sources here at home, even as it’s applauding another country’s efforts to grow its own economy and create jobs by tapping into its own energy sources.

That sure doesn't sound like we are planning to grow our own resources to me, it sounds more like we will be doing that for Brazil.
Did you actually read the article or just skimmed it. I'm guessing it's the latter. You like to say that you rarely read anything I post, so why do you feel the need to acuse me of not reading what I post if you don't read it?
Now explain to me how developing another countries resourses will lower our gas prices, there is a big gap to cross to connect those two things.
You say tomahto I say tomayto.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-30-2011).]

Helping Brazil (and Libya) and other countries to recover more oil and gas should--in theory--decrease the upwards pressure on price by increasing the world supply.

I think what you would like to have is the U.S. recovering more oil and gas within its own borders.

It's a question (or should be a question) of exactly where are the best locations, in terms of ease of extraction and environmental considerations.

It's always a matter of tradeoffs. Not too long ago I posted that "fracking" (hydraulic fracturing) could be used to extract more oil from within our own borders. But a lot of people say that fracking causes too much water pollution.

Don't know myself. Not a petroleum economist--or an environmental expert. I tend to believe whatever I most recently read on line. That's my limitations ...

?

Hmmm let's see if I can answer this one point at a time.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Actually I did read the article. I only posted a link to it to see if others would read it. What is going to replace all these imports we will be eliminating and why is our president hell bent on unnecessary cap and trade legislation?

OK you did read it but you seemed to miss the answers you are asking somehow.

What will replace the imports? From the article you linked

quote The president also will restate his commitment to the development of nuclear power... calling on Congress to pass the clean energy standard, which would set targets over the next 25 years for everything from nuclear power to “clean” coal technology and more traditional renewable forms such as solar, wind and geothermal.

Also if you had watched the press conference which this thread is about you would remember he is looking into trying to force companies into either using these or cutting them loose. Also from the article you linked

quote Obama energy adviser Heather Zichal touted an Interior Department report that found more than 70 percent of offshore oil leases are inactive, including 24 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico. Onshore, about 45 percent of all leases — about 57 percent of all leased acres — are inactive.

About the cap and trade legislation maybe you have some more info about that but last I heard it didn't have the traction needed. oh also from the article you linked...

quote but he couldn’t translate public concern over the disaster into enough Senate votes to pass a long-sought cap-and-trade bill.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: We aren't developing our own existing oil resources (look at the drilling ban in the gulf) and there isn't anything of sufficient quantity (hybrid cars, ethanol, etc) in place to replace these imports.

You aren't developing your own existing oil resources??? You seem to keep missing the point that it is a goal for the NEXT DECADE and he mentions Natural gas, Nuclear, Coal and Renewables to offset the one third decrease in import oil. Do you not think the U.S. has enough coal and Natural Gas to make that up????

quote Obama said his administration is encouraging "safe and responsible" offshore oil exploration and production and insisted agencies are working to expedite permits despite critics' claims to the contrary. He said the administration is also pushing companies to take get to work on tens of millions of leases they hold where no production work is taking place. ."But let's be honest," Obama said. Domestic oil production is not the long term-solution because the country holds only about two percent of the world's proven oil reserves, he said

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I can only see this ending up raising the price of gas, not lowering it. We do need to lower our dependency on foreign oil, but this administration is going about it the wrong way. I guess you didn't hear about our president's remarks made last week in Brazil that showed support for that country’s domestic oil exploration efforts.

So you think a lower demand of oil by the U.S. will increase the price? Interesting theory.

What would his comments in Brazil have to do with domestic Oil production and development of other forms of energy in the U.S.? Because he applauded their efforts you think that the U.S. is going to develop Brazils instead? Explain please.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Did you actually read the article or just skimmed it. I'm guessing it's the latter. You like to say that you rarely read anything I post, so why do you feel the need to acuse me of not reading what I post if you don't read it?

You'd be wrong actually, I read it. As for rarely reading what you post, look up the term rarely. I accused you of not reading your posts for two reasons, one: you post so much I don't know how you have the time. Two: When you do actually make a statement about the article you post it seems to not be supported by the actual article itself unless it's the obvious biased bunk.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Now explain to me how developing another countries resourses will lower our gas prices, there is a big gap to cross to connect those two things.

Hmmmm let's see one of the largest users of oil states that as a goal they will increase domestic oil production while cutting imports and you think your price at the pump will go high because of that? It's possible gas prices will increase in the future but I can not imagine that would be the reason.

You can check the facts in these if you'd like.
http://blogs.forbes.com/ken...lls-as-much-as-bush/

http://blogs.forbes.com/ken...-prices-only-factor/

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-31-2011).]

Some people think that the government should open up more new areas within the U.S. for potential oil/gas recovery.

Some people think that the government makes it too problematic for oil/gas companies to actually produce from the lots that they are currently leasing.

http://www.foxnews.com/opin...litical-maneuvering/

Don't know ...

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Some people think that the government should open up more new areas within the U.S. for potential oil/gas recovery. Some people think that the government makes it too problematic for oil/gas companies to actually produce from the lots that they are currently leasing. http://www.foxnews.com/opin...litical-maneuvering/ Don't know ...

It's hard to know what the true reasons behind such decisions are for sure.

In my home Province we had a case of an Oil Developer offering the local Government (what the Gov't deemed) a piss poor deal. The Government said the Oil companies were offering them a ridiculously low return because the oil companies assumed the Goverment would give them whatever they wanted just to have the jobs and production spin offs. The Oil companies supposedly told the Gov't that if they didn't agree the developments would sit dormant and they would develop other areas around the globe instead but our Gov't countered by telling the Oil companies that they either work out a deal and develop or the Gov't would rescind the land leases and let someone else come in to develop the Oil fields. Next thing we know a deal was struck, what a shock.

Not saying that it is the same case in all the leases in the U.S. but it doesn't hurt to light fire under the Oil companies but to decide if the fields are worth developing or not IMO.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-31-2011).]

OK, let's say that we do decide to build more nuclear plants. Do you know how long it takes to do this? Last I read it was in the 20+ year range, because of all the red tape and regulations that need to be followed, so I don't think that will be sufficient for our immediate energy needs. Also many will object to having a nuclear power plant in their backyard.
The present administration wants clean energy and to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. That is all good and fine but we can't just cut off our imports without first finding a reliable and plentiful replacement. The cuts need to be made gradually, as new energy sources are developed and put online, not all at once, as it seems they want to do.
There is a reason many of the gulf leases are idle. There was a drilling ban put into place because of the last oil rig spill. Drilling companies cannot afford to keep their equipment idle so they have moved on to other places in the world. From what I have read, there also is a limited amount of this equipment, so it won't be coming back until they finish the other jobs they are doing now, and that could be years. The ban is supposed to have been lifted but they only have awarded a few permits to do so.
Right now we have a good fuel supply but the prices have still been going up.
From one of my previous postings:

quote According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the total proved reserves and technically recoverable amount of oil in the United States, as of 2009, was 164.6 billion barrels. The United States consumes about 6.8 billion barrels of oil each year (of which about 60 percent is imported). As for natural gas in the United States, the CRS report, using data from the federal Energy Information Administration, shows there are 1,407.4 trillion cubic feet – America consumes 22.74 cubic feet of natural gas per year. As for coal, the report shows that the United States has a technically recoverable amount of 261 billion short tons; the country consumes about 1 billion short tons per year. Not counting technological advances in locating new deposits of fossil fuel and discounting any imports from other countries, the United States by itself, given current demand, has at least enough oil for 24 years, enough natural gas for 62 years, and enough coal for 261 years.

Our administration doesn't want to use these resources because of carbon emissions and other concerns like those caused by hydraulic fracturing to recover natural-gas. According to the Independent Petroleum Association of America and industry research, estimates that complying with federal oversight would add approximately $100,000 to the cost of each new natural gas well in the United States. In other words they are making it more costly to recover these resources.
From one of my previous posts:

quote In June 2009, the FRAC Act was first introduced in the House by Representatives by Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), and in the Senate by Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.). The 2009 bill was cosponsored in the House by 68 Democrats and one Republican (former Rep. John McHugh of N.Y., who is currently the Secretary of the Army), and in the Senate by seven Democrats. The version of the bill reintroduced this week in the House amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate hydraulic fracturing that occurs in states that have not taken primacy in natural-gas fracturing regulation, and also requires the energy industry to reveal what chemicals are being used in the sand-water mixture. Rep. DeGette says that the 2011 FRAC Act will be debated inside the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the bill may proceed alone, or she could attach it to a larger piece of legislation. "Frankly we are leaving all the options on the table for moving this bill forward," she noted after hearings on the issue last week... Despite efforts to wean America off foreign oil by developing domestic energy supplies — through such commonsense measures as drilling for oil in Alaska and off the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, and harvesting natural gas through hydraulic fracturing — the environmental lobby apparently opposes these efforts, and continues to place their narrow agenda over the long-term safety and security of the United States. The belief that federal environmental regulations must be stringently applied in a manner that cripples the economic viability of the American energy industry continues to wreak havoc, under the deceptive guise of clean water regulations and anti-pollution measures. The true intentions of the environmentalist menace are becoming more manifest on a daily basis, and measures such as the reintroduction of the FRAC Act in the 112th Congress are a testament to this truth.

The Republicans do not support this measure at the present time, so the EPA will do an end run around them and mandate it anyway.
Another previous post in this thread:

quote The United States in the last two years has restricted oil exploration of the sort Brazil is now rushing to embrace. We have run up more than $4 trillion in consecutive budget deficits during the Obama administration and are near federal insolvency. Therefore, the United States should be happy to borrow more money to purchase the sort of “new stable sources of energy” from Brazil’s offshore wells that we most certainly will not develop off our own coasts... At a time of trillion-dollar deficits, the administration is borrowing billions to promote high-speed rail, and is heavily invested in the federally subsidized $42,000 Government Motors Chevy Volt. Apparently the common denominator here is a deductive view that high energy prices will force Americans to emulate European centrally planned and state-run transportation. That conclusion is not wild conspiracy theory, but simply the logical manifestation of many of the Obama administration’s earlier campaign promises. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu — now responsible for the formulation of American energy policy — summed up his visions to the Wall Street Journal in 2008: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” I think Chu is finally figuring out the “somehow.”

The government's goal is higher fuel and energy prices to curtail our use and to lower our national carbon footprint.
From a previous post in this thread:

quote A year earlier, Chu was more explicit in his general contempt for the sort of fuels that now keep Americans warm and on the road: “Coal is my worst nightmare. . . . We have lots of fossil fuel. That’s really both good and bad news. We won’t run out of energy but there’s enough carbon in the ground to really cook us.” In fairness to Chu, he was only amplifying what Obama himself outlined during the 2008 campaign. Today’s soaring energy prices are exactly what candidate Obama once dreamed about: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Obama, like Chu, made that dream even more explicit in the case of coal: “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”... The entire climate-change movement, fairly or not, is now in shambles, thanks to serial scandals about faked research, consecutive record cold and wet winters in much of Europe and the United States, and the conflict-of-interest, get-rich schemes of prominent global-warming preachers such as Al Gore.

I will believe what I quote below when I see it actually happening.

quote Obama aides said Tuesday that the president expects to meet his oil import goals in part through more domestic energy development, especially by creating new incentives to use leases already given to the oil and natural gas industry... Obama also has other methods to cut oil imports, including major new financial investments and regulations to spawn cleaner-burning technologies such as natural gas and biofuels. Building off a landmark 2009 agreement on fuel economy, the president will outline plans for a new round of negotiations with the auto industry, states, environmentalists and lawmakers on the next phase of standards to last through 2025.

You ask "So you think a lower demand of oil by the U.S. will increase the price?" We are lowering demand, only slightly, by the use of hybrids, better fuel economy in vehicles, solar/wind and other sources of energy, that isn't the real issue. The real issue is our government wants to cut off one third of our supply, by not importing it. That doesn't cut our demand it only cuts our supply. The EPA wants to increase the cost of recovering our own resources by mandating stricter costlier regulations. I don't see Brazil as a solution to our needs unless they are willing to sell us enough oil at a cheap enough price to make our prices drop. Many foreign countries do not like us, so they may just make us bend over when and if they decide to sell oil to us.
Cutting our supply and increasing the costs to recover our resources will not make our energy costs go down. We don't have enough nuclear power, wind power, solar power, bio fuel, ethanol, etc. to supply our present needs and probably won't for decades to come.
We need to cut our dependence on foreign oil gradually and as needed. Using the resources we have now will help keep us afloat until we can be weaned from foreign oil. Mandating ridiculous carbon regulations on our current fossil fuel energy producing industries will only make our energy prices go up.