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.
So did you read that this is a goal for the next 10 years, and that the plan is to bring in energy sources like natural gas, new domestic development, and "clean" coal to replace the oil imports. Do you not think that it can possibly offset one third of imported oil with such domestic resources? I'm sure I've seen plenty of posts with people complaining that the administration is not tapping the U.S. natural resources like coal. And I don't know where you keep thinking it's a "all at once plan"? Please explain.
quote
Originally posted by avengador1:
You ask "So you think a lower demand of oil by the U.S. will increase the price?"
Sorry I should have been more clear on this point, I meant lower demand as the U.S. plans to cut imports not consumer demand for gas or oil. As I've said the plan (as I understand it) is to replace much of the oil use with other technologies for making electricity and what not I would assume that the consumer need for oil and gas will remain pretty high and the two thirds of oil that you would still import would more than cover that.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-31-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:24 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Malkin Rates Obama’s Energy Strategy. It's a bit into the video but it's there.
A Conservative blogger being interviewed on Fox News...Really?? What is it that's "there" that is meaningful? I heard nothing much but critiquing and belly aching with no real facts.
Do you ever counter your filtered psuedo-news with anything else? No... no...let me guess, you don't actually believe what she is saying you are just posting it for others to see.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-31-2011).]
IP: Logged
08:32 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Originally posted by newf A Conservative blogger being interviewed on Fox News...Really?? What is it that's "there" that is meaningful? I heard nothing much but critiquing and belly aching with no real facts.
Do you ever counter your filtered psuedo-news with anything else? No... no...let me guess, you don't actually believe what she is saying you are just posting it for others to see.
If you were to remove your liberal blinders and listen you would be informed. Since you can't, it's all background noise to you and you can't distinguish the points they presented from the critiques. You claim you aren't a liberal or radical but your statements reveal your true self. You didn't like the source because it is Conservative, what they said wasn't meaningful to you for the same reason, and all you heard was critiquing and belly aching. You also had to add a final insult to the source by calling it filtered pseudo-news. Then you have to question my motives for posting it. I posted it as additional proof to my side of the discussion and all you did was question and belittle it without any proof of the contrary. What does that say about you?
If you were to remove your liberal blinders and listen you would be informed. Since you can't, it's all background noise to you and you can't distinguish the points they presented from the critiques. You claim you aren't a liberal or radical but your statements reveal your true self. You didn't like the source because it is Conservative, what they said wasn't meaningful to you for the same reason, and all you heard was critiquing and belly aching. You also had to add a final insult to the source by calling it filtered pseudo-news. Then you have to question my motives for posting it. I posted it as additional proof to my side of the discussion and all you did was question and belittle it without any proof of the contrary. What does that say about you?
I was being completely honest. The woman is a noted Conservative blogger, on a channel that makes no attempt to disguise their Conservative/Republican bias. It doesn't matter if I liked it or not but are claiming it's not a biased source???
Also, yes I did hear belly aching and critiquing... would you like to go over any actual facts of her piece???
Please explain where any proof of anything in that clip was?
Final insult by calling your many of your sources psuedo news?? Actually, I think I was being more than fair from what I have seen you post sometimes. And yes I sure do question your motives as you yourself admit you often don't even believe what you post, why wouldn't I question it??
I also notice you yet again accuse me of being liberal and radical without knowing me, I'll remind you again, that you in fact don't know me.
quote
Originally posted by avengador1: I posted it as additional proof to my side of the discussion and all you did was question and belittle it without any proof of the contrary. What does that say about you?
As for additional proof please explain yourself and how this clip supports your previous claims with facts not just her opinion.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-31-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:15 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Originally posted by newf was being completely honest. The woman is a noted Conservative blogger, on a channel that makes no attempt to disguise their Conservative/Republican bias. It doesn't matter if I liked it or not but are claiming it's not a biased source???
Also, yes I did hear belly aching and critiquing... would you like to go over any actual facts of her piece???
Please explain where any proof of anything in that clip was?
Final insult by calling your many of your sources psuedo news?? Actually, I think I was being more than fair from what I have seen you post sometimes. And yes I sure do question your motives as you yourself admit you often don't even believe what you post, why wouldn't I question it??
I also notice you yet again accuse me of being liberal and radical without knowing me, I'll remind you again, that you in fact don't know me.
Your own words betray the real you.
quote
Originally posted by newf As for additional proof please explain yourself and how this clip supports your previous claims with facts not just her opinion.
I can't explain anything to you since you are biased. You may claim that you aren't, but it sure seems like you are to me. I will never have an answer that will satisfy you so there is no sense in me trying to provide one for you. I suggest you re-read the entire thread if you want proof, it is there and yet you refute it by claiming that you don't see it.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-31-2011).]
I can't explain anything to you since you are biased. You may claim that you aren't, but it sure seems like you are to me. I will never have an answer that will satisfy you so there is no sense in me trying to provide one for you. I suggest you re-read the entire thread if you want proof, it is there and yet you refute it by claiming that you don't see it.
I kind of thought you wouldn't answer direct questions with facts.
I try not to be biased though I'm sure I have plenty (I am human) but it seems that you in particular often use fringe websites and reports to hammer away at the same theme over and over. Obama/Democrats/Liberals/Immigrants etc. are evil, wrong, or stupid and so on and so on. You yourself have stated you don't believe some of the things you post and just post to garner a reaction from those you dislike.
Don't get me wrong I've said a bunch of times you are welcome to think whatever you want and even post your opinion on it but don't expect me not to challenge it as being total crap sometimes. Like I've stated before, this is an internet forum for everyone, not a blog for you and whoever you can get to believe and agree.
Also when people rightly criticize or have concerns about politicians or groups of people.. etc. that is fair IMO but one shouldn't get too upset when it turns into a debate, people ask probing questions, or even if one takes a different point of view.
Believe whatever you want but don't assume everyone else is going to buy whatever it is you are selling.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-31-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:58 PM
Apr 1st, 2011
normsf Member
Posts: 1682 From: mishawaka, In Registered: Oct 2003
Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY..... during the Carter Administration?
Anybody?
Anything?
No?
Didn't think so!
Bottom line: We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency...the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!
Ready?? It was very simple . . . and, at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate. The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
Hey, pretty efficient, huh???
AND, NOW, IT'S 2011 -- 34 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES, AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?"
A little over 33 years ago, 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports.Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.
Ah, yes -- the good old Federal bureaucracy!! If one goes through the same process with the U.S. Department of Education, one gets a similar return on investment of taxpayer dollars! NOTHING!! Stay tuned!!! NOW, WE HAVE TURNED THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?
[This message has been edited by normsf (edited 04-01-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:32 AM
Apr 4th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
"Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our 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 ! Now here's the real clincher...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!
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, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial 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 broadcast on any of the other news networks!
Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this.
"Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our 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 ! Now here's the real clincher...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!
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, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial 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 broadcast on any of the other news networks!
Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this.
Poor newf, his lack of knowledge on this topic must emanate from his sordid thoughts against realism. Canada happens to be one of the US's biggest trading partner in oil. The USA also happens to have the BIGGEST known reserve of oil in the world! The price of oil, which is a world commodity, is based widely with its trading value from whence it came. If it came from Canada, the price would be based on the value of the Canadian dollar. Obama does not know this, probably since he has not been taught this and ignores it on purpose, and the realities of the economic picture. I just believe he is not intelligent. He can talk well in front of a teleprompter and fools many people like newf, but those who read and understand business, can see through this empty suite.
Cordially, Kevin
p.s. to newf, if you doubt me, I had a career trading oil on Wall Street, so I KNOW what I say is correct--not you sitting where your basement, speculating and proposing vapid arguments!
Poor newf, his lack of knowledge on this topic must emanate from his sordid thoughts against realism. Canada happens to be one of the US's biggest trading partner in oil. The USA also happens to have the BIGGEST known reserve of oil in the world! The price of oil, which is a world commodity, is based widely with its trading value from whence it came. If it came from Canada, the price would be based on the value of the Canadian dollar. Obama does not know this, probably since he has not been taught this and ignores it on purpose, and the realities of the economic picture. I just believe he is not intelligent. He can talk well in front of a teleprompter and fools many people like newf, but those who read and understand business, can see through this empty suite.
Cordially, Kevin
p.s. to newf, if you doubt me, I had a career trading oil on Wall Street, so I KNOW what I say is correct--not you sitting where your basement, speculating and proposing vapid arguments!
Yes kevin I do doubt you, I see you called me out twice in your post and you claim to know an awful lot there, now back it up with facts. You seem to claim to be an expert on pretty much everything so teach us your with your vast knowledge.
Prove that the U.S. is known to have biggest oil reserve in the world.
Explain how the price Oil is based on the dollar of the country of origin, I'll fully admit I don't understand how Oil is priced as it seems to fluctuate with speculation but I'm sure as an expert you can explain it so that anyone can understand.
BTW are you sure you just don't spend your nights in a Holiday Inn Express??
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-05-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:41 PM
PFF
System Bot
Apr 7th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Republicans say the Obama administration's policies are contributing to skyrocketing gasoline prices – now at more than $4 per gallon throughout much of the country – and they have introduced legislation to reopen the nation's coasts to drilling.
This year will be the first year since 1958 that the federal government will not have sold a lease for offshore drilling, and Republicans say this is fueling skyrocketing prices at the pump.
Congress opened the nation's coasts to drilling when gas hit $4 per gallon in 2008, but the Obama administration effectively reinstated the ban last year by placing the Alaskan, Atlantic and Pacific coasts off-limits to drilling, as well as Florida's west coast.
"We need to look at the actions of this administration, which are leading to more of a domestic shortage of energy production in this country – whether you are looking at the outer continental shelf or whether you are looking at offshore lease sales," said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash.
The chairman told WND that comments made by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar make it seem the administration has a political agenda behind its unwillingness to expand domestic oil drilling.
More than 12,000 jobs in the oil drilling sector have been lost as a direct result of the drilling moratorium the Obama administration imposed last May in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
(Story continues below)
Despite the administration's announcement last October that it was lifting its drilling moratorium, little progress has been made in reopening the Gulf to drilling. Only 10 permits have been granted, while 40 projects remain stalled due to the administration's inaction. And since July 2010 only 49 shallow-water permits have been issued at an average of 4.9 permits per month, which lags far behind the historical average of 7.1 permits per month.
The administration needs to act in a timely manner to address the drilling permits that were in play when it imposed the moratorium to increase oil and gas supplies and reduce prices, Hastings said.
"We're going to try to change that through our committee and with Doc Hastings over at natural resources," House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton told WND. "We know it is a supply problem, and we cannot continue to say no to domestic production because only one thing happens – the prices are going to go up."
The oil industry today produces 100,000 barrels less per day than the Department of Energy predicted, and the department expects production in the Gulf of Mexico to drop by 240,000 barrels per day this year and by 200,000 per day in 2012.
"We've got to say stop it; stop these regulations and putting the U.S. off-limits," Upton said. "We're going to do our best to pursue legislation to change that. If you are going to impose restrictions on the domestic oil and gas industries, guess what, they're going to go ahead and drill someplace else."
That seems to have already started. So far, 12 oil rigs have departed the Gulf since the moratorium was imposed for destinations such as Nigeria, Egypt and Brazil, potentially costing thousands of jobs, according to the House Natural Resources Committee.
Upton's committee currently is considering legislation being proposed by Colorado Rep. Cory Gardner that would eliminate permitting delays that have been imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency on drilling projects off the Alaskan coast.
The House Natural Resources Committee passed three bills last week that would force the administration to reopen the nation's coasts to oil drilling. The first bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and natural gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Virginia coast for offshore parcels that have either been canceled or delayed by the administration.
The legislation would require lease sales to be held no later than June 1, 2012. Hastings' second bill would require that each five-year offshore leasing plan crafted by the Department of the Interior include lease sales in areas with the largest known oil and natural gas reserves.
A third bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to act on a permit within 30 days of receiving an application and prevent the Obama administration from imposing a drilling moratorium through inaction. It would also beef up oil rig safety standards to ensure an accident of the kind that happened last year is never repeated.
Hastings anticipates the full House will bring his legislation to the floor for a vote before Memorial Day, but its fate in the Senate is uncertain.
"People in the Senate and in the administration definitely are not going to be looking kindly on my legislation," Hastings said. "But with gas prices a little over $4 per gallon now in some parts of the country, with some saying it could go over $5 a gallon, then I think there is going to be political pressure put on the Senate to act on something."
The chairman said Senate Democrats should pass legislation of their own and work out a compromise proposal with him if they have a different view from his, so the nation can become less dependent on foreign sources and create jobs.
Salazar struck at Hastings' legislation last week by accusing the chairman of "amnesia" about the Deepwater Horizon accident and the subsequent oil spill.
"I don't have amnesia, and neither does the president," Politico reported Salazar as having said last week. "And much of the legislation that I have seen being bandied around, especially with the House Republicans, is almost as if the Deepwater Horizon Macondo well incident never happened."
Michael Conathan, director of ocean policy with the Center for American Progress, echoed Salazar's comments by calling the Republican approach "simplistic" because it allegedly ignores how globalization has impacted the oil market.
"We have 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, yet we use 25 percent of the world's oil reserves," Conathan said. "That's a huge gap that we're not going to make up even if we drilled every drop out of everywhere that we have access to.
"I think particularly today [near] the one-year anniversary of the BP oil spill, the worst environmental disaster in American history, this is definitely the wrong time to be reopening any area for oil exploration."
IP: Logged
10:20 AM
Apr 26th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.
Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”
The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245 and nearly all of the residents are Alaska natives. The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.
The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.
“What the modeling showed was in communities like Kaktovik, Shell’s drilling would increase air pollution levels close to air quality standards,” said Eric Grafe, Earthjustice’s lead attorney on the case. Earthjustice was joined by Center for Biological Diversity and the Alaska Wilderness League in challenging the air permits.
At stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That’s how much the U. S. Geological Survey believes is in the U.S. portion of the Arctic Ocean. For perspective, that represents two and a half times more oil than has flowed down the Trans Alaska pipeline throughout its 30-year history. That pipeline is getting dangerously low on oil. At 660,000 barrels a day, it’s carrying only one-third its capacity.
Production on the North Slope of Alaska is declining at a rate of about 7 percent a year. If the volume gets much lower, pipeline officials say they will have to shut it down. Alaska officials are blasting the Environmental Protection Agency.
“It’s driving investment and production overseas,” said Alaska’s DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan. “That doesn’t help the United States in any way, shape or form.”
The EPA did not return repeated calls and e-mails. The Environmental Appeals Board has four members: Edward Reich, Charles Sheehan, Kathie Stein and Anna Wolgast. All are registered Democrats and Kathie Stein was an activist attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. Members are appointed by the EPA administrator. Alaska’s Republican senator thinks it’s time to make some changes.
“EPA has demonstrated that they’re not competent to handle the process,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “So if they’re not competent to handle it, they need to get out of the way.”
Murkowski supported budget amendments that would have stripped the EPA of its oversight role in Arctic offshore drilling. The Interior Department issues air permits to oil companies working in the Gulf of Mexico.
IP: Logged
09:32 AM
May 13th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
High gasoline prices are not a cause of the current economic recession, they are an avoidable and unnecessary symptom of liberal environmental and economic policies. When President Barack Obama took office the price of gasoline was $1.83 per gallon. Today it’s over $4.00. Understanding why that is so will give you insight into the patient game plan of the fossil-fuel-hating, combustion-engine-despising, environmentally obsessed left.
The high price of gas is not simply a function of the cost of crude oil. There are many causes for the $4.00 we are currently paying for a gallon of gasoline. Of that $4.00, taxes account for 52 cents, distribution and marketing about 32 cents, refining 56 cents, and the cost of crude oil $2.60. By the mid-20th century, oil was surpassed only by income taxes as the largest generator of revenue for the U.S. government.
Clearly, the biggest portion of the $4.00 you pay goes to the crude oil suppliers. This is where supply and demand takes over. The price of crude oil is determined by the world’s oil-exporting nations, particularly the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). OPEC is responsible for over 40% of the world’s crude production. In 2001, when OPEC reduced its production by 1 million barrels a day, gas prices in the U.S. skyrocketed to $1.71 per gallon. When it increased its production in 2005, gas prices dropped.
The United States is actually the third-largest producer of crude oil in the world, but we still import nearly 40% of our crude oil demand, mainly from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela. But here is where life becomes quite simple. The more crude oil we produce domestically, the less taxes we heap on a gallon of gasoline, the fewer hurdles and blends we require of domestic manufacturers, the less we pay for gasoline. U.S. domestic oil production peaked way back in 1970, and by 2005, imports were twice that of domestically produced crude oil.
Increasing domestic exploration, drilling, and production is the simple solution to what we are paying at the pump. Yet our president has repeatedly misled us by alleging that there is no “silver bullet” for lowering gas prices. What the Obama administration and his liberal machine have been doing is just the opposite — and it is beginning to look intentional.
President Obama follows the liberal playbook about energy independence — code for wind and solar energy which won’t fuel our automobiles, jets, ships, or the war machines he has sent into Libya. He misleads the American people about ethanol leading to energy independence. It can’t and won’t. Ethanol is not economically competitive. Corn ethanol costs an average of $2.53 to produce – several times the 56 cents it costs to produce a gallon of gasoline. Instead, ethanol simply raises the price of gasoline we pay at the pump.
Last month, Shell Oil Company announced it was forced to scrap efforts to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. If there was ever a clarion call to strip the EPA of its oil drilling oversight, this is it. Shell spent five years and nearly $4 billion on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, nearly 70 miles away with a population of 245.
President Obama’s solution to the crisis is to launch investigations and task forces, rather than increasing production. Last month Obama announced that the Justice Department will try to “root out” fraud and waste in the oil markets, yet it was Obama himself who was quoted just a few weeks ago saying, “Politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse — you’ll hear that phrase a lot.” At a gas price town hall meeting Obama told a father of ten to cram his family into a hybrid and told us all that inflating our tires and getting a “tune-up” would beat high gas prices.
President Obama overreacted to the British Petroleum Deep Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year by issuing a crippling moratorium on offshore deepwater drilling. The spill was a result of a lack of sufficient oversight during the transition of the rig from exploration to commercial production, a particularly low-probability event. The moratorium did nothing to address the root cause of the accident. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with this line of reasoning, yet White House officials falsely represented to the public last year and more recently to a court that scientists had approved the blanket drilling moratorium. The administration then defied a federal court by replacing its original moratorium, which had been struck down, with a substantively identical second moratorium — for no good reason.
Obama’s six-month moratorium cost more than $2.7 billion in economic activity worldwide and $2.1 billion in the Gulf communities. It cost thousands of jobs and significantly reduced our domestic oil production — contributing to the high cost of gasoline. Obama has shut down much of the domestic oil production in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, East Coast, and West Coast. The U.S. used to produce daily 10 million barrels; now we are at 7 million barrels, and we will soon be at 6 million barrels.
When the heat of high gas prices hits the White House, they default to their usual mantra of blaming Big Oil. They point to oil company profits and insinuate that these profits are from the sale of gas. However, oil companies have an anemic profit margin on the sale of gasoline — around 6%. This means that while the oil companies see a profit of around 24 cents from the gallon of gas you pay $4.00 for, the government sees a profit of 50 cents in taxes and other charges. It is the government who is gouging and needs to be investigated — not the oil companies.
Something you’ll never hear from our president is that most oil companies simply sell crude oil they produce to other companies who have refining capabilities who in turn sell to independent distributors and retailers. They set the price of gasoline and at every stage of the process people are trying to buy low and sell high. But oil companies make good villains for anybody who dislikes capitalism and the free market economy. Lest we forget, the anemic profit oil companies make on gasoline is the only reason oil companies provide us with gasoline in the first place.
Every three years the price of gas goes up and the left attacks the oil companies. Obama looks at profits as something evil and does not understand that profits are needed to explore for new oil and replace quality reserves. He does not realize — or refuses to acknowledge — that one oil platform alone can cost $1 billion. The left doesn’t understand that higher taxes make the U.S. more dependent on foreign oil, increasing the cost of gas at the pump.
And my how the story changes when high gas prices occur during the Obama administration as opposed to the Bush administration. In 2006, the Democrats cried foul over high gas prices. Nancy Pelosi said, “We are seeing a government run for the oil companies.” When the Democrats took control of the House and Senate, gas prices were at $2.33 per gallon. Senator Barack Obama used high gas prices to get elected, telling people on the campaign trail that he felt their pain.
“I met a guy who couldn’t go on a job search because of the high price of gas,” Obama said in 2008. “I met a teacher in South Dakota who loved her job as a teacher on an Indian reservation, but she had to quit because the drive was too far — it was taking up too much of her paycheck. I know how bad people are hurting.” But he apparently doesn’t feel your pain anymore. In fact, he blames you for high gas prices. Recently, he was asked if he still felt our pain, and he responded, “If you’re complaining about the price of gas and only getting eight miles per gallon – you, uh, know — you may have a big family but it’s probably not that big.”
The media destroyed George Bush over gas prices saying it would destroy the country. But today the media portrays high gas prices as something positive. “Higher gas prices are forcing us to search for alternative fuels and more fuel-efficient cars,” said Priya David on CBS News. “And there are other reasons to be optimistic about the high cost of gas.” So there you go. It’s a good thing.
Obama’s policies are intentionally reducing the supply of gasoline and crude oil just as world demand goes up. One must conclude based on his actions that he doesn’t object to gas at $4.00 a gallon. Inflammatory? It shouldn’t be. In 2008 he said, “I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment [in the rising cost of gas]. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more rapidly, particularly U.S. automakers.”
A president who truly wants lower gas prices can increase the supply of oil by opening up more areas offshore and in ANWR for domestic drilling and easing regulations. We have plenty of domestic resources to drill, and plenty of companies willing to drill for it if the left and their misguided environmental, big-government and anti-capitalist policies would just get out of the way. Increased domestic production would stimulate U.S. job growth and provide a tremendous boost to our economy. It would lower gas prices, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and shield us from the effects of instability in the Middle East and price fixing by OPEC.
But these things aren’t going to happen if the president wants just the opposite. The result of our president’s policies has been decreasing oil production, increasing gas prices, and a mass exodus of oil companies sending operations and rigs overseas to “greener” pastures.
IP: Logged
10:50 AM
Nov 26th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
A new report from a New Orleans-based group reveals that the Obama administration is approving just 35 percent of the oil drilling plans for the Gulf of Mexico so far this year. It is also taking an average of 115 days to secure approval from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Those numbers contrast sharply from previous years. This historical average is a 73.4% approval rate. The approval time has nearly doubled; the historical average is 61 days for the government to approve plans. For plans that require drilling activity, the numbers are even worse. New regulations require all deepwater drilling plans to undergo an environmental assessment process. Those plans have an average approval time of 222 days or more than seven months.
IP: Logged
10:47 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Not related to gas prices, but it does give you insight to how Obama views the economy.
He would favor raising the Capital Gains tax, not to increase revenue, but "for purposes of fairness." When the rate was raised to 28%, revenue fell, and when Clinton dropped it to 20% and Bush dropped it to 15%, in both cases revenue went up. That's not his concern. So, he's willing to take in less tax revenue and further unbalance the budget if it allows him to take more from the wealthy.
And you wonder why he doesn't favor oil exploration? He wants the prices high so it can force the agenda he has. The argument was Bush, a Texas oil man, wanted high prices to make money, but that's not the case with Barry. He wants it to harm the economy specifically to further his agenda.
Of course, his whole "Pay as you Go" BS was just for the campaign. That got canned as soon as he took his oaths of office.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 11-26-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:07 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
So oil prices are rising because of what exactly? How is the world price of oil Obama's fault again??
You do realize that if the Saudi's decided to increase production (as they have plenty of capacity to do) the price would fall tomorrow right?
No matter how much Obama decides to drill, the U.S. (according to what I have read) has 2% of the worlds oil. So not really a great long term plan there. Why is it the current administations fault that a commodity like oil is in more demand worldwide??
Or is this yet another attempt to blame the current administration for everything? I mean you can argue that they aren't doing enough or making some errors I suppose but to try and pin the current price of oil on them and say there is a complete disonnect just seems like more partisan BS.
Uh...no. Let's have a little lesson in the law of supply and demand shall we. It is totally...no wait...TOTALLY irrelevant that oil production in America is at an all time high. The reason is because we produce only about 8 million barrels per day and comsume about 19 million barrels per day. So unless we more than double production we will STILL be dependent on foreign oil and the whim of OPEC. Ain't gonna happen.
Becoming self sufficient is a three pronged approach: 1) Increase local production by freeing up drilling restrictions so we can supply more than half our own needs 2) Free up restrictions on the use of clean coal, nuclear, and other existing technologies to replace home heating oil as a primary source of heat in homes and 3) Incentivize the investment in emergent technology to replace or supplement oil. NOTE....I said INCENTIVIZE investment by PRIVATE money...no more solyndra cluster f***-ups in loser technologies like photovoltaic BS. The BEST solar cells are about 27% efficient. Coal is 97% efficient. And since Carbon Emissions have NOTHING to do with Global Warming we have no reason NOT to use it.
So why is Obama NOT freeing up drilling? Is this in ANYWAY a beneift for America? NO! Since we all agree that there is NO benefit for America in restricting drilling the only reason he could be doing it is for political reasons,to make the rgeenies and the envrio-nazis happy in the ridiculous hope that this will lead to votes. It won't. He will lose in 2012, and America will prosper again the NEXT DAY after Newt is inaugurated.
Back in 2008 ExxonMobil sued Alaska for revoking leases in 2006 on a north slope field that holds about a quarter of all the gas reserves in the state. The reason the leases were revoked? Because ExxonMobil had been sitting on the leases for 29 years with not even a hint that they were planning on developing the fields or even putting in the infrastructure necessary to move the product to market.
Honestly? I think that a lease should include a requirement to develop within a reasonable time frame. Leasing just to sit on the lease and keep the product off the market/out of the hands of competitors hurts supply in this nation and drives up prices. Also, given that it takes years from first survey to actual product coming to market, sitting on leases without at least putting in infrastructure makes the market more volatile because short term demand increases can't be met with developed supply from squatted leases.
BTW, have no idea if ExxonMobil got the $ 800 million that they sued Alaska for.
Also, from the above link, 3,000 new oil wells to be drilled in Texas within the next year with the discovery of 20 new onshore oil fields in West Texas.
Interesting...
IP: Logged
01:41 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by JazzMan: Also, from the above link, 3,000 new oil wells to be drilled in Texas within the next year with the discovery of 20 new onshore oil fields in West Texas.
Interesting...
Oh, but thanks to the EPA, it will likely be blocked because of another made up "endangered species". From your link:
There is another wrinkle here. The 3-inch dunes sagebrush lizard could hinder drilling in West Texas, as it could be named a new endangered species. If put on the list in December, drillers fear the lizard’s new status would slow down or halt drilling in the area.
Oh, but thanks to the EPA, it will likely be blocked because of another made up "endangered species". From your link:
There is another wrinkle here. The 3-inch dunes sagebrush lizard could hinder drilling in West Texas, as it could be named a new endangered species. If put on the list in December, drillers fear the lizard’s new status would slow down or halt drilling in the area.
Lot of "ifs, coulds" in that last bit. Plus, "hinder" does not equal "stop", and neither does "slow down". Modern drilling in benign environments is fairly well worked out, and assuming there's oversight to ensure that individual drilling operations maintain due diligence then the ecological costs are minimized and manageable. By benign, I don't mean deep water or arctic as both of those environments greatly increase the risk of major problems. I have no problem with them drilling around an endangered lizard, and honestly think that wouldn't be a difficult thing to accomplish, as long as they want to do that.
IP: Logged
02:54 AM
PFF
System Bot
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Lot of "ifs, coulds" in that last bit. Plus, "hinder" does not equal "stop", and neither does "slow down". Modern drilling in benign environments is fairly well worked out, and assuming there's oversight to ensure that individual drilling operations maintain due diligence then the ecological costs are minimized and manageable. By benign, I don't mean deep water or arctic as both of those environments greatly increase the risk of major problems.
We certainly have a precedent to go on, though. The Obama administration put a moratorium on deep water drilling in the Gulf, then sued to stop the moratorium from being lifted. He's not very friendly to oil drilling, and the EPA is under his control.
quote
I have no problem with them drilling around an endangered lizard, and honestly think that wouldn't be a difficult thing to accomplish, as long as they want to do that.
Neither do I, but there have been NUMEROUS cases where an endangered species has been cited as the reason to stop various activities.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-27-2011).]
IP: Logged
03:00 AM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
Except that it was HIS administration who blocked drilling in the gulf, and appealed a decision to allow it.
If I remember correctly, significant bumbling caused a major oil leak at a deep water drilling site that may still be leaking thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. If that's not a good reason for a moratorium, I'm not sure what would qualify as a valid reason.
As far as I've heard we still don't know the complete effects of the bp oil spill, especially all those dispersants they used and how much stuff is sitting on the bottom or in a plume, either the dispersant or spilt oil. We really need to find out exactly what are the environmental and fiscal costs of the spill, what exactly caused it and how to prevent it happening again. In the meantime that oil is like money in the bank that we haven't withdrawn yet. There may be safe ways to get to it in the future or maybe there were safe ways to get it when the spill happened. I think that there were accusations of cost cutting that lead to the blow out. At any rate we will have to at some time come up with an alternative to oil as a fuel. It's greatest value may be as a petrochemical feedstock for many other purposes. The only long term solution that I see is renewable clean energy and it's time to begin developing those sources before the price of our declining oil resources drives this economy over a cliff.
IP: Logged
12:55 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Since the administration’s drilling moratorium was lifted in October, deep-water permit issuance is down 88 percent with only two new permits in that time. It’s only slightly better for shallow-water permits, which weren’t subjected to the moratorium, but are still down 11 percent. ... “The federal government has estimated that U.S. offshore oil production could drop 13% in 2011 because of regulatory delays and other new rules being put in place,” according to the Wall Street Journal. “Before the BP oil spill, offshore production this year was projected to increase by 6%.”
In February, Texas-based Seahawk Drilling declared that it would seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a direct result of President Obama’s offshore drilling ban. CEO Randy Stilley declared: “It think it is important to note that Seahawk was forced to seek strategic alternatives only after [an] unprecedented decline in the issuance of offshore drilling permits following the Macondo Blowout.” Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.) called the situation an “economic nightmare,” adding:
I have repeatedly said that the administration’s excruciatingly slow release of oil and gas permits will cause job losses. How many more rigs have to leave and how many more businesses have to close before it realizes the havoc the de facto moratorium is wreaking on the Gulf Coast?
The Obama administration would like you to think that major strides have been taken to increase drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. But, that is hardly the case. The administration has been touting the four drilling permits it has issued, but in reality, but these are not new permits—they have only reissued four permits that it suspended last year. ... Because of the moratorium and de facto moratorium, the United States has lost an estimated 110,000 barrels per day in 2010 and 250,000 barrels per day in 2011 in the Gulf of Mexico. The Obama administration also keeps postponing the approval of an oil pipeline from Canada. The administration cannot seem to figure out the environmental implications of a pipeline despite the fact that there are more than 50,000 miles of oil pipelines already in the United States. And instead of drilling here, the Obama Administration is promoting offshore oil production in Brazil...
A new report from a New Orleans-based group reveals that the Obama administration is approving just 35 percent of the oil drilling plans for the Gulf of Mexico so far this year. It is also taking an average of 115 days — nearly four months — to secure approval from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.
Those numbers contrast sharply from previous years. This historical average is a 73.4% approval rate. The approval time has nearly doubled; the historical average is 61 days for the government to approve plans.
For plans that require drilling activity, the numbers are even worse. New regulations require all deepwater drilling plans to undergo an environmental assessment process. Those plans have an average approval time of 222 days or more than seven months. ... The slowdown of activity in the Gulf of Mexico is having an impact beyond Louisiana, where one deepwater rig can create 700 jobs locally. Lack of production harms employment across America. It also strips much-needed revenue from the federal government, according to Nick Loris, an energy expert at Heritage.
IP: Logged
01:10 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
As far as I've heard we still don't know the complete effects of the bp oil spill, especially all those dispersants they used and how much stuff is sitting on the bottom or in a plume, either the dispersant or spilt oil. We really need to find out exactly what are the environmental and fiscal costs of the spill, what exactly caused it and how to prevent it happening again. In the meantime that oil is like money in the bank that we haven't withdrawn yet. There may be safe ways to get to it in the future or maybe there were safe ways to get it when the spill happened. I think that there were accusations of cost cutting that lead to the blow out. At any rate we will have to at some time come up with an alternative to oil as a fuel. It's greatest value may be as a petrochemical feedstock for many other purposes. The only long term solution that I see is renewable clean energy and it's time to begin developing those sources before the price of our declining oil resources drives this economy over a cliff.
Most of the oil has been consumed by microorganisms in the ocean. They've been able to measure this by the rate of oxygen depletion in the water. It's secondary impact is now the low oxygen areas that can't properly support marine life. It's temporary and there have been other "dead zones" in the Gulf in the past. Ocean currents will take care of mixing higher oxygenated water with the water in the dead zones.
The question then becomes, how long do we sit on our hands while an impact study is being done? There's also the immediate impact to and already weak economy by keeping much of the drilling shut down. Do the studies, but don't just sit around waiting for an answer that may take years to come. Get on with business and as more information is available and if it dictates changes in how things are done, implement those changes as they're decided.
IP: Logged
01:16 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
I guess that I can taken your word for it that the microorganisms have taken care of the oil spill. You are an authority right? What about the environmental effects of the dispersants? So you are saying go ahead and do the studies but don't wait for the results? Why even ask the question then?
IP: Logged
02:00 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
There's a couple hundred thousand links on Google if you want more.
quote
Originally posted by dratts: What about the environmental effects of the dispersants? So you are saying go ahead and do the studies but don't wait for the results? Why even ask the question then?
I already answered that. Don't sit around destroying the economy waiting for answers that we may not have for years, BUT (pay attention, this is the good part) when we get those answers, we can implement any changes necessary at that time. It's difficult to implement changes before we have the answers, so the only question is if we continue to operate under existing regulations until we have those answers, or not.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 11-27-2011).]
IP: Logged
03:29 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
The scientific American articles did not say that MOST of the oil has been eaten. You can't just selectively read these articles and pick the parts you like. There were opposing views printed in these articles too. It's going to take a long time before we know the complete picture of what happened and what the consquences will be. I haven't read the other articles yet. We certainly should ere on the side of caution as far as regulations go and regulations should not be determined by the oil company lobbyists although the industry experts should not be ignored either. Just take their suggestions with a grain of salt and a jaundiced eye. They certainly have their prejudices from their employers.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 11-27-2011).]
IP: Logged
05:25 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Dratts what is stopping you from starting your own moratorium? Feel free to boycott all gas stations and don't support any of their evil deeds. You don't need what they are selling anyway, right? You might as well put your money where your mouth is, if you can, and get used to living without them. Isn't this what you want?
IP: Logged
05:42 PM
PFF
System Bot
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
Just a matter of time. We WILL have to have a different energy source eventually and the sooner we start making plans the better off we'll be. I really don't have the same confidence in the morality of oil companies that you do. I have some hypocrisies too. I have a 640 hp engine in my fire that is completely unecessary.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 11-27-2011).]
IP: Logged
05:47 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Just a matter of time. We WILL have to have a different energy source eventually and the sooner we start making plans the better off we'll be. I really don't have the same confidence in the morality of oil companies that you do. I have some hypocrisies too. I have a 640 hp engine in my fire that is completely unecessary.
Why make plans at all if you're not prepared to quit using oil today? That's your logic about waiting for the environmental impact study before resuming drilling, so live by it.
Time for you to stop using all petroleum based products and switch to only non-petroleum based products. You're not concerned with the impact of holding off on drilling on the economy, so the impact to your personal lifestyle shouldn't be a concern either.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 11-27-2011).]
IP: Logged
05:59 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
I'm NOT prepared to quit using oil. I probably never will be. There will always be uses for oil other than energy and I WILL use it until we have a viable alternative. It's time to investigate the alternatives and not wait till the last moment, not wait till we're facing a cliff with a bear charging at us.
IP: Logged
06:07 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Crack me up! That's the other thing this damn iPad does when I'm not looking. I should have previewed my post. It always changes to fiero to fire if I'm not looking.
IP: Logged
06:12 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Originally posted by dratts I'm NOT prepared to quit using oil. I probably never will be. There will always be uses for oil other than energy and I WILL use it until we have a viable alternative. It's time to investigate the alternatives and not wait till the last moment, not wait till we're facing a cliff with a bear charging at us.
Believe it or not there has been ongoing investigation into alternate energy sources since the early 70s and even earlier. The problem they have is that they are still not practical, inexpensive, efficient, or abundant like fossil fuels are. Unless we run out of fossil fuels or their price becomes prohibitively expensive, I don't see too many changes coming soon.
IP: Logged
06:14 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
I'm NOT prepared to quit using oil. I probably never will be. There will always be uses for oil other than energy and I WILL use it until we have a viable alternative. It's time to investigate the alternatives and not wait till the last moment, not wait till we're facing a cliff with a bear charging at us.
It's also time to continue drilling and not wait for years for a study to be done when all that does is harm our economy and make us MORE dependent on oil imports.
IP: Logged
06:19 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
Although I don't like subsidys, (they pervert the free enterprise system) they have been a part of our energy system for a long time and if renewables are going to compete we need to eliminate them for ALL of our energy suppliers. I would like to see renewables succeed on their own, but they may need a little help to overcome the subsidized headstart of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. We WILL run out of fossils fuels and they WILL become prohibitively expensive. I believe that oil companies who are drilling OUR oil and supported by OUR government should be prohibited from profiting on the world market while taking tax breaks from our government. They are having their cake and eating it too.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 11-27-2011).]
IP: Logged
06:23 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
We could always do what other countries have done and nationalize all the oil and other fossil fuels. The government would then control all pricing, distribution and profits. I don't think the oil companies would take to this action very kindly.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-16-2012).]
I bet the guy with the truck doesn't make enough to buy a new vehicle.
