PDA

View Full Version : Obama's chickens ... are coming home ... to roost.



LWW
02-24-2011, 05:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As Libya descends further into chaos and as unrest spreads throughout the Middle East, oil prices have begun to climb rapidly. Crude oil for April delivery has spiked to more than $96 a barrel in New York trading.

"In London, Brent crude for April delivery gained $1.65 to $107.43 a barrel on the ICE Futures exchange." Prospects of further increases, which will be felt at the gas pump, are almost certain. So far the fighting in Libya has taken 300,000 barrels a day offline. Further decreases, which would continue the upward trend in oil prices, are virtually certain.

A spike in oil prices, just as the summer driving season draws closer, would not be welcomed by the Obama administration as it struggles to find ways to jump start the ailing American economy before the 2012 election. A similar spike in the price of oil, in 2008, resulted in the hitherto unheard of price of $4 a gallon gasoline in most places in the U.S. California, whose strict environmental standards inflate the price of gas, is already at $4 a gallon.

The problem the Obama administration faces is partly of its own making. The White House has clamped down restrictions in the domestic petroleum, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of the BP oil leak disaster. The energy policy of the Obama administration depends on keeping the price of fossil fuels artificially high to make its favored green energy technologies, principally wind and solar, more appealing.

Unfortunately for President Barack Obama, the wide spread use of alternate energy is years or even decades away. In the meantime, most people put gasoline in the fuel tanks of their cars. As gas prices begin to climb, cash-strapped drivers are going to look for someone to blame. President Obama's political opponents will be only too happy to provide that person.

The pattern has happened before. In the late 1970s, when the Shah of Iran fell, oil prices spiked and shortages of gasoline spread across the U.S. These shortages were caused by artificial price controls on oil and gas left over from the Nixon administration and government blundering in distributing gasoline.

There is little prospect of gasoline shortages happening again since those price controls were lifted by President Ronald Reagan. However, the price of gasoline will rise to its market level, which may be very high indeed. $5 a gallon gas is not out of the question. That portends a big problem for President Obama as he gears up for re-election. </div></div>

AMERICANS (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110223/us_ac/7925056_oil_price_climb_to_cause_political_headach es_for_president_obama) will be the victims of dear leader's war on prosperity.

LWW

pooltchr
02-24-2011, 08:15 AM
Why would this be surprising. Obama promised us that energy prices would skyrocket under his administration.

He is just keeping one of his campaign promises. Let's give him credit for that one. There aren't many of them he has kept!

Steve

Sev
02-24-2011, 08:21 AM
Gas prices at the pump are moving up fast.

It may behoove us to take the oil fields from the Libyans since we cant use our own.

It wont happen.

Prepare for some serious economic pain if the situation does not come under control fast.

pooltchr
02-24-2011, 08:42 AM
Look for pump prices between $4.50 and $5 this summer. Even the luck people who actually have a job may not be able to afford to drive to work!

Steve

LWW
02-24-2011, 09:07 AM
Dear leader stated in 2008 that he wanted $5.00 per gallon gasoline.

The war on prosperity continues.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-25-2011, 03:25 PM
That this has anything to do with Obama's policies is a throw-away one-line claim of it that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Obama has NOT shut down Gulf of Mexico production whatsoever. There are some 3,600+ rigs pumping oil there, as there were before.

There were some 30 rigs doing deep-water DRILLING FOR, not pumping of, oil, and no showing that those would be on-line except for the moratoria imposed, or that they'd do anything more than proportional addition to supply even if they had been able to come on-line in the meantime (30 out of 3,600+ is under 1%).

pooltchr
02-25-2011, 05:09 PM
So, in spite of the pending oil crisis (yes, it's entirely possible under the circumstances throughout the middle east), you don't think we should be exploring any possibilities that could provide us with more oil from the gulf???? If it's about protecting the environment, why are we working deals with other countries to explore the gulf for oil??

The moritorium just promises that we won't find any more.

Good planning??????????


Steve

Soflasnapper
02-27-2011, 03:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, in spite of the pending oil crisis (yes, it's entirely possible under the circumstances throughout the middle east), you don't think we should be exploring any possibilities that could provide us with more oil from the gulf???? If it's about protecting the environment, why are we working deals with other countries to explore the gulf for oil??

The moritorium just promises that we won't find any more.

Good planning??????????



Steve </div></div>

The whole of the Macanudo (that's not the name, but...) well's deposit that BP drilled into is only a fraction of one day of the oil use of this country, and of course, it cannot be all delivered in one day, but in what amounts to a dribble over a considerable amount of time.

The exploratory drills in the Gulf would not result in production in any short time frame, and when brought on line, not provide a substantial amount of oil with regard to our daily usage. If they ALL were as large as the Macanudo find, their TOTAL would amount to less than ONE MONTH'S worth of US oil consumption, and again, could only deliver a tiny fraction of that over many years of pumping.

Considering that we now know that the oil industry's plans for worst case scenarios are entirely inadequate, and that these deep water wells are fairly dangerous, YES, it is good planning to require that they definitively show they've vastly improved their ability to deal with these things prior to letting another 30 some wells blow themselves up without any change in these procedures.

Besides all of that, the oil market is world-wide, and because of alliances, any world shortfall would both increase our pricing here exactly the same, and require us to share in the shortage, more or less.

pooltchr
02-27-2011, 10:05 PM
So, because it wouldn't fix our problem tomorrow, we shouldn't be bothered??? Because it isn't enough to meet all of our demand, it's not worth while to persue?

That seems to be what you are arguing here. Seems to me that anything would be better than nothing.

Our moritorium is not ending drilling and exploration in the gulf, so there is just as much risk to the environment, no matter who is doing the drilling. Seems to me we should be in the game, rather than letting everyone else do it, while we sit by and hope they will share with us.

Steve

LWW
02-28-2011, 02:44 AM
Your assumptions are ridiculous.

It is quite possible that the US has the world's largest oil reserves, and the only thing we know about delivery for sure is that the sooner we start the sooner we complete the job.

Your arguments are the same one's used when GHWB wanted to open things up ...23 years ago.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Scientists Confirm U.S. Has World’s Biggest Oil Reserves

By Pat Shannan

It has been more than a year since the Department of Interior announced that North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3 to 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation, but little is being done about it.

The April 2008, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assessment shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency’s 1995 estimate of a paltry 151 million barrels of oil. That would be 3,775 million (or 3.775 billion) barrels. New geologic models applied to the Bakken Formation, advances in drilling and production technologies, and recent oil discoveries have resulted in these substantially larger oil volumes.

The USGS Bakken study was undertaken as part of a nationwide project assessing domestic petroleum basins using standardized methodology and protocol as required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000, yet only 105 million barrels of oil had been produced from the Bakken Formation by the end of 2007.

At the time of the assessment, a limited number of wells have produced oil from three of the assessments units (AUs) in Central Basin-Poplar Dome, Eastern Expulsion Threshold and Northwest Expulsion Threshold. The Elm Coulee oil field in Montana, discovered in 2000, has produced about 65 million barrels of the 105 million barrels of oil recovered from the Bakken Formation.

The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the “Lower 48” states and is the largest continuous oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A “continuous” oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest continuous oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil.

By tapping these domestic resources, rather than remaining dependent upon foreign sources, America could drastically reduce its cost of home heating and vehicular travel.

Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using currently available technology and industry practices. USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources.

“It is clear that the Bakken formation contains a significant amount of oil—the question is, how much of that oil is recoverable using today’s technology?” said Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) “To get an answer to this important question, I requested that the U.S. Geological Survey complete this study, which will provide an up-to-date estimate on the amount of technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken Shale Formation.”

Scientists conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their findings with exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates.

USGS worked with the North Dakota Geological Survey, a number of petroleum industry companies and independent, universities and other experts to develop a geological understanding of the Bakken Formation. These groups provided critical information for models used in the assessment.

“This sizable find is now the highest producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years,” said The Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

James Bartis, leading researcher with the study, says America has more oil in this one compact area than the entire Middle East. And the stunning news is that we have more oil inside our borders than all the other proven reserves on Earth, and that it could be extracted at an approximate cost to Americans of only $16 a barrel. </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/biggest_oil_reserves_182.html)

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-28-2011, 08:56 AM
It is quite possible that the US has the world's largest oil reserves, and the only thing we know about delivery for sure is that the sooner we start the sooner we complete the job.

Your arguments are the same one's used when GHWB wanted to open things up ...23 years ago.


Nothing you mention says this titanic amount of oil is in the Gulf, as N. Dakota and Montana are slightly far away from that area.

It was GHW Bush who put in the moratorium for off-shore drilling, so I don't know what you're referring to in the above one-liner.

But assuming you have a point (not a safe assumption, of course!, then you are saying GHW Bush wanted to open up exploration and drilling in the lower 48, while stopping it offshore? How does that show we should drill deeper and riskier diminishing return wells in the Gulf, exactly?

Sev
02-28-2011, 09:05 AM
Much of oil pricing is perception.

If Obama came out and stated the US is opening up all its oil reserves to drilling the price of oil would plummet.

LWW
02-28-2011, 10:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nothing you mention says this titanic amount of oil is in the Gulf, as N. Dakota and Montana are slightly far away from that area.</div></div>

Can you show me where I said the gulf?

What's that?

I didn't?

What's that?

You made it up?

What's that?

You were hoping nobody would notice?

I already knew that.

LWW

LWW
02-28-2011, 10:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was GHW Bush who put in the moratorium for off-shore drilling, so I don't know what you're referring to in the above one-liner.

But assuming you have a point (not a safe assumption, of course!, then you are saying GHW Bush wanted to open up exploration and drilling in the lower 48, while stopping it offshore? How does that show we should drill deeper and riskier diminishing return wells in the Gulf, exactly? </div></div>

And now to slay your secon strawman.

I didn't agree with GHWB and offshore ban, but GHWB ... as I claimed ... wanted to open mainland US oil reserves such as ANWR. Bakken wasn't yet really known.

Next strawman please?

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-28-2011, 10:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nothing you mention says this titanic amount of oil is in the Gulf, as N. Dakota and Montana are slightly far away from that area.</div></div>

Can you show me where I said the gulf?

What's that?

I didn't?

What's that?

You made it up?

What's that?

You were hoping nobody would notice?

I already knew that.

LWW </div></div>

You QUOTED THE GUY WHO SAID GULF, and only the GULF example, in your post opener.

To wit:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The problem the Obama administration faces is partly of its own making. The White House has clamped down restrictions in the domestic petroleum, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of the BP oil leak disaster. </div></div>

LWW
03-01-2011, 05:26 AM
How lame is that.

LWW