PDA

View Full Version : Regime refuses any effort to lower prices!



LWW
03-07-2011, 05:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Obama administration has fired another shot in the fight over the speed with which the Interior Department is — or isn’t — letting oil drillers resume work in the Gulf of Mexico after last year’s Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

The administration late Friday appealed a judge’s orders directing the department to act on several pending Gulf Coast deep-water drilling permits.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50703.html#ixzz1FuZMBxGF </div></div>

LWW

pooltchr
03-07-2011, 07:10 AM
While they tell us we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

And the sheep will see nothing wrong with this!

Steve

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:08 PM
I would be happy if they were just neutral.

These elitists jaunt about in corn powered pleasure boats while people starve.

LWW

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:08 PM
What's next? Coal powered cars to cut down on pollution?

Oh, wait, they already did that?

LWW

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:09 PM
But people who believe that UE drives the economy will believe anything.

LWW

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:10 PM
Like thae democrooks in 2006 pledging they would bring us the most ethical congress in US history.

LWW

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:10 PM
Not counting Charlie Rangel of Course.

LWW

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:10 PM
Or Alcee Hastings.

LWW

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:11 PM
Or John Murtha.

LWW

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:11 PM
Or Teddy Kennedy.

LWW

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:12 PM
Or Robert Cornelius Calvin Sales Byrd Junior.

LWW

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:12 PM
Or Harry Reid.

LWW

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:12 PM
Or Nancy Pelosi.

LWW

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:13 PM
Actually, once you remove the impeached judges ...

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:13 PM
The unidicted co-conspirators ...

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:13 PM
The thieves ...

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:14 PM
The tax cheats ...

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:14 PM
The homosexual escort service operators, my apologies to Bawney Fwank as I didn't intend to leave him out ...

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:16 PM
The killers ...

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:16 PM
The ones with the pointy hats in the closet ...

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:16 PM
And the seditionists ...

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:17 PM
The democrooks in congress would be a decent group of people ...

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:17 PM
All two of them ...

Soflasnapper
03-07-2011, 06:40 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">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Obama administration has fired another shot in the fight over the speed with which the Interior Department is — or isn’t — letting oil drillers resume work in the Gulf of Mexico after last year’s Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

The administration late Friday appealed a judge’s orders directing the department to act on several pending Gulf Coast deep-water drilling permits.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50703.html#ixzz1FuZMBxGF </div></div>

LWW </div></div>

My God, why doesn't Obama understand the importance now of reducing the price of gasoline 3-4 cents 6 years from now???!?!?!

My God, why do you think that's important?

Sev
03-07-2011, 06:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><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">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Obama administration has fired another shot in the fight over the speed with which the Interior Department is — or isn’t — letting oil drillers resume work in the Gulf of Mexico after last year’s Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

The administration late Friday appealed a judge’s orders directing the department to act on several pending Gulf Coast deep-water drilling permits.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50703.html#ixzz1FuZMBxGF </div></div>

LWW </div></div>

My God, why doesn't Obama understand the importance now of reducing the price of gasoline 3-4 cents 6 years from now???!?!?!

My God, why do you think that's important? </div></div>

The price of oil would plummet if Obama announced that all our oil resources were now open for exploitation.

pooltchr
03-07-2011, 07:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
My God, why doesn't Obama understand the importance now of reducing the price of gasoline 3-4 cents 6 years from now???!?!?!

My God, why do you think that's important? </div></div>

Congratulations! With this post, you have gone from being a fairly reasonable leftist to just another whining moonbat.

I really thought you were better than that.

Steve

LWW
03-08-2011, 04:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><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">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Obama administration has fired another shot in the fight over the speed with which the Interior Department is — or isn’t — letting oil drillers resume work in the Gulf of Mexico after last year’s Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

The administration late Friday appealed a judge’s orders directing the department to act on several pending Gulf Coast deep-water drilling permits.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50703.html#ixzz1FuZMBxGF </div></div>

LWW </div></div>

My God, why doesn't Obama understand the importance now of reducing the price of gasoline 3-4 cents 6 years from now???!?!?!

My God, why do you think that's important? </div></div>

Actually, just the threat that the moratorium might be lifted collapsed prices a couple years ago.

But, as we all know, if the regime tells you it's three cents six years from now ... you will repeat it.

LWW

LWW
03-08-2011, 04:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
My God, why doesn't Obama understand the importance now of reducing the price of gasoline 3-4 cents 6 years from now???!?!?!

My God, why do you think that's important? </div></div>

Congratulations! With this post, you have gone from being a fairly reasonable leftist to just another whining moonbat.

I really thought you were better than that.

Steve </div></div>

He's a step away from saying we could save more oil than we could produce by checking our tire pressure.

LWW

LWW
03-08-2011, 04:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
My God, why doesn't Obama understand the importance now of reducing the price of gasoline 3-4 cents 6 years from now???!?!?!

My God, why do you think that's important? </div></div>

Congratulations! With this post, you have gone from being a fairly reasonable leftist to just another whining moonbat.

I really thought you were better than that.

Steve </div></div>

And I thought that also once.

It was the total faith that the CIA secretly released a convict and gave them an SR-71 Blackbird to shuttle Bush back and forth across the Atlantic to negotiate with the Iranians ... ensuring Carter's defeat ... and making no sonic boom, or ever being seen by anyone.

That was followed up by the supposed pilot's claims on the same site that he was a descendant of aliens from the star Sirius, and that they were operating a soul catcher beam that would shoot alien-human hybrids back and forth from the Moon to the great pyramid at Giza.

LWW

LWW
03-08-2011, 04:57 AM
Ohhhh ... the same site claims that Obama has stolen billions from the taxpayer and has it hidden in the vaults of the Vatican bank, but of course that story was deemed to be unreliable by the left.

RUMORMILLNEWS.COM ... it makes Michael Moore and Jeff Rense seem downright sensible by comparison.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-08-2011, 10:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
My God, why doesn't Obama understand the importance now of reducing the price of gasoline 3-4 cents 6 years from now???!?!?!

My God, why do you think that's important? </div></div>

Congratulations! With this post, you have gone from being a fairly reasonable leftist to just another whining moonbat.

I really thought you were better than that.

Steve </div></div>

Assuming you, as I do, try to deal with actual facts, then you should have no objection to what I said, and rather offer your agreement.

That is my understanding of exactly how this would go. Years before any pumping of serious amounts of oil could occur, and then, so tiny a fraction of new supply added to world supply that it would amount at best to a few cents per gallon less price.

If you can show me that this is false, please do so. I have never seen any expert claim of anything other than the scenario I mention. (Which is to say, the bleatings of politicians to the contrary do not count, absent citation of legitimate industry expertise.)

C'mon. If this is pure leftist drivel that I'm regurgitating, surely wherever it is you guys get your talking points ought to have the chapter and verse why this is utterly mistaken. Cato, Heritage, RedState, Little Green Footballs-- SOMEBODY MUST HAVE THE CASE YOU BELIEVE IN YOUR HEAD (apparently without evidence, at least, none seen so far).

Soflasnapper
03-08-2011, 10:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><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">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Obama administration has fired another shot in the fight over the speed with which the Interior Department is — or isn’t — letting oil drillers resume work in the Gulf of Mexico after last year’s Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

The administration late Friday appealed a judge’s orders directing the department to act on several pending Gulf Coast deep-water drilling permits.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50703.html#ixzz1FuZMBxGF </div></div>

LWW </div></div>

My God, why doesn't Obama understand the importance now of reducing the price of gasoline 3-4 cents 6 years from now???!?!?!

My God, why do you think that's important? </div></div>

The price of oil would plummet if Obama announced that all our oil resources were now open for exploitation. </div></div>

Perhaps, but only if psychology would also provide the large and growing extra amount of oil China is buying every year.

However, it will not, so in this current world oil use scenario, the ACTUAL huge increase in annual demands will NOT allow oil prices to 'plummet' on a psychological basis for production that remains years away, and would likely barely amount to the extra oil China would demand when it comes on-line.

LWW
03-08-2011, 10:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is my understanding of exactly how this would go. </div></div>

I don't think anyone doubts that this is your belief.

What is in question is why you would believe this when every historic fact shows otherwise?

Sadly you seem to believe this, as most leftists do, because you accept whatever the regime tells you as if it was Holy writ brought down from the mountaintop by dear leader.

LWW

Sev
03-08-2011, 10:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><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">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Obama administration has fired another shot in the fight over the speed with which the Interior Department is — or isn’t — letting oil drillers resume work in the Gulf of Mexico after last year’s Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

The administration late Friday appealed a judge’s orders directing the department to act on several pending Gulf Coast deep-water drilling permits.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50703.html#ixzz1FuZMBxGF </div></div>

LWW </div></div>

My God, why doesn't Obama understand the importance now of reducing the price of gasoline 3-4 cents 6 years from now???!?!?!

My God, why do you think that's important? </div></div>

The price of oil would plummet if Obama announced that all our oil resources were now open for exploitation. </div></div>

Perhaps, but only if psychology would also provide the large and growing extra amount of oil China is buying every year.

However, it will not, so in this current world oil use scenario, the ACTUAL huge increase in annual demands will NOT allow oil prices to 'plummet' on a psychological basis for production that remains years away, and would likely barely amount to the extra oil China would demand when it comes on-line. </div></div>

Not true. If it were know that America were entering the game again would start dropping quickly.

Soflasnapper
03-08-2011, 04:43 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">That is my understanding of exactly how this would go. </div></div>

I don't think anyone doubts that this is your belief.

What is in question is why you would believe this when every historic fact shows otherwise?

Sadly you seem to believe this, as most leftists do, because you accept whatever the regime tells you as if it was Holy writ brought down from the mountaintop by dear leader.

LWW </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>If you can show me that this is false, please do so. </span>

ugotda7
03-08-2011, 04:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
My God, why doesn't Obama understand the importance now of reducing the price of gasoline 3-4 cents 6 years from now???!?!?!

My God, why do you think that's important? </div></div>

Congratulations! With this post, you have gone from being a fairly reasonable leftist to just another whining moonbat.

I really thought you were better than that.

Steve </div></div>

Assuming you, as I do, try to deal with actual facts, then you should have no objection to what I said, and rather offer your agreement.

That is my understanding of exactly how this would go. Years before any pumping of serious amounts of oil could occur, and then, so tiny a fraction of new supply added to world supply that it would amount at best to a few cents per gallon less price.

If you can show me that this is false, please do so. I have never seen any expert claim of anything other than the scenario I mention. (Which is to say, the bleatings of politicians to the contrary do not count, absent citation of legitimate industry expertise.)

C'mon. If this is pure leftist drivel that I'm regurgitating, surely wherever it is you guys get your talking points ought to have the chapter and verse why this is utterly mistaken. Cato, Heritage, RedState, Little Green Footballs-- SOMEBODY MUST HAVE THE CASE YOU BELIEVE IN YOUR HEAD (apparently without evidence, at least, none seen so far). </div></div>


It's not simply about available supply. It's about future supply. If future supply is jeopardized, prices go up...if not, prices go down.

What, do you think the gas you're pumping in your car this week came out of the ground last week? No, so why did the price go up on that gas? Same principle with future prices....and more than a few cents a gallon.

Common sense.....apparently becoming less common.

Soflasnapper
03-08-2011, 05:25 PM
It's not simply about available supply. It's about future supply. If future supply is jeopardized, prices go up...if not, prices go down.

What, do you think the gas you're pumping in your car this week came out of the ground last week? No, so why did the price go up on that gas? Same principle with future prices....and more than a few cents a gallon.

Common sense.....apparently becoming less common.

SOUNDS like a decent argument. But can you find any expert agreeing with it?

I haven't seen one. What I've seen is everybody says it will save at most 5 cents a gallon at the pump way in the out years.

Soflasnapper
03-08-2011, 06:20 PM
The following is a sample of some reporting of expert views on how drilling here will affect the price of oil, and how soon.

I assume there are countering expert views to the contrary, supporting yr'all positions, but oddly, I have never seen anyone ever bring them forward.

C'mon people, do you have any evidence to support YOUR view of this, or don't you?

Note, one expert goes so far as to say even if we had 100% of the oil we need pumped for ourselves here in the country, we would STILL be subject to world pricing, and world oil shocks.
-------------------

Experts, DOE Agree Domestic Off-Shore Drilling Won't Substantially Affect Oil, Gas Prices

AEI Scholar: "We Probably Couldn't Produce Enough To Affect The World Price Of Oil." According to a Greenwire article published by the New York Times:

If gas prices keep increasing, Republicans probably will make a push on increased fossil fuel production, said Ken Green, resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute think tank.

[...]

But experts disagreed about how much impact additional drilling could have. Crude oil is a global commodity, Green said.

"The world price is the world price," Green said. "Even if we were producing 100 percent of our oil," he said, if prices increase because of a shortage in China or India, "our price would go up to the same thing.

"We probably couldn't produce enough to affect the world price of oil," Green added. "People don't understand that."

U.S. production could be negated by decisions that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries makes, said Philip Verleger Jr., energy economist, and David Mitchell EnCana, professor of management, at the University of Calgary's business school.

"Suppose the U.S. were to boost production 1 million barrels a day," Verleger said. "OPEC has the capacity to cut 1 million barrels."

The oil industry has been able to convince people there is a connection between U.S. drilling and prices, Verleger said. [Greenwire via NYTimes.com, 1/4/11]

PolitiFact: Experts Agree That Expanding Offshore Drilling "Would Have Little Effect At The Pump Any Time Soon." From PolitiFact's evaluation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's (D-FL) statement that a "5 percent increase in domestic production would increase the world supply by less than 1 percent and do almost nothing to our dependence on foreign oil. This would also have virtually no effect on the price of gas at the pump.":

Background on drilling and gas prices

PolitiFact wrote:

The political momentum for offshore drilling has always risen and fallen along with gas prices. But while there are strong arguments that can be made in favor of offshore drilling, reducing the cost of gas "here and now" isn't one of them, according to oil experts and economists -- many of whom support the plan.

For starters, the lead time for oil exploration takes years. Even if offshore drilling areas opened up tomorrow, experts say it would take at least 10 years to realize any significant production. And even then, they say, the U.S. contribution to the overall global oil market would not be enough to make a significant dent in the price of gas.

"Drilling offshore to lower oil prices is like walking an extra 20 feet per day to lose weight," said David Sandalow, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of Freedom from Oil. "It's just not going to make much difference."

[...]

We ran Wasserman Schultz's claim by Jamie Webster, a senior consultant with PFC Energy, which tracks oil production and demand globally and whose clients are governments, including the United States., [sic] and oil and gas companies. We also heard from Daniel J. Weiss, who has written extensively about oil prices and policy and is a senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, which describes itself as a progressive think tank. Both Webster and Weiss agreed with Wasserman Schultz.

[...]

Let's review: Wasserman Schultz's math adds up -- Gulf drilling does indeed represent about 5 percent of current domestic production, and a 5 percent increase would barely register in terms of the world supply. And the experts we found for this Truth-O-Meter as well as ones cited in the past about McCain's claim agree that expanding drilling now would have little effect at the pump any time soon. We rate this claim True. [PolitiFact.com, 12/1/10, emphasis original]

DOE In 2009: Reinstating Offshore Drilling Ban Would Increase Prices By Merely 3 Cents Per Gallon. From the Department of Energy's 2009 Annual Energy Outlook:

The U.S. offshore is estimated to contain substantial resources of both crude oil and natural gas, but until recently some of the areas of the lower 48 OCS have been under leasing moratoria [56]. The Presidential ban on offshore drilling in portions of the lower 48 OCS was lifted in July 2008, and the Congressional ban was allowed to expire in September 2008, removing regulatory obstacles to development of the Atlantic and Pacific OCS [57, 58].

[...]

To examine the potential impacts of reinstating the moratoria, an OCS limited case was developed for AEO2009. It is based on the AEO2009 reference case but assumes that access to the Atlantic, Pacific, and Eastern/Central Gulf of Mexico OCS will be limited again by reinstatement of the moratoria as they existed before July 2008. In the OCS limited case, technically recoverable resources in the OCS total 75 billion barrels of oil and 380 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The projections in the OCS limited case indicate that reinstatement of the moratoria would decrease domestic production of both oil and natural gas and increase their prices (Table 9). The impact on domestic crude oil production starts just before 2020 and increases through 2030. Cumulatively, domestic crude oil production from 2010 to 2030 is 4.2 percent lower in the OCS limited case than in the reference case. In 2030, lower 48 offshore crude oil production in the OCS limited case (2.2 million barrels per day) is 20.6 percent lower than in the reference case (2.7 million barrels per day), and total domestic crude oil production, at 6.8 million barrels per day, is 7.4 percent lower than in the reference case (Figure 13). In 2007, domestic crude oil production totaled 5.1 million barrels per day.

With limited access to the lower 48 OCS, U.S. dependence on imports increases, and there is a small increase in world oil prices. Oil import dependence in 2030 is 43.4 percent in the OCS limited case, as compared with 40.9 percent in the reference case, and the total annual cost of imported liquid fuels in 2030 is $403.4 billion, 7.1 percent higher than the projection of $376.6 billion in the reference case. The average price of imported low-sulfur crude oil in 2030 (in 2007 dollars) is $1.34 per barrel higher, and the average U.S. price of motor gasoline price is 3 cents per gallon higher, than in the reference case. [U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, accessed 3/7/11]

Bush Administration Energy Department: Additional Offshore Drilling "Would Not Have A Significant Impact" On Crude Oil Prices Before 2030. According to a 2007 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher--2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant. [U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, accessed 3/7/11]

EIA Analyst: Total Offshore Production Would Amount To "Less Than 1 Percent Of The Total Projected International Consumption" In 2030. From a September 2008 Scientific American article:

So are promises of U.S. oil independence real--or rhetoric? The issue is not whether the U.S. can significantly reduce its reliance on oil imports with domestic, offshore oil, say both [oil expert Robert] Kaufman and [energy researcher Ian] Nathan, but whether there is enough that is recoverable to significantly lower the price of a barrel of oil on the global market.

Even by 2030, offshore drilling would not have a significant impact on oil prices, according to [EIA analyst Phyllis] Martin, because oil prices are determined on the global market. "The amount of total production anticipated--around 200,000 barrels a day--would be less than 1 percent of the total projected international consumption."

And disruptions to the global supply affect the price of every barrel of oil the U.S. purchases, whether it be from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or off the New Jersey coast. "Suppose the U.S. got all its oil domestically, and the price was $100 a barrel. Then the Saudi family was deposed," disrupting that country's oil exports, Kaufman says. "The Saudis produce about 10 million barrels a day of the world's 85 million, so clearly prices would go up, because now there is this big shortfall of oil."

"Do you think oil companies are going to sell [U.S. oil] to U.S. consumers for anything less than top price?," he asks. "The answer is no." [Scientific American, 9/12/08]

Newsweek: Oil Prices "Determined By Global Supply And Global Demand." From a March 31, 2010, Newsweek commentary by Ben Adler:

Oil, you see, is a fungible global commodity. The oil that one drills for in Texas powers a car the same way that oil from Kuwait does. So the price that Texans pay for oil is determined by global supply and global demand, not how much oil is drilled on the Gulf Coast.

In a market economy such as ours, opening an area for drilling does not mean that the U.S. government controls its destination. Shell and Chevron will be perfectly happy to sell their oil to China if Chinese drivers are willing to pay more than Americans. The U.S. could produce exactly as much gasoline as it consumes and it would still feel the effects of, say, a decision by Hugo Chávez or Vladimir Putin to stop selling any oil. If global supply drops precipitously, global prices will rise, and unless we plan on nationalizing the oil industry--a move I doubt either Democrats or Republicans will endorse--the fact that we are drilling for more oil near our shores won't protect us from the price shock. [Newsweek, 3/31/10]

Oh, no! Say it ain't so!!! (http://mediamatters.org/research/201103070040)

ugotda7
03-08-2011, 09:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's not simply about available supply. It's about future supply. If future supply is jeopardized, prices go up...if not, prices go down.

What, do you think the gas you're pumping in your car this week came out of the ground last week? No, so why did the price go up on that gas? Same principle with future prices....and more than a few cents a gallon.

Common sense.....apparently becoming less common.

SOUNDS like a decent argument. But can you find any expert agreeing with it?

I haven't seen one. What I've seen is everybody says it will save at most 5 cents a gallon at the pump way in the out years. </div></div>


Perhaps you should expand where you're looking - there was one on Cavuto today.

It really is simple common sense and one need not be or consult an expert to understand it - the market is betting on future supply......if more is coming the bet goes down, if not then the bet goes up.

LWW
03-09-2011, 04:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><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">That is my understanding of exactly how this would go. </div></div>

I don't think anyone doubts that this is your belief.

What is in question is why you would believe this when every historic fact shows otherwise?

Sadly you seem to believe this, as most leftists do, because you accept whatever the regime tells you as if it was Holy writ brought down from the mountaintop by dear leader.

LWW </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>If you can show me that this is false, please do so. </span> </div></div>

I can't show you it's false because it's true.

Oil collapsed from $140/brl to $30 something in a matter of months simply because it was being discussed that we might expand our own production.

Since dear leader was elected, the prices have been on a continual uphill spike.

Under Reagan and both Bushes OPEC knew it could keep prices high because congress wouldn't open US production. Under Clinton, they kept prices low because a democrook POTUS could get it pushed through congress.

Now, with dear leader, we have a POTUS who will never favor opening our own resources no matter how high prices go ... so OPEC has no reason to keep prices reasonable.

This is basic economics 101. When a monopoly controls supply, they can set the price as high as they want ... so long as they don't break the world economy completely.

LWW

LWW
03-09-2011, 04:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's not simply about available supply. It's about future supply. If future supply is jeopardized, prices go up...if not, prices go down.

What, do you think the gas you're pumping in your car this week came out of the ground last week? No, so why did the price go up on that gas? Same principle with future prices....and more than a few cents a gallon.

Common sense.....apparently becoming less common.

SOUNDS like a decent argument. But can you find any expert agreeing with it?

I haven't seen one. What I've seen is everybody says it will save at most 5 cents a gallon at the pump way in the out years. </div></div>

Is there any single issue that you will not buy into the regime's line?

Qtec
03-09-2011, 05:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Assuming you, as I do, try to deal with actual facts, </div></div>

That's a big mistake. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif I'm not joking.


Q

Sev
03-09-2011, 08:40 AM
Ras Lanuf oil facility may be burning. Excellent!!

LWW
03-09-2011, 11:10 AM
OOPS!

Soflasnapper
03-11-2011, 01:46 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">
It's not simply about available supply. It's about future supply. If future supply is jeopardized, prices go up...if not, prices go down.

What, do you think the gas you're pumping in your car this week came out of the ground last week? No, so why did the price go up on that gas? Same principle with future prices....and more than a few cents a gallon.

Common sense.....apparently becoming less common.

SOUNDS like a decent argument. But can you find any expert agreeing with it?

I haven't seen one. What I've seen is everybody says it will save at most 5 cents a gallon at the pump way in the out years. </div></div>

Is there any single issue that you will not buy into the regime's line?

</div></div>

Do you always decide the 'truth' of things depending upon who is stating it?

That is, your constant harping on 'the regime' taking a particular stance or line of argument is not any comment on whether they are right or wrong, even though you apparently think it is, and that mentioning it is some kind of definitive counterargument.

Rather than take everything the O administration says as true, or false, the proper recourse is to outside 'facts,' something you perhaps have heard about?

When facts support an O administration policy, you dismiss them as mere talking points and leave it at that, which leaves the question of whether they are actually true or false unaddressed.

So I ask again, do you have any credible statement from a disinterested third party expert that the 3 cents in 10 years (approx.) claim I've made is not true?

(That soundbite claim about the Bush proclamation dropping the price like a stone is absurd, considering there was also a world-wide depression occurring at the time, dropping demand precipitously, and maybe you've heard of this thing called supply and demand?)

wolfdancer
03-11-2011, 02:35 PM
"maybe you've heard of this thing called supply and demand?"
I think he skipped school the day they taught that, or maybe
the "short bus" failed to pick him up

LWW
03-12-2011, 02:52 AM
No, I decide the truth based on what the truth is.

The truth is that in 2008 when Bush lifted the moratorium US prices dropped fro $4.12 to $1.61 in a few short months. Following the coronation of dear leader, and
the threat of US drilling being removed, US gas prices have more than doubled to $3.53.

LWW
03-12-2011, 02:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(That soundbite claim about the Bush proclamation dropping the price like a stone is absurd, considering there was also a world-wide depression occurring at the time, dropping demand precipitously, and maybe you've heard of this thing called supply and demand?) </div></div>

Are you actually claiming that the mere coronation of dear leader solved this problem?

I understand that's an underlying pillar of O-cult ideology ... but we seldom see something like this stated outright.

Soflasnapper
03-12-2011, 02:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "Now, the hard truth is, is that as long as our economy depends on foreign oil, we'll always be subject to price spikes. So we've got to get moving on a comprehensive energy strategy that pursues both more energy production and more energy conservation. We need to increase our access to secure energy supplies in the near term, and we've got to make our economy more energy-efficient and energy-independent over the long run.

"<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Let me be more specific. First, we need to continue to boost domestic production of oil and gas. Last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003. Let me repeat that. Our oil production reached its highest level in seven years. Oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time high. For the first time in more than a decade, imports accounted for less than half of what we consumed.</span>

"So any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite, but it doesn't match up with reality. We are encouraging offshore exploration and production. We're just doing it responsibly."</div></div>

Obama's press conference

Soflasnapper
03-12-2011, 02:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don’t think anybody has forgotten that we’re only a few months removed from the worst oil spill in our history. So what we’ve done is to put in place common-sense standards like proving that companies can actually contain an underwater spill. And oil companies are stepping up -- we’ve approved more than 35 new offshore drilling permits that meet these new safety and environmental standards.

There is more we can do, however. For example, right now, the industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres –- both offshore and on land –- where they aren’t producing a thing. So I’ve directed the Interior Department to determine just how many of these leases are going undeveloped and report back to me within two weeks so that we can encourage companies to develop the leases they hold and produce American energy. People deserve to know that the energy they depend on is being developed in a timely manner.

We’re also taking steps that will enable us to gather data on potential gas and oil resources off the mid- and south Atlantic, and we’re working with the industry to explore new frontiers of production, safety measures, and containment technology. We’re looking at potential new development in Alaska, both onshore and offshore. And when it comes to imported oil, we’re strengthening our key energy relationships with other producer nations, something that I will discuss with President Rousseff when I visit Brazil next week.

All these actions can increase domestic oil production in the short and medium term. But let’s be clear -– it is not a long-term solution. Even if we started drilling new wells tomorrow, that oil isn’t coming online overnight. And even if we tap every single reserve available to us, we can’t escape the fact that we only control 2 percent of the world’s oil, but we consume over a quarter of the world’s oil. T. Boone Pickens, who made his fortune in the oil business -- and I don’t think anybody would consider him unfriendly to drilling -- was right when he said that “this is one emergency we can’t drill our way out of.”

We can’t place our long-term bets on a finite resource that we only control 2 percent of -– especially a resource that’s vulnerable to hurricanes, war, and political turmoil.

So beyond increased domestic production, if we want to secure our long-term prosperity and protect the American people from more severe oil shocks in the future, the way to do it is to gradually reduce demand and then do everything we can to break our dependence on oil.

For example, last year we established a groundbreaking national fuel efficiency standard for cars and trucks. It’s going to save consumers money while conserving about 1.8 billion barrels of oil. And we’re working with automakers, autoworkers, and states to ensure that the high-quality, fuel-efficient cars and trucks of tomorrow continue to be built right here in the United States of America.

To satisfy our broader energy needs, we’re working to diversify our entire portfolio with historic investments in clean energy. Right now, all across America, our farmers are producing homegrown fuels, our scientists are looking for the next breakthroughs, and our workers are back in once shuttered factories, manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels and advanced batteries that will help our cars get hundreds of miles to the gallon. These are jobs that didn’t exist two years ago, and we want to create millions more of these jobs.

And in this year’s State of the Union address, I set a goal for America: By 2035, 80 percent of our electricity will come from a broad array of clean energy sources –- from renewables like wind and solar and homegrown biofuels, along with natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear power.

So these are just some of the steps that we’ve already taken to secure America’s energy future. And over the course of the weeks and months ahead, we will take more.

But the bottom line is this. We’ve been having this conversation for nearly four decades now. Every few years, gas prices go up; politicians pull out the same old political playbook, and then nothing changes. And when prices go back down, we slip back into a trance. And then when prices go up, suddenly we’re shocked. I think the American people are tired of that. I think they’re tired of talk. We’ve got to work together -– Democrats, Republicans, and everybody in between –- to finally secure America’s energy future. I don’t want to leave this for the next President, and none of us should want to leave it for our kids.</div></div>

pooltchr
03-12-2011, 02:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"[size:14pt]Let me be more specific. First, we need to continue to boost domestic production of oil and gas. </div></div>

OK, Mr President...go ahead and be more specific.
Everyone agrees we need to boost domestic energy production.
What, SPECIFICALLY, are you going to do about it???????

I heard a lot of talk in that press conference. Talk don't get it! I have often said that it's useless to listen to what they say. It's far more educational to watch what they do!

Steve

ugotda7
03-12-2011, 03:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "Now, the hard truth is, is that as long as our economy depends on foreign oil, we'll always be subject to price spikes. So we've got to get moving on a comprehensive energy strategy that pursues both more energy production and more energy conservation. We need to increase our access to secure energy supplies in the near term, and we've got to make our economy more energy-efficient and energy-independent over the long run.

"<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Let me be more specific. First, we need to continue to boost domestic production of oil and gas. Last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003. Let me repeat that. Our oil production reached its highest level in seven years. Oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time high. For the first time in more than a decade, imports accounted for less than half of what we consumed.</span>

"So any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite, but it doesn't match up with reality. We are encouraging offshore exploration and production. We're just doing it responsibly."</div></div>

Obama's press conference

</div></div>

Trust but verify......got the data to support these claims? Or are you simply buying them at face value because he said it? Gullible much?

And how about the idea that production is up due to actions from years ago? So based on his actions now how will we be looking in a few years? Got a guess? And got a guess about how those actions now affect the futures market? Here's a hint - it doesn't like it.

Oh wait, here, let me make it simple - it's Bush's fault. Does that still apply?

Soflasnapper
03-12-2011, 04:50 PM
Trust but verify......got the data to support these claims? Or are you simply buying them at face value because he said it? Gullible much?

By making these remarks publicly, Obama now will face the withering scrutiny of all his vast numbers of critics who have more than ample resources to check these claims. I sincerely doubt he'd offer numbers that would cause a Fox firestorm when found false.

Sev
03-12-2011, 05:27 PM
Watch the shiny object!!! Watch the shiny object!!!

Soflasnapper
03-14-2011, 03:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Watch the shiny object!!! Watch the shiny object!!! </div></div>

I agree there is a distraction going on, but I think it's in the opposite direction from how I take your meaning.

That the Libyan situation is what has caused the most recent price runup seems fairly clear from the price chart timeline spiking to current levels as of the day or next day of the crisis in Libya starting.

If it's true what O said as I referenced-- that Gulf production last year was at a record high, and overall US domestic production is at a 7-year record, and US imports of oil now down below 50% of usage for the first time in a long while (and I haven't seen any pushback with credible documented evidence, which should be readily available if any of this were false)-- then those critics who use generic statements of attack to blame the rise in oil on O's energy policies are the ones distracting from the fundamentals of this situation.

LWW
03-15-2011, 03:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Trust but verify......got the data to support these claims? Or are you simply buying them at face value because he said it? Gullible much?

By making these remarks publicly, Obama now will face the withering scrutiny of all his vast numbers of critics who have more than ample resources to check these claims. I sincerely doubt he'd offer numbers that would cause a Fox firestorm when found false.



</div></div>

True to a point, but he can also count on the the Obamatrons to deny this was ever said ... or at least swear it wasn't what he meant, followed by a litany <span style='font-size: 11pt'>B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span> nonsense.

Qtec
03-15-2011, 04:10 AM
LMAO.. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif



Q