Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Aug 18, 2011 23:10:34 GMT -5
This thread cracks me up.
I distinctly remember how liberals used to blame high gas prices on Bush, and the conservatives kept screaming about how it's not Bush's fault, that the president has no real control over gas prices.
But now that a conservative presidential candidate is saying, "But wait, I'll lower them ..." some people are actually believing it. This also reminds me of how people who believed in Obama were attacked for being "Obamabots" and "fanboys," but believing in something so unlikely as below $2/gallon gas prices isn't so unreasonable. It would seem there are a number of Bachmannbots running around on this board.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Aug 18, 2011 23:41:12 GMT -5
weltz, Not to place the "blame" on his arrogance, but the price of gasoline is noticeably up, and up more under his tutelage than under several of his predecessors. It would be a stretch to separate the cause from the effect.
But it's more than the price of gasoline. It's the price of eggs, and cheese, and carrots, and cow feed, dog food, shoes and cement and 2 by 4's and everything that gets moved by petroleum fueled trains, planes, buses, trucks, and you fill in the blanks for all the everything else's.
I saw a piece on the tube earlier that said they are getting some suspicions about what his "plan" for job creation will be when the Congress gets back. Taxes and infrastructure top the list. Sounded like more typical Obama.
The next president may not get gasoline back below $2.00, but I'll be glad to see $3.00 gasoline again, and $4.00 milk.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 18, 2011 23:56:32 GMT -5
weltz, Not to place the "blame" on his arrogance, but the price of gasoline is noticeably up, and up more under his tutelage than under several of his predecessors. It would be a stretch to separate the cause from the effect.
But it's more than the price of gasoline. It's the price of eggs, and cheese, and carrots, and cow feed, dog food, shoes and cement and 2 by 4's and everything that gets moved by petroleum fueled trains, planes, buses, trucks, and you fill in the blanks for all the everything else's. ---------------------------- My dear, it's like that EVERYWHERE, not just the USA. How you can possibly tie in Obama's "arrogance" to the price of global price increases is beyond me.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Aug 19, 2011 5:08:53 GMT -5
weltz, my dear, I made a mess of what I wanted to say. I wanted to point out that he picked up the job when the economy was on a greased slide. But it was the job he asked for, and he has handled it with an aloofness not recorded in known history. How much of the world's problems are his is not part of his job description, but the price of American gasoline would be noticeably less if he would open the places oil comes from that he does control.
And it goes to more things than gasoline. It even goes to the cost of money. What can be said for an economy that is in a standstill when banks can't find people who want to borrow money to expand their businesses or start new ones? We have a president who knows so much about how businesses operate that nobody wants to compete with him. It's getting more and more every day, like the business world just wants him gone.
I believe that with someone else in his seat we will see a different outlook and economic rebirth after the election. But if he gets re-elected the roots of what drives this country will be just that much harder to re-energize after another 4 years of Obama. Equipment that will be idled another 4 years won't operate at all any more. Old experienced managers and craftsman's skills will disappear and be replaced by younger, well intended, but less knowledgeable ones with expensive and time consuming errors and learning curves ahead.
That was kind of, sort of, what I was hoping to get across. In that regard he owns the mess we are collectively mired in. How much of it extends to anybody outside the United States is not in my grip to understand.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Aug 19, 2011 7:05:16 GMT -5
This thread cracks me up. I distinctly remember how liberals used to blame high gas prices on Bush, and the conservatives kept screaming about how it's not Bush's fault, that the president has no real control over gas prices. But now that a conservative presidential candidate is saying, "But wait, I'll lower them ..." some people are actually believing it. This also reminds me of how people who believed in Obama were attacked for being "Obamabots" and "fanboys," but believing in something so unlikely as below $2/gallon gas prices isn't so unreasonable. It would seem there are a number of Bachmannbots running around on this board. First sentence here says it all. Evidently the liberals were wrong, or lieing when they blamed Bush.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Aug 19, 2011 7:15:24 GMT -5
Opening up drilling in Alaska and off the east and west coast, the Gulf, and on land, would accomplish this. Nothing complicated about what she has said. Except that we don't have the refining capacity to make a huge difference in the supply of gasoline that would warrant such a huge downward departure on the price of gas. Refining capacity is tight but adequate, now that the illegal immigrants are not buying as much gasolne to move here from Mexico and Honduras-heck now they are just buying gas to move back home. So, if elected and she allows refineries to be built (since she will also have a Republican Congress bidding her will) gasoline will come down in price. Gasoline prices are (largely) high due to high oil prices, not refining capacity. The sell off in Europe of oil futures yesterday had more due to futures manipulation that actual economic pressures or actual demand. Federal state and local municipilities also effect the retail price of gasoline, but if gasoline drops to $2.75 a gallon and stays there, this economy could reignite itself easily. This is not rocket science. The American consumer is tapped out. Put an extra $50 to $75 every two weeks in their pocket and we can get the economy and employment moving. Bachmann has the guts to do it.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Aug 19, 2011 8:11:28 GMT -5
"What's so far out? On the world stage, what has happened that the price of American gasoline has doubled in less than three years? Who else in the world has had such a spike in gasoline costs? " --------------------------------- Who else? Canada, for one. Three years ago, it was 70.9 cents per liter. Today it's 133.9. And it's OUR freaking oil!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,508
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 19, 2011 8:37:16 GMT -5
This message has been deleted.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 19, 2011 9:48:01 GMT -5
" he has handled it with an aloofness not recorded in known history. How much of the world's problems are his is not part of his job description, but the price of American gasoline would be noticeably less if he would open the places oil comes from that he does control." -------------------------------------- No, it would not be noticeably less. Oil drilled in the United States is not sold exclusively to Americans. Therefore, a politician claiming that more drilling in America will bring down the price of gas for Americans is not relating an accurate portrayal of the facts. Regardless of where oil is drilled, it is sold on the open market. So where it is drilled has nothing to do with how much people pay at the pump. "Commodity traders are responsible for oil prices by bidding on oil futures contracts." There are several factors that influence the price of gas. Supply and demand is one, but that is not always the primary influence for wild swings in the price at the pump. Former Shell Oil Corporation President, John Hofmeister said that marketplace, futures trading, spot, and daily trading by speculators are responsible for setting the price of oil - not where it is drilled. Americans who believe that drilling more oil wells in wildlife refuges, national parks, and offshore sites will bring them lower gas prices are in for a rude awakening; it will not. What that will do is increase the already record profits of oil companies, who drive the price at the pump and their bottom line, with gambling on commodities in the stock market - no matter where the oil is drilled. www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8984121-fact-check-why-more-oil-drilling-in-the-us-will-not-lower-gas-prices-for-americans
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 19, 2011 9:50:45 GMT -5
You might, under really optimistic scenarios, over five or six years, add 2 million barrels a day of production," said Lynch, who favors more drilling, even if he rejects the politicians' arguments. "On a global scale, it's significant. But we would still be big importers -- we would still be dependent on foreign oil." And prices would not move much because of it, the analysts explained. Oil is traded on a world market, and the United States does not have enough petroleum to increase the global supply, which would reduce demand -- and thus the price -- for fuel. "In 2009, the U.S. produced about 7 percent of what was produced in the entire world, so increasing the oil production in the U.S. is not going to make much of a difference in world markets and world prices," said the EIA's Martin. "It just gets lost. It's not that much." www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/more-us-oil-drilling-wont-help-gas-prices_n_858473.html
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 19, 2011 9:52:40 GMT -5
The problem is this: While increased oil and gas drilling in the United States may create good-paying jobs, reduce reliance on foreign oil and lower the trade deficit, it will have hardly any impact on gas and oil prices. That's because the amount of extra oil that could be produced from more drilling in this country is tiny compared to what the world consumes. Plus, any extra oil the country did produce would likely be quickly offset by a cut in OPEC production. "This drill drill drill thing is tired," said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, which calculates gas prices for the motorist organization AAA. "It's a simplistic way of looking for a solution that doesn't exist." money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htmIt's what I've been saying all along. It. Will. Not. Lower. Prices.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Aug 19, 2011 10:41:23 GMT -5
So, if elected and she allows refineries to be built (since she will also have a Republican Congress bidding her will) gasoline will come down in price.
So IF and that's a big IF, she was elected and on day 1 had legislation sitting on her desk to clear the way to build refineries, it would probably take a couple years to find a location, do a site study and get the appropriate licenses then another 3-4 years to get the refinery built. Meaning that IF she managed to get re-elected in 2016 you might see the first gas hitting the market in 2017/2018. All that assuming you didn't have any protests about the site, not EPA issues and EVERYTHING was built on schedule. Any effect on gas prices wouldn't be realized for 6-8 years and that's a conservative guess.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,208
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2011 10:57:01 GMT -5
This thread cracks me up. I distinctly remember how liberals used to blame high gas prices on Bush, and the conservatives kept screaming about how it's not Bush's fault, that the president has no real control over gas prices. But now that a conservative presidential candidate is saying, "But wait, I'll lower them ..." some people are actually believing it. This also reminds me of how people who believed in Obama were attacked for being "Obamabots" and "fanboys," but believing in something so unlikely as below $2/gallon gas prices isn't so unreasonable. It would seem there are a number of Bachmannbots running around on this board. not all conservatives defended the rational argument, Shirina. some of them DID blame Bush. and now, they are coming out of the woodwork to hammer Obama.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2011 11:14:46 GMT -5
Drill here, Drill now, Pay less. It's not complicated. It is true that we have not built a new refinery in 35 years, but the idea that we haven't expanded refining capacity is incorrect. We've massively increased our capacity to refine gasoline. It would be better if we could add more, and if the current refiners had competition-- but we face a supply problem right now that has been created by government obstructionism as a result of the silly climate crisis farce and other statist scams to kill the free market economy of the United States. The simple announcement that the end of the assault on domestic energy production would instantly result in $60 a barrel oil on the way down to $10.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,508
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 19, 2011 11:38:59 GMT -5
Drill here, Drill now, Pay less. It's not complicated. It is true that we have not built a new refinery in 35 years, but the idea that we haven't expanded refining capacity is incorrect. We've massively increased our capacity to refine gasoline. It would be better if we could add more, and if the current refiners had competition-- but we face a supply problem right now that has been created by government obstructionism as a result of the silly climate crisis farce and other statist scams to kill the free market economy of the United States. The simple announcement that the end of the assault on domestic energy production would instantly result in $60 a barrel oil on the way down to $10. Simply stating this again is not going to change the reality that others have been posting.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 19, 2011 12:03:01 GMT -5
weltz, Not to place the "blame" on his arrogance, but the price of gasoline is noticeably up, and up more under his tutelage than under several of his predecessors. Ummm. This is wrong. Look up historical gasoline prices. The quoted price of 1.79/gallon from the Bachmann camp was a low blip. Prior to that the last time gas dropped under $2 was 2005. The national average hasn't even hit $4 since Obama has been elected, which was the average price during the summer of 2008 prior to the election. $3/gallon was hit in 2005, 2006, & 2007. So I don't see today's gas prices as being outrageously high when looking at the averages over the last 6 years.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2011 12:16:50 GMT -5
Drill here, Drill now, Pay less. It's not complicated. It is true that we have not built a new refinery in 35 years, but the idea that we haven't expanded refining capacity is incorrect. We've massively increased our capacity to refine gasoline. It would be better if we could add more, and if the current refiners had competition-- but we face a supply problem right now that has been created by government obstructionism as a result of the silly climate crisis farce and other statist scams to kill the free market economy of the United States. The simple announcement that the end of the assault on domestic energy production would instantly result in $60 a barrel oil on the way down to $10. Simply stating this again is not going to change the reality that others have been posting. If it were a credible statement backed up by policy proposals supported by public mandate would change the reality. Instantly. Because the only reality is that we are fighting government obstructionism on domestic energy production. Period. When it ends, the price comes down.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2011 12:21:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Aug 19, 2011 12:26:15 GMT -5
This is raw, unadulterated government obstructionism. Exxon didn't anticipate the objection because it's unprecedented before the Obama regime...
Let us not forget to mention the 100s of good paying jobs that would be created...maybe 1000s.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 19, 2011 12:32:29 GMT -5
"the only reality is that we are fighting government obstructionism on domestic energy production. Period. When it ends, the price comes down."
The only "reality" is a tell that some people are incapable of looking at anything beyond their optics that government is bad "government obstructionism". This is just an example of shallow thinking and shows a lack of courage to inform themselves beyond what the tea party tells them too think.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2011 12:38:08 GMT -5
This is raw, unadulterated government obstructionism. Exxon didn't anticipate the objection because it's unprecedented before the Obama regime...Let us not forget to mention the 100s of good paying jobs that would be created...maybe 1000s. And all the other indirect economic activity that would be generated-- and of course the resulting revenue to the Treasury. But this is an ideology over the economy regime.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2011 12:39:48 GMT -5
"the only reality is that we are fighting government obstructionism on domestic energy production. Period. When it ends, the price comes down." The only "reality" is a tell that some people are incapable of looking at anything beyond their optics that government is bad "government obstructionism". This is just an example of shallow thinking and shows a lack of courage to inform themselves beyond what the tea party tells them too think. Did you post something? I tried to find it, but it looks like a void of any substance personal attack to me.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 19, 2011 12:42:30 GMT -5
Do you think Bachmann's ridiculous comments would have come out of her lips had she done the most elementary thinking before letting it past her lips in the first place.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2011 12:46:34 GMT -5
Do you think Bachmann's ridiculous comments would have come out of her lips had she done the most elementary thinking before letting it past her lips in the first place. First of all, I reject the premise that her comments are ridiculous. I've already explained- and I am correct- that it would be an easy promise to keep. If you'd care to explain what you think is "elementary thinking" and take a shot at refuting any of the points I've made- namely that the chief energy problem we face is an obstructionist government acting against the will of the people, then I'm all ears.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 19, 2011 12:52:44 GMT -5
Do you think Bachmann's ridiculous comments would have come out of her lips had she done the most elementary thinking before letting it past her lips in the first place. First of all, I reject the premise that her comments are ridiculous. I've already explained- and I am correct- that it would be an easy promise to keep. If you'd care to explain what you think is "elementary thinking" and take a shot at refuting any of the points I've made- namely that the chief energy problem we face is an obstructionist government acting against the will of the people, then I'm all ears. Since my supermarket is still filled with affordable food, then I find it hard to take your other predictions regarding commodities & the global markets seriously. I think there have been a lot of excellent points made as to why Bachmann can't make gas $2.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 19, 2011 12:56:50 GMT -5
Well I know you don't want the Government to cotroll energy prices - from what I have read of your post - that would be cryptonite to you.
The fact of the matter is that the U.S. simply will not "produce 20 million barrels of oil" per day in the foreseeable future. We consumed 19.1 million barrels of oil and petroleum products per day in 2010 and produced 7.5 million barrels per day. The American Petroleum Institute says we would only come up with an additional 2.8 million barrels per day by 2025 if all federal lands -- offshore, onshore, Alaska -- were opened to drilling.
But more importantly, even if we did produce that much petroleum, Americans would still be subject to price volatility resulting from events on the other side of the globe.
That's because, as every energy expert I've spoken with has stressed, the price of oil is set on a global market "of around 85 million barrels per day of production and consumption," in the words of energy economist Michael Canes. This means that drilling more will not allow the U.S. to escape the price effects of supply disruptions in other countries like Libya or the ever-increasing demand from China and India.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Aug 19, 2011 13:00:36 GMT -5
So we've established that most of the liberals here believe we should continue to buy oil from foreign nations that are mostly hostile to us, while most of the conservatives here believe we should take advantage of the resources we have in our own sovereign control.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 19, 2011 13:10:18 GMT -5
Now palbeachpaul, you have presented an invitation for any thinking person to take an easy, friendly chance to kid you so..... "namely that the chief energy problem we face is an obstructionist government acting against the will of the people, then I'm all ears. I believe you are all ears but, Im looking for some brains. Sorry...could not pass that one up
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 19, 2011 13:25:37 GMT -5
Do you think oil companies are going to sell [U.S. oil] to U.S. consumers for anything less than top (global) price?
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Aug 19, 2011 14:39:32 GMT -5
This is raw, unadulterated government obstructionism. Exxon didn't anticipate the objection because it's unprecedented before the Obama regime... Let us not forget to mention the 100s of good paying jobs that would be created...maybe 1000s.
Lets also not forget that no jobs would be created without a plan to develop this oil field. Exxon lost the lease because after 10 years they still didn't have a plan for developing the oil field as was required by the lease. Exxon's strategy was to prioritize every other project above this one figuring that later they would still have this lease. The fed had already delivered the message to use the leases or lose the leases, Exxon lost.
The fight over the leases began long before the Deepwater Horizon disaster last year. Several 10-year leases for the Julia field off the Gulf Coast were set to expire in late 2008 — i.e., in the waning days of the Bush administration. Exxon (XOM) filed for a 5-year extension about one month before the deadline, but was denied in February 2009 because the government said the oil company didn’t present a specific production plan as required, the WSJ reported.
According to Exxon, extensions were regularly approved. When it was denied, the company was caught by surprise. U.S. regulators didn’t change the rules. However, regulators did decide to interpret and enforce the rules in the strictest possible way. The feds delivered their we’re-serious-about-the-unused-leases message by making Exxon an example.
[....]These companies were willing to explore for oil offshore Ghana when the traditional big guys were avoiding risky ventures and had abandoned the area. In June 2007, the group discovered one of the largest oil finds in the past decade in West Africa. The group accelerated appraisal and development of the Jubilee field, and began producing oil by December 2010.
Exxon tried to get in on the action in late 2009 — once the oil was discovered and the risk was minimal — and made an unsuccessful multi-billion-dollar bid on Kosmos Energy’s stake in the Jubilee project.
Meanwhile, the Gulf of Mexico is one of the few areas left that is both rich in oil and gas and located in a friendly environment. Critics of President Obama might protest, but governments elsewhere are either more restrictive, have higher taxes or are unpredictable and unstable. The financial risks are minimal compared to offshore Africa.
|
|