Gas Prices Surge [Archive] - Debate Policy

red states rule

02-07-2013, 03:53 AM

The Obama recovery continues as gas prices surge higher and Obama's base in the liberal media seem to be downplaying the high prices (unlike they did during the Bush years)

The spike in prices is because of the "improving" Obama economy. I guess this is another new norm folks. Gas prices are double what they were when Obama first took office and we have four more years of a "improving" Obama economy

In CA gas prices are a real bargain

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130206125511-n-gas-prices-5-dollars-00000917-large-video-player.jpg

It's not even close to the summer driving season -- in fact, it's not even springtime -- but as surely as February gives way to March, gas prices have begun their annual ascent.

The average price for a gallon of regular is now $3.53 a gallon, according to AAA. That's 17 cents higher than it was just a week ago, and 23 cents higher than last month.

In parts of Los Angeles, drivers are already paying more than $5 a gallon.

"I'm shocked. I don't know what happened," Diana Griffitts, a motorist filling up at a downtown LA station, told CNN. "Just a week ago I paid under $4 a gallon. I'd like an explanation."

Well Diana, we'll try.

Analysts say gas prices are going up for two basic reasons: oil prices are rising, and refineries are shutting down.
CNNMoney map: Check gas prices in your state
(http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/gas_prices_by_state/?iid=EL)

Oil prices (http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/30/news/economy/energy-prices-oil-gas/index.html?iid=EL) have jumped 10% over the last two months. The price of crude accounts for 68% of the cost of a gallon of gas, according to the Energy Information Administration. Other costs include refining (8%), marketing and distribution (11%), and taxes (13%).

Energy analysts say oil prices are rising partly because the economy is improving. The U.S. housing market (http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/22/news/economy/home-sales/index.html?iid=EL) had its best year in the last five, U.S. job growth (http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/04/news/economy/december-jobs-report/index.html?iid=s_econ_mid) is steady, and the Chinese economy is showing an uptick. (http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/26/news/economy/china-economy/index.html?iid=EL)

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/06/news/economy/gas-prices/

Esox

02-07-2013, 08:50 AM

Good thing inflation is being held in check, isn't it?

fj1200

02-07-2013, 08:53 AM

Damn Fed(eral Reserve).

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

02-07-2013, 10:22 AM

fj1200

02-07-2013, 10:38 AM

^Your link is a year old.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

02-07-2013, 10:44 AM

^Your link is a year old.
Yes, that was my point, double talk back then double talk now. Still presents obama's agenda.-Tyr

Voted4Reagan

02-07-2013, 10:47 AM

Gas was $1.38 a gallon here the day Obama took office

now it's back to $4.00 A GALLON

OBAMA LOVES BIG OIL!!!!

fj1200

02-07-2013, 10:54 AM

Yes, that was my point, double talk back then double talk now. Still presents obama's agenda.-Tyr

Maybe, but the thread is another example of premise looking for evidence.

bingster

02-07-2013, 05:24 PM

Gas was $1.38 a gallon here the day Obama took office

now it's back to $4.00 A GALLON

OBAMA LOVES BIG OIL!!!!

You're forgetting that prices were well over $4.00 before the stock market crash. The price was $1.38 because the economy just went off of a cliff.

Robert A Whit

02-07-2013, 06:04 PM

You're forgetting that prices were well over $4.00 before the stock market crash. The price was $1.38 because the economy just went off of a cliff.

I thought you blamed oil prices on the world?

bingster

02-07-2013, 08:56 PM

I thought you blamed oil prices on the world?

I did. Did you not notice this was a global recession?
The stock market isn't just in New York, you know.

US Gas Prices, Oil Price & the Real Story

Take the Drill-Baby-Drill Challenge: Can You Guess Right?

http://zfacts.com/sites/all/files/image/energy/active-drilling-quiz.png (http://zfacts.com/sites/all/files/image/energy/active-oil-drilling-rigs.png)
March 25, 2012. You know the story. When Obama took office:

Gasoline cost $1.95/gallon and oil, $45

But now (3/2/12)

Gasoline costs $3.72/gallon and oil, $125

Incredible. And we understand—because our politicians explained it to us, like so ...

We should've drilled.
But Obama and his EPA stopped us.
So the supply of oil went down.

And, that pushes the price up, and high oil prices cause high gas prices. If we had drilled, supply would be up and the price would be down. Maybe down to $1.00/gal (http://zfacts.com/node/428) like under Clinton (March 1999).

<tbody>
Free. Many Varieties (http://zfacts.com/node/224)

</tbody>
So I dare you to guess which Obama scenario on the graph above is correct. Don't cheat. Guess before you click to see the answer. Don't believe it? — See for yourself where the data comes from (http://zfacts.com/node/421).
Shocking but true:

We did "drill baby drill" — like never before.
Obama didn't stop us.

Just ask the upset Sierra Club.

The US supply of oil went up the most since 1970 (http://zfacts.com/node/427).

Under Obama, drilling has skyrocketed as never before, and the price of gas went from $1.95 to $3.95 (April 1, 2012). There's a reason (http://zfacts.com/node/429).
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

The Drill-Baby-Drill Fallacy

<tbody>
click to enlarge

http://zfacts.com/sites/all/files/image/energy/drilling-vs-gas-price.png (http://zfacts.com/sites/all/files/image/energy/drilling-vs-gas-price.png)

</tbody>

Puzzle: Why is the price of gas up, when drilling is up?

It was $1.00 under Clinton when drilling was lowest.
It was $3.30 when drilling peaked under Bush.
It was $3.90 with drilling sky high under Obama.

What's Wrong with the Drill-Baby-Drill Theory?

<tbody>
http://zfacts.com/sites/all/files/image/energy/Newt-%242.50-Gas-Price.jpghttp://zfacts.com/sites/all/files/image/energy/Newt_Gingrich.jpg

Newt's $2.50 gas for China⇒ (http://zfacts.com/node/426)

</tbody>

It's only about US Oil Supply (drilling).
But supply and demand determine the price.

Here's What Happens Instead:

Demand for oil goes up (think, China, India and Japan).
The price of oil goes through the roof.
Big Oil smells profit and starts to drill like crazy.

Drilling is up when price is up, like the graph shows (http://zfacts.com/node/428).

Drilling keeps the price about a nickle lower than "it would have been."
You get the nickle, Exxon gets $10 billion.

In a nut shell, here's the awful truth:

China uses more, and Our gas price goes up.
We use less and drill more.
Exxon ships the extra gasoline to China! -- See for yourself (http://zfacts.com/node/426).

zFact: US drilling is 10% of half the story. We pump 10%. Demand is the other half.

Voted4Reagan

02-07-2013, 09:34 PM

You're forgetting that prices were well over $4.00 before the stock market crash. The price was $1.38 because the economy just went off of a cliff.

Hey.... genius.... the Stock Market was fine..... the Prices were plenty low for 3 Months at the end of 2008

Oct/Nov/December

Prices exploded when Obama came in....

http://www.NewJerseyGasPrices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=NewJersey&city2=NewYork&city3=NewHaven&crude=n&tme=60&units=us

Your graph is a misrepresentation BINGSTER....

My graph is accurate to within weeks and shows the trend...

better yet....

This one shows from 2 weeks after Obama took office to PRESENT

http://www.NewJerseyGasPrices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=NewJersey&city2=NewYork&city3=NewHaven&crude=n&tme=48&units=us

bingster

02-07-2013, 10:25 PM

http://www.NewJerseyGasPrices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=NewJersey&city2=NewYork&city3=NewHaven&crude=n&tme=60&units=us

Your graph is a misrepresentation BINGSTER....

My graph is accurate to within weeks and shows the trend...

Your graph and my graphs are both fine. You just refuse to notice the huge drop in price from 8/2008 to 12/2008. The drop was due to the crash and it took a while to recover.

Here's another chart:

4483
If our gas prices have anything to do with production, how come prices are so high with the highest production since 1970?

4484

better yet....

This one shows from 2 weeks after Obama took office to PRESENT

http://www.NewJerseyGasPrices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=NewJersey&city2=NewYork&city3=NewHaven&crude=n&tme=48&units=us

Sorry, dude, I know you think Obama is to blame for everything bad in your life, but he didn't cause your higher gas prices. You should go back to my earlier post to find out why. It's mostly not our supply and demand, it's China's.

Voted4Reagan

02-08-2013, 12:08 AM

red states rule

02-08-2013, 02:38 AM

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022112-601827-obama-shifting-talk-on-high-gas-prices.htm

^^^^ obama double talk and his desire to see the high gas prices continue to rise !
Forcing less gas resources being developed here does not help..--Tyr

Obama is on the records as supporting high gas prices

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4yFsaxw6L8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VquNu30hDe8

Sorry, dude, I know you think Obama is to blame for everything bad in your life, but he didn't cause your higher gas prices. You should go back to my earlier post to find out why. It's mostly not our supply and demand, it's China's.

But Dems blamed Bush when gas hit $3/gal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbzzeuYJteY

and the NY Times was giddy over Dems using high gas prices for political gain

Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices

By MICHAEL JANOFSKY (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/michael_janofsky/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
WASHINGTON, April 20 — Democrats running for Congress are moving quickly to use the most recent surge in oil and gasoline prices to bash Republicans over energy policy, and more broadly, the direction of the country.

With oil prices hitting a high this week and prices at the pump topping $3 a gallon in many places, Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic Senate candidate in Minnesota, is making the issue the centerpiece of her campaign. Ms. Klobuchar says it "is one of the first things people bring up" at her campaign stops.
To varying degrees, Democrats around the country are following a similar script that touches on economic anxiety and populist resentment against oil companies.

"It's a metaphor for an economy that keeps biting people despite overall good numbers," said Senator Charles E. Schumer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/charles_e_schumer/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Mr. Schumer said Democratic candidates in 10 of the 34 Senate races this year had scheduled campaign events this week focusing on gasoline prices.

Officials at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which advises House candidates, said they sent a memorandum to candidates on Thursday offering guidance on using the issue to their advantage. The memorandum includes a "sample statement" that recommends telling voters, "Americans are tired of giving billion-dollar tax subsidies to energy companies and foreign countries while paying record prices at the pump."

Increasing gasoline prices have put Republicans on the defensive at a time when they are counting on the economy to help offset the myriad other problems they face, starting with the Iraq war.

Republicans say they have spent years advocating policies that would reduce the reliance on imported oil, largely by promoting more domestic energy production, and they point to the energy bill that President Bush signed last August as a step in that direction. They said that the law encouraged conservation and greater use of ethanol in gasoline and that it would have done more for domestic oil supplies if Democrats had not fought so hard against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/washington/21gas.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

I did. Did you not notice this was a global recession?
The stock market isn't just in New York, you know.

It is amazing Bing to listen to people like you. Obama and the Dems are totally blameless for everything. Dems had total and complete control of Congress during the last 2 years of Bush, then had it all for the first 2 years of Obama first term, and have had 2/3 of DC for the last 2 years - yet they are nothing more then innocent by standers when it come to the debt, deficit, economy, high gas prices, the murder of Americans overseas, and anything else you can name

For a party that prides itself on its moral and intellectual superiority you people are like 5 year old children always whining how it was someone else's fault when you screw up

bingster

02-08-2013, 02:05 PM

once again..... WRONG

Remember a little thing back in 2005?

KATRINA??

That storm destroyed a large portion of our drilling in the gulf and the Refineries in the TX/LA area...

it took YEARS to get that production back

The Drop from 6/08 to 12/08 was all due to increasing output and refining capacity coming back to Pre Katrina levels

I worked in the industry BINGSTER... I lived for months at a time on a tender on Oil Platforms... I know what happened because I WAS THERE WITH THE TANKER CAPTAINS!!!

Youre misrepresenting the facts...

Obama hasnt opened up the areas that hold the most oil...

NOT IN ANWAR

NOT OFF CALIFORNIA

NOT IN THE SHALLOW WATERS OF THE GULF OF MEXICO

NOT OFF THE FLORIDA COAST

The leases he opened are among the least productive but they are all that were opened...

You can increase drilling 500%... BUT IF IT'S ON LOUSY LEASES YOU WONT GET SHIT OUT OF THEM....

Your being "in the industry" does not mean you understand global prices.
You haven't answered me. If production is at the highest level since 1970, why the high prices? How come our exports are also at record levels?
4485

jimnyc

02-08-2013, 02:20 PM

red states rule

02-08-2013, 02:23 PM

While there are other sources and reasons for why gas prices rise and fluctuate - it is a fact that GWB was slammed for such, without any appropriate data, and now many of the same people are singing a different tune, and now that same data is somehow important.

Jim those people are not singing a different tune. They are totally silent

Where are all those stories in the liberal media about the burden high gas prices are having on the middle class? I rememebr damn near daily there were "news stories" about how a mom could not afford gas to take her kid to the Dr' or how a family was cutting back of food to pay for gas

No such stories like that can be found today

bingster

02-08-2013, 02:27 PM

Here's Europe's price per barrel graph. Notice the graph is identical to our graph? Same fall for the recession, too. Nothing to do with Katrina.
4486

red states rule

02-08-2013, 02:29 PM

Your being "in the industry" does not mean you understand global prices.
You haven't answered me. If production is at the highest level since 1970, why the high prices? How come our exports are also at record levels?
4485

Oh and you will find that much of the spike in oil production is on PRIVATE land - Obama still refuse to allow drilling on most of the Federally owned land

fj1200

02-08-2013, 02:30 PM

^^Yup, that's a Federal Reserve failure graph right there.

bingster

02-08-2013, 02:30 PM

While there are other sources and reasons for why gas prices rise and fluctuate - it is a fact that GWB was slammed for such, without any appropriate data, and now many of the same people are singing a different tune, and now that same data is somehow important.

Actually, it was GWB's gas prices that taught me what I know about global prices. And I don't remember many people slamming him. KNX (non-partisan local LA Radio station) was reporting the reasons for the high prices.

red states rule

02-08-2013, 02:32 PM

Actually, it was GWB's gas prices that taught me what I know about global prices. And I don't remember many people slamming him. KNX (non-partisan local LA Radio station) was reporting the reasons for the high prices.

GWB's gas prices???

So when the President has an "R" at the end of his name - he is to blame for high gas prices

But when the President has a "D" at the end of his name - he has no control over the price of gas (even when he bans most drilling where the oil is at)

bingster

02-08-2013, 02:35 PM

Oh and you will find that much of the spike in oil production is on PRIVATE land - Obama still refuse to allow drilling on most of the Federally owned land

That argument has been debunked right after the debate. Federally owned land leases were scooped up by the Feds because nobody was using the land. Industry doesn't want Fed's land because it isn't rich in shale. Shale imbedded land is the current land wanted by private industry.

But, you're just distracting from the point. Oil production is up, exports are up (because of the high prices-oil companies aren't stupid, they want to make money!), and drilling is up. Imports are way down also. It's not a U.S. supply problem.

fed lands link
http://rlch.org/news/drilling-leaves-fed-lands-because-state-private-acres-are-cheaper-says-blm-chief

red states rule

02-08-2013, 02:38 PM

That argument has been debunked right after the debate. Federally owned land leases were scooped up by the Feds because nobody was using the land. Industry doesn't want Fed's land because it isn't rich in shale. Shale imbedded land is the current land wanted by private industry.

But, you're just distracting from the point. Oil production is up, exports are up (because of the high prices-oil companies aren't stupid, they want to make money!), and drilling is up. Imports are way down also. It's not a U.S. supply problem.

fed lands link
http://rlch.org/news/drilling-leaves-fed-lands-because-state-private-acres-are-cheaper-says-blm-chief

Sorry Bing

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330692/romney-was-right-oil-gas-production-federal-lands-decreasing-katrina-trinko

and when did Obama life the drilling ban in the Gulf? Oh it is still in place

And what about Obama and Dem blaming Bush for high gas prices? Seems if you a Dem you are nothing more then an innocent bystander when it comes to the Obama economy

jimnyc

02-08-2013, 02:40 PM

Actually, it was GWB's gas prices that taught me what I know about global prices. And I don't remember many people slamming him. KNX (non-partisan local LA Radio station) was reporting the reasons for the high prices.

Then you weren't paying attention if you claim to have not seen GWB blamed for gas prices. The far loony left and a bunch of left politicians did just that, and I believe even Red has posted video proof already.

red states rule

02-08-2013, 02:42 PM

Then you weren't paying attention if you claim to have not seen GWB blamed for gas prices. The far loony left and a bunch of left politicians did just that, and I believe even Red has posted video proof already.

Jim, I suspect Bing is simply ignoring it and refuses to admit the clear double standard. I even posted a video of Obama blaming Bush when gas was $3/gal and I suspected he would not respond to it

Voted4Reagan

02-08-2013, 02:42 PM

Your being "in the industry" does not mean you understand global prices.
You haven't answered me. If production is at the highest level since 1970, why the high prices? How come our exports are also at record levels?
4485

really?

I majored in Economics.....

I know more then you...

Face it... your Obamessiah is in bed with Big-Oil and reaping windfall profits from them

sound familiar?

bingster

02-08-2013, 02:44 PM

GWB's gas prices???

So when the President has an "R" at the end of his name - he is to blame for high gas prices

But when the President has a "D" at the end of his name - he has no control over the price of gas (even when he bans most drilling where the oil is at)

You're mischaracterizing my point. I wasn't protesting GWB's prices because I learned to know better. Now, you need to learn to know better.

really?

I majored in Economics.....

I know more then you...

Face it... your Obamessiah is in bed with Big-Oil and reaping windfall profits from them

sound familiar?

Going back to insults. Find the proof and make an argument. Economics is not rocket science. Yea, supply and demand. You fail to think globally.

fj1200

02-08-2013, 02:46 PM

So, in summary; is there a double standard in news reporting regarding gas/oil prices? Yes. Does the POTUS have much impact on oil prices? No.

red states rule

02-08-2013, 02:47 PM

You're mischaracterizing my point. I wasn't protesting GWB's prices because I learned to know better. Now, you need to learn to know better.

So far you have ignored all the posts showing Obama, Dems, and the liberal media blaming Bush for high gas prices. NOW those same people refuse to hold Obama to the same standards

and I do know the man who keeps saying we are in a recovery I am spending alot more money for gas, food, now - then I did before he took office

So, in summary; is there a double standard in news reporting regarding gas/oil prices? Yes. Does the POTUS have much impact on oil prices? No.

So all the drilling bans, refusal to build pipelines, and lower oil production on Federal lands has no impact on oil production and prices?

bingster

02-08-2013, 02:48 PM

Jim, I suspect Bing is simply ignoring it and refuses to admit the clear double standard. I even posted a video of Obama blaming Bush when gas was $3/gal and I suspected he would not respond to it

Look, I said I didn't see it. I was working more then. You don't have to call me a liar. If it happened, fine. I'm not telling you it didn't happen, I'm telling you I didn't see it. Yes, I wasn't as aware then.

red states rule

02-08-2013, 02:51 PM

Look, I said I didn't see it. I was working more then. You don't have to call me a liar. If it happened, fine. I'm telling you it didn't happen, I'm telling you I didn't see it. Yes, I wasn't as aware then.

So you are unable to read the link from the NY Times and watch the videos of Pelosi and Obama I posted?

fj1200

02-08-2013, 02:52 PM

So all the drilling bans, refusal to build pipelines, and lower oil production on Federal lands has no impact on oil production and prices?

Pretty much.

bingster

02-08-2013, 02:53 PM

So all the drilling bans, refusal to build pipelines, and lower oil production on Federal lands has no impact on oil production and prices?

Not when you have massive increases everywhere else in the country and the prices are set on the global scale. It's China and Japan's increase in demand that's causing the price spike.

red states rule

02-08-2013, 02:54 PM

Pretty much.

Your loyalty to the regime is touching but irrational

bingster

02-08-2013, 02:55 PM

So you are unable to read the link from the NY Times and watch the videos of Pelosi and Obama I posted?

No, I believe you. Want to watch an endless loop of a guy throwing a shoe at George W? Probably not.....

red states rule

02-08-2013, 02:55 PM

Bing here is more of Dems blaming Bush - since you claim you never saw it I am providing you a free trip down Memory Lane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI15B7W431M

bingster

02-08-2013, 02:56 PM

Your loyalty to the regime is touching but irrational

Rational thought is founded in facts. Find some facts that dispute my arguments.

fj1200

02-08-2013, 02:57 PM

Your loyalty to the regime is touching but irrational

:laugh: Take a look at practically every other commodity over the last 10 years and they have (almost) all climbed similar to oil. It's not the POTUS that controls those things, it's by a large the Federal Reserve. Their performance for the last 10 years has been abysmal.

jimnyc

02-08-2013, 02:59 PM

Bing here is more of Dems blaming Bush - since you claim you never saw it I am providing you a free trip down Memory Lane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI15B7W431M

Too funny, and sad. And these same asshats that complained back then, that eventually became in charge - made things twice as bad then I suppose.

Robert A Whit

02-08-2013, 02:59 PM

That argument has been debunked right after the debate. Federally owned land leases were scooped up by the Feds because nobody was using the land. Industry doesn't want Fed's land because it isn't rich in shale. Shale imbedded land is the current land wanted by private industry.

But, you're just distracting from the point. Oil production is up, exports are up (because of the high prices-oil companies aren't stupid, they want to make money!), and drilling is up. Imports are way down also. It's not a U.S. supply problem.

fed lands link
http://rlch.org/news/drilling-leaves-fed-lands-because-state-private-acres-are-cheaper-says-blm-chief

Too bad you are so much pro Obama but not for the people you simply rely on left wing spin doctors.

Gasoline could be well under two dollars per gallon but for the Obama policy.

Such as: allowing CA to block oil drilling off our coast but not allow drilling that states want off the east coast.

Keystone blocks oil from Canada.

Now, block something from getting to market and per laws of economics, what do you suppose happens? Thank god for the Baaken formation. At least the private sector is trying to increase supply.

Be sure to let us all know when Obama opens ANWR. I can't imagine he opened back up that other oil from Alaska.

bingster

02-08-2013, 03:00 PM

Bing here is more of Dems blaming Bush - since you claim you never saw it I am providing you a free trip down Memory Lane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI15B7W431M

Good job. I'll admit their opposition to Bush in relation to gas prices was misplaced. The point they were trying to make, however was that we need to invest in more alternative energy sources. George W. was infamous for his disdain for the environment. Obama has done quite a bit in this area despite tons of Republican protest.

red states rule

02-08-2013, 03:00 PM

No, I believe you. Want to watch an endless loop of a guy throwing a shoe at George W? Probably not.....

and I am sure you have that with an added laugh track. Your lack of interest confirms you have one set of standards of your fellow libs and another set for everyone else

For the 4 years Obama will be blameless in your world and you will desperately look to pass the buck and blame for his continuing list of failures

jimnyc

02-08-2013, 03:01 PM

Good job. I'll admit their opposition to Bush in relation to gas prices was misplaced. The point they were trying to make, however was that we need to invest in more alternative energy sources. Obama has done quite a bit in this area despite tons of Republican protest.

If their points were worthy, and they stood by their words - wouldn't gas prices have stayed on course, or lowered? I don't see how those who complained, then got into office, have done anything differently or anything that would benefit the consumer.

fj1200

02-08-2013, 03:02 PM

Gasoline could be well under two dollars per gallon but for the Obama policy.

Not really.

red states rule

02-08-2013, 03:02 PM

Good job. I'll admit their opposition to Bush in relation to gas prices was misplaced. The point they were trying to make, however was that we need to invest in more alternative energy sources. Obama has done quite a bit in this area despite tons of Republican protest.

and what do we have to show for those hundreds of billions spent so far Bing? If the private sector does see any potential for "green energy" why do libs? Of course libs are not investing THEIR OWN MONEY in these failed projects so they do not give a damn if the companies go bankrupt

bingster

02-08-2013, 03:03 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOjfxEejS2Y

and what do we have to show for those hundreds of billions spent so far Bing? If the private sector does see any potential for "green energy" why do libs? Of course libs are not investing THEIR OWN MONEY in these failed projects so they do not give a damn if the companies go bankrupt

36 companies out of something like 1400 companies went bankrupt. I don't happen to like the fact that China is beating us on this. Keeping the blinders on and continuing down the oil hole is just closed minded. It doesn't take a genius to see that burning oil and coal is bad. Wind and solar is good. There's got to be a better fuel out there for our cars besides gas and ethanol. Ethanol is a joke. This all takes money for study and innovation. If you think the private sector has to do this on its own, you're ignoring most of the technological advances in the history of this country. Almost all of them were government subsidized.

The will farrell video is hilarious.

red states rule

02-08-2013, 03:13 PM

36 companies out of something like 1400 companies went bankrupt. I don't happen to like the fact that China is beating us on this. Keeping the blinders on and continuing down the oil hole is just closed minded. It doesn't take a genius to see that burning oil and coal is bad. Wind and solar is good. There's got to be a better fuel out there for our cars besides gas and ethanol. Ethanol is a joke. This all takes money for study and innovation. If you think the private sector has to do this on its own, you're ignoring most of the technological advances in the history of this country. Almost all of them were government subsidized.

and I see you left out the cost of those failures Bing. Government has no business in picking winners and loser. It is like they are taking taxpayer money to a casino and try to hit the jackpot

So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.
The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar (http://www.usaspending.gov/search?form_fields=%7b%22search_term%22%3A%22everg reen+solar%22%7d) ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/15/despite-stimulus-funding-solyndra-and-4-other-companies-have-hit-rock-bottom/) ($500,000)*
Solyndra (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-12/obama-team-backed-535-million-solyndra-aid-as-auditor-warned-on-finances.html) ($535 million)*
Beacon Power (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-31/beacon-power-backed-by-u-s-loan-guarantees-files-bankruptcy.html) ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/236311-another-obama-backed-energy-firm-may-be-close-to-collapse) ($98.5 million)
SunPower (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/12/solar-firm-that-received-12-billion-federal-loan-plagued-by-financial-problems-702546811/) ($1.2 billion)
First Solar (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/doe-backed-solar-company-lays-2000/484901) ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown (http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/01/14/cbs-11-more-solyndras-in-obama-green-energy-program/) ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A1602AF6-F11F-4B9D-ABC4-AC9234EBEC41) ($118.5 million)*
Amonix (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jan/25/some-200-laid-north-las-vegas-amonix-solar-plant/) ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/clean-energy-loan-recipient-lays-off-staff-113652.html) ($529 million)
Abound Solar (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20066660) ($400 million)*
A123 Systems (http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/04/04/taxpayers%E2%80%99-green-%E2%80%98investment%E2%80%99-battery-company-withers) ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group (http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/04/05/crickets-chirp-another-taxpayer-funded-solar-factory) ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-obamas-green-car-revolution-fits-and-starts/2011/11/29/gIQA0FdRdO_story.html) ($299 million)
Brightsource (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576359852009524680.html) ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57402463-10391695/stimulus-recipient-under-investigation-for-insider-trading/) ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970203710704577050412494713178.html) ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309936/green-jobs-gone-bust-deroy-murdock) ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/15/despite-stimulus-funding-solyndra-and-4-other-companies-have-hit-rock-bottom/)($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/15/despite-stimulus-funding-solyndra-and-4-other-companies-have-hit-rock-bottom/) ($10 million)*
Range Fuels (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132453701004530.html) ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303644004577523282632904216.html) ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303644004577523282632904216.html) ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/azure-dynamics-wins-doe-award-to-develop-next-generation-traction-inverter-127521153.html) ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts (http://www.nrel.gov/solar/news/2009/677.html?print) ($500,000)
Vestas (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/13/Danish-Wind-Turbine-Company-That-Received-Over-50-Million-In-Stimulus-Lays-Off-800-Workers) ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/background-presidents-event-holland-michigan-today) ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower (https://lpo.energy.gov/?p=834) ($16 million)*
Navistar (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/autos/1004/gallery.electric_trucks/4.html) ($39 million)
Satcon (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/another-doe-backed-solar-company-goes-bankrupt/) ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. (http://www.boston.com/businessupdates/2012/06/04/konarka-files-for-chapter-ceases-operations/afQFI6wU5DKTZbSJkUdJQJ/story.html) ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. (http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17123) ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.

The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened (http://www.washingtonguardian.com/stimulating-investigation) to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/

fj1200

02-08-2013, 03:16 PM

Almost all of them were government subsidized.

Even if true government can fund research, it has no business funding private firms.

bingster

02-08-2013, 03:17 PM

If their points were worthy, and they stood by their words - wouldn't gas prices have stayed on course, or lowered? I don't see how those who complained, then got into office, have done anything differently or anything that would benefit the consumer.

Money is now being spent on alternative sources. Nobody expected them to invent something overnight.

Even if true government can fund research, it has no business funding private firms.

That's just hilarious! What other "firms" can we fund? You don't want research privatized? Really?

What about the billions in subsidies to oil companies and Big Pharma and Big Agra? Aren't those private companies?

red states rule

02-08-2013, 03:21 PM

That's just hilarious! What other "firms" can we fund? You don't want research privatized? Really?

Once again you ignore the cost to taxpayers - while Obama demands higher taxes. You also ignore that many of these compaines are ran by Obama's big money backers

Can you name any success stories in Obama's green investments? Again, if the private sector does not see a profit potential how does the government see it?

fj1200

02-08-2013, 03:21 PM

That's just hilarious! What other "firms" can we fund? You don't want research privatized? Really?

What about the billions in subsidies to oil companies and Big Pharma and Big Agra? Aren't those private companies?

You do know that government funds plenty of research don't you? Through universities, etc. That last part doesn't make any sense, not research.

Marcus Aurelius

02-08-2013, 03:29 PM

What about the billions in subsidies to oil companies and Big Pharma and Big Agra? Aren't those private companies?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/news/economy/energy-subsidies/index.htm

The federal government spent $24 billion on energy subsidies in 2011, with the vast majority going to renewable energy sources, according to a government report.

Renewable energy and energy efficiency accounted for $16 billion of the federal support, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the fossil-fuel industry received $2.5 billion in tax breaks.

The oil industry got 10% of the subsidy money, while the renewables industry got 67%.

That leaves 5.5 billion between agriculture and pharmaceuticals.

Why aren't you pitching a fit over the fact that the renewables industry, wrought with fraud, poor performance, bankrupt companies and companies sold overseas, gets so much more in subsidies than 'big oil'???

Robert A Whit

02-08-2013, 03:32 PM

No, I believe you. Want to watch an endless loop of a guy throwing a shoe at George W? Probably not.....

That dude also got put into prison for that crime.

Hey guys, the oil industry does not get subsidies. That myth has been debunked over and over.

Marcus Aurelius

02-08-2013, 03:37 PM

Hey guys, the oil industry does not get subsidies. That myth has been debunked over and over.

It's tax breaks, technically. As I showed they get 10% of the total pie, with 'big green' getting 67%. I don't see anyone whining about 'big green' subsidies, even with their dismal record.

bingster

02-08-2013, 03:38 PM

You do know that government funds plenty of research don't you? Through universities, etc. That last part doesn't make any sense, not research.

You said government shouldn't "fund private firms". Yes, universities are very helpful and I'll bet money went to them also.

fj1200

02-08-2013, 03:40 PM

You said government shouldn't "fund private firms". Yes, universities are very helpful and I'll bet money went to them also.

Right, they shouldn't. I'm not quite sure what was "hilarious" about that.

Marcus Aurelius

02-08-2013, 03:43 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by bingster http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=615884#post615884)

What about the billions in subsidies to oil companies and Big Pharma and Big Agra? Aren't those private companies?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/news...dies/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/news/economy/energy-subsidies/index.htm)

The federal government spent $24 billion on energy subsidies in 2011, with the vast majority going to renewable energy sources, according to a government report.

Renewable energy and energy efficiency accounted for $16 billion of the federal support, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the fossil-fuel industry received $2.5 billion in tax breaks.

The oil industry got 10% of the subsidy money, while the renewables industry got 67%.

That leaves 5.5 billion between agriculture and pharmaceuticals.

Why aren't you pitching a fit over the fact that the renewables industry, wrought with fraud, poor performance, bankrupt companies and companies sold overseas, gets so much more in subsidies than 'big oil'???

Cat got yer tongue, Bingy??? :laugh2:

bingster

02-08-2013, 03:44 PM

Hey guys, the oil industry does not get subsidies. That myth has been debunked over and over.

It shouldn't have been debunked, it's true.

Here's just wiki. I can find plenty more:'

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

I'd let them keep the production of non-conventional fuels money and I'd also cut the $5 Billion going to Ethanol. I'm sure Iowa makes enough on their corn syrup than to fund this proven boondoggle.

Cat got yer tongue, Bingy??? :laugh2:

Cool! Looks like we're getting the job done

This is a stark change from a decade ago. The CBO noted that until 2008, most energy subsidies went to the fossil-fuel industry. The idea at the time was to encourage more domestic oil production (http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/27/news/economy/oil_boom/index.htm?iid=EL), especially when the price of oil was low.

I am for ditching the Ethanol subsidy also.

Right, they shouldn't. I'm not quite sure what was "hilarious" about that.

Sorry, if "hilarious" was too divisive a term. But conservatives have always been for subsidizing private firms, but only point it out when a Democrat does it.

fj1200

02-08-2013, 03:53 PM

Sorry, if "hilarious" was too divisive a term. But conservatives have always been for subsidizing private firms, but only point it out when a Democrat does it.

Not 'divisive,' just wrong. Where do conservatives want to subsidize private firms?

bingster

02-08-2013, 04:09 PM

Sorry, if "hilarious" was too divisive a term. But conservatives have always been for subsidizing private firms, but only point it out when a Democrat does it.

more from wiki

Independent Daniel D. Huff, professor emeritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_emeritus) of social work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_work) at Boise State University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boise_State_University), published a comprehensive analysis of corporate welfare in 1993.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#cite_note-Huff_1993-15) Huff ratiocinated that a very conservative estimate of corporate welfare expenditures in the United States would have been at least US$170 billion as of 1990.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#cite_note-Huff_1993-15) Huff compared this number with social welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare):

In 1990 the federal government spent 4.7 billion dollars on all forms of international aid. Pollution control programs received 4.8 billion dollars of federal assistance while both secondary and elementary education were allotted only 8.4 billion dollars. More to the point, while more than 170 billion dollars is expended on assorted varieties of corporate welfare the federal government spends 11 billion dollars on Aid for Dependent Children. The most expensive means tested welfare program, Medicaid, costs the federal government 30 billion dollars a year or about half of the amount corporations receive each year through assorted tax breaks. S.S.I., the federal program for the disabled, receives 13 billion dollars while American businesses are given 17 billion in direct federal aid.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#cite_note-Huff_1993-15)

Huff noted that deliberate obfuscation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation) was a complicating factor.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#cite_note-Huff_1993-15)

Voted4Reagan

02-08-2013, 04:10 PM

Going back to insults. Find the proof and make an argument. Economics is not rocket science. Yea, supply and demand. You fail to think globally.

I know more about Oil then you can ever hope to know Bing... Ask TYR and AboutTime.... I know every step of the process from the time it leaves the groundto when it's offloaded and refined... I know the financials and I know the science... hell..I even have driven a few VLCC's in my day with the Captain next to me....

I am GLAD that I fail to think Globally.... I could care less what happens almost anywhere else in the world... Globalism and multi-culturalism are the downfall of all societies that embrace these failed and flawed doctrines. Globalism and multiculturalism have started to almost destroy Europe... We arent that far behind....

We were at our strongest when we relied on OURSELVES... I dont want to be dependent on Foreign sources of Oil when we have 200 years of reserves right here at home. To entrust our National security which is based on Energy to foreign Countries is to court Disaster..

As for our EXPORTS being High... Learn about the treaties we made after WWII to support Japan and Europe with Oil and refined Products... almost 100% of North Slope Production goes to JAPAN. You have no idea whats involved.... not politically, financially or at the root level in terms of production...

All you have done is parrot that which you have been trained to parrot....

bingster

02-08-2013, 04:11 PM

Not 'divisive,' just wrong. Where do conservatives want to subsidize private firms?

I posted this above, but I'll do it with your quote also. This is just one link, I can find plenty more. Think of the military for many examples: Drummond, Lockead, Boeing, Haliburton, etc....

Independent Daniel D. Huff, professor emeritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_emeritus) of social work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_work) at Boise State University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boise_State_University), published a comprehensive analysis of corporate welfare in 1993.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#cite_note-Huff_1993-15) Huff ratiocinated that a very conservative estimate of corporate welfare expenditures in the United States would have been at least US$170 billion as of 1990.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#cite_note-Huff_1993-15) Huff compared this number with social welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare):

In 1990 the federal government spent 4.7 billion dollars on all forms of international aid. Pollution control programs received 4.8 billion dollars of federal assistance while both secondary and elementary education were allotted only 8.4 billion dollars. More to the point, while more than 170 billion dollars is expended on assorted varieties of corporate welfare the federal government spends 11 billion dollars on Aid for Dependent Children. The most expensive means tested welfare program, Medicaid, costs the federal government 30 billion dollars a year or about half of the amount corporations receive each year through assorted tax breaks. S.S.I., the federal program for the disabled, receives 13 billion dollars while American businesses are given 17 billion in direct federal aid.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#cite_note-Huff_1993-15)
Huff noted that deliberate obfuscation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation) was a complicating factor.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#cite_note-Huff_1993-15)

fj1200

02-08-2013, 04:14 PM

more from wiki

Independent

Daniel D. Huff, professor emeritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_emeritus) of social work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_work) at Boise State University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boise_State_University), published a comprehensive analysis of corporate welfare in 1993.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#cite_note-Huff_1993-15) Huff ratiocinated that a very conservative estimate of corporate welfare expenditures in the United States would have been at least US$170 billion as of 1990.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#cite_note-Huff_1993-15) Huff compared this number with social welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare):
In 1990 the federal government spent 4.7 billion dollars on all forms of international aid. Pollution control programs received 4.8 billion dollars of federal assistance while both secondary and elementary education were allotted only 8.4 billion dollars. More to the point, while more than 170 billion dollars is expended on assorted varieties of corporate welfare the federal government spends 11 billion dollars on Aid for Dependent Children. The most expensive means tested welfare program, Medicaid, costs the federal government 30 billion dollars a year or about half of the amount corporations receive each year through assorted tax breaks. S.S.I., the federal program for the disabled, receives 13 billion dollars while American businesses are given 17 billion in direct federal aid.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#cite_note-Huff_1993-15)

Huff noted that deliberate obfuscation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation) was a complicating factor.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#cite_note-Huff_1993-15)

And? I didn't say it didn't happen just that conservatives are generally opposed. I didn't realize that all "corporate welfare" in 1993 was the fault of conservatives. Considering there were precious few in 1993...

Military? Not "subsidized" although the tech certainly does carry over.

bingster

02-08-2013, 04:18 PM

I know more about Oil then you can ever hope to know Bing... Ask TYR and AboutTime.... I know every step of the process from the time it leaves the groundto when it's offloaded and refined... I know the financials and I know the science... hell..I even have driven a few VLCC's in my day with the Captain next to me....

I am GLAD that I fail to think Globally.... I could care less what happens almost anywhere else in the world... Globalism and multi-culturalism are the downfall of all societies that embrace these failed and flawed doctrines. Globalism and multiculturalism have started to almost destroy Europe... We arent that far behind....

We were at our strongest when we relied on OURSELVES... I dont want to be dependent on Foreign sources of Oil when we have 200 years of reserves right here at home. To entrust our National security which is based on Energy to foreign Countries is to court Disaster..

As for our EXPORTS being High... Learn about the treaties we made after WWII to support Japan and Europe with Oil and refined Products... almost 100% of North Slope Production goes to JAPAN. You have no idea whats involved.... not politically, financially or at the root level in terms of production...

All you have done is parrot that which you have been trained to parrot....

I obviously don't know as much about oil as you do Robert. I'm not saying I do. All I have to do is look at the facts:
Production is up, not down. Prices are up, not down.
Whether you like it or not, prices are dependent on global concepts. It has nothing to do with good or bad, it just is.

I'm sure if I searched for graphs that show prices worldwide, the same pattern would emerge. Some governments, though, subsidize more than we do, so that may make a difference in actual price, but the pattern would be identical.

fj1200

02-08-2013, 04:20 PM

... I know the financials and I know the science...

I am GLAD that I fail to think Globally...

Ever sat on a trading desk? "Globally" wasn't a comment about multiculturalism; it's where oil prices are set.

bingster

02-08-2013, 04:44 PM

And? I didn't say it didn't happen just that conservatives are generally opposed. I didn't realize that all "corporate welfare" in 1993 was the fault of conservatives. Considering there were precious few in 1993...

Military? Not "subsidized" although the tech certainly does carry over.

The study was regarding 1990 (George H. W. Bush was president). Yea, conservative politicians say they are against it but they're actions do not demonstrate this. I'm just saying this "you shouldn't pick and choose the winners" is another false conservative talking point. Almost always, when the government spends money, someone gets picked.

I consider it a subside when competition is not allowed as was the case with Haliburton in Iraq.

Marcus Aurelius

02-08-2013, 04:50 PM

Cool! Looks like we're getting the job done

This is a stark change from a decade ago. The CBO noted that until 2008, most energy subsidies went to the fossil-fuel industry. The idea at the time was to encourage more domestic oil production (http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/27/news/economy/oil_boom/index.htm?iid=EL), especially when the price of oil was low.

I am for ditching the Ethanol subsidy also.

you're a looney.

You just went from outrage because 'big oil gets billions in subsidies', to joy because 'see, the Dems must be doing something right as big oil used to get all the subsidy money and now they hardly get any!'

dumb ass. negged for sheer stupidity.

fj1200

02-08-2013, 05:03 PM

The study was regarding 1990 (George H. W. Bush was president). Yea, conservative politicians say they are against it but they're actions do not demonstrate this. I'm just saying this "you shouldn't pick and choose the winners" is another false conservative talking point. Almost always, when the government spends money, someone gets picked.

You do realize that Bush I didn't control Congress don't you? And that the Republicans of the era were far from conservative? "You shouldn't pick and choose winners" is not false it's good practice, to do otherwise distorts the market.

I consider it a subside when competition is not allowed as was the case with Haliburton in Iraq.

Of course you would. Ug, Halliburton, bad.

bingster

02-08-2013, 05:21 PM

I know more about Oil then you can ever hope to know Bing... Ask TYR and AboutTime.... I know every step of the process from the time it leaves the groundto when it's offloaded and refined... I know the financials and I know the science... hell..I even have driven a few VLCC's in my day with the Captain next to me....

I am GLAD that I fail to think Globally.... I could care less what happens almost anywhere else in the world... Globalism and multi-culturalism are the downfall of all societies that embrace these failed and flawed doctrines. Globalism and multiculturalism have started to almost destroy Europe... We arent that far behind....

We were at our strongest when we relied on OURSELVES... I dont want to be dependent on Foreign sources of Oil when we have 200 years of reserves right here at home. To entrust our National security which is based on Energy to foreign Countries is to court Disaster..

As for our EXPORTS being High... Learn about the treaties we made after WWII to support Japan and Europe with Oil and refined Products... almost 100% of North Slope Production goes to JAPAN. You have no idea whats involved.... not politically, financially or at the root level in terms of production...

All you have done is parrot that which you have been trained to parrot....
Just a question, since you know oil. I read somewhere that our oil is actually more expensive to refine than oil from overseas. Is that true?

Not trying to make a point, I just read it somewhere and thought you would know.

Robert A Whit

02-08-2013, 11:55 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by red states rule http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=615857#post615857)
So all the drilling bans, refusal to build pipelines, and lower oil production on Federal lands has no impact on oil production and prices?

Not when you have massive increases everywhere else in the country and the prices are set on the global scale. It's China and Japan's increase in demand that's causing the price spike.

Maybe your background in retail stores, where you can simply order supply that the world is not after, causes you problems.

You pinpointed two factors in global supply. But ask yourself, is there added cost for shipping and handling, more paperwork, than piping crude from a Point A in the USA to point B.

Clearly it is easier on domestic buyers to contract for crude when there are not dangerous conditions in too many of the global supply.

So, how do you justify your statement Bingster?

red states rule

02-09-2013, 06:04 AM

bingster

02-09-2013, 06:47 PM

Bottom line is this. No matter what aspect of the Obama economy you look at - the middle class is getting f'd. Gas prices are soaring. Obamacare is killing job and raising premiums. The debt and deficit is continuing to increase thus lowering the value of the dollar, and increasing the amount of interest that is paid on the debt

Yet people like Bing refuse to look at the facts and instead continues his blind support of Obama no matter how bad the nation get screwed by his policies

As gas prices soar due to Obama's incompetence, the price of everything goes up as well

Bing claims he never saw/heard Dems blaming Bush for high gas prices - that is rather hard to believe as that was a major issue in the 2006 election. I suspect Bing is suffering from a common ailment that libs suffer when defending Obama over the same things they attacked Bush for

Selective Memory Loss is the out many libs use to get out of a discussion.

Meanwhile, the takers and under informed voters have given us 4 more years of this "hope and change" and class warfare to get through

I think it's hilarious how when people can't continue to argue the subject of the thread, they go on an unrelated rant to bash the opponents ideology*. I would love to do a "Why I thought Bush was a loser" thread, but I know nobody would respond to it.

I've proven that gas prices have little to nothing to do with Obama. If you're still unconvinced, that's your problem.

*I've done it myself.

Maybe your background in retail stores, where you can simply order supply that the world is not after, causes you problems.

You pinpointed two factors in global supply. But ask yourself, is there added cost for shipping and handling, more paperwork, than piping crude from a Point A in the USA to point B.

Clearly it is easier on domestic buyers to contract for crude when there are not dangerous conditions in too many of the global supply.

So, how do you justify your statement Bingster?

Yes, gas prices are higher the farther the state is from the source. That's one reason why the highest gas prices are in New York and California.

But, the point is, that local supply and demand has little to do with our prices. 75% of our prices are set on the global stage. The prices have risen and fallen just as the stock market has. In fact, the graph is almost identical. Exports are up in our country BECAUSE prices are up. Oil companies make more when the prices are higher.

Robert A Whit

02-09-2013, 07:18 PM

Good job. I'll admit their opposition to Bush in relation to gas prices was misplaced. The point they were trying to make, however was that we need to invest in more alternative energy sources. George W. was infamous for his disdain for the environment. Obama has done quite a bit in this area despite tons of Republican protest.

Stop bull shitting.

Bull shitting is when you talk and simply make shit up.

Bush was very friendly to the environment.

We, if you mean by that, the Feds, need to get their asses out of how business runs. But for the Feds, we all would pay much less for fuels. Bear in mind it is the Feds that pissed off the Arabs and till this very day still piss off Arabs. I love to watch world news that debunks the crap put out by the Obama team.

Yes, gas prices are higher the farther the state is from the source. That's one reason why the highest gas prices are in New York and California.

But, the point is, that local supply and demand has little to do with our prices. 75% of our prices are set on the global stage. The prices have risen and fallen just as the stock market has. In fact, the graph is almost identical. Exports are up in our country BECAUSE prices are up. Oil companies make more when the prices are higher.

I may be wrong but I doubt you ever studied the economics of oil. To some extent, you get some of the truth from the oil industry. I don't accept the BS coming out of the bureau of land management since some of your authority is based on their statements and those get challenged by experts.

CA gets crude from two places for the most part. Alaska (thanks to Obama, our dwindling supply is curtailed by his well known announced edicts) and our domestic in state crude. And we have the worst rules in this country. Goverment accounts for at least 2 dollars per gallon in costs as I figure it. (I include state and fed taxes per gallon as well as the stated and well knoen blocs to crude laid down by both the democrat state plus the democrat Obama)

Face it, Democrats despise crude oil. Course those crude oil gallons add up to a lot of jobs. Democrats don't give a shit about jobs so long as they can rurn us to windmills.

By the way, I am sure you have been past the Altamont Wind Farms. Do you notice men working around them? Do you also know that PGE was forced by law to pay well above market rates for windpower just to keep thise windmills spinning? I have a Democrat client who is in management for PGE that explained it all to me.

logroller

02-09-2013, 09:21 PM

once again..... WRONG

Remember a little thing back in 2005?

KATRINA??

That storm destroyed a large portion of our drilling in the gulf and the Refineries in the TX/LA area...

it took YEARS to get that production back

The Drop from 6/08 to 12/08 was all due to increasing output and refining capacity coming back to Pre Katrina levels

I worked in the industry BINGSTER... I lived for months at a time on a tender on Oil Platforms... I know what happened because I WAS THERE WITH THE TANKER CAPTAINS!!!

Youre misrepresenting the facts...

Obama hasnt opened up the areas that hold the most oil...

NOT IN ANWAR

NOT OFF CALIFORNIA

NOT IN THE SHALLOW WATERS OF THE GULF OF MEXICO

NOT OFF THE FLORIDA COAST

The leases he opened are among the least productive but they are all that were opened...

You can increase drilling 500%... BUT IF IT'S ON LOUSY LEASES YOU WONT GET SHIT OUT OF THEM....
Two of the largest oil reserves in the nation are in my county and don't produce anywhere near peak-capable output. Why flood the market just to see prices and, thus, profits lowered. The inconvenient truth is oil is harder to get out of the ground. Pursuing more costly drilling efforts won't change the price. Google M. King Hubbert peak oil. The 70's oil embargo reflected the peak in us production (energy invested/energy returned); worldwide is thought to have peaked this last decade. Prices are only going up. Preserving our resources is paramount for long-term energy security. That's why we don't drill baby drill...IMO.

bingster

02-09-2013, 09:41 PM

Stop bull shitting.

Bull shitting is when you talk and simply make shit up.

Bush was very friendly to the environment.

We, if you mean by that, the Feds, need to get their asses out of how business runs. But for the Feds, we all would pay much less for fuels. Bear in mind it is the Feds that pissed off the Arabs and till this very day still piss off Arabs. I love to watch world news that debunks the crap put out by the Obama team.

Besides clearing brush on the ranch, name one thing Bush advised regarding the environment. I admit, he once said that he believed in global warming, but he also said that he didn't believe it was man made. The latter absolutely cancels out the former. Seems like you're projecting again with "Bull shitting is when you talk and simply make shit up".

tailfins

02-09-2013, 09:49 PM

bingster

02-09-2013, 10:13 PM

I may be wrong but I doubt you ever studied the economics of oil. To some extent, you get some of the truth from the oil industry. I don't accept the BS coming out of the bureau of land management since some of your authority is based on their statements and those get challenged by experts.

I get most of my facts from U.S. Energy Information Administration and a basic knowledge of the stock market. I've also seen graphs world wide that show almost exactly the same pattern of high and low gas prices as ours.

CA gets crude from two places for the most part. Alaska (thanks to Obama, our dwindling supply is curtailed by his well known announced edicts) and our domestic in state crude. And we have the worst rules in this country. Goverment accounts for at least 2 dollars per gallon in costs as I figure it. (I include state and fed taxes per gallon as well as the stated and well knoen blocs to crude laid down by both the democrat state plus the democrat Obama)

I read somewhere we get a lot from Texas. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just read that. Do we refine the oil? Maybe it's refined in Texas?

Face it, Democrats despise crude oil. Course those crude oil gallons add up to a lot of jobs. Democrats don't give a shit about jobs so long as they can rurn us to windmills.

Of course Democrats despise crude oil. It's bad for the environment, but a necessary evil. You guys can laugh at me all that you want, but I know your party is probably the largest group of people in the whole world who are ignorant regarding global warming.

You can't put wind in your gas tank, so I'm hoping we make some progress in the field of bio fuels or hydrogen. I've read we have a lot to learn about batteries also.

By the way, I am sure you have been past the Altamont Wind Farms. Do you notice men working around them? Do you also know that PGE was forced by law to pay well above market rates for windpower just to keep thise windmills spinning? I have a Democrat client who is in management for PGE that explained it all to me.

No, I don't know anything about the Wind Farms or about the laws requiring PGE to pay higher prices. If it's to pay for more wind farms, so be it, good for them.

Bush signed the Clean Air Act. I think it was in 1991.

That would be Poppy Bush, not baby Bush.

aboutime

02-09-2013, 10:30 PM

logroller

02-10-2013, 03:59 AM

Yes, gas prices are higher the farther the state is from the source. That's one reason why the highest gas prices are in New York and California.

But, the point is, that local supply and demand has little to do with our prices. 75% of our prices are set on the global stage. The prices have risen and fallen just as the stock market has. In fact, the graph is almost identical. Exports are up in our country BECAUSE prices are up. Oil companies make more when the prices are higher.
California hosts 6 fields with proven reserves in excess of 1 billion barrels; so "farm to market" distance is clearly not a strong indicator. Besides, most goes by rail or pipeline; which is incredibly efficient transportation-wise. The higher prices are due to a variety of factors owed to high consumption. But your correlation between gas prices and economic markers is ill conceived. It's quite complex really. Simply put, as economies contract, less oil is needed, so producers lower prices to stimulate not so much demand for oil, but consumption in hopes the market will increase production of all goods and then demand more oil. The complexity arises in that oil is not a widget, its a commodity that's traded on future price and volume contracts-- which are bets on the state of the economy, oil demand at a price that someone can turn a dime on at some later date. The price of oil is the predominant factor in fuel prices, but consumption of oil is not a driving factor in gas prices due to price inelasticity-- it's the other way around. Gas prices going up or down doesnt effect oil demand appreciably, the economy does. If the market is healthy, it'll pay for whatever it needs; if its not healthy, it won't pay at all, cause it doesn't need it. That's when prices drop. Think of it like alcoholic drinks; party goers will pay handsomely for drinks at a bar, while a person spending the night alone will likely be more frugal. Bars know this-- that's why they have happy hour.

Kathianne

02-10-2013, 04:32 AM

California hosts 6 fields with proven reserves in excess of 1 billion barrels; so "farm to market" distance is clearly not a strong indicator. Besides, most goes by rail or pipeline; which is incredibly efficient transportation-wise. The higher prices are due to a variety of factors owed to high consumption. But your correlation between gas prices and economic markers is ill conceived. It's quite complex really. Simply put, as economies contract, less oil is needed, so producers lower prices to stimulate not so much demand for oil, but consumption in hopes the market will increase production of all goods and then demand more oil. The complexity arises in that oil is not a widget, its a commodity that's traded on future price and volume contracts-- which are bets on the state of the economy, oil demand at a price that someone can turn a dime on at some later date. The price of oil is the predominant factor in fuel prices, but consumption of oil is not a driving factor in gas prices due to price inelasticity-- it's the other way around. Gas prices going up or down doesnt effect oil demand appreciably, the economy does. If the market is healthy, it'll pay for whatever it needs; if its not healthy, it won't pay at all, cause it doesn't need it. That's when prices drop. Think of it like alcoholic drinks; party goers will pay handsomely for drinks at a bar, while a person spending the night alone will likely be more frugal. Bars know this-- that's why they have happy hour.

That's a pretty good tale on how things should work. Truth is, we have energy prices rising and falling with the same demands. That's what has everyone confused.

In all honesty, both the left and right know that many that lost their jobs in the past few years, haven't found the equivalent or close. Indeed, many have stayed on unemployment, rather than working, for survivals sake. Those folks aren't being taken into account for the 'reported UE figures.

logroller

02-10-2013, 04:36 AM

red states rule

02-10-2013, 07:19 AM

I can;t thank you libs and Obama lovers for four more years of the Obama energy policy. Filled up my Toyota Echo this morning and it cost $39

Yep 4 more years of no drilling and wasted billions on green energy pie in sky projects

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jzFZ26WDWng/T2oozi9ta0I/AAAAAAAAJwo/GHOEXRTeikg/s1600/pol-cartoon_obama-energy.gif

tailfins

02-10-2013, 07:26 AM

Cafe standards are based on vehicles, not location; plus, its a federal law. So what would that have to do with variable fuel prices between states? I think you meant fuel blends; having to do with volatile organic compounds (VOC) that lead to the formation of smog. Producing fuels that produce less VOC is more expensive. Areas that have high consumption of fuel and atmospheric conditions favorable to smog formation require these more expensive blends. Areas that don't, don't. Changes by season too, because atmospheric conditions change-- which can vary by state as well. California is known for moderate weather, caused by predominantly high pressure cells, is favorable to smog formation. Add to that the weather is an attractor for employment and population-- it's a compounding factor.

California "fixed" that problem. It's quite an accomplishment to turn a place that naturally attracts people into one that repels people.

CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. I hate acronyms, it seems they are used to interfere with straightforward communication.

red states rule

02-10-2013, 07:28 AM

http://floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/obama-energy-policy.jpg

bingster

02-10-2013, 03:06 PM

WRONG YOU ARE Bingster. CAFE standards are what cause the extreme differences in prices for gasoline, and diesel. Ca. has the highest mixture of CAFE standards in the nation, production in refineries...no matter what geographic location those refineries may be...is the biggest cause of the differences between Ca. and New York.

Too bad YOUR BS is so obvious. Otherwise. Somebody might actually believe your Liberal Talking Points.

I've been doing a lot of reading regarding this issue lately and one source said that the further the gas station is from the source the more expensive. I thought the sources referenced California and New York in relation to Texas. Now I can't find the site I read it on. I believe you're right on the cafe standards, though. More sights agree with this.

Knock off the bs accusations. I think what I think from reading and research, which is more than I can say about some. I never purposely bs anyone and the basic truth regarding gas prices is not a Liberal Talking Point, it's just plain fact.

http://floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/obama-energy-policy.jpg

That's just ignorant propaganda.

California hosts 6 fields with proven reserves in excess of 1 billion barrels; so "farm to market" distance is clearly not a strong indicator. Besides, most goes by rail or pipeline; which is incredibly efficient transportation-wise. The higher prices are due to a variety of factors owed to high consumption. But your correlation between gas prices and economic markers is ill conceived. It's quite complex really. Simply put, as economies contract, less oil is needed, so producers lower prices to stimulate not so much demand for oil, but consumption in hopes the market will increase production of all goods and then demand more oil. The complexity arises in that oil is not a widget, its a commodity that's traded on future price and volume contracts-- which are bets on the state of the economy, oil demand at a price that someone can turn a dime on at some later date. The price of oil is the predominant factor in fuel prices, but consumption of oil is not a driving factor in gas prices due to price inelasticity-- it's the other way around. Gas prices going up or down doesnt effect oil demand appreciably, the economy does. If the market is healthy, it'll pay for whatever it needs; if its not healthy, it won't pay at all, cause it doesn't need it. That's when prices drop. Think of it like alcoholic drinks; party goers will pay handsomely for drinks at a bar, while a person spending the night alone will likely be more frugal. Bars know this-- that's why they have happy hour.

Like I remarked to aboutime, I realize I was wrong about California prices.

"If the market is healthy, it'll pay for whatever it needs; if its not healthy, it won't pay at all, cause it doesn't need it. That's when prices drop."- I was going to argue with you, but I guess you made my point for me. If Obama is to blame for high gas prices, you have to blame him for a "healthy market".

Voted4Reagan

02-10-2013, 04:16 PM

I've been doing a lot of reading regarding this issue lately and one source said that the further the gas station is from the source the more expensive. I thought the sources referenced California and New York in relation to Texas. Now I can't find the site I read it on. I believe you're right on the cafe standards, though. More sights agree with this.

Knock off the bs accusations. I think what I think from reading and research, which is more than I can say about some. I never purposely bs anyone and the basic truth regarding gas prices is not a Liberal Talking Point, it's just plain fact.

NYC is exactly 5 miles from the Refineries in Elizabeth NJ. NYC has DOZENS of VLCC's (Very Large Crude Carriers) offload every day at Port Elizabeth in NJ and along the Long Island Coast. So whatever you are reading is pure Tripe. It has NOTHING or very Little to do with Distance to the Station and everything to do with the TAXES each State puts on the product.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-gasoline-tax-rates-january-1-2012

http://gasbuddy.com/GB_Price_List.aspx

after Hawaii #1 and California #2, NYC is #3, Long Island is #9.

For the Highest prices in the Country...

Over $4.00 a gallon here today.... still going up thanks to President "Big Oil" Obama

http://gasbuddy.com/GB_Price_List.aspx

Robert A Whit

02-10-2013, 04:27 PM

I obviously don't know as much about oil as you do Robert. I'm not saying I do. All I have to do is look at the facts:
Production is up, not down. Prices are up, not down.
Whether you like it or not, prices are dependent on global concepts. It has nothing to do with good or bad, it just is.

I'm sure if I searched for graphs that show prices worldwide, the same pattern would emerge. Some governments, though, subsidize more than we do, so that may make a difference in actual price, but the pattern would be identical.

You may have thought you replied to me but it was voted4reagan.

But he says that the oil from the north slope is sent to Asia but this that follows comes from the EIA site that gives factual government reports. I personally did not think the oil from the north slope is sent to Asia so I checked.

=====================

How much oil is produced in Alaska and where does it go?Alaska's crude oil production peaked in 1988 at about 738 million barrels, which was equal to about 25% of total U.S. oil production. In 2011, it was about 209 million barrels, or about 10% of total U.S. production.
Since the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System from the North Slope of Alaska was finished in 1977, about 97% of total Alaskan production has come from the North Slope. The rest comes from Southern Alaska.
Most Alaskan crude oil has gone to refineries in Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Washington. Relatively small amounts were shipped to Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and foreign countries.
Export of crude oil transported in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was banned until 1996. Between 1996 and 2004, a total of about 95.49 million barrels of crude oil, equal to 2.7% of Alaskan production during that period, was exported to foreign countries. As of March 2012, no Alaskan oil has been exported since 2004. <<<--------

See what the Feds reported?

Voted4Reagan

02-10-2013, 04:38 PM

=====================

How much oil is produced in Alaska and where does it go?

Alaska's crude oil production peaked in 1988 at about 738 million barrels, which was equal to about 25% of total U.S. oil production. In 2011, it was about 209 million barrels, or about 10% of total U.S. production.
Since the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System from the North Slope of Alaska was finished in 1977, about 97% of total Alaskan production has come from the North Slope. The rest comes from Southern Alaska.
Most Alaskan crude oil has gone to refineries in Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Washington. Relatively small amounts were shipped to Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and foreign countries.
Export of crude oil transported in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was banned until 1996. Between 1996 and 2004, a total of about 95.49 million barrels of crude oil, equal to 2.7% of Alaskan production during that period, was exported to foreign countries. As of March 2012, no Alaskan oil has been exported since 2004. <<<--------

See what the Feds reported?

I will stand corrected....

mea Culpa...

at one point it was.... but it seems that north slope production has declined by about 75 percent since 1988....

that would be a good reason to curtail exports...

Guess we should get Anwar on Line pretty quick

BTW...the Law did not prohibit the export of REFINED products.... JUST CRUDE...

Sending Refined Products is still sending them the Production... it's just reported in a different manner.

This means you can export a Super Tanker full of #2 Fuel Oil.... but not a Supertanker of #6 Crude

logroller

02-10-2013, 04:59 PM

California "fixed" that problem. It's quite an accomplishment to turn a place that naturally attracts people into one that repels people.

CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. I hate acronyms, it seems they are used to interfere with straightforward communication.
Well, when california is no longer the most populus state nor has the greatest gross state product, I suppose, then you could say the problem is "fixed". Acronyms expedite efficient communication; worlds better than witty nicknames like obamacare or bush tax cuts.

fj1200

02-10-2013, 05:00 PM

"If the market is healthy, it'll pay for whatever it needs; if its not healthy, it won't pay at all, cause it doesn't need it. That's when prices drop."- I was going to argue with you, but I guess you made my point for me. If Obama is to blame for high gas prices, you have to blame him for a "healthy market".

The elasticity of gas markets don't allow for quick changes in use.

BTW...the Law did not prohibit the export of REFINED products.... JUST CRUDE...

Good thing, we should be exporting value added products. They equal jobs and high paying ones at that.

Voted4Reagan

02-10-2013, 05:07 PM

The elasticity of gas markets don't allow for quick changes in use.

Good thing, we should be exporting value added products. They equal jobs and high paying ones at that.

FJ1200 is correct.... You cant just flip a switch to meet Market demands for many refined products. What cripples productions are the individual state laws regarding BLENDS of gasoline... what you sell in California is different from what you sell in Montana which is different to what you sell in Utah....

What would lower prices is a single standard blend for the entire country...

not 50 different blends for 50 different states that clogs refineries every time it has to switch over....

Excellent point FJ1200... I am impressed....

now as for the high paying jobs...... Get Obama to lift the banning on building new refineries and let us increase our output....

you can have all the reserves....but if you cant refine em they are worthless

Robert A Whit

02-10-2013, 05:12 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=616186#post616186)
I may be wrong but I doubt you ever studied the economics of oil. To some extent, you get some of the truth from the oil industry. I don't accept the BS coming out of the bureau of land management since some of your authority is based on their statements and those get challenged by experts.

I get most of my facts from U.S. Energy Information Administration and a basic knowledge of the stock market. I've also seen graphs world wide that show almost exactly the same pattern of high and low gas prices as ours.

Yet down below, you assume that CA gets oil or fuel from TX. TX refineries are connected to a very extensive number of pipelines. This accounts why they can sell fuel at various prices depending on where you live. I noted that Montana has a city claiming the cheapest fuel. They must be getting fuel from Wyoming is all I can figure. For my money, Wyoming fuel can't be beat. I got my top all time mpg from their gasoline. A lot of fuel is sold using the commodity market but I am not clear what that has to do with stocks.

I don't think any of us, including me, has a full grasp of why prices go up when they should be falling. I fueled up last evening at $3.85 when two weeks ago I think it was around $3.42 per gallon. I was a bit taken back that prices are going up.

CA gets crude from two places for the most part. Alaska (thanks to Obama, our dwindling supply is curtailed by his well known announced edicts) and our domestic in state crude. And we have the worst rules in this country. Goverment accounts for at least 2 dollars per gallon in costs as I figure it. (I include state and fed taxes per gallon as well as the stated and well knoen blocs to crude laid down by both the democrat state plus the democrat Obama)

I read somewhere we get a lot from Texas. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just read that. Do we refine the oil? Maybe it's refined in Texas?

CA gets crude from CA sources plus Alaskan oil. Alaskan oil does not get exported to other countries since 2004. If you study the pipeline system all over America, you will actually learn how the oil gets from point A to point B. Also, looking up the refinery system will educate you where they are and what they serve. A surprising amount of fuel is refined near the great lakes.

Some of our prices I believe are because they can. They can up prices merely because they can. CA gets sucker punched by all the many changes in gasoline formulas. You can thank government for there no longer being gas wars in CA. I recall when they happened a lot.

Face it, Democrats despise crude oil. Course those crude oil gallons add up to a lot of jobs. Democrats don't give a shit about jobs so long as they can rurn us to windmills.

Of course Democrats despise crude oil. It's bad for the environment, but a necessary evil. You guys can laugh at me all that you want, but I know your party is probably the largest group of people in the whole world who are ignorant regarding global warming.

I know this about global warming. Earth has experienced many eras of global warming followed by global cooling. Actually due to things like Catalytic converters and the use of computers to manage your use of fuel, and also the most efficient burning of gasoline in CA, we get much more fuel economy and far less polution than had government not stepped in. I also credit government for that part.

I don't think you have conversed with a true expert on global warming. I took the trouble to link up using his e mail a famous professor at MIT disputes much of the nonsense being put forth by Democrats. Notice how a climate matter got turned into politics? Who turned it into politics?

Why democrats of course. They think they found the tool to further control our lives.

You can't put wind in your gas tank, so I'm hoping we make some progress in the field of bio fuels or hydrogen. I've read we have a lot to learn about batteries also.

Right up my alley. Do you want cheap or do you want efficient? CA gas is highly tampered with due to orders by the goverment. I found out when on a very long trip that Wyoming fuel produced the best mileage for my car. But in CA, Wyoming fuel is outlawed. Imagine that, government in CA actually forces us to use more gasoline. A math guy can compute this (I also could if I wanted to) but to get cleaner fuel, I suspect that were we to simply use Wyoming fuels, we could save money and by getting more mpg offset any so called benefits by using CA fuels.

When I started college intending to become an engineer, I also favored hydrogen and figured it would not take too long to overcome the problems of hydrogen. I was wrong. Hydrogen compared to gasoline has less power and you must refuel far too quick due to the pressure and tank sizes to use hydrogen. Busses use it but they have special fueling places and don't travel long distances, speaking of local busses only of course. As can be seen by the Dreamliner, batteries to get the job done can also catch vehicles on fire. And they are expensive.
By the way, I am sure you have been past the Altamont Wind Farms. Do you notice men working around them? Do you also know that PGE was forced by law to pay well above market rates for windpower just to keep thise windmills spinning? I have a Democrat client who is in management for PGE that explained it all to me.
No, I don't know anything about the Wind Farms or about the laws requiring PGE to pay higher prices. If it's to pay for more wind farms, so be it, good for them.

CA as you must know by now tightly regulates much that you can do. The wind farms are over the hills past Livermore. They almost died. They only got built due to many innocent taxpayers being forced to pay for them. People all over America had to spend tax dollars to help CA get by.

Well, once the things were built, there was an end to using tax dollars to build them. What saved them was that PGE was forced to pay far too much for electricity produced in the windfarms but you will not find this out in the media. I fortunately have a client who is fairly high up and knows this stuff and works for PGE. You may not have noticed that they decided that the first windmills were not too good so they went to building super generators. A lot of the public got angry because those windmills kill far too many birds, many of the birds on the endangered list. You had one set of ecowhack jobs at war with other ecowhack jobs. It was a bit of fun watching them claw each others eyes out.

The free market should decide, not goverment.

When government spends the money, not only is a lot of that money wasted, it does not create a better way of living.

I will stand corrected....

mea Culpa...

at one point it was.... but it seems that north slope production has declined by about 75 percent since 1988....

that would be a good reason to curtail exports...

Guess we should get Anwar on Line pretty quick

BTW...the Law did not prohibit the export of REFINED products.... JUST CRUDE...

Sending Refined Products is still sending them the Production... it's just reported in a different manner.

This means you can export a Super Tanker full of #2 Fuel Oil.... but not a Supertanker of #6 Crude

I read the history some years back on Alaskan crude. A deal made to get the pipeline approved was that no oil could leave the USA. I forget it that included refined crude. Actually if their oil products are exported, it must be from CA. I would not put a thing past those bastards holding us prisoner to a few refineries in this state. ANWR is a perfect solution. A mere 2000 acres is all that can be used to get crude , but democrats almost approved it when Clinton was president but he vetoed it. That put the steel boot right up our asses thus we lead the nation or close to leading it in high cost fuels.

I forget if Alaska has any refineries but I don't see how they can export products when they need a lot. We may think of the auto using fuel in Alaska but they use airplanes. When I flew pipers, the best we got was about 15 mpg. Airplanes dont normally get rated by mpg but I used to convert fuel per hour to mpg. With pontoons on one of them, they can't come close to 15 mpg. Then of course you need fuel for heating and other things like trucks and yes, cars.

Anyway, apparently Alaska had more crude to sell than CA could buy so congress modified the law to allow some export to Japan and I think South Korea as well.

Anyway, later a fuss was made and they revoked that permission.

logroller

02-10-2013, 05:37 PM

Like I remarked to aboutime, I realize I was wrong about California prices.

"If the market is healthy, it'll pay for whatever it needs; if its not healthy, it won't pay at all, cause it doesn't need it. That's when prices drop."- I was going to argue with you, but I guess you made my point for me. If Obama is to blame for high gas prices, you have to blame him for a "healthy market".
I never blamed Obama for high gas prices, nor the economic collapse of 2008-2009, nor attibuted unto him the market's rebound. It seems you have reversed the nature of the relationship. The Potus doesn't dictate market activity; the market dictates Potus activity.

Robert A Whit

02-10-2013, 05:38 PM

Besides clearing brush on the ranch, name one thing Bush advised regarding the environment. I admit, he once said that he believed in global warming, but he also said that he didn't believe it was man made. The latter absolutely cancels out the former. Seems like you're projecting again with "Bull shitting is when you talk and simply make shit up".

Don't you wish Obama knew how to roll up his sleeves, get dirty and do some actual work?

Were you to look up the Bush energy policy proposed in 2001, that caused democrats to almost have heart attacks, he was huge on alternative energy.

Global warming is much like religion. You make a big deal out of it and try to claim everybody else is flat wrong. A shocking number of scientists have picked up their chips and declared it to be b bunk science. All democrats want from that issue is more and more authority over humans. They are lot liberal, they are pro control. And when they control, it costs a hell of a lot in money and time to earn that money so they can try to keep up with their spending habits.

Earth has warmed and cooled far too much and far too many times to put the blame on man.

We can accept a fair share of the blame but democrats don't accept that, they want man blamed for all of the CO2 and CO2 amounts are actually very tiny. Like some woman on a scale blaiming a bug on her scale for the increase in weight.

Think of the tiny amount of CO2 this way. They say it is close to 400 parts per million.

So what does that look like. There was a base anyway. I think the base is spoken of as about 280 parts per million. So we are talking of only 120 ppm.

OK, if you take a million dollars and parcel it out, you give one guy $120 dollars. You have the base of $280 dollars but the real figure that is huge is the rest. The part man can't be blamed for. The rest is $999,600 dollars.

I would not worry about $120 dollars given it is that small.

The study was regarding 1990 (George H. W. Bush was president). Yea, conservative politicians say they are against it but they're actions do not demonstrate this. I'm just saying this "you shouldn't pick and choose the winners" is another false conservative talking point. Almost always, when the government spends money, someone gets picked.

I consider it a subside when competition is not allowed as was the case with Haliburton in Iraq.

OMG, you are really schooled in democrats talking points.

What do you mean no competition?

This is the fault if you will, of the FEDS.

Maybe you never heard of LOGCAP. I have written tons on what it is and how it works. I have never seen a democrat back down from lying about Haliburton. To them, it was Cheney. That is the sole reason they bring up Halliburton.

LOGCAP was in operation during Clinton's era so one could have said about the winning bidder what some say about Halliburton. LOGCAP is so enormous that only a giant company can compete for the contract. The original company did not cut the mustard and later on, only upon winning the bid, was Halliburton awarded the contract. Many companies did not want the contract due to the way it is crafted. The winning bidder agrees to profit cap of about 2 percent. Most companies won't work that cheap. So Halliburton did the taxpayers a huge favor by even accepting that work.

Naturally since the work is cost plus 2 percent, questions arise if the actual cost was lower or not. Halliburton is believed by Democrats to have fudged the figures to come up with the cost.

I am not saying that some supervisors working for them did not fudge figures. But the company caught it and self reported it to the FEDS raising the fuss you are trying to discuss.

LOGCAP was designed to take on super emergencies very fast that the Feds had no way of coping with. Any company that wins the contract also wins very low profits. The system is set up that way.

red states rule

02-11-2013, 02:49 AM

That's just ignorant propaganda.

I have found you are having a difficult time refuting the viscous pack of truth I post on this thread and others (including the threads about Obamacare you were posting was so great last week :laugh2:)

and how much are you paying for gas today?

Good news gas prices may top the all time high set in 2008

and this is part of that Obama recovery we are hearing so much about!!!!!

Gas Prices Soar 51 Cents in Just Two Months

Consumers are taking another huge hit in 2013. First, the two percent Social Security tax hike began the year. Now, gas prices are soaring ever closer to $4 a gallon and have jumped 51 cents a gallon since Dec. 20.

According to the Oil Price Information Service, the national average for a gallon of unleaded was $3.21.9 on Dec. 20, 2012. Today, that price is $3.73.0. (http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/?redirectto=http://fuelgaugereport.opisnet.com/index.asp) While there has been a steady increase, prices shot almost 9 cents just over the weekend.

This President's Day also marked a full month of rising gas (http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/17/news/economy/gas-prices/index.html) prices every single business day, following a very small early year drop. Gas prices began rising Jan. 18, from $3.29.3-a-gallon, and have soared since. If this increase continues, gas prices could threaten or even top the all-time high price of $4.11, set in 2008.

February 2013 saw record high gas prices for the time of year according to news reports. CNBC noted the national average was the highest ever for the time of year (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100427200)on Feb. 1. As of Feb. 11, The Los Angeles Times reported that the national average that day ($3.587) was also a record, "7.8 cents higher than the record for Feb. 11, set last year." (http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-betting-on-higher-gasoline-prices-20130211,0,6691385.story)Today's price is now 17.6 cents higher than 2012.

It took the media some time to catch on to rising gas prices, as "Good Morning America's" Josh Elliot said two weeks after the climb began that "we have just learned that gas prices have skyrocketed." (http://www.mrc.org/articles/pump-prices-taking-more-out-wallets-not-much-newscasts)

http://cnsnews.com/blog/julia-seymour/gas-prices-soar-51-cents-just-two-months

fj1200

02-19-2013, 04:50 AM

and how much are you paying for gas today?

Good news gas prices may top the all time high set in 2008

and this is part of that Obama recovery we are hearing so much about!!!!!

Gas Prices Soar 51 Cents in Just Two Months

Why? Because oil.

http://oil-price.net/BRENT/1q_small.gif

red states rule

02-19-2013, 04:55 AM

Why? Because oil.

http://oil-price.net/BRENT/1q_small.gif

and the drilling ban in the Gulf

Obama's nix of the Keystone Pipeline

Decline of oil production on Federal land

and his lack of a real energy policy that would utilize all of our natural resources

Meanwhile. like the cost of health care thanks to Obamacare - the working middle class take it up the butt once again thanks to Obama's policies

fj1200

02-19-2013, 04:59 AM

and the drilling ban in the Gulf

Obama's nix of the Keystone Pipeline

Decline of oil production on Federal land

and his lack of a real energy policy that would utilize all of our natural resources

Which have precious little to do with the price of oil. Did you give BO credit when oil/gas prices drop?

Meanwhile. like the cost of health care thanks to Obamacare - the working middle class take it up the butt once again thanks to Obama's policies

I thought this thread was about gas prices. :rolleyes:

red states rule

02-19-2013, 05:02 AM

Which have precious little to do with the price of oil. Did you give BO credit when oil/gas prices drop?

I thought this thread was about gas prices. :rolleyes:

When the hell did they drop lower than they were when he took office?

Gas was about $1.50/gal when he took office

and your defense of the Messiah is, as usual, misplaced.

logroller

02-19-2013, 05:11 AM

and the drilling ban in the Gulf

Obama's nix of the Keystone Pipeline

Decline of oil production on Federal land

and his lack of a real energy policy that would utilize all of our natural resources

Meanwhile. like the cost of health care thanks to Obamacare - the working middle class take it up the butt once again thanks to Obama's policies
Have you actually looked at gasoline prices over the last 20 years? They've skyrocketed for a period exceeding the last four. How do explain that? Look up hubbert's peak oil theory and get back to me.

fj1200

02-19-2013, 05:12 AM

When the hell did they drop lower than they were when he took office?

Gas was about $1.50/gal when he took office

http://66.70.86.64/ChartServer/ch.gaschart?Country=Canada&Crude=f&Period=6&Areas=USA%20Average,,&Unit=US%20$/G

You're the one b'ing about a short-term rise so you should be happy when you get a drop. I guess logical consistency is too much to ask from you though.

and your defense of the Messiah is, as usual, misplaced.

:laugh: When you've got no argument left fall back on the 'ol standby eh?

red states rule

02-19-2013, 05:13 AM

Have you actually looked at gasoline prices over the last 20 years? They've skyrocketed for a period exceeding the last four. How do explain that? Look up hubbert's peak oil theory and get back to me.

I will let your boy do the talking for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5Q5jMmMUAI

http://66.70.86.64/ChartServer/ch.gaschart?Country=Canada&Crude=f&Period=6&Areas=USA%20Average,,&Unit=US%20$/G

You're the one b'ing about a short-term rise so you should be happy when you get a drop. I guess logical consistency is too much to ask from you though.

:laugh: When you've got no argument left fall back on the 'ol standby eh?

You make it way to easy FU

and I stand corrected gas was $1.79 the day Obama took office not $1.50

When Obama entered the White House in January 2009, the city average price for one gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was $1.79, according to the BLS. (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/APU000074714?data_tool=XGtable) (The figures are in nominal dollars: not adjusted for inflation.) Five months later in June, unleaded gasoline was $2.26 per gallon, an increase of 26 percent. By December 2011, the price of regular unleaded gas per gallon was $3.28, an 83 percent increase from January 2009.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/under-obama-price-gas-has-jumped-83-percent-ground-beef-24-percent-bacon-22-percent

and yes since your buddy got the boot your defense of the Messiah has increased

More on the Obama energy policy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4yFsaxw6L8&playnext=1&list=PL9966DDFA6302337E&feature=results_video

fj1200

02-19-2013, 05:28 AM

You make it way to easy FU

and I stand corrected gas was $1.79 the day Obama took office not $1.50

You apparently don't understand the facile nature of your argument. Is BO also to blame for the runup in gold prices since he took office as well? After all it was in the ~$800s then and ~$1600s now.

http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au1825nyb.gif

and yes since your buddy got the boot your defense of the Messiah has increased

Someone had to take up the sport of pwning you. :slap: Besides, pointing out where you are wrong does not defense of "the Messiah" make. At least you dropped your Obamacare meme though. :clap:

Voted4Reagan

02-19-2013, 06:18 AM

Which have precious little to do with the price of oil. Did you give BO credit when oil/gas prices drop?

I thought this thread was about gas prices. :rolleyes:

there has been no appreciable decline in prices since Obama took office.

Just 5 years of increases

taft2012

02-19-2013, 06:20 AM

Sorry, dude, I know you think Obama is to blame for everything bad in your life, but he didn't cause your higher gas prices. You should go back to my earlier post to find out why. It's mostly not our supply and demand, it's China's.

Sorry kid, I know you're not old enough to recall the Bush presidency, but that was when the standard was set. High gasoline prices are *ALWAYS* the president's fault. We argued against it then, but liberals like yourself would hear none of it. You guys set the rules, now live with 'em.

fj1200

02-19-2013, 06:46 AM

there has been no appreciable decline in prices since Obama took office.

Just 5 years of increases

Provably wrong as demonstrated. Now you just need to figure out how to really blame BO.

Sorry kid, I know you're not old enough to recall the Bush presidency, but that was when the standard was set. High gasoline prices are *ALWAYS* the president's fault. We argued against it then, but liberals like yourself would hear none of it. You guys set the rules, now live with 'em.

Great plan, buy into the false premise.

taft2012

02-19-2013, 06:51 AM

Great plan, buy into the false premise.

It's not a "plan".... needledick.

It's called holding liberals accountable for their own bullshit.

fj1200

02-19-2013, 07:08 AM

It's not a "plan".... needledick.

It's called holding liberals accountable for their own bullshit.

Touchy little man aren't ya?

It's not accountability to accept a stupid line of argument, it's intellectually weak.

taft2012

02-19-2013, 07:15 AM

Touchy little man aren't ya?

It's not accountability to accept a stupid line of argument, it's intellectually weak.

I never claimed it to be either a plan or intellectual.

Holding people accountable to their own standards is not weak. To the contrary, it's quite powerful.

More powerful, than say, distorting someone's position and recharacterizing it.

fj1200

02-19-2013, 07:18 AM

I never claimed it to be either a plan or intellectual.

Holding people accountable to their own standards is not weak. To the contrary, it's quite powerful.

More powerful, than say, distorting someone's position and recharacterizing it.

Ignorance is not powerful.

taft2012

02-19-2013, 07:22 AM

Ignorance is not powerful.

So you define "ignorance" as "holding people to the very standards they set themselves"?

No wonder you think yourself so clever. You don't know what ignorance is.

fj1200

02-19-2013, 07:31 AM

So you define "ignorance" as "holding people to the very standards they set themselves"?

No wonder you think yourself so clever. You don't know what ignorance is.

No, that's hypocrisy. It's ignorant to let others define the rules of debate which you seem to be willing to do.

taft2012

02-19-2013, 07:36 AM

No, that's hypocrisy. It's ignorant to let others define the rules of debate which you seem to be willing to do.

When allowing others to define the rules of debate works to my advantage, that is not ignorance (you really ought to look that word up). It's good strategy.

fj1200

02-19-2013, 07:40 AM

When allowing others to define the rules of debate works to my advantage, that is not ignorance (you really ought to look that word up). It's good strategy.

Note: I wasn't defining ignorance; merely providing example. Besides, it will work to your disadvantage just as quickly as your advantage which is why to rely on it is... well... I'd just be repeating myself wouldn't I?

BTW, it's perfectly acceptable for you to acknowledge that you are uninformed about how gas/oil prices are set in the market. ;)

taft2012

02-19-2013, 07:49 AM

Note: I wasn't defining ignorance; merely providing example. Besides, it will work to your disadvantage just as quickly as your advantage which is why to rely on it is... well... I'd just be repeating myself wouldn't I?

BTW, it's perfectly acceptable for you to acknowledge that you are uninformed about how gas/oil prices are set in the market. ;)

It's OK to admit you've been trumped.

I understand perfectly well how gas and oil pricing works, and made those same arguments ad nauseum during the Bush presidency, only to have liberals close their eyes, fold their arms, and shake their heads, wag their index fingers, and say "Unh unh! Bush is the president."

*NOW* they want to use the arguments I made years ago against me? I think not.

I recall during the summer of 2004, candidate Kerry accusing Bush of hatching a plot with the Saudis to flood the market with oil in the weeks leading up to the election to lower gas prices. When, at election time, gas prices were near an all-time high that accusation was quickly forgotten, and now the high gasoline prices were Bush's fault.

fj1200

02-19-2013, 07:55 AM

It's OK to admit you've been trumped.

Great, another word you don't know the definition of. So what you're saying is that it's pretty easy to turn you to the "liberal" style of debate. I can see that.

EDIT:

When all that you have left is that you blame BO when prices rise 52 cents in two months you cede the credit to him when they decline 66 cents in two months. As I said, great plan. :rolleyes:

taft2012

02-19-2013, 07:57 AM

Great, another word you don't know the definition of. So what you're saying is that it's pretty easy to turn you to the "liberal" style of debate. I can see that.

No.

What you, and everyone reading this, are seeing is my ability to make those who debate with me look like total jackasses. :laugh2:

fj1200

02-19-2013, 08:00 AM

No.

What you, and everyone reading this, are seeing is my ability to make those who debate with me look like total jackasses. :laugh2:

I knew you were a lib at heart. Ignore all evidence to the contrary and declare that you win. :shrug:

EDIT:

When all that you have left is that you blame BO when prices rise 52 cents in two months you cede the credit to him when they decline 66 cents in two months. As I said, great plan. :rolleyes:

And I didn't want you to miss where you credited BO with the brilliance of his energy policy.

taft2012

02-19-2013, 08:07 AM

And I didn't want you to miss where you credited BO with the brilliance of his energy policy.

Are you a high school kid like Bing? Too young to remember the Bush presidency and reliant on all of your data from your liberal high school teachers?

When did liberals ever credit Bush policies when gas prices dipped?

:laugh2:

lol... the radio announcer from the Hindenburg disaster should be providing commentary on this thread...

"Oh, the epic pwnage!"

fj1200

02-19-2013, 08:20 AM

Are you a high school kid like Bing? Too young to remember the Bush presidency and reliant on all of your data from your liberal high school teachers?

When did liberals ever credit Bush policies when gas prices dipped?

Seeing as how that's all you have left you can go back to the ol' standby as well. And please point out where I claimed liberals gave Bush credit.

:laugh2:

lol... the radio announcer from the Hindenburg disaster should be providing commentary on this thread...

"Oh, the epic pwnage!"

So this is what it feels like to be a cop in an interrogation room holding a phone book. :slap: I feel a confession coming on.

taft2012

02-19-2013, 08:29 AM

Seeing as how that's all you have left you can go back to the ol' standby as well. And please point out where I claimed liberals gave Bush credit.

As I've pointed out, ad infinitum, I am employing the liberal argument relative to gas/oil pricing. Which you clearly do not understand.

I didn't say you said liberals gave Bush credit... hence the rhetorical question mark (?) concluding the sentence. I was pointing out how they blamed Bush for higher prices and ignored price dips, which is why I am doing the same.

You're pretty much beaten down here and I have to leave for work now. Go hump Jimmy's leg for a while. I traded you to him for a pack of smokes of few minutes ago.

fj1200

02-19-2013, 08:36 AM

As I've pointed out, ad infinitum, I am employing the liberal argument relative to gas/oil pricing. Which you clearly do not understand.

I understand it. I also understand that it's ignorant. The ignorance is in you thinking it's effective.

I didn't say you said liberals gave Bush credit... hence the rhetorical question mark (?) concluding the sentence. I was pointing out how they blamed Bush for higher prices and ignored price dips, which is why I am doing the same.

There's a difference between rhetorical question marks and normal question marks?* :laugh: Who knew?*

* Question marks are rhetorical in nature. ;)

You're pretty much beaten down here and I have to leave for work now. Go hump Jimmy's leg for a while. I traded you to him for a pack of smokes of few minutes ago.

Don't forget your phone book. It makes up for so much when you're lacking talent and natural ability.

red states rule

02-19-2013, 04:11 PM

As I've pointed out, ad infinitum, I am employing the liberal argument relative to gas/oil pricing. Which you clearly do not understand.

I didn't say you said liberals gave Bush credit... hence the rhetorical question mark (?) concluding the sentence. I was pointing out how they blamed Bush for higher prices and ignored price dips, which is why I am doing the same.

You're pretty much beaten down here and I have to leave for work now. Go hump Jimmy's leg for a while. I traded you to him for a pack of smokes of few minutes ago.

Taft, you have to consider the source

I honestly believe FU thinks he does all of us a favor when everyday he comes down from his Ivory Tower and grace us - the unwashed masses - with his presence. Someone of his greatness taking time to talk down to people like us - who are not worthy of his time and respect - he should in awe of his moral and intellectual superiority

FU used to be a decent poster but something happened to him. Like OCA I suspect he become highly offended when many poster here refused to bow down before him and tell him how magnificent he is

logroller

02-20-2013, 12:54 AM

Taft, you have to consider the source

I honestly believe FU thinks he does all of us a favor when everyday he comes down from his Ivory Tower and grace us - the unwashed masses - with his presence. Someone of his greatness taking time to talk down to people like us - who are not worthy of his time and respect - he should in awe of his moral and intellectual superiority

FU used to be a decent poster but something happened to him. Like OCA I suspect he become highly offended when many poster here refused to bow down before him and tell him how magnificent he is

Still waiting for your response to why gas prices have risen sharply for over a decade; not just since Obama.

red states rule

02-20-2013, 03:30 AM

there has been no appreciable decline in prices since Obama took office.

Just 5 years of increases

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0219cd20130218075219.jpg

red states rule

02-20-2013, 03:58 AM

Still waiting for your response to why gas prices have risen sharply for over a decade; not just since Obama.

Pres Bush lowered gas prices by opening more Federal land for drilling, and doing everything to increase supply.

Obama on the other hand has restricted drilling and doing everything he can to lower production on Federal land. Also the Obama administration has been printing trillions of dollars out of thin air devalues the dollar.

Oil is still traded in dollars I believe

But Obama is on the record for wanting high gas prices

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VquNu30hDe8

logroller

02-20-2013, 05:43 AM

Pres Bush lowered gas prices by opening more Federal land for drilling, and doing everything to increase supply.

Obama on the other hand has restricted drilling and doing everything he can to lower production on Federal land. Also the Obama administration has been printing trillions of dollars out of thin air devalues the dollar.

Oil is still traded in dollars I believe

But Obama is on the record for wanting high gas prices

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VquNu30hDe8
Bush lowered gas prices? Think again.
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_adjusted_gasoline_price_med.jpg
Oil is getting harder and harder to extract due to geophysical realities-- the easy oil is gone-- been drilled and extracted already. What's left will require more and more energy to extract-- yes technology allows us to extract more, as does deep water drilling etc-- but those methods require more and more energy invested relative to what energy is extract. Energy extracted/energy invested. It's a simple ratio that is getting smaller and smaller. This is a reality that drilling cannot undo, oil producers know this-- as reflected in oil prices over history.
Here's us production relative to drilling.
http://greenecon.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/us_oil.jpg

Oh sure, we can bump production from things like horizontal drilling through oil shales of North Dakota, the tar sands of Canada, deep water drilling in the gulf (even federal lands, but thats miniscule) and just like the north slope of Alaska in the late seventies/early eighties (that's that bump in the production chart/ reflected in the price decrease following) it only retards the inevitable rise of prices. For even Prudhoe Bay, the Most productive oil field in the United States didn't bring us back to peak levels.

Oil is precious, not unlimited; so it needs to be conserved. Sadly, the vast majority of consumers just don't give a damn about oil conservation unless it hits them in the pocketbook. So to get people to conserve, prices may be increased to effectuate conservation. You don't like paying a lot for gas, drive less-- car pool, mass transit, live closer to where you work, walk/ bike to the store, go electric, hybrid ,smaller car...Or just enjoy your driving and know that its your freedom to blow your money however you wish; but the oil resources are ours, not just yours, and many of us want to leave something besides a cautionary lesson on resource depletion to future generations.