Obama: Anyone who says we can lower gas prices by more drilling (1 Viewer)

[BoneYardDog]

73% of Democrats thought Bush could've done something to lower gas prices.

33% of Democrats think Obama can do something to lower gas prices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/03/21/gIQAk0IeSS_graphic.html

Nice 40% flip flop there.

Only an 18% flip for Republicans and Republicans are called the racist, partisan hacks who flip flop on their arguments to fall in line with the party talking points.

If we were still full fledged into 2 different wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as it was in '06... then I would say "yes" Obama could do something to lower gas prices.

No you wouldn't...

 

[bueno]

Record demand is driving the increase in gasoline prices.

http://omrpublic.iea...ld/wb_wodem.pdf

And drilling some measly US wells isn't going to put a dent in that either. I love when they say they found a HUGE deposit of x billion barrels. For instance, the largest one found in the western hemisphere in the last 30 years, Tupi oil field, 5+ billion recoverable barrels. We would drain that in under 1 year if we could pump out our daily usage.

Kind of a stupid argument,as it likely could be applied to almost any field.

 

[BoneYardDog]

The oil being produced now were permits granted before obama became the campaigner-in-chief...

He and his administration has done nothing but add more restrictions and deny hundreds of new permits...

He wants oil prices to go up, quit being so dense...

 

[BoneYardDog]

The president, however, argues that more drilling is not the way to protect the U.S. Instead, he wants to wean the U.S. off oil by turning to alternatives, such as electric cars."If we want to stabilize energy prices for the long term and the medium term, if we want America to grow, we're going to have look past what we've been doing and put ourselves on the path to a real, sustainable energy future," he said.Though the president talks about drilling, official government figures show he is issuing far fewer permits on federal land than his predecessor.At the end of the Bush years, 6,000 to 7,000 permits a year were issued, but under Obama the numbers have dropped significantly to a range of 4,000 to almost 4,500 a year.Since it can take seven to 10 years for a permit to turn into a producing well, that means less oil coming off federal lands in the years to come, even as global demand is rising.Advocates of more domestic drilling say we know a crunch is coming, so we should be drilling more now -- otherwise, the result could be ugly."The reality of the situation, with respect to global supply is that Americans can find themselves in gasoline lines, with gas rationing by 2015 or 2016 by us not producing more of our own oil," Hofmeister said.Even with alternatives, the Energy Department predicts that in 2035 we'll still be relying on oil for 83 percent of our transportation needs.

 

[bueno]

The president, however, argues that more drilling is not the way to protect the U.S. Instead, he wants to wean the U.S. off oil by turning to alternatives, such as electric cars."If we want to stabilize energy prices for the long term and the medium term, if we want America to grow, we're going to have look past what we've been doing and put ourselves on the path to a real, sustainable energy future," he said.Though the president talks about drilling, official government figures show he is issuing far fewer permits on federal land than his predecessor.At the end of the Bush years, 6,000 to 7,000 permits a year were issued, but under Obama the numbers have dropped significantly to a range of 4,000 to almost 4,500 a year.Since it can take seven to 10 years for a permit to turn into a producing well, that means less oil coming off federal lands in the years to come, even as global demand is rising.Advocates of more domestic drilling say we know a crunch is coming, so we should be drilling more now -- otherwise, the result could be ugly."The reality of the situation, with respect to global supply is that Americans can find themselves in gasoline lines, with gas rationing by 2015 or 2016 by us not producing more of our own oil," Hofmeister said.Even with alternatives, the Energy Department predicts that in 2035 we'll still be relying on oil for 83 percent of our transportation needs.

Exhibit A as to why this administration is clueless when it comes to energy policy.

 

[ratpfink]

The U.S. recently became a net exporter of gasoline products. In 2011 the US exported 500,000 barrels of gasoline a day. Our petroleum production has risen 14% since a long-time low in 2008. I'm thinking that increased production on it's own won't lead to lower gas prices.

 

[StrikeS2k]

The U.S. recently became a net exporter of gasoline products. In 2011 the US exported 500,000 barrels of gasoline a day. Our petroleum production has risen 14% since a long-time low in 2008. I'm thinking that increased production on it's own won't lead to lower gas prices.

Maybe or maybe not. But it will certainly lead to more jobs and help our economy which, if you haven't noticed, isn't doing so well.

 

[encaitar]

Record demand is driving the increase in gasoline prices.

http://omrpublic.iea...ld/wb_wodem.pdf

And drilling some measly US wells isn't going to put a dent in that either. I love when they say they found a HUGE deposit of x billion barrels. For instance, the largest one found in the western hemisphere in the last 30 years, Tupi oil field, 5+ billion recoverable barrels. We would drain that in under 1 year if we could pump out our daily usage.

5 years ago, the Bakken zone in ND was estimated to have 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The latest estimate I saw come through the office has it now at 18 billion barrels with today's technology. As technology continues to improve, that number will only go higher. (Somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 billion barrels of as of yet non-recoverable oil in the Bakken zone) There are quite a few shale zones in the US with the same situation. However, we are drilling. We are drilling now more than ever. I don't think anything the President does or does not do affects the price of oil at all.

Are you working in North Dakota too?

Yeah, about half the year. I spend my time between Houston, Denver, and ND.

 

[MTskibum]

Record demand is driving the increase in gasoline prices.

http://omrpublic.iea...ld/wb_wodem.pdf

And drilling some measly US wells isn't going to put a dent in that either. I love when they say they found a HUGE deposit of x billion barrels. For instance, the largest one found in the western hemisphere in the last 30 years, Tupi oil field, 5+ billion recoverable barrels. We would drain that in under 1 year if we could pump out our daily usage.

5 years ago, the Bakken zone in ND was estimated to have 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The latest estimate I saw come through the office has it now at 18 billion barrels with today's technology. As technology continues to improve, that number will only go higher. (Somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 billion barrels of as of yet non-recoverable oil in the Bakken zone) There are quite a few shale zones in the US with the same situation. However, we are drilling. We are drilling now more than ever. I don't think anything the President does or does not do affects the price of oil at all.

Are you working in North Dakota too?

Yeah, about half the year. I spend my time between Houston, Denver, and ND.

I am working a similar schedule. I am currently living in Williston, and I going to houston for 3 months on april 2nd.I work for Schl.......er

 

[MTskibum]

The U.S. recently became a net exporter of gasoline products. In 2011 the US exported 500,000 barrels of gasoline a day. Our petroleum production has risen 14% since a long-time low in 2008. I'm thinking that increased production on it's own won't lead to lower gas prices.

We are a net exporter of gasoline, but we are a net importer of petroleum products. All this really means is we have an excess refinery capacity.America imports 65% of its petroleum.

 

[the moops]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

 

[Riversco]

I still want to know why Obama says releasing oil from the SPR will cause prices to drop, but more drilling won't. They both do the exact same thing. They increase the supply of oil in the market.

 

[ratpfink]

The U.S. recently became a net exporter of gasoline products. In 2011 the US exported 500,000 barrels of gasoline a day. Our petroleum production has risen 14% since a long-time low in 2008. I'm thinking that increased production on it's own won't lead to lower gas prices.

We are a net exporter of gasoline, but we are a net importer of petroleum products. All this really means is we have an excess refinery capacity.America imports 65% of its petroleum.

I misspoke. I meant the US is a net exporter of petroleum products. You could disagree and take it up with the EIA I guess.

The increase in U.S. petroleum product exports has garnered significant attention lately, as U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data showed the United States was a net exporter of petroleum products (petroleum and other liquids, excluding crude oil) for the first time since at least 1949.

They would also say we only import 50% of our petroleum consumption. But I'm all ears if you feel their stats are bull####...

 

[MTskibum]

I misspoke. I meant the US is a net exporter of petroleum products. You could disagree and take it up with the EIA I guess.

This is correct, the United states is a net exporter of petroleum products. We have an excess of refinery capacity so we export more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than we import.

The increase in U.S. petroleum product exports has garnered significant attention lately, as U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data showed the United States was a net exporter of petroleum products (petroleum and other liquids, excluding crude oil) for the first time since at least 1949.

Refineries in the United states are extremely high capacity.

They would also say we only import 50% of our petroleum consumption. But I'm all ears if you feel their stats are bull####...

According to the EIA the united states produces 5.5 million barrels a day of petroleum and we import 9.16 million barrels of petroleum a day.

According to the EIA the United States only produces about 1/3 of the amount of petroleum it uses.

http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2

:edit:

Click on my eia link, see how it says

U.S. Crude Oil Imports 9,163,000 barrels/day

U.S. Petroleum Product Imports 2,590,000 barrels/day

U.S. Net Petroleum Imports 9,440,000 barrels/day

It considers crude oil and petroleum products 2 separate products.

 

[Slapdash]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

 

[ArcticEdge]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

Why do you hate your fellow citizens?

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

If it didn't have carryover effects into the price of other things, I wouldn't care at all.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

If it didn't have carryover effects into the price of other things, I wouldn't care at all.

Yeah, I like food too.

 

[the moops]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

If it didn't have carryover effects into the price of other things, I wouldn't care at all.

Yeah, I like food too.

I buy mostly local stuff. Haven't seen a noticeable increase in prices over the past year or so.

 

[BassNBrew]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

If it didn't have carryover effects into the price of other things, I wouldn't care at all.

Yeah, I like food too.

I buy mostly local stuff. Haven't seen a noticeable increase in prices over the past year or so.

You a caveman, homeless guy, or college student?Regardless, you must know that you are an expection. Milk has gone uproughly 75 cents here, closer to a buck for organic. Unfortunately I don't have a cow in my backyard.

 

[the moops]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

If it didn't have carryover effects into the price of other things, I wouldn't care at all.

Yeah, I like food too.

I buy mostly local stuff. Haven't seen a noticeable increase in prices over the past year or so.

You a caveman, homeless guy, or college student?Regardless, you must know that you are an expection. Milk has gone uproughly 75 cents here, closer to a buck for organic. Unfortunately I don't have a cow in my backyard.

I dont buy milk

 

[pittstownkiller]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

If it didn't have carryover effects into the price of other things, I wouldn't care at all.

Yeah, I like food too.

I buy mostly local stuff. Haven't seen a noticeable increase in prices over the past year or so.

You a caveman, homeless guy, or college student?Regardless, you must know that you are an expection. Milk has gone uproughly 75 cents here, closer to a buck for organic. Unfortunately I don't have a cow in my backyard.

I dont buy milk

Do you buy your food in a market; you can bet that their energy costs have gone up, unless you think the food stays frozen because they sell ice cream.

 

[BassNBrew]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

If it didn't have carryover effects into the price of other things, I wouldn't care at all.

Yeah, I like food too.

I buy mostly local stuff. Haven't seen a noticeable increase in prices over the past year or so.

You a caveman, homeless guy, or college student?Regardless, you must know that you are an expection. Milk has gone uproughly 75 cents here, closer to a buck for organic. Unfortunately I don't have a cow in my backyard.

I dont buy milk

Brew your own beer or just drink water from the local creek/lake?

 

[Doug B]

I buy mostly local stuff. Haven't seen a noticeable increase in prices over the past year or so.

Without a cite, going from memory: Grocery prices have risen more over the past 3-5 years than they did in the 15-year period between 1990-2005.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

Why do you hate your fellow citizens?

Why do you expect your fellow citizens to subsidize your stupid life choices?

 

[BassNBrew]

I buy mostly local stuff. Haven't seen a noticeable increase in prices over the past year or so.

Without a cite, going from memory: Grocery prices have risen more over the past 3-5 years than they did in the 15-year period between 1990-2005.

At least GWB kept dog food prices in check.

 

[valhallan]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

 

[TobiasFunke]

The president, however, argues that more drilling is not the way to protect the U.S. Instead, he wants to wean the U.S. off oil by turning to alternatives, such as electric cars."If we want to stabilize energy prices for the long term and the medium term, if we want America to grow, we're going to have look past what we've been doing and put ourselves on the path to a real, sustainable energy future," he said.Though the president talks about drilling, official government figures show he is issuing far fewer permits on federal land than his predecessor.At the end of the Bush years, 6,000 to 7,000 permits a year were issued, but under Obama the numbers have dropped significantly to a range of 4,000 to almost 4,500 a year.Since it can take seven to 10 years for a permit to turn into a producing well, that means less oil coming off federal lands in the years to come, even as global demand is rising.Advocates of more domestic drilling say we know a crunch is coming, so we should be drilling more now -- otherwise, the result could be ugly."The reality of the situation, with respect to global supply is that Americans can find themselves in gasoline lines, with gas rationing by 2015 or 2016 by us not producing more of our own oil," Hofmeister said.Even with alternatives, the Energy Department predicts that in 2035 we'll still be relying on oil for 83 percent of our transportation needs.

Exhibit A as to why this administration is clueless when it comes to energy policy.

Sigh. And here I thought you were more than just a mindless partisan shill on this issue. Guess not.I've done this before, but since people keep making the same stupid erroneous arguments I'll try it again:1- Counting average annual permits as some sort of judge of administration policy is ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of the industry. Obama put a freeze on certain permits (in response to broad bipartisan criticism of the leasing and permitting process, remember) after Deepwater Horizon. Take those 6 months out and the average annual numbers probably look different. I wish I could say I was surprised at how quickly the Obama haters swung from "Obama didn't have enough safeguards in the permitting process!" after Deepwater Horizon to "Obama is being too deliberate in the permitting process!" now, but I'm not. In addition, permits are only one step in a long and complicated process, so using that as a definitive criteria is silly to begin with.2- Our entire domestic reserves are relatively insignificant to the global supply, and probably less than 1/3rd of those domestic reserves are on land controlled by the federal government. Anyone who thinks changes in federal leasing policy would make a significant difference in the price of gasoline is just flat out wrong. I challenge you to find a single reasonable expert (and I mean an actual scientist or economist, not an industry shill) who thinks they would.3- Comparisons to historical data like this ignore the obvious fact that we lease the more commercially viable areas and those more friendly to O&G activity first, so you would expect a gradual decline in leasing and permitting over time. That's true even as the production technology improves.

 

[meatwad1]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

If it didn't have carryover effects into the price of other things, I wouldn't care at all.

Yeah, I like food too.

I buy mostly local stuff. Haven't seen a noticeable increase in prices over the past year or so.

Here is a history lesson for you.In 2008 the price of gas slowly crept its way up to over $4.00. This occurred during the first half of the year.By summer, prices on many things went way up. Once the prices went way up, people had to stop buying stuff.Because our economy relies on purchases of goods and services, everything went in the tank. Hello double dip recession. Get ready.

 

[Slapdash]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

If it didn't have carryover effects into the price of other things, I wouldn't care at all.

Yeah, I like food too.

I buy mostly local stuff. Haven't seen a noticeable increase in prices over the past year or so.

Here is a history lesson for you.In 2008 the price of gas slowly crept its way up to over $4.00. This occurred during the first half of the year.By summer, prices on many things went way up. Once the prices went way up, people had to stop buying stuff.Because our economy relies on purchases of goods and services, everything went in the tank. Hello double dip recession. Get ready.

Oil prices didn't cause the recession.

 

[meatwad1]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

Why do you hate your fellow citizens?

Why do you expect your fellow citizens to subsidize your stupid life choices?

Listen up buttercup...if you live in a city where you don't have to drive a car to get anywhere, that does not mean that you are not a beneficiary of the use of oil and gas just because you choose to ride your hippy mobile around all day. First of all...lets say you live in New York. I would say that the financial industry pretty much props up most of the action in that great city. Without it, you would be living in a place more along the lines of Mexico City, not New York City. What do you think the financial industry deals in on a daily basis, pumpkin? Yes...gasoline. Gasoline to transport goods and allow services to happen.Gasoline to get people from place to place.Gasoline to make the world go round.The idea that just because you ride a bike around all day you are exempt from the benefits our interstate system provides for all Americans is patently absurd and smacks of delusion on a grand scale.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

Why do you hate your fellow citizens?

Why do you expect your fellow citizens to subsidize your stupid life choices?

Listen up buttercup...if you live in a city where you don't have to drive a car to get anywhere, that does not mean that you are not a beneficiary of the use of oil and gas just because you choose to ride your hippy mobile around all day. First of all...lets say you live in New York. I would say that the financial industry pretty much props up most of the action in that great city. Without it, you would be living in a place more along the lines of Mexico City, not New York City. What do you think the financial industry deals in on a daily basis, pumpkin? Yes...gasoline.

Gasoline to transport goods and allow services to happen.

Gasoline to get people from place to place.

Gasoline to make the world go round.

The idea that just because you ride a bike around all day you are exempt from the benefits our interstate system provides for all Americans is patently absurd and smacks of delusion on a grand scale.

Interesting. Thanks for the economics lesson! You seem to think that because I derive some benefit from something I should not complain about its subsidization, even if others derive far more, and more direct, benefit from it, because it is for the greater good. That is indeed an interesting thought. I'd like to hear more about this- for example, how might this apply to other industries like health care or education?

Now, some of the more simple-minded among us might dismiss it as "socialism," but lefties like you and I know better than that, right? So ignore them, my new friend (dare I say comrade?) and let's you and I join together in the fight for government subsidization of all the things that make our world a better place!

 

[meatwad1]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

If it didn't have carryover effects into the price of other things, I wouldn't care at all.

Yeah, I like food too.

I buy mostly local stuff. Haven't seen a noticeable increase in prices over the past year or so.

Here is a history lesson for you.In 2008 the price of gas slowly crept its way up to over $4.00. This occurred during the first half of the year.By summer, prices on many things went way up. Once the prices went way up, people had to stop buying stuff.Because our economy relies on purchases of goods and services, everything went in the tank. Hello double dip recession. Get ready.

Oil prices didn't cause the recession.

Actually...they did. Once people got their reality check that we were not going to have $1.50 gasoline and unlimited cheap goods, they began to take a look around at other markets around them. Particularly the housing market. They began to ask questions like; Why does this 1500 sq foot ranch cost $650000?How am I going to rent this vacation condo when nobody is traveling anymore? What do I do now that I have tapped out my cash from the second mortgage? Markets are psychological. If people perceive that they can't pay a a certain price for something, then they won't. This inevitably screws everything up in many different industries. When too much of this happens at one time, we have recessions and depressions. Oil prices have a great deal to with that.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

Why do you hate your fellow citizens?

Why do you expect your fellow citizens to subsidize your stupid life choices?

Listen up buttercup...if you live in a city where you don't have to drive a car to get anywhere, that does not mean that you are not a beneficiary of the use of oil and gas just because you choose to ride your hippy mobile around all day. First of all...lets say you live in New York. I would say that the financial industry pretty much props up most of the action in that great city. Without it, you would be living in a place more along the lines of Mexico City, not New York City. What do you think the financial industry deals in on a daily basis, pumpkin? Yes...gasoline.

Gasoline to transport goods and allow services to happen.

Gasoline to get people from place to place.

Gasoline to make the world go round.

The idea that just because you ride a bike around all day you are exempt from the benefits our interstate system provides for all Americans is patently absurd and smacks of delusion on a grand scale.

Interesting. Thanks for the economics lesson! You seem to think that because I derive some benefit from something I should not complain about its subsidization, even if others derive far more, and more direct, benefit from it, because it is for the greater good. That is indeed an interesting thought. I'd like to hear more about this- for example, how might this apply to other industries like health care or education?

Now, some of the more simple-minded among us might dismiss it as "socialism," but lefties like you and I know better than that, right? So ignore them, my new friend (dare I say comrade?) and let's you and I join together in the fight for government subsidization of all the things that make our world a better place!

Sooo, you're not countering his argument that industries are adversely effected by climbing fuel prices, or that we all benefit from industry, instead we are all now communist/socialists because this is so; interesting.

 

[meatwad1]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

Why do you hate your fellow citizens?

Why do you expect your fellow citizens to subsidize your stupid life choices?

Listen up buttercup...if you live in a city where you don't have to drive a car to get anywhere, that does not mean that you are not a beneficiary of the use of oil and gas just because you choose to ride your hippy mobile around all day. First of all...lets say you live in New York. I would say that the financial industry pretty much props up most of the action in that great city. Without it, you would be living in a place more along the lines of Mexico City, not New York City. What do you think the financial industry deals in on a daily basis, pumpkin? Yes...gasoline.

Gasoline to transport goods and allow services to happen.

Gasoline to get people from place to place.

Gasoline to make the world go round.

The idea that just because you ride a bike around all day you are exempt from the benefits our interstate system provides for all Americans is patently absurd and smacks of delusion on a grand scale.

Interesting. Thanks for the economics lesson! You seem to think that because I derive some benefit from something I should not complain about its subsidization, even if others derive far more, and more direct, benefit from it, because it is for the greater good. That is indeed an interesting thought. I'd like to hear more about this- for example, how might this apply to other industries like health care or education?

Now, some of the more simple-minded among us might dismiss it as "socialism," but lefties like you and I know better than that, right? So ignore them, my new friend (dare I say comrade?) and let's you and I join together in the fight for government subsidization of all the things that make our world a better place!

Government should certainly play a role in subsidizing both health care and education. I am glad we agree on something!!! Now completely running them? That is another story. By the way, here is the formal definition for the word 'subsidize':

subsidizedpast participle, past tense of sub·si·dize (Verb)

Verb:

[*]Support (an organization or activity) financially.

[*]Pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce prices for the buyer.

Pay close attention to the difference between paying for some and paying for all. In Capitalism, there certainly is a place for government to pay for some; what you pinko commies advocate though is something a little more sinister; a complete takeover.

 

[jamny]

The president, however, argues that more drilling is not the way to protect the U.S. Instead, he wants to wean the U.S. off oil by turning to alternatives, such as electric cars.

"If we want to stabilize energy prices for the long term and the medium term, if we want America to grow, we're going to have look past what we've been doing and put ourselves on the path to a real, sustainable energy future," he said.

Though the president talks about drilling, official government figures show he is issuing far fewer permits on federal land than his predecessor.

At the end of the Bush years, 6,000 to 7,000 permits a year were issued, but under Obama the numbers have dropped significantly to a range of 4,000 to almost 4,500 a year.

Since it can take seven to 10 years for a permit to turn into a producing well, that means less oil coming off federal lands in the years to come, even as global demand is rising.

Advocates of more domestic drilling say we know a crunch is coming, so we should be drilling more now -- otherwise, the result could be ugly.

"The reality of the situation, with respect to global supply is that Americans can find themselves in gasoline lines, with gas rationing by 2015 or 2016 by us not producing more of our own oil," Hofmeister said.

Even with alternatives, the Energy Department predicts that in 2035 we'll still be relying on oil for 83 percent of our transportation needs.

Exhibit A as to why this administration is clueless when it comes to energy policy.

Sigh. And here I thought you were more than just a mindless partisan shill on this issue. Guess not.I've done this before, but since people keep making the same stupid erroneous arguments I'll try it again:

1- Counting average annual permits as some sort of judge of administration policy is ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of the industry. Obama put a freeze on certain permits (in response to broad bipartisan criticism of the leasing and permitting process, remember) after Deepwater Horizon. Take those 6 months out and the average annual numbers probably look different. I wish I could say I was surprised at how quickly the Obama haters swung from "Obama didn't have enough safeguards in the permitting process!" after Deepwater Horizon to "Obama is being too deliberate in the permitting process!" now, but I'm not. In addition, permits are only one step in a long and complicated process, so using that as a definitive criteria is silly to begin with.

2- Our entire domestic reserves are relatively insignificant to the global supply, and probably less than 1/3rd of those domestic reserves are on land controlled by the federal government. Anyone who thinks changes in federal leasing policy would make a significant difference in the price of gasoline is just flat out wrong. I challenge you to find a single reasonable expert (and I mean an actual scientist or economist, not an industry shill) who thinks they would.

3- Comparisons to historical data like this ignore the obvious fact that we lease the more commercially viable areas and those more friendly to O&G activity first, so you would expect a gradual decline in leasing and permitting over time. That's true even as the production technology improves.

Except for the long delay in responding, there weren't many people that I remember that were blaming Obama for the oil spill.

 

[Slapdash]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

If it didn't have carryover effects into the price of other things, I wouldn't care at all.

Yeah, I like food too.

I buy mostly local stuff. Haven't seen a noticeable increase in prices over the past year or so.

Here is a history lesson for you.In 2008 the price of gas slowly crept its way up to over $4.00. This occurred during the first half of the year.

By summer, prices on many things went way up.

Once the prices went way up, people had to stop buying stuff.

Because our economy relies on purchases of goods and services, everything went in the tank.

Hello double dip recession.

Get ready.

Oil prices didn't cause the recession.

Actually...they did. Once people got their reality check that we were not going to have $1.50 gasoline and unlimited cheap goods, they began to take a look around at other markets around them. Particularly the housing market. They began to ask questions like; Why does this 1500 sq foot ranch cost $650000?

How am I going to rent this vacation condo when nobody is traveling anymore?

What do I do now that I have tapped out my cash from the second mortgage?

Markets are psychological. If people perceive that they can't pay a a certain price for something, then they won't. This inevitably screws everything up in many different industries. When too much of this happens at one time, we have recessions and depressions. Oil prices have a great deal to with that.

People knew that a while ago. These links don't happen like you describe. The housing market had been crashing for almost two years at the point oil prices peaked, not the other way around. These secondary effects impacting borader demand you mention were a result of a massive shock to financial system. Not oil.

 

[meatwad1]

Oil is the straw that stirs the drink. Even if prices were getting shaky starting in 2006 or 2007, that was only in a few markets, and not everybody was aware. The housing CRASH that you are talking about happened in 2009.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The president, however, argues that more drilling is not the way to protect the U.S. Instead, he wants to wean the U.S. off oil by turning to alternatives, such as electric cars.

"If we want to stabilize energy prices for the long term and the medium term, if we want America to grow, we're going to have look past what we've been doing and put ourselves on the path to a real, sustainable energy future," he said.

Though the president talks about drilling, official government figures show he is issuing far fewer permits on federal land than his predecessor.

At the end of the Bush years, 6,000 to 7,000 permits a year were issued, but under Obama the numbers have dropped significantly to a range of 4,000 to almost 4,500 a year.

Since it can take seven to 10 years for a permit to turn into a producing well, that means less oil coming off federal lands in the years to come, even as global demand is rising.

Advocates of more domestic drilling say we know a crunch is coming, so we should be drilling more now -- otherwise, the result could be ugly.

"The reality of the situation, with respect to global supply is that Americans can find themselves in gasoline lines, with gas rationing by 2015 or 2016 by us not producing more of our own oil," Hofmeister said.

Even with alternatives, the Energy Department predicts that in 2035 we'll still be relying on oil for 83 percent of our transportation needs.

Exhibit A as to why this administration is clueless when it comes to energy policy.

Sigh. And here I thought you were more than just a mindless partisan shill on this issue. Guess not.I've done this before, but since people keep making the same stupid erroneous arguments I'll try it again:

1- Counting average annual permits as some sort of judge of administration policy is ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of the industry. Obama put a freeze on certain permits (in response to broad bipartisan criticism of the leasing and permitting process, remember) after Deepwater Horizon. Take those 6 months out and the average annual numbers probably look different. I wish I could say I was surprised at how quickly the Obama haters swung from "Obama didn't have enough safeguards in the permitting process!" after Deepwater Horizon to "Obama is being too deliberate in the permitting process!" now, but I'm not. In addition, permits are only one step in a long and complicated process, so using that as a definitive criteria is silly to begin with.

2- Our entire domestic reserves are relatively insignificant to the global supply, and probably less than 1/3rd of those domestic reserves are on land controlled by the federal government. Anyone who thinks changes in federal leasing policy would make a significant difference in the price of gasoline is just flat out wrong. I challenge you to find a single reasonable expert (and I mean an actual scientist or economist, not an industry shill) who thinks they would.

3- Comparisons to historical data like this ignore the obvious fact that we lease the more commercially viable areas and those more friendly to O&G activity first, so you would expect a gradual decline in leasing and permitting over time. That's true even as the production technology improves.

Except for the long delay in responding, there weren't many people that I remember that were blaming Obama for the oil spill.

Yeah, there were. I remember pointing out repeatedly in this forum how many people seemed to be contradicting their fundamental positions about government interference and regulation to blame the administration for inadequate oversight.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

Why do you hate your fellow citizens?

Why do you expect your fellow citizens to subsidize your stupid life choices?

Listen up buttercup...if you live in a city where you don't have to drive a car to get anywhere, that does not mean that you are not a beneficiary of the use of oil and gas just because you choose to ride your hippy mobile around all day. First of all...lets say you live in New York. I would say that the financial industry pretty much props up most of the action in that great city. Without it, you would be living in a place more along the lines of Mexico City, not New York City. What do you think the financial industry deals in on a daily basis, pumpkin? Yes...gasoline.

Gasoline to transport goods and allow services to happen.

Gasoline to get people from place to place.

Gasoline to make the world go round.

The idea that just because you ride a bike around all day you are exempt from the benefits our interstate system provides for all Americans is patently absurd and smacks of delusion on a grand scale.

Interesting. Thanks for the economics lesson! You seem to think that because I derive some benefit from something I should not complain about its subsidization, even if others derive far more, and more direct, benefit from it, because it is for the greater good. That is indeed an interesting thought. I'd like to hear more about this- for example, how might this apply to other industries like health care or education?

Now, some of the more simple-minded among us might dismiss it as "socialism," but lefties like you and I know better than that, right? So ignore them, my new friend (dare I say comrade?) and let's you and I join together in the fight for government subsidization of all the things that make our world a better place!

Sooo, you're not countering his argument that industries are adversely effected by climbing fuel prices, or that we all benefit from industry, instead we are all now communist/socialists because this is so; interesting.

Why would I possibly counter the bolded? Of course it's true. It's just equally true that the president has little to nothing to do with those prices, and those who demand he do something to address the prices are not only wrong about how much he can influence those prices but also are often contradicting their own "free market" dogma.

 

[Slapdash]

Oil is the straw that stirs the drink. Even if prices were getting shaky starting in 2006 or 2007, that was only in a few markets, and not everybody was aware. The housing CRASH that you are talking about happened in 2009.

That is not right. Housing prices had already fallen 20% from their peak by Summer 2008. They only fell about 4% during 2009.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

Why do you hate your fellow citizens?

Why do you expect your fellow citizens to subsidize your stupid life choices?

Listen up buttercup...if you live in a city where you don't have to drive a car to get anywhere, that does not mean that you are not a beneficiary of the use of oil and gas just because you choose to ride your hippy mobile around all day. First of all...lets say you live in New York. I would say that the financial industry pretty much props up most of the action in that great city. Without it, you would be living in a place more along the lines of Mexico City, not New York City. What do you think the financial industry deals in on a daily basis, pumpkin? Yes...gasoline.

Gasoline to transport goods and allow services to happen.

Gasoline to get people from place to place.

Gasoline to make the world go round.

The idea that just because you ride a bike around all day you are exempt from the benefits our interstate system provides for all Americans is patently absurd and smacks of delusion on a grand scale.

Interesting. Thanks for the economics lesson! You seem to think that because I derive some benefit from something I should not complain about its subsidization, even if others derive far more, and more direct, benefit from it, because it is for the greater good. That is indeed an interesting thought. I'd like to hear more about this- for example, how might this apply to other industries like health care or education?

Now, some of the more simple-minded among us might dismiss it as "socialism," but lefties like you and I know better than that, right? So ignore them, my new friend (dare I say comrade?) and let's you and I join together in the fight for government subsidization of all the things that make our world a better place!

Sooo, you're not countering his argument that industries are adversely effected by climbing fuel prices, or that we all benefit from industry, instead we are all now communist/socialists because this is so; interesting.

Why would I possibly counter the bolded? Of course it's true. It's just equally true that the president has little to nothing to do with those prices, and those who demand he do something to address the prices are not only wrong about how much he can influence those prices but also are often contradicting their own "free market" dogma.

How does that make us all quasi-socialists?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

Why do you hate your fellow citizens?

Why do you expect your fellow citizens to subsidize your stupid life choices?

Listen up buttercup...if you live in a city where you don't have to drive a car to get anywhere, that does not mean that you are not a beneficiary of the use of oil and gas just because you choose to ride your hippy mobile around all day. First of all...lets say you live in New York. I would say that the financial industry pretty much props up most of the action in that great city. Without it, you would be living in a place more along the lines of Mexico City, not New York City. What do you think the financial industry deals in on a daily basis, pumpkin? Yes...gasoline.

Gasoline to transport goods and allow services to happen.

Gasoline to get people from place to place.

Gasoline to make the world go round.

The idea that just because you ride a bike around all day you are exempt from the benefits our interstate system provides for all Americans is patently absurd and smacks of delusion on a grand scale.

Interesting. Thanks for the economics lesson! You seem to think that because I derive some benefit from something I should not complain about its subsidization, even if others derive far more, and more direct, benefit from it, because it is for the greater good. That is indeed an interesting thought. I'd like to hear more about this- for example, how might this apply to other industries like health care or education?

Now, some of the more simple-minded among us might dismiss it as "socialism," but lefties like you and I know better than that, right? So ignore them, my new friend (dare I say comrade?) and let's you and I join together in the fight for government subsidization of all the things that make our world a better place!

Sooo, you're not countering his argument that industries are adversely effected by climbing fuel prices, or that we all benefit from industry, instead we are all now communist/socialists because this is so; interesting.

Why would I possibly counter the bolded? Of course it's true. It's just equally true that the president has little to nothing to do with those prices, and those who demand he do something to address the prices are not only wrong about how much he can influence those prices but also are often contradicting their own "free market" dogma.

How does that make us all quasi-socialists?

Well we all don't benefit equally, or even directly (depending on what you consider a direct vs. indirect benefit). You're asking everyone to equally share the burden even though we don't equally share the benefits.It was also done in jest because the guy was acting like a bit of a pompous ###. Wasn't meant to be a serious critique.

 

[meatwad1]

Oil is the straw that stirs the drink. Even if prices were getting shaky starting in 2006 or 2007, that was only in a few markets, and not everybody was aware. The housing CRASH that you are talking about happened in 2009.

That is not right. Housing prices had already fallen 20% from their peak by Summer 2008. They only fell about 4% during 2009.

We are talking about the difference of a few months here... btw the peak was in the summer of 2006, and they are still falling. Nothing has stabilized quite yet.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-prices-hit-10-low-131200327.html

 

[the moops]

Anyone else here not drive enough to not really care about the price of gasoline?

If it didn't have carryover effects into the price of other things, I wouldn't care at all.

Yeah, I like food too.

I buy mostly local stuff. Haven't seen a noticeable increase in prices over the past year or so.

You a caveman, homeless guy, or college student?Regardless, you must know that you are an expection. Milk has gone uproughly 75 cents here, closer to a buck for organic. Unfortunately I don't have a cow in my backyard.

I dont buy milk

Brew your own beer or just drink water from the local creek/lake?

I actually do brew my own beer. Brew 2 or 3 batches a month. And I drink tap water that comes from the Mississippi.

 

[jamny]

Sigh. And here I thought you were more than just a mindless partisan shill on this issue. Guess not.

I've done this before, but since people keep making the same stupid erroneous arguments I'll try it again:

1- Counting average annual permits as some sort of judge of administration policy is ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of the industry. Obama put a freeze on certain permits (in response to broad bipartisan criticism of the leasing and permitting process, remember) after Deepwater Horizon. Take those 6 months out and the average annual numbers probably look different. I wish I could say I was surprised at how quickly the Obama haters swung from "Obama didn't have enough safeguards in the permitting process!" after Deepwater Horizon to "Obama is being too deliberate in the permitting process!" now, but I'm not. In addition, permits are only one step in a long and complicated process, so using that as a definitive criteria is silly to begin with.

2- Our entire domestic reserves are relatively insignificant to the global supply, and probably less than 1/3rd of those domestic reserves are on land controlled by the federal government. Anyone who thinks changes in federal leasing policy would make a significant difference in the price of gasoline is just flat out wrong. I challenge you to find a single reasonable expert (and I mean an actual scientist or economist, not an industry shill) who thinks they would.

3- Comparisons to historical data like this ignore the obvious fact that we lease the more commercially viable areas and those more friendly to O&G activity first, so you would expect a gradual decline in leasing and permitting over time. That's true even as the production technology improves.

Except for the long delay in responding, there weren't many people that I remember that were blaming Obama for the oil spill.

Yeah, there were. I remember pointing out repeatedly in this forum how many people seemed to be contradicting their fundamental positions about government interference and regulation to blame the administration for inadequate oversight.

If you say so but I doubt there were more than one or two people on the board that were laying blame for the spill on Obama. And those were probably just fishing. It just wasn't the general consensus. Yes, he was criticised for a delayed response, and rightfully so, but not for the spill itself. There is no swing of opinion.

 

[Slapdash]

Oil is the straw that stirs the drink. Even if prices were getting shaky starting in 2006 or 2007, that was only in a few markets, and not everybody was aware. The housing CRASH that you are talking about happened in 2009.

That is not right. Housing prices had already fallen 20% from their peak by Summer 2008. They only fell about 4% during 2009.

We are talking about the difference of a few months here... btw the peak was in the summer of 2006, and they are still falling. Nothing has stabilized quite yet.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-prices-hit-10-low-131200327.html

Also consider that housing starts had already been cut in half by the time you claim oil prices start making people buy less homes.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah, there were. I remember pointing out repeatedly in this forum how many people seemed to be contradicting their fundamental positions about government interference and regulation to blame the administration for inadequate oversight.

If you say so but I doubt there were more than one or two people on the board that were laying blame for the spill on Obama. And those were probably just fishing. It just wasn't the general consensus. Yes, he was criticised for a delayed response, and rightfully so, but not for the spill itself. There is no swing of opinion.

Maybe. Seemed like a lot more at the time though. Who knows, it was years ago.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Obama OKs Oil Exploration Along Atlantic Coast, But Not DrillingThe Obama administration today endorsed new oil and gas exploration along the Atlantic Coast, setting the stage for possible future drilling lease sales.The announcement by the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.It also comes as President Obama faces mounting pressure over high gas prices and criticism from Republicans that he has opposed more drilling for oil.“Making decisions based on sound science, public input and the best information available is a critical component to this administration’s all-of-the-above energy strategy,” said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.But Republicans say the announcement is simply for show. Obama delayed and then cancelled a planned 2011 drilling lease sale for areas off the Virginia coast following the BP oil spill in the Gulf.There are also no guarantees the administration will approve drilling permits at the end of the environmental review.“The president’s actions have closed an entire new area to drilling on his watch and cheats Virginians out of thousands of jobs,” said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee.The announcement “continues the president’s election-year political ploy of giving speeches and talking about drilling after having spent the first three years in office blocking, delaying and driving up the cost of producing energy in America,” he said.“If President Obama truly wanted to support energy production in the Atlantic, he would immediately reinstate the lease sale that he canceled.”House Republicans say approving drilling off the Virginia coast would create at least 2,000 jobs and produce 750 million barrels of oil.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/obama-oks-oil-exploration-along-atlantic-coast-but-not-drilling/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama took to the stump today to lash out at his critics and claimed that they are celebrating the rising gas prices. He pointed out that oil production since he became President has nearly quadrupled under his watch, and it lowered under Bush. He went on to say that we can't lower prices by increased drilling, and anyone who says otherwise is not telling the truth. "There is no silver bullet," he says. Is he right?

President Obama, in a speech on energy development that comes as gas prices climb, tried to stress to Americans that he feels their pain at the pump -- but pushed back on the notion that there's a "silver bullet" for the problem.

As the Republican presidential candidates and others clamor for more domestic oil and gas drilling, Obama defended his record to date on domestic energy exploration.

And he empathized with Americans smarting over the impact of rising gas prices. "High gas prices are like a tax straight out of your paycheck," Obama said.

But he said anyone who claims the U.S. can drill its way out of high gas prices "doesn't know what they're talking about or just isn't telling you the truth." He said the rise is a reminder of the need to develop new energy sources.

"There is no silver bullet. There never has been," he said.

Obama said Thursday in Florida that the calls to step up domestic drilling come every year. "The American people aren't stupid, they know that's not a plan," Obama said. "That's a bumper sticker. It's not a strategy to solve our energy challenges."

Obama, as he has before, instead called for an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence -- gas, oil, wind, nuclear, solar, biofuels and more.

Does anyone know the answer to this?

Is there more drilling and fracking today leading to greater domestic oil production and so that has led to lower gas prices?

Or has there been an increase in alternative (wind/solar) energy types and that has led to lower gas prices?

What are the numbers?