Reply With Quote
Regardless of what Obama and the Democrats want, aren't oil prices globally determined?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...nt_113206.html
Gas prices are ing. That's great news, right? We have to wean ourselves off the stuff. At least that's what we've been hearing for years. Oil is dirty. We import it from nations that hate our guts (like Canada!). And moreover, we're running out. Oil is "finite." Finite much in the way water is finite.
So why aren't Democrats making the case that the e in prices is a good thing? Isn't this basically our energy policy these days? How we "win the future"? If high energy prices were to damage President Barack Obama's re-election prospects, it would be ironic, considering the left has been telling us to set aside our "dependency" -- or, as our most recent Republican president put it, "addiction" -- for a long time.
If Democrats had their way, after all, we would be enjoying the economic results of cap-and-trade policy these days -- a program designed to increase the cost of energy by creating false demand in a fabricated market. As the theory goes, if you inflate the price of fossil fuels, the barbarians might finally start putting thought into how peat moss might be able to power a toaster.
In 2008, Steven Chu, Obama's (and, sadly, our own) future secretary of energy (sic) lamented, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." The president, when asked whether he thought $4-a-gallon gas prices were good for the American economy, said, "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment."
How gradual? Like, what, four years? Or is it eight?
Part of "figuring it out" surely had something to do with the recent decision by Obama to nix the Canadian Keystone XL pipeline project that would have pumped 700,000 barrels of oil per day into the United States. More oil just means more excessive, immoral, ugly energy use.
Well, get used to it. You can't take three steps without stepping over some potential 10-billion barrel reserve of dead organisms.
According to the Ins ute for Energy Research, there is enough natural gas in the U.S. to meet electricity demand for 575 years at current fuel demand, enough to fuel homes heated by natural gas for 857 years and more gas in the U.S. than there is in Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and some place called Turkmenistan combined. Oil? The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States could soon overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world's top oil producer. There are tens of billions of easily accessible barrels of offshore oil here at home -- and much more oil around the world.
Yes, gas prices have ed an average of 14 cents a gallon in the past month and about 30 cents a gallon since last November, according to AAA. Oil prices jumped to a nine-month high -- more than $105 a barrel -- after the Iranians shut down their own energy exports to Britain and France so they could start a much-needed nuclear program, which is, no doubt, for wholly peaceful purposes.
Given the fungibility of commodities and the track record of civilization in the Middle East, we'll likely always have to deal with occasionally painful fluctuations in the price of energy, regardless of what we do at home -- drilling and new pipelines included. Still, fluctuations have a lot better track record than price controls.
Subsidizing quixotic green companies or creating carbon credits won't stop the rules of basic economics. If the gas crunch starts hitting the economy, it's doubtless that we will get an earful of populist hand-wringing and that we'll hear the administration once again blame wealthy speculators and nasty oil companies.
Yet in the end, high gas prices are part of the plan. This is what the administration wants.
Regardless of what Obama and the Democrats want, aren't oil prices globally determined?
Wow, what an ignorant thing to write. As if it doesn't take millions of years for oil to be created. No surprise to see Darrin posting this garbage.Oil is "finite." Finite much in the way water is finite.
It's fungible until a Dem is in office. Then, it's completely under the control of the DNC.
I think he was mocking the left. Think "Dublin Statement".
Satan must have ed the gas prices. He hates america
Great study to find. Thanks for the link, WH.
I had read some of the findings in other sources but had never seen the study itself.
The most important thing I read was that the group that was being used to inflate the jobs expectations was the Perryman Group.
Man, I know those folks. I used to work for an enormous corporation that continually employed that particular consulting company whenever we wanted to get a state or federal government to let us do something we wanted to do.
The guys are notorious for cooking their data. They have this template that says essentially (with only minor exaggeration)..."This project X will have Y level of economic benefit to Z governmental en y (fill in the blanks with whatever you want to prove), and thus it should be allowed because we are going to make everybody who lives here rich.
via RealClear, which I check daily. They're pretty good about linking source material.
Not really. Most of that oil wouldn't be used in the US. It's oil to supply largely duty-free refined product exports. Oil companies want to maximize use of the refineries they aren't closing down for profitability reasons.Part of "figuring it out" surely had something to do with the recent decision by Obama to nix the Canadian Keystone XL pipeline project that would have pumped 700,000 barrels of oil per day into the United States. More oil just means more excessive, immoral, ugly energy use.
Yes, but it's based on supply vs. demand. In my view, Obama has proven he wants higher oil prices my these moratoriums he put in place.
even if Obama wants higher gas prices, he has no control over them.
Kinda crazy that gas might only last us another 500 years, to be honest. I certainly hope we learn to harness alternative energies by then. I don't think we have millions of years to wait for the next batch of oil.
Of course, I enjoyed that weaselly "at current demand". What's the current tread on oil consumption? Has it stayed stable recently?
Ah, so he decided to mock the left by making a moronic statement.
Personally, I just think it makes him look moronic.
No direct control. However, if he continues to aide rebel revolutionaries, reducting Middle East oil, and continues to reduce US oil production, well... less supply equals higher prices.
Has Obama reduced US production? Link, please.
U.S. drilling moratorium to take bigger output bite
Oil production next year is expected to be cut by 82,000 barrels per day, or almost 30 million barrels total, due to delayed or canceled drilling caused by the moratorium, the Energy Information Administration said. That is 17 percent more from the 70,000 bpd in lost output the agency predicted just last month.
Monthly production losses could reach nearly 100,000 bpd by December 2011, the EIA said.As a result, the moratorium will end a recent pattern of yearly increases in U.S. oil production, as according to EIA data total output from both onshore and offshore next year will fall by 26,000 bpd to 5.37 million bpd.
Funny thing about 'supply vs. demand' ... the US is now a large net exporter of gasoline. In fact, in 2011 it (and other refined fuel) was our largest export. Plenty of supply, right? http://online.wsj.com/article/APf917...08bc47090.html
Kind of knocks that old argument about there not being enough refining capacity in the US out of the park, don't it?
and US oil production, after years of constant decline under GWB, has steadily risen since Obama came in office:
http://www.chron.com/business/energy...ak-2193837.php
Next false argument, WC?
My thoughts on this remain the same......I don't ing care who has to do it, and I don't care whose "fault" it is (and I don't really fault anyone because they are playing in the system given to them).........but someone make this ing cheaper!!!!
lol
This paper is primarily concerned about jobs, but the findings below also shine light on another claim made by the industry—that KXL will get the US further on the road to energy independence. The idea of energy independence clearly resonates with the American public, and the paid advertisements depicting Canadian Tar Sands as the source of “ethical oil” (and therefore a better option than oil from dictatorships like Saudi Arabia) plays to that sentiment. But KXL is a global project driven by global oil interests. Tar Sands development has attracted investment capital from
oil multinationals—with Chinese corporations’ stake getting bigger all the time.1 If approved, KXL will almost certainly be constructed by temporary labor working with steel made in Canada and India. Much of the Tar Sands oil will be refined in Port Arthur, Texas, where the refinery is half-owned by Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil company of Saudi Arabia.2 And a good portion of the oil that will gush down the KXL will, according to some studies, probably end up being finally consumed beyond the territorial United States.3 Indeed, the oil industry is also trying to build another pipeline, Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway, to carry Tar Sands oil across British
Columbia for export to Asian markets, although this pipeline also faces serious public opposition. Clearly, Tar Sands oil and energy independence really do not belong in the same sentence.
"make this ing cheaper!!!!"
Trust blindly the ing unregulated free market's ing invisible hand, offers the perfect solution to all problems.
"Ins ute for Energy Research"Ins ute for Energy Research, there is enough natural gas in the U.S. to meet electricity demand for 575 years at current fuel demand, enough to fuel homes heated by natural gas for 857 years
Do I even have to bother looking that one up?
Let me guess, it is a think-tank with a definite point of view that probably says that renewables suck, bla bla bla, fossil fuels good yada yada yada.
It is probably the kind of website that provides juuuusst enough sciency and economic-y arguments that sound good at first glance, but don't stand up to actually critical thinking.
Let's try some quick critical thinking about just this one bit.
"... there is enough natural gas in the U.S. to meet electricity demand for 575 years at current fuel demand, enough to fuel homes heated by natural gas for 857 years ..."
This is a lie.
1. Natural gas supplies have to do both supply electricity AND heat.
2. Technically recoverable gas is not economically recoverable.
3. Consumption for heating and electricity WILL go up as energy demand does.
The author, or the Ins ute quoted, took the total amount of ALL gas, neglecting #2, then divided that by a single use, neglecting #1, and that current use would never change, neglecting #3.
Either the Ins ute for Energy Research is incredibly stupid about energy because the three above aspects of real-world energy usage didn't occur to them, or they know about these and deliberately left them out of their calculations, i.e. lying.
WHich is do you think Darrin, lying or stupid?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-23-2012 at 09:40 AM.
as for the rest of the turd:
No Democrat that I have heard or read about on energy policy wants specific "price controls". That is a strawman.fluctuations have a lot better track record than price controls.
Subsidizing quixotic green companies or creating carbon credits won't stop the rules of basic economics
I would be all for raising gasoline taxes to fund new infrastrcture. Gas taxes haven't been raised in almost two decades, and our underfunding on infrastructure needs is just going to get worse until it is addressed.
We have a long history of subsidizing industries and letting free market innovation take over. We are almost to the point where subsidies for renewables will not be needed, and I would like to give that industry a bit of a boost by taxing dead-end fossil fuels a little bit more, and gradually phase out both the subsidy and tax. (note that this will actually extend the time where we will have the fossil fuel bridge, so it will actually prolong our ability to use fossil fuels)
Lastly, the author of the OP, like most people who like to fashion themselves as free-market avengers, probably doesn't understand economics as well as he purports.
"for gasoline taxes to ..."
dissuade oil consumption, esp oil for transport (70% of consumption).
Jimmy Carter did. I'm old enough to remember how that went.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
