PDA

View Full Version : obama and oil



pat addis
03-12-2011, 08:21 AM
obama gave a speech and said we are now producing more oil now domesticaly (sp) than at any time in the last 7 yrs. so i turned to the people here to find out the truth. i find this hard to belive becouse of shutting down the gulf. but then i don't belive any thing that comes out of his mouth any way. thanks

Franco
03-12-2011, 08:48 AM
Obama would have to define, "producing".

Refinery capacity hasn't dropped as we import more oil and "produce" it into gasoline and diesel.

huntinman
03-12-2011, 10:10 AM
The only increase is the hot air coming out of his mouth.

dnf777
03-12-2011, 10:53 AM
Obama would have to define, "producing".

Refinery capacity hasn't dropped as we import more oil and "produce" it into gasoline and diesel.


My understanding was that much of what he shut down, was expoloration, and not necessarily wells in production already. Being that prices are based on speculation, I agree with you that opening more exploration will keep prices down (hopefully), but his statement would be easy enough to verify with stats.

Has it occuered to anyone that maybe we are holding the deep well exploration and oil fields as a sort of strategic reserve in themselves? right now oil prices are at least quasi-stable, the economies are slowly showing signs of recovery, and perhaps we want to keep those reserves as our ace in the hole, for when we really need them.

Just as thought.

Uncle Bill
03-12-2011, 11:29 AM
My understanding was that much of what he shut down, was expoloration, and not necessarily wells in production already. Being that prices are based on speculation, I agree with you that opening more exploration will keep prices down (hopefully), but his statement would be easy enough to verify with stats.

Has it occuered to anyone that maybe we are holding the deep well exploration and oil fields as a sort of strategic reserve in themselves? right now oil prices are at least quasi-stable, the economies are slowly showing signs of recovery, and perhaps we want to keep those reserves as our ace in the hole, for when we really need them.

Just as thought.

What Obama is referring to has been occurring because of the policies that were developed 7 years ago, which he voted against, of course. Now he wants to take credit for what he has blocked his entire carreer. He is first of all a SOCIALIST. And some of you believe he's suddenly a capitalist?

As to what has OCCURRED to me is that your messiah is causing this nations oil reserves to be denied to the people, so his Muslim cronies can continue to gouge this country, and his environmental whackos continue to vote for him and his outlandish policies.

Has it OCCURRED to you, that it takes up to 10 years for some of these oil reserves to be developed and producing? And how long does it take to build the refineries to take care of what is produced?

Please stop slobbering over and excusing your inept leader. Anything he proposes or claims as an accomplishment is just another form of campaigning. We get it. Toadies like you don't.

UB

Buzz
03-12-2011, 11:51 AM
As usual, nothing but hot air. Maybe we can harness that potential.

BrianW
03-12-2011, 03:14 PM
My understanding was that much of what he shut down, was expoloration, and not necessarily wells in production already. Being that prices are based on speculation, I agree with you that opening more exploration will keep prices down (hopefully), but his statement would be easy enough to verify with stats.

Has it occuered to anyone that maybe we are holding the deep well exploration and oil fields as a sort of strategic reserve in themselves? right now oil prices are at least quasi-stable, the economies are slowly showing signs of recovery, and perhaps we want to keep those reserves as our ace in the hole, for when we really need them.

Just as thought.
Dave, are you sure you want to use the term "quasi" ?
1: having some resemblance usually by possession of certain attributes (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attribute%5B1%5D) <a quasi corporation>
2: having a legal status only by operation or construction of law and without reference to intent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intent%5B1%5D)


I sure hope things are "quasi-stable in PA because out here, this "stability" (and projected increases) is kicking the crap our of any so-called recovery.

I think you forget, or ignore, that Obama basically declared war on the energy consumer in the San Francisco interview before the election. This all fits in perfectly, if maybe not intended, to his stated goals. Energy prices "are necessarily skyrocketing", to use HIS words and I believe he has no intention of letting this crisis go to waste. .

Gerry Clinchy
03-12-2011, 09:49 PM
This is the quote from MSN


Still, he said the country was in a better shape to handle a disruption in oil supplies now than in the past and that "our economy as a whole is more efficient. We're producing more oil and we're importing less."


I might believe that our refineries are producing more oil (without stipulating that it is US oil that is being refined) ... but I have a hard time believing that we are importing less. All citations I've seen are that we are importing a lot more than we when Carter created the Dept of Energy.

A mis-speak, perhaps?

BrianW
03-12-2011, 11:05 PM
the country was in a better shape to handle a disruption in oil supplies now than in the past and that "our economy as a whole is more efficient.

I strongly disagree with his assessment. Many of our companies have gotten more "efficient" through ploicies such as lean manufacturing, thus exposing themselves more to disruptions in supply. The company I work for depends on daily shipments of incoming supplies/outgoing products, in addition to the rising costs of petroleum based products themselves.

Many of the folks I work with say they won't be able to afford to go to work if this keeps up, on top of rising food & commodity prices.

This First Family is so out of touch, it's scary. :-x

Roger Perry
03-12-2011, 11:47 PM
I strongly disagree with his assessment. Many of our companies have gotten more "efficient" through ploicies such as lean manufacturing, thus exposing themselves more to disruptions in supply. The company I work for depends on daily shipments of incoming supplies/outgoing products, in addition to the rising costs of petroleum based products themselves.

Many of the folks I work with say they won't be able to afford to go to work if this keeps up, on top of rising food & commodity prices.

This First Family is so out of touch, it's scary. :-x


Page last updated at 21:59 GMT, Monday, 16 June 2008 22:59 UK
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/email.gif E-mail this to a friend (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/email/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7457157.stm)http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/print.gif Printable version (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7457157.stm)
Oil at record near $140 a barrel


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44744000/jpg/_44744646_iranianoilafp226jpg.jpg There have been calls for increased global oil output

The price of crude oil has hit a new high of close to $140 a barrel in New York trade, despite Saudi Arabia agreeing to increase output in July. During Monday's session, US light crude rose to $139.89 a barrel, surpassing the previous high of $139.12 on 6 June. It later fell back from the record high, to close at $134.61.


So was the Bush family out of touch with reality in 2008 when oil was $140 a barrel??????????????http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7457157.stm

Gerry Clinchy
03-13-2011, 09:26 AM
Yesterday I received an email about the ANWR area. I didn't post it here since I wasn't able to verify its contents.

It showed photos of Alaska that were very gorgeous, but stating those are not the areas where the drilling area is! In fact, the drilling area is a very tiny area of the entire ANWR. The area where drilling would take place are actually desolate & grim.

I did forward it to some close friends, and one of them responded:



When this question first came to my attention I asked "XXX" about it. Since they are from a politically involved family in Alaska. They said that the "wild life area " was established to help Alaska become a state. A family member was a big deal newspaper publisher and in a conversation with some Gov't official it was suggested that, establishing a wild life Area might help the chances of Alaska becoming a state . SOoo they picked the most desolute, worthless, isolated area and it became "A Wildlife Area" and Alaska was accepted as a new state.
I wish I had stored that email it was much more clearly stated.


The establishment of this area as a refuge was a political joke.


It's kind of interesting that this whole controversy over the ANWR area has evolved from a political expediency that appears to have had little thought related to the actual ecological importance of the area in question ... but rather, had more to do with what area might be of least importance to the future commercial development of Alaska.

Unintended consequences?

I would agree with Brian that the POTUS, and most of our politicians, are very out of touch with the man-on-the-street.

Even now the Fed is worried about "deflation" ... obviously they have not visited the grocery store! (They have people to do that for them). Obviously, their incomes suffer only marginally from the increase in gas prices, alone, while it can be much more significant for the fellow driving 30 miles to work each day.

They want to take away the deduction for home mortgage interest. How about taking away the deduction for mortgage interest only for the "second home". There are about 535 people who benefit most from the second-home deduction. Those people might be?

We speak so often of the increase in %-age of those under the poverty line. That is typically attributed to the benefits given to the rich through lower taxes. We rarely consider that those who have fallen below the poverty level were once taxpayers, who finally had nothing left to give as a result of the laws politicians made that took more income away from those in the lower end of the middle class. It became easier to collect govt largesse for being poor than to work harder to have more disposable income.

We pay our legislators enough so that they are no longer on a part with the constituency. A lot of our founding fathers were farmers, and the time they served their country ended up costing them, rather than reaping big benefits. I believe that legislators should not be forced into poverty for serving, but perhaps we have made them too soft WRT to the realities of life faced by their constituents?

BrianW
03-13-2011, 10:47 AM
So was the Bush family out of touch with reality in 2008 when oil was $140 a barrel??????????????

I refuse to get in your "way back" machine. 2008 can't be changed.
I am dealing with 2011 and the current POTUS, ie "reality".
Care to discuss how PBO's decisions/policies today might affect how many of of us will have jobs tomorrow/next week?

My employer sub-contract builds programmable circuit boards with surface mount technology (PCB/SMT) for various contractors, including defense companies like GD.
The company was told by "the business brainiacs" that to survive in the modern business model, you've got to "cut the fat", "go lean", "reduce on hand inventory", "get it in & get it out" etc etc. So the company did and it's surviving but not thriving. Now our suppliers have to pass along their UPS/Fedex increases, as do we or reduce/stop making a profit.
We don't get raise our debt ceiling any time we like, like PBO apparently has no problem with in his current "employment". We don't get to put out platitudes instead of performance.
We're in a toughly competitive industry as it is when things are going well.
PBO has no grounding in the real world and it's showing.