Dennis Prager Destroys Obama's Moronic Oil Speech

[garbage can]

Investors Business Daily trashed his energy speech too:

5 Biggest Whoppers In Obama's Energy Speech

Posted 02/23/2012 06:55 PM ET

Energy: The White House billed President Obama's energy policy speech as a response to mounting criticism of record high gas prices. What he delivered was a grab bag of excuses and outright falsehoods.

Obama's main message to struggling motorists was: It's not my fault, so stop whining. The speech only got worse from there, recycling excuses and myths that Obama's peddled for years. But there were some standout whoppers that deserve debunking. The five biggest:

"We're focused on production."

Fact: While production is up under Obama, this has nothing to do with his policies, but is the result of permits and private industry efforts that began long before Obama occupied the White House.

Obama has chosen almost always to limit production. He canceled leases on federal lands in Utah, suspended them in Montana, delayed them in Colorado and Utah, and canceled lease sales off the Virginia coast.

His administration also has been slow-walking permits in the Gulf of Mexico, approving far fewer while stretching out review times, according to the Greater New Orleans Gulf Permit Index. The Energy Dept. says Gulf oil output will be down 17% by the end of 2013, compared with the start of 2011. Swift Energy President Bruce Vincent is right to say Obama has "done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting."

"The U.S. consumes more than a fifth of the world's oil. But we only have 2% of the world's oil reserves."

Fact: Obama constantly refers to this statistic to buttress his claim that "we can't drill our way to lower gas prices." The argument goes that since the U.S. supply is limited, it won't ever make a difference to world prices.

It's bogus. New exploration and drilling technologies have uncovered vast amounts of recoverable oil.

In fact, the U.S. has a mind-boggling 1.4 trillion barrels of oil, enough to "fuel the present needs in the U.S. for around 250 years," according to the Institute for Energy Research. The problem is the government has put most of this supply off limits.

"Because of the investments we've made, the use of clean, renewable energy in this country has nearly doubled."

Fact: Production of renewable energy — biomass, wind, solar and the like — climbed just 12% between 2008 and 2011, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.

"We need to double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising."

Fact: Renewable energy simply won't play an important role in the country's energy picture anytime soon, accounting for just 13% of U.S. energy production by 2035, according to the EIA.

"There are no short-term silver bullets when it comes to gas prices."

Fact: Obama could drive down oil prices right now simply by announcing a more aggressive effort to boost domestic supplies. When President Bush lifted a moratorium in 2008, oil prices immediately fell $9 a barrel.

Obama said in his speech that Americans aren't stupid. He's right about that, which is why most are giving his energy policy a thumbs down.

I want to hear responses from the oil haters

 

[JustaSCOUNDREL]

Trysail's graph shows we haven't been in a recession since 2009...can't have it both ways...which is it?

We fell into recession in 2008 and had 5 quarters out of 6 of negative GDP growth. Recession! Since then GDP growth has been positive although pretty anemic over all. No recession.

As to no oil. Bull Shit. We recently had a new oil well blow out in the Gulf that was spewing ~48,000 barrels of oil a day. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. the Brazilian oil company just discovered a mammoth oil field off the coast of Brazil. Oil is still there it is just harder to find and extract.

The days of a hundred years ago when then would drill a few hundred feet down in West Texas and hit a geyser are gone.

Last year we imported over 400,000 bbl of oil from the Saudis and 360,000 from Venezuela.

At a $100/bbl we sent over $76 million to two countries who don't like us very much. I don't know about you but I'd much rather send that money to Exxon, Chevron et al.


Drilling right now will not cut the price of gas at the pumps tomorrow but had we drilled 4 years ago at least American money would be going to American companies rather then those who are not our friends.

Mike

 

[phrodeau]

Why should the US bust our balls drilling so that China, India and Brazil can have cheap gas?

 

[unregistered]

 

[TexasWife25]

Especially when you misrepresent them. Almost all of those were the result of permits issued during the Bush administration.

Not they I am agreeing your statement is fact, I havent bothered to google. But, what does it matter when they were issued?

 

[Ishmael]

Why should the US bust our balls drilling so that China, India and Brazil can have cheap gas?

You've swerved into a point here fuzzy foot.

The US is sitting on a sea of oil that dwarfs that of Saudi Arabia before they started drilling. Not particularly clean oil, nor cheap to extract, but oil measured in the trillions of barrels none the less.

So, why aren't we exploiting the resource? Two possible explanations, the first being that the eco-freaks are so back to the land that they really don't care if the nation is impoverished. They could care less that the lowest quintile, or even the two lowest, are going to be devastated by outrageous energy costs. I suppose that they may believe that those on the lower rung are going to be subsidized in some manner, don't count on it.

An alternate view may be that the powers that be think that we, the United States, will just buy up imported oil, along with most of the rest of the world, until such time as the rest of the world have none left to sell. At which time we'll be the only energy rich nation left. Of course this is of no consequence in a free market arrangement. However in a scenario where the resource is 'nationalized', the government can set any price it wants. That assumes that the rest of the world, starving because they can't power the engines of agriculture, will idly sit by and pay that price. No consideration being given to the possibility that they just might collectively attempt to take it by force. Even if they fail the cost will be horrendous.

Ishmael

 

[Dribble]

Especially when you misrepresent them. Almost all of those were the result of permits issued during the Bush administration.

Not they I am agreeing your statement is fact, I havent bothered to google. But, what does it matter when they were issued?

You won't get an answer from him TW.

I will answer. It doesn't matter. Once again, what DOES matter is the fact that the number of ACTIVE rigs in the US has increased 4x in the last 3 years. Amazing how all that "regulation" is slowing down drilling. A simple google search will yield that 57% of all onshore leases and 70% of all offshore leases are sitting idle (based on Dec 2011 estimates). This is the cream of the crop in terms of available drilling real estate. Funny how that works.

 

[Dribble]

You've swerved into a point here fuzzy foot.

The US is sitting on a sea of oil that dwarfs that of Saudi Arabia before they started drilling. Not particularly clean oil, nor cheap to extract, but oil measured in the trillions of barrels none the less.

So, why aren't we exploiting the resource? Two possible explanations, the first being that the eco-freaks are so back to the land that they really don't care if the nation is impoverished. They could care less that the lowest quintile, or even the two lowest, are going to be devastated by outrageous energy costs. I suppose that they may believe that those on the lower rung are going to be subsidized in some manner, don't count on it.

An alternate view may be that the powers that be think that we, the United States, will just buy up imported oil, along with most of the rest of the world, until such time as the rest of the world have none left to sell. At which time we'll be the only energy rich nation left. Of course this is of no consequence in a free market arrangement. However in a scenario where the resource is 'nationalized', the government can set any price it wants. That assumes that the rest of the world, starving because they can't power the engines of agriculture, will idly sit by and pay that price. No consideration being given to the possibility that they just might collectively attempt to take it by force. Even if they fail the cost will be horrendous.

Ishmael

Here let me educate you...the reason we don't tap into the oil you mentioned is because it is cheaper to buy it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

Here let me educate you...the reason we don't tap into the oil you mentioned is because it is cheaper to buy it.

No it isn't, not now. That was true back in the $1/gal. days but no more. Technology has moved that price point. Further my isolationist friend, an abundance of oil, even if some is at a higher production cost, moves the price point down, or maybe you don't follow the commodity market differentiation on petroleum pricing.

Ishmael

 

[TexasWife25]

It matters when Obama and his sycophants try and use those facts to falsely imply that they had something to do with the increased production.

Stop the presses! Im .. .going .. to agree with you, sort of. When they talk about drilling/oil/permits etc, it is implied that the credit for that goes to Obama. I wouldnt say its false, but it is more omitting of all the facts to paint the picture that you want. A common political tacit.

 

[phrodeau]

Stop the presses! Im .. .going .. to agree with you, sort of. When they talk about drilling/oil/permits etc, it is implied that the credit for that goes to Obama. I wouldnt say its false, but it is more omitting of all the facts to paint the picture that you want. A common political tacit.

Bingo. Omitting facts is the conservative way.

miles: "Why DON'T we drill for the oil????"
TexasWife25: "We drill more now, then we have in the last 20 years."
Ishmael: "So, why aren't we exploiting the resource?"

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

So who would own all this magic oil?

 

[Dribble]

No it isn't, not now. That was true back in the $1/gal. days but no more. Technology has moved that price point. Further my isolationist friend, an abundance of oil, even if some is at a higher production cost, moves the price point down, or maybe you don't follow the commodity market differentiation on petroleum pricing.

Ishmael

Depends on the shale...it adds anywhere between $12 and $95 to the production cost of the barrel. This is an added cost above drilling. Again...google

You obviously don't own stock and don't follow the markets. If you did you would understand simple facts...shareholders expect a return. If a company's profit is 5%, then for a $50 barrel of oil, that's $2.50. If the price of oil is $100 a barrel...the profit just increased to $5. No changes in processing...no changes in shipping...no changes to anything...except the shareholders get smiles. It is in the best interest for oil companies to keep the prices high. Anyone that hasn't shifted their portfolio to favor oil is missing the boat.

So, you were saying?

 

[sethp]

Dennis Prager is a blowhard. He's ultra religious--if you are not following the 10 commandments to the letter, you are going to hell. His views and quotes are all over the internet. Remember that he is a radio "Personality"...meaning simply that he has a radio friendly voice. He's an entertainer and comedian. I enjoy John Stewart but I don't base my political views on a show on comedy central or talk radio and you shouldn't either.

 

[Ishmael]

Depends on the shale...it adds anywhere between $12 and $95 to the production cost of the barrel. This is an added cost above drilling. Again...google

You obviously don't own stock and don't follow the markets. If you did you would understand simple facts...shareholders expect a return. If a company's profit is 5%, then for a $50 barrel of oil, that's $2.50. If the price of oil is $100 a barrel...the profit just increased to $5. No changes in processing...no changes in shipping...no changes to anything...except the shareholders get smiles. It is in the best interest for oil companies to keep the prices high. Anyone that hasn't shifted their portfolio to favor oil is missing the boat.

So, you were saying?

I have.

So you're saying that it is in the interest of the government, acting on behalf of the people, to force that price even higher?

Your whole diatribe on economics was 101 shit. It's a supply/demand driven market, not unlike all others. You are implying collusion on the part of the suppliers to escalate prices. I'm countering with the fact that the government is a party to the conspiracy. You repsond with 'idiot wind' paragraphs.

Not unlike the other supply side restrictionists you make excuses, "Not enough", "Costs too much", the excuses never end. You have no interest in free markets, only in what you can control, "for the common good". which, in the end, translates into how you want others to behave. (All the while figuring out how you might profit.)

Ishmael

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I have.

So you're saying that it is in the interest of the government, acting on behalf of the people, to force that price even higher?

Your whole diatribe on economics was 101 shit. It's a supply/demand driven market, not unlike all others. You are implying collusion on the part of the suppliers to escalate prices. I'm countering with the fact that the government is a party to the conspiracy. You repsond with 'idiot wind' paragraphs.

Not unlike the other supply side restrictionists you make excuses, "Not enough", "Costs too much", the excuses never end. You have no interest in free markets, only in what you can control, "for the common good". which, in the end, translates into how you want others to behave. (All the while figuring out how you might profit.)

Ishmael

The government can't force the price higher. Making a statement like that would lead one to believe you have no idea how supply & demand work.

 

[Ishmael]

The government can't force the price higher. Making a statement like that would lead one to believe you have no idea how supply & demand work.

Of course it can grasshopper.

Ishmael

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Of course it can grasshopper.

Ishmael

If it could there would be no real estate bubble.

 

[Ishmael]

If it could there would be no real estate bubble.

It can do anything to any market if you allow it, take cigarettes for example. If you think the higher taxes are about health, you're a fool.

Ishmael

 

[breakwall]

The government can't force the price higher. Making a statement like that would lead one to believe you have no idea how supply & demand work.

Gas taxes are the quiet killers. Why is Canadian gas 15% more expensive? It's from the same pool as the US. That's nice revenue.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

It can do anything to any market if you allow it, take cigarettes for example. If you think the higher taxes are about health, you're a fool.

Ishmael

Tell us again how you count oil as a renewable energy source.

 

[mercury14]

The US is sitting on a sea of oil that dwarfs that of Saudi Arabia before they started drilling.

Source please.