So Obama blew in to the state

Ishmael

Literotica Guru
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Posts
84,005
to make a 15 min. speech down in the oil patch. It's difficult to understand why he bothered to fly in at all unless the government is handing out frequent flier miles for Air Force One passengers.

His speech was energy related and he made several points;

1.) There are more wells in production today than there were when he took office.

This is true but misleading. The permits for new drilling and the putting of old wells back into production were as a result of permits issued during the Clinton/Bush years. In other words his administration was responsible for nothing behind the facts. About the best that he can say about his policies is that he didn't revoke any of the permits in place (except for the offshore drilling permits of course).

2.) The United States will always be importing oil.

Also true for the most part. The issue is the extent, percentage wise, that we'll be importing. It should be obvious to anyone that the less we produce, the more we'll be importing. This is going to be true no matter to what extent we develop alternative energy sources. We will never be free of the need for petroleum, at least not within the next several decades, and there are certain critical parts of our transportation system that just aren't going to run on any known alternative at this time.

3.) We have to continue to develop alternatives.

Agreed, and it's best done if the government gets out of the business of picking the winners. The track record is abysmal and that record of failure goes back damn near 200 years. The public monies squandered on the Solyndra's and others is beyond shameful and the fact that large democrat donors have been tied to virtually all of these failures cries for investigation.

3.) Oil prices will continue to rise.

They damn sure will unless we start developing our own resources. This is where the president seems to have a total disconnect with reality. As if supply has nothing to do with the price at the pump. If that were true the rumored release of several millions of barrels from the strategic reserve would NOT have resulted in a 5% drop (temporary) in oil prices and the recent statement by the Saudis that they would make up for lost production from Iran would NOT have resulted in a 3% drop. If these events were not a clear demonstration of the relationship between supply and price I don't know what is.

And the prices may indeed rise even if we do start developing our resources, but that eventuality will boil down to how high and how fast, oh, and inflation caused by "quantitative easing."

4. We have to conserve.

Not to worry Mr. president, your policies leading to damn near usurious petroleum prices will most certainly lead to conservation, primarily because no one will be able to buy the shit to begin with.

Ishmael
 
How come the Liberation of Iraq didn't result in cheaper gas?

Remember all that "Halliburton-/It's all About Oil" rhetoric? (of course you do)

Iraq: liberated...gas goes up.
Libya: liberated...gas goes up.
Iran: In the Crosshairs...gas goes up.

Maybe the USA should go back to funding Friendly Puppet Regimes.
 
How come the Liberation of Iraq didn't result in cheaper gas?

Remember all that "Halliburton-/It's all About Oil" rhetoric? (of course you do)

Iraq: liberated...gas goes up.
Libya: liberated...gas goes up.
Iran: In the Crosshairs...gas goes up.

Maybe the USA should go back to funding Friendly Puppet Regimes.

It's more complex than that, world wide demand is up and that puts upward pressure on prices.

But your point is well taken, our 'interventions' have generally only resulted in one totalitarian regime being replaced by another.

Ishmael
 
Your second #3 is quite a hoot. It claims supply affects price, then cites two examples where the supply remains exactly the same and the price drops. A clear demonstration, LOL.
 
It's more complex than that, world wide demand is up and that puts upward pressure on prices.

But your point is well taken, our 'interventions' have generally only resulted in one totalitarian regime being replaced by another.

Ishmael

What about freedom, liberty and apple pie? No little Merikuh flags?
 
Your second #3 is quite a hoot. It claims supply affects price, then cites two examples where the supply remains exactly the same and the price drops. A clear demonstration, LOL.

Both of those events promised future increases in supply, commodity markets trade in futures, so the price drops. You're ignorance of markets is not my problem, it's yours.

Ishmael
 
Puppet Regimes are more fun.

The Shah was way cooler than the Ayatollah, for example.

And there was way less shit going on in Iraq with Saddam.




It's more complex than that, world wide demand is up and that puts upward pressure on prices.

But your point is well taken, our 'interventions' have generally only resulted in one totalitarian regime being replaced by another.

Ishmael
 
If that were true the rumored release of several millions of barrels from the strategic reserve would NOT have resulted in a 5% drop (temporary) in oil prices and the recent statement by the Saudis that they would make up for lost production from Iran would NOT have resulted in a 3% drop.


5 million barrels will effect a drop in the price of a world wide production of 85 million barrels a day?
 
Both of those events promised future increases in supply, commodity markets trade in futures, so the price drops. You're ignorance of markets is not my problem, it's yours.

Ishmael
The current cost is based on future supply.

Your inability to make a "clear demonstration" is not my problem.
 
to make a 15 min. speech down in the oil patch. It's difficult to understand why he bothered to fly in at all unless the government is handing out frequent flier miles for Air Force One passengers.

His speech was energy related and he made several points;

1.) There are more wells in production today than there were when he took office.

This is true but misleading. The permits for new drilling and the putting of old wells back into production were as a result of permits issued during the Clinton/Bush years. In other words his administration was responsible for nothing behind the facts. About the best that he can say about his policies is that he didn't revoke any of the permits in place (except for the offshore drilling permits of course).

2.) The United States will always be importing oil.

Also true for the most part. The issue is the extent, percentage wise, that we'll be importing. It should be obvious to anyone that the less we produce, the more we'll be importing. This is going to be true no matter to what extent we develop alternative energy sources. We will never be free of the need for petroleum, at least not within the next several decades, and there are certain critical parts of our transportation system that just aren't going to run on any known alternative at this time.

3.) We have to continue to develop alternatives.

Agreed, and it's best done if the government gets out of the business of picking the winners. The track record is abysmal and that record of failure goes back damn near 200 years. The public monies squandered on the Solyndra's and others is beyond shameful and the fact that large democrat donors have been tied to virtually all of these failures cries for investigation.

3.) Oil prices will continue to rise.

They damn sure will unless we start developing our own resources. This is where the president seems to have a total disconnect with reality. As if supply has nothing to do with the price at the pump. If that were true the rumored release of several millions of barrels from the strategic reserve would NOT have resulted in a 5% drop (temporary) in oil prices and the recent statement by the Saudis that they would make up for lost production from Iran would NOT have resulted in a 3% drop. If these events were not a clear demonstration of the relationship between supply and price I don't know what is.

And the prices may indeed rise even if we do start developing our resources, but that eventuality will boil down to how high and how fast, oh, and inflation caused by "quantitative easing."

4. We have to conserve.

Not to worry Mr. president, your policies leading to damn near usurious petroleum prices will most certainly lead to conservation, primarily because no one will be able to buy the shit to begin with.

Ishmael

Don't forget the democrat plan to conserve energy by destroying the economy so there's less demand for oil and other fossil fuel supplies. Unemployed people use far less energy than employed people. :confused:
 
Don't forget the democrat plan to conserve energy by destroying the economy so there's less demand for oil and other fossil fuel supplies. Unemployed people use far less energy than employed people. :confused:
Maybe that explains the Republican plans to destroy other countries' economies.
 
to make a 15 min. speech down in the oil patch. It's difficult to understand why he bothered to fly in at all unless the government is handing out frequent flier miles for Air Force One passengers.

His speech was energy related and he made several points;

1.) There are more wells in production today than there were when he took office.

This is true but misleading. The permits for new drilling and the putting of old wells back into production were as a result of permits issued during the Clinton/Bush years. In other words his administration was responsible for nothing behind the facts. About the best that he can say about his policies is that he didn't revoke any of the permits in place (except for the offshore drilling permits of course).

2.) The United States will always be importing oil.

Also true for the most part. The issue is the extent, percentage wise, that we'll be importing. It should be obvious to anyone that the less we produce, the more we'll be importing. This is going to be true no matter to what extent we develop alternative energy sources. We will never be free of the need for petroleum, at least not within the next several decades, and there are certain critical parts of our transportation system that just aren't going to run on any known alternative at this time.

3.) We have to continue to develop alternatives.

Agreed, and it's best done if the government gets out of the business of picking the winners. The track record is abysmal and that record of failure goes back damn near 200 years. The public monies squandered on the Solyndra's and others is beyond shameful and the fact that large democrat donors have been tied to virtually all of these failures cries for investigation.

3.) Oil prices will continue to rise.

They damn sure will unless we start developing our own resources. This is where the president seems to have a total disconnect with reality. As if supply has nothing to do with the price at the pump. If that were true the rumored release of several millions of barrels from the strategic reserve would NOT have resulted in a 5% drop (temporary) in oil prices and the recent statement by the Saudis that they would make up for lost production from Iran would NOT have resulted in a 3% drop. If these events were not a clear demonstration of the relationship between supply and price I don't know what is.

And the prices may indeed rise even if we do start developing our resources, but that eventuality will boil down to how high and how fast, oh, and inflation caused by "quantitative easing."

4. We have to conserve.

Not to worry Mr. president, your policies leading to damn near usurious petroleum prices will most certainly lead to conservation, primarily because no one will be able to buy the shit to begin with.

Ishmael


So, everything he said was true--and you have a problem with that?

BTW, you have #3 twice.


Not Ish :cool:
 
Actually, world demand is up less than 1%.

The issue appears to be uncertainty of supply due to geopolitical tensions in Libya and Iran causing supply side futures to go up.

If the USA could find a way to stop bombing the snot out of oil producing countries, the price of gasoline in the USA would likely be at historic lows, thereby spurring new growth and ending the Global Recession.

See:
http://omrpublic.iea.org/


It's more complex than that, world wide demand is up and that puts upward pressure on prices.

But your point is well taken, our 'interventions' have generally only resulted in one totalitarian regime being replaced by another.

Ishmael
 
Actually, world demand is up less than 1%.

The issue appears to be uncertainty of supply due to geopolitical tensions in Libya and Iran causing supply side futures to go up.

If the USA could find a way to stop bombing the snot out of oil producing countries, the price of gasoline in the USA would likely be at historic lows, thereby spurring new growth and ending the Global Recession.

See:
http://omrpublic.iea.org/

Expected that's what you call demand.
 
Actually, world demand is up less than 1%.

The issue appears to be uncertainty of supply due to geopolitical tensions in Libya and Iran causing supply side futures to go up.

If the USA could find a way to stop bombing the snot out of oil producing countries, the price of gasoline in the USA would likely be at historic lows, thereby spurring new growth and ending the Global Recession.

See:
http://omrpublic.iea.org/

That's where you get into the futures markets.

There are times I believe that Iran is doing a rope-a-dope. They are rapidly depleting their reserves and everyone knows it so it's in their best interest to keep oil prices as high as they can. Threaten to close the straits, brag about progress on their nuclear programs, kick the UN inspectors out, threaten Israel with annihilation. Make every possible effort to keep that part of the globe in a turmoil. The traders freak and run up the prices.

The problem is that they truly are crazy bastards and you just can't ignore them.

Ishmael
 
3.) Oil prices will continue to rise.

They damn sure will unless we start developing our own resources. This is where the president seems to have a total disconnect with reality. As if supply has nothing to do with the price at the pump. If that were true the rumored release of several millions of barrels from the strategic reserve would NOT have resulted in a 5% drop (temporary) in oil prices and the recent statement by the Saudis that they would make up for lost production from Iran would NOT have resulted in a 3% drop. If these events were not a clear demonstration of the relationship between supply and price I don't know what is.


Completely wrong.

There is really no "developing our own resources". When Chevron drills for oil in the US it puts the oil on the global market. It NEVER ignores the global market to sell just to the US. At least I've never seen them do that sort of thing and I don't see why they would - and if they did, they'd sell directly to the US based on global oil prices anyway.

As I've already mathematically showed, a 25% increase in US oil production (which is probably impossible) equals about a 1% increase in global production. That's not going to drive cost down much at all, and any difference is going to be dwarfed by the impact of changes in demand and the behavior of commodity traders.

Releasing some of the strategic oil reserves reduces prices a little bit in the short term for two reasons. One, it spikes supply. Two, it demonstrates that governments are willing to take action to decrease the price of oil. This sends commodity traders into a tizzy as they reconsider the value of oil.
 
Last edited:
If that were true the rumored release of several millions of barrels from the strategic reserve would NOT have resulted in a 5% drop (temporary) in oil prices and the recent statement by the Saudis that they would make up for lost production from Iran would NOT have resulted in a 3% drop.


5 million barrels will effect a drop in the price of a world wide production of 85 million barrels a day?

Static analysis ignores Human Action and the psychology of the market.

Hope and fear drive speculation, change creates fear, fear creates caution.

If you say there is more of any commodity then the cautious will take measure not to get hurt. Once a few traders start doing that, the fear begins to spread just the way that hope has pushed the DOW up in such a quick and irrational fashion.
 
Last edited:
They are not drilling on Federal land, thats down 6%, its only drilling on private sector lands that is spuring production.

Kudlow was reporting that if allowed to drill, we could be sitting on 1 trillion barrells of oil, saying, the US is the new Saudi Arabia......

this is crazy...
 
They are not drilling on Federal land, thats down 6%, its only drilling on private sector lands that is spuring production.

Kudlow was reporting that if allowed to drill, we could be sitting on 1 trillion barrells of oil, saying, the US is the new Saudi Arabia......

this is crazy...

Kudlow is making things up.

Any update on his coke habit?
 
Last edited:
Kudlow is making things up.

lol

Yeah, Kudlow is the one here who makes things up.

Tell all of the "conservatives" if it's okay to lie to eyer because he's a [fill in the adjective] conservative then why should they not assume that you lie to them too? Because you say you don't? Because you use a different adjective?
 
lol

Yeah, Kudlow is the one here who makes things up.

Tell all of the "conservatives" if it's okay to lie to eyer because he's a [fill in the adjective] conservative then why should they not assume that you lie to them too? Because you say you don't? Because you use a different adjective?

What do you expect? He's the only one who believes his multiple personalities really do exist.
 
I expect him to get louder, crazier and meaner and then go all 70/30 on us...


;) ;)

There's a lot of that going on here lately. The other day Rob "The Liar" actually said I'd attacked his family. The cheese has finally slipped completely off his cracker.
 
There's a lot of that going on here lately. The other day Rob "The Liar" actually said I'd attacked his family. The cheese has finally slipped completely off his cracker.

I don't think it was ever on.

I know merc's one tomorrow away...
 
Back
Top