President Obama's energy policies result in 5 1/2 year low for oil

[phrodeau]

Possibly accelerating forward a few developments in the process of denying the bulk of leases is not a long term strategy of increased oil production by any stretch of the imagination. Any and all that were developed at that time were done because previous exploration showed likelihood of success.

Numbers?

Sure. You are 1 of the 1,000,000's who don't accept that Obama's policies led to increased production.

 

[Que]

Sure. You are 1 of the 1,000,000's who don't accept that Obama's policies led to increased production.

Since I assume I can count you in the mere 25% of Americans that "Strongly Approve" of the President's policies...

Riddle me this:

How is it that you approve of the fictional policies that had the alleged effect of "leading to increased production" of oil (a fossil fuel) while also approving of his policies that are alleged to move us away from fossil fuels and green energy usage? (Rhetorical)

Do you approve of his policies that tend to encourage fossil fuel consumption or the ones that tend to discourage fossil fuel consumption? (Not Rhetorical)

Hint: pick only one.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Sure. You are 1 of the 1,000,000's who don't accept that Obama's policies led to increased production.

He's a textbook example of epistemic closure, i.e. "disregard inconvenient facts!"

 

[Que]

He's a textbook example of epistemic closure, i.e. "disregard inconvenient facts!"

"Textbook example" canned response in lieu of refudiating inconvenient facts.

You still have 16 hours left this year to provide a solitary example of an energy policy of the administration's that was intended to increase oil production.

Phrodeaux at least tried and failed. UD tried to salvage that and failed.

The least you could do is attempt to defend your own stated , no ascription necessary position that it was "President Obama's energy policies" that resulted in the low oil prices.

Anything? Anything at all to support that position?

No?

Next Year?

 

[Disgustipated]

Does Q-Bert not understand that consumer confidence and economic growth can contribute increased oil production without a policy?

 

[Busybody]

Does Q-Bert not understand that consumer confidence and economic growth can contribute increased oil production without a policy?

ha

what an IDIOT!

 

[Busybody]

"Textbook example" canned response in lieu of refudiating inconvenient facts.

You still have 16 hours left this year to provide a solitary example of an energy policy of the administration's that was intended to increase oil production.

Phrodeaux at least tried and failed. UD tried to salvage that and failed.

The least you could do is attempt to defend your own stated , no ascription necessary position that it was "President Obama's energy policies" that resulted in the low oil prices.

Anything? Anything at all to support that position?

No?

Next Year?

next yr?????????

I been waiting 10.6 yrs for an answer to what I axed him in 2004

 

[RobDownSouth]

Does Q-Bert not understand that consumer confidence and economic growth can contribute increased oil production without a policy?

I think at some level he understands this, but he doesn't want to jeopardize his budding relationships with his new "bros" Ishmael and AJ, so he can't admit it.

 

[Busybody]

Does Q-Bert not understand that consumer confidence and economic growth can contribute increased oil production without a policy?

it is startling to believe ANYONE can say/believe this!

then again, Obola peeps are LOW INFO....more like ZERO INFO

 

[Busybody]

I think at some level he understands this, but he doesn't want to jeopardize his budding relationships with his new "bros" Ishmael and AJ, so he can't admit it.

so consumer confidence can lead to OIL PRODUCTION INCREASES?

 

[Disgustipated]

It's always a good day for America when Sammy Davis Doofus has an aneurysm.

 

[Que]

Does Q-Bert not understand that consumer confidence and economic growth can contribute increased oil production without a policy?

1) "Consumer confidence" might lead to increased demand but it has nothing to do with the ability of the producers to meet that demand. When oil was well over $100 a barrel, clearly demand was not the issue.

2) Increased demand brought on by as you suggest "consumer confidence" has the opposite affect on price. It would have raised, not lowered the price of oil.

3) "Economic growth" will not fuel energy production to the degree energy production will in sundry ways fuel economic growth. Increased oil production is a large part of what GDP growth we have seen. Nearly all the rest of it can be attributed to the artificial stimulus of the market by the Federal reserve. It isn't housing, It isn't manufacturing that is showing the minor growth we have so far. It is oil, led by such states as North Dakota and Texas. It is circular logic to say that economic growth in the oil sector fueling the economy causes increased demand for fuel in the energy sector and therefore fuels the growth of the oil sector.

4) "Economic growth" might lead to increased demand but it has nothing to do with the ability of the producers to meet that demand. When oil was well over $100 a barrel, clearly demand was not the issue.

5) Increased demand brought on by as you suggest "economic growth" has the opposite affect on price. It would have raised, not lowered the price of oil.

6) Talk about moving the goal posts...even if any of what you suggest is true (and as you can see above- it is exactly backwards)....Rob's premise is that the low cost of oil was not just due to the general environment fostered by unnamed policies of the administration writ large, rather his contention is that it was specifically the <fossil-fuel discouraging> energy policies of the Obama administration that has directly resulted in the low price of oil. Suggesting that it maybe happened "without a policy" is actually in harmony with my position, not Rob's indefensible one.

Thanks for advancing my argument even if you don't have a grasp of the basics to be able to advocate for either point of view.

 

[Busybody]

1) "Consumer confidence" might lead to increased demand but it has nothing to do with the ability of the producers to meet that demand. When oil was well over $100 a barrel, clearly demand was not the issue.

2) Increased demand brought on by as you suggest "consumer confidence" has the opposite affect on price. It would have raised, not lowered the price of oil.

3) "Economic growth" will not fuel energy production to the degree energy production will in sundry ways fuel economic growth. Increased oil production is a large part of what GDP growth we have seen. Nearly all the rest of it can be attributed to the artificial stimulus of the market by the Federal reserve. It isn't housing, It isn't manufacturing that is showing the minor growth we have so far. It is oil, led by such states as North Dakota and Texas. It is circular logic to say that economic growth in the oil sector fueling the economy causes increased demand for fuel in the energy sector and therefore fuels the growth of the oil sector.

4) "Economic growth" might lead to increased demand but it has nothing to do with the ability of the producers to meet that demand. When oil was well over $100 a barrel, clearly demand was not the issue.

5) Increased demand brought on by as you suggest "economic growth" has the opposite affect on price. It would have raised, not lowered the price of oil.

6) Talk about moving the goal posts...even if any of what you suggest is true (and as you can see above- it is exactly backwards)....Rob's premise is that the low cost of oil was not just due to the general environment fostered by unnamed policies of the administration writ large, rather his contention is that it was specifically the <fossil-fuel discouraging> energy policies of the Obama administration that has directly resulted in the low price of oil. Suggesting that it maybe happened "without a policy" is actually in harmony with my position, not Rob's indefensible one.

Thanks for advancing my argument even if you don't have a grasp of the basics to be able to advocate for either point of view.

you actually answered?

 

[Que]

I think at some level he understands this, but he doesn't want to jeopardize his budding relationships with his new "bros" Ishmael and AJ, so he can't admit it.

I realize you are a dilettante on matters of economics, but the first building block is to understand supply and demand. It is common knowledge that Disgustipated is a "dummy" as he likes to say, but et tu?

Did you read what he wrote, or did you just grasp for any lifeline offered to keep from drowning in your thread?

It is interesting I have been trying to get you to acknowledge for days that your two positions of "restrictive energy policies do not lead to higher fuel prices" and "doing nothing about restrictive energy policies does not lower fuel prices," are not only mutually exclusive, the are both incorrect.

Here you go starting a thread directly and clearly stating the very policy I inferred from your positions that you claimed I was ascribing to you.

You know what isn't ascription? Quoting your premise in the title of the thread word-for word.

"Obama's energy policies result in 5 1/2 year low for oil!"

You, so far, have not offered one word to support that bold statement.

The year is young. You still have 15 hours this ear to 'splain yourself.

 

[Que]

you actually answered?

Purely as an academic exercise.

Yes I realize the audience but I think I covered it in laymans terms well. Not that Disgustipated could aspire to be a layman, but I assumed Rob had some idea about the direction of relationships between supply and demand.

No?

It is sort of cartoon-like for Disgustipated to wade into the fray, characteristic the argument, attribute some sort of mythological victory for a defense Rob has et to mount and then unload something that looks like a "spot the errors" problem.

 

[Busybody]

Otiose gets it
....

He likes to play the game

Otoh
...

Disqjieted is a dummy

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

All this fabu economic news is sure to help Democrats in November.

 

[Que]

Otiose gets it
....

He likes to play the game

Otoh
...

Disqjieted is a dummy

Otoh, odious Otiose plays the game obtusely.

 

[Que]

In this case, odious Otiose has not only not suited up, he has not even managed the very small task of installing the cup or the much larger task of fitting a mouth-guard.

 

[Que]

Fortunately as the RobDownSouth's crack "Research Department' scrambles to find any support for his position this year, Google is still open for business for the remaining 13.5 hours left this year.

Maybe I can help:

No results found for "Obama energy policies that increased oil production"

Oh, dear.

I'll try it without the quotes and get back to you.

 

[Que]

Press release:

Obama Admin. Admits that Increased U.S. Oil Production Lowers Prices
WASHINGTON, D.C., September 25, 2014 -
In a recent interview, the Chief of the Obama Administration’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) discussed how increased American oil production is helping to prevent price spikes in the world oil market. As reported by Reuters:
“Crude oil would cost at least $150 a barrel due to supply disruptions in the Middle East and North Africa were it not for rising production in North Dakota and Texas, U.S. Energy Information Administration chief Adam Sieminski said in an interview on Wednesday…That new oil has helped the United States weather supply disruptions from Libya, Iraq and other one-time major oil producers in which political and military turmoil has sharply depressed production, Sieminski said ahead of the North Dakota Petroleum Council's annual meeting.”
This raises two important points.

1. It proves, as Republicans have been saying all along, that increasing U.S. energy production is the best way to help lower prices.
2. Oil prices could be EVEN LOWER if the Obama Administration would stop blocking increased American energy production on federal lands. The current increase in American oil production is happening solely on state and private lands that are largely out of reach of Obama Administration’s restrictive energy policies and regulations. Under President Obama’s leadership:

• Total federal oil production has dropped 6%
• Offshore, oil production has dropped by 13%
• Onshore, the Obama Administration has had the four lowest years of federal acres leased for energy production – going back to 1988.
• Over 87% of our offshore acreage is off-limits to oil and natural gas
  production.

The House of Representatives has acted to increase American energy production by approving H.R. 2, the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act. This bipartisan legislation would help to further lower energy prices and put Americans back to work by promoting new federal offshore and onshore American energy production.

-Doc Hastings, Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources

Hmm not sure that helps.

Interesting though. This was released months ago and the administration apologists are just now trying to find some plausible reason to credit the administration for this boon to the economy.

 

[phrodeau]

Since I assume I can count you in the mere 25% of Americans that "Strongly Approve" of the President's policies...

Riddle me this:

How is it that you approve of the fictional policies that had the alleged effect of "leading to increased production" of oil (a fossil fuel) while also approving of his policies that are alleged to move us away from fossil fuels and green energy usage? (Rhetorical)

Do you approve of his policies that tend to encourage fossil fuel consumption or the ones that tend to discourage fossil fuel consumption? (Not Rhetorical)

Hint: pick only one.

All of the above, dumbass.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014...rgy-strategy-path-sustainable-economic-growth

 

[Que]

How about Forbes?

Here is an article from two years ago about how oil production is actually up under the Obama Administration. Perhaps it will help?

Although President Obama often took an antagonistic position with respect to the fossil fuel industry during his first term, the industry actually fared pretty well. U.S. oil production and dry natural gas production were both sharply higher during President Obama’s first term, but coal production fell slightly relative to President Bush’s second term.
To be clear, the production increases for oil and natural gas were not the result of President Obama’s energy policies. Rather it was due to persistently high oil and gas prices during the latter part of the last decade, which led to record investments by oil and gas companies into the development of new projects.

Hmmm. No. That one was pretty clear that President Obama's policies did not result in the development of new projects. It was the high oil and gas prices that made such development worthwhile.

Kind of the opposite of your position isn't it, Otiose?

I'll keep checking...

 

[Que]

All of the above, dumbass.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014...rgy-strategy-path-sustainable-economic-growth

When I was trying t help Rob out that was the only Google result that sounded helpful. -Until you read it and find it says nothing.

So, in your view then: with "all of the above" he both encouraged and discouraged oil production? Simultaneously?

Which part was your favorite?

The one that leads to lower prices and more consumption and therefore more greenhouse gases...

...or the one that leads to higher prices and lower consumption and therefore less greenhouse gases?

Again: not a trick question, pick one and only one. Both or "all of the above"- not an option.

 

[Que]

More bad news...3rd ear in a row, contrary to the stats that "under Obama even federal leases are producing more, that is only true if you include the leases already committed and signed for before Obama took office and brought online durring his tenure. The last three years now that we are seeing the results of his actual energy policy it is down.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) says that the share of oil and gas production coming from federal lands have plummeted from 2009 to 2013. Oil production on federal lands fell by 11 percent over this time period and natural gas production fell by 28 percent.
Federal onshore oil production fell for the third year in a row, while offshore oil production increased slightly — just enough to increase total oil production by 15,300 barrels per day in 2013 above 2012 levels.
But total federal oil production is still 316,800 barrels per day below 2010 levels of 1,975,100 barrels per day. The energy industry and federal lawmakers have long criticized the Obama administration for saddling energy producers with lengthy permitting times and environmental review processes.
“The CRS report clearly shows that where the federal government has the most control, on federal lands, it is suppressing development of the energy that all Americans own while preventing job creation and economic prosperity,” said Tim Wigley, president of pro-drilling Western Energy Alliance.

Since you are not going to like the source here are the raw numbers since I am sure you will want to break out that calculator and check the figures.

http://www.westernenergyalliance.org/sites/default/files/CRS_ProductionFederalNonFederalAreas.pdf