Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 20, 2014, 04:41:32 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Blame Oil Speculators, Not Obama, For Rising Oil Prices  (Read 637 times)
blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10933


Getbig!


« on: February 22, 2012, 05:18:41 PM »

Blame Oil Speculators, Not Obama, For Rising Oil Prices

By Alex Seitz-Wald

As the improving economy has robbed conservatives of their chief talking point against President Obama, they’ve turned to rising gas prices as the next problem to pin on the president.

Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) “instructed fellow Republicans to embrace the gas-pump anger,” while Rick Santorum conspiratorially claimed Obama is intentionally pushing up prices to cut carbon emissions. Not to be outdone, Newt Gingrich released a 30-minute video today about how “the Obama administration is so anti‑oil” that they’ve forced the price of gas to go up.

But there’s little truth to claims that Obama has curbed U.S. oil production and driven up gas prices in the process. As NPR noted this morning, the number of drilling rigs in U.S. oil fields has quadrupled under Obama and domestic oil production hit an 8-year high in 2011. For the first time in 60 years, the U.S. is now a net fuel exporter...So why are gas prices so high? As McClatchy’s Kevin Hall explains today, there is a systemic problem: speculation...As Hall reports:


Historically, financial speculators accounted for about 30 percent of oil trading in commodity markets, while producers and end users made up about 70 percent. Today it’s almost the reverse.

A McClatchy review of the latest Commitment of Traders report from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates oil trading, shows that producers and merchants made up just 36 percent of all contracts traded in the week ending Feb. 14 while speculators who will never take delivery of the oil made up 64 percent.

<...>

Finally, after many delays, the government board responsible for regulating commodity futures markets finalized a rule in October to limit speculation, a power it was given by the Dodd-Frank Wall street reform law. However, the rule won’t go into effect until next October, as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) needs to collect “one year of interest data” first. The financial industry is fighting the new rule, but just today, the CFTC took action against a company in different market, providing an example of how the energy regulation can effectively work.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/22/430184/blame-oil-speculators-for-gas-prices/
Report to moderator   Logged
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20585


Decepticons! Scramble!


« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2012, 05:19:40 PM »

Deflection tactics. He cant afford to be blamed for high gas prices with the election coming up.
Obama is a piece of shit.
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 83987


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2012, 05:26:21 PM »

oh another group to blame.

syra unrest.  iran holding out EU oil.  Speculators.


and with experts and FOX repeating this bullshit, obama still claims he has nothing to do with $5 gas.
Report to moderator   Logged

blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10933


Getbig!


« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2012, 05:35:25 PM »


oil spiked more than 2% in one day to their highest level in nine months on Tuesday Feb. 21.  WTI front month contract closed at $105.84, while Brent ended at $121.66 on ICE, primarily on investors fear of potential conflict over the escalating tensions between the US, Europe, Israel, and Iran.  A second Greek bailout deal of €130bn (£110bn; $170bn) also helped to inject some optimism into the market (which would seem totally mis-placed as we may need to relive this Greek drama in two years).  Nevertheless, the fact remains crude oil market supply and demand has not changed a bit to warrant a 2%+ price jump in one day.

The U.S. and its allies believe Iran is building nuclear weapons, which Tehran has vehemently denied. Last week, the European Union (EU) imposed a ban on Iran oil imports effective July 1, and froze the assets of its central bank. In December, the U.S. said it would "blacklist" companies in the U.S. market if they do business with Iran’s central bank.

In retaliation, over the weekend, Iran announced that it halted oil exports to France and the United Kingdom and warned European companies that it would halt their supplies unless they sign long-term contracts.  However, France and UK do not import a significant portion of crude oil from Iran, and Europe could most likely still get alternative crude supplies from other sources like Saudi, or Russia.

Despite Iran oil ministry spokesman Alireza Nikzad's statement that "we will sell our oil to new customers," according to Financial Times, Tehran is “struggling” to find a new buyer for the estimated 500,000 barrels of oil per day left as surplus from its decision to halt sales to France and the UK.  And another Reuters report quoting commodities traders that "Iran is turning to barter - offering gold bullion in overseas vaults or tankerloads of oil - in return for food as new financial sanctions have hurt its ability to import basic staples for its 74 million people....Difficulty paying for urgent import needs has contributed to sharp rises in the prices of basic foodstuffs, causing hardship for Iranians."

 
Chart Source: CNN

Earlier report from AP suggested that Iran still had support from its major Asian buyers as India has joined China in saying it will not cut back on oil imports from Iran.  But the latest development, according to Reuters, is that China, India and Japan are now planning cuts of at least 10% in Iranian crude imports as tightening U.S. sanctions make it difficult to keep doing business with Iran. China, India and Japan together buy about 45% of Iran's crude exports.  So the cut-back on Iranian oil imports from these three big clients will be yet another serious blow to Iran.

Iran is OPEC's second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia, and exports 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, about 3% of world supplies. About 500,000 barrels go to Europe and most of the rest goes to China, India, Japan and South Korea.

Earlier this month, the International Energy Agency cut its 2012 oil-demand growth forecast for the second time in just a few weeks and said the decrease in demand would leave the oil market with enough flexibility to adjust to any loss of Iranian crude exports when sanctions take effect in July.  So similar to the "Libyan sweet crude supply crisis" of last year, even if oil exports from Iran goes completely off line, the shortfall would not be such a crisis as priced in right now by investor's fear.

However, the reality remains that crude oil prices get disproportionately distorted and detached from supply and demand fundamentals whenever there's a whiff of geopolitical tension and conflict.

Right now, it seems Iran could be the one blinks first (war or peace) with multiple sanctions putting mounting pressure on the country's basic necessity imports, while hurting its oil revenue.  But with Iran still a volatile unknown, analysts say oil could continue to rise and expect to see gasoline at $4 a gallon, and some even see $5, heading into the summer driving season.

If the analysts were right, $4 or $5 gasoline by summer time would certainly be detrimental to the nascent U.S. recovery, and debt-troubled Europe, which could bring demand destruction pushing oil prices back down.

Crude oil prices or Iran, no matter who blinks first, one thing for certain is that consumers most likely will end up footing the bill of higher fuel costs, and world economy would suffer as a whole in the process as well.





Read more: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/EconForecastFullFeed/~3/VJkVU_k4f7c/crude-oil-vs-iran-who-blinks-first.html#ixzz1nA1WvhwR
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2012, 06:22:14 PM »

Lol!!!!    This thread is hilarious!!! 
Report to moderator   Logged
JBGRAY
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2020



« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2012, 06:24:19 PM »

Interesting.  Just to note, the media did have a feeding frenzy and blamed the hell out of Bush when gas was 4 bucks a gallon.  Now, they're doing their job of protecting Obama at every turn.

It is interesting to note what the public's perception towards Israel is going to be when gas hits over 5 dollars a gallon knowing full well the lobby is partly responsible for the US's sanctions towards Iran.
Report to moderator   Logged
GigantorX
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5462


GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!


« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2012, 06:30:43 PM »

Interesting.  Just to note, the media did have a feeding frenzy and blamed the hell out of Bush when gas was 4 bucks a gallon.  Now, they're doing their job of protecting Obama at every turn.

It is interesting to note what the public's perception towards Israel is going to be when gas hits over 5 dollars a gallon knowing full well the lobby is partly responsible for the US's sanctions towards Iran.

Very true.

When it was Bush in the WH it was all:

-Secret behind closed doors energy policy meetings with "Big Oil"
-Dick Cheney
-No Energy Policy!
-In bed with big oil!

and it's

*Crickets Chirping*
-It's not Obama's fault
-It's Iran's fault, Syria's fault, speculators fault...
-A strong economy!
-*Crickets Chirping*
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25256



« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2012, 07:09:49 PM »

Very true.

When it was Bush in the WH it was all:

-Secret behind closed doors energy policy meetings with "Big Oil"
-Dick Cheney
-No Energy Policy!
-In bed with big oil!

and it's

*Crickets Chirping*
-It's not Obama's fault
-It's Iran's fault, Syria's fault, speculators fault...
-A strong economy!
-*Crickets Chirping*
pretty much sums it up
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2012, 07:26:22 PM »

pretty much sums it up


Chickens are coming home to roost for three years of awful policy from Obama, all of which I have documented, that the communist left are trying to deflect from. 
Report to moderator   Logged
blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10933


Getbig!


« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2012, 07:27:01 PM »

The next time you drive to the gas station, only to find prices are still sky high compared to just a few years ago, take notice of the rows of foreclosed houses you'll pass along the way. They may seem like two parts of a spell of economic bad luck, but high gas prices and home foreclosures are actually very much interrelated. Before most people were even aware there was an economic crisis, investment managers abandoned failing mortgage-backed securities and looked for other lucrative investments. What they settled on was oil futures.

An oil future is simply a contract between a buyer and seller, where the buyer agrees to purchase a certain amount of a commodity -- in this case oil -- at a fixed price [source: CFTC]. Futures offer a way for a purchaser to bet on whether a commodity will increase in price down the road. Once locked into a contract, a futures buyer would receive a barrel of oil for the price dictated in the future contract, even if the market price was higher when the barrel was actually delivered.

­As in all cases, Wall Street heard the word "bet" and flocked to futures, taking the market to strange new places on the fringe of legality. In the 19th and early 20th centuries it bet on grain. In the 21st century it was oil. Despite U.S. petroleum reserves being at an eight-year high, the price of oil rose dramatically beginning in 2006. While demand rose, supply kept pace. Yet, prices still skyrocketed. This means that the laws of supply and demand no longer applied in the oil markets. Instead, an artificial market developed.

Artificial markets are volatile; they're difficult to predict and can turn on a dime. As a result of the artificial oil market, the average price per barrel of crude oil increased from $31.61 in July 2004 to $137.11 in July 2008 [source: DOE]. The average cost for a gallon of regular unleaded gas in the United States grew from $1.93 to $4.09 over the same period [source: DOE].

So what happened?
As oil prices (and, by extension gas prices) suddenly soared, the world was caught off guard. Competing theories seeking to explain the sudden rise emerged. Perhaps the world had finally hit peak oil -- the point where oil production inevitably begins to decline due to the finite amount of oil on the planet. That argument was undermined by the amount of oil left in reserve; supply still exceeded demand. Others pointed to geopolitics. Unstable nations or countries hostile to the West like Nigeria and Venezuela are depended on to supply much of the world's oil. Perhaps it was instability that was causing volatility in the markets. Michigan Sen. Carl Levin pointed out during a hearing on energy, "Without doubt, much of our oil comes from unstable parts of the world. But that is nothing new; it's been that way for decades" [source: Levin].

The more Congress and market watchers looked into the rise in oil prices, the more it looked like oil speculation was responsible.

Everything that can be bought or sold has what 18th-century political economist Adam Smith called a natural price. This price is the sum total of the values of everything that came together to create the product or service. Raw materials, labor, distribution -- all of these add to the natural price of a product. Any amount that the seller of a good or service can get above this natural price is profit.

What speculators do is bet on what price a commodity will reach by a future date, through instruments called derivatives. Unlike an investment in an actual commodity (such as a barrel of oil), a derivative's value is based on the value of a commodity (for example, a bet on whether a barrel of oil will increase or decrease in price). Speculators have no hand in the sale of the commodity they're betting on; they're not the buyer or the seller.

By betting on the price outcome with only a single futures contract, a speculator has no effect on a market. It's simply a bet. But a speculator with the capital to purchase a sizeable number of futures derivatives at one price can actually sway the market. As energy researcher F. William Engdahl put it, "peculators trade on rumor, not fact" [source: Engdahl]. A speculator purchasing vast futures at higher than the current market price can cause oil producers to horde their commodity in the hopes they'll be able to sell it later on at the future price. This drives prices up in reality -- both future and present prices -- due to the decreased amount of oil currently available on the market.

Investment firms that can influence the oil futures market stand to make a lot; oil companies that both produce the commodity and drive prices up of their product up through oil futures derivatives stand to make even more. Investigations into the unregulated oil futures exchanges turned up major financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. But it also revealed energy producers like Vitol, a Swiss company that owned 11 percent of the oil futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange alone [source: Washington Post].

As a result of speculation among these and other major players, an estimated 60 percent of the price of oil per barrel was added; a $100 barrel of oil, in reality, should cost $40 [source: Engdahl]. And despite having an agency created to prevent just such speculative price inflation, by the time oil prices skyrocketed, the government had made a paper tiger out of it.

In the United States, oil futures come in three major forms: contracts on crude oil, gasoline and heating oil. All three of these commodities are essential for the nation to operate and thrive. Unfortunately, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) was unable to do anything to stop manipulation of the market for the energy on which we're painfully dependent.

The CFTC was established by Congress in 1974 specifically to prevent speculation from artificially inflating the price of commodities. Over time, its powers were slowly stripped. The scope of the CFTC's power to regulate is limited to trading within the formal setting of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). Traders on this exchange must file daily reports on exchanges so the commission can keep an eye on speculation. But speculators were able to make an end run around the CFTC's regulatory power, thanks to help from oil giant Enron.

The year 2000 was a bad one for consumers as far as oil goes. Prices remained low (less than $30 a barrel), but mechanisms were set in motion that would raise prices and vastly increase oil company profits. That year, Congress (under lobby by Enron and other oil companies) removed the regulatory powers of the CFTC over American oil futures traded over the counter (OTC) [source: Levin]. Enron had created specialized software that allowed futures to be traded OTC -- exchanges outside of the formal exchange markets. The software and what came to be known as the Enron loophole for OTC trading allowed futures exchanges without government oversight.

Also in 2000, a consortium of oil companies and financial institutions created the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) in London to trade European oil futures, although the group was headquartered in Atlanta. Since the exchange was in Europe, the CFTC's reach didn't extend to it.

The CFTC gave up more regulatory power in early 2006 when it allowed the Intercontinental Exchange to install terminals in the United States [source: Engdahl]. Up to that point, only OTC speculators could trade outside of CFTC oversight. But once the commission allowed U.S. futures to be traded on ICE, rather than only on NYMEX, the CFTC lost its ability to regulate even formal exchanges. Once traded on ICE, an American futures derivative fell out of the jurisdiction of the CFTC. The convergence of the Enron loophole and the establishment of ICE meant the CFTC could no longer accurately police speculators who sought to drive up energy prices through futures speculation.

Whether it was speculators that drove up the cost of gas and oil is still debated. A July 2008 report by the International Energy Agency concluded that speculation had little to do with price increases [source: CNN Money]. But a report issued the following September contradicted the IEA report, pointing to correlations between the influx of money in oil futures markets and the rising cost of oil. The price of oil doubled, tripled and eventually quadrupled in step with the increase from $13 billion to $260 billion in the market from 2003 to 2008 [source: U.S. Senate].

In response to calls for better regulation of oil futures, Congress introduced the Consumer-First Energy Act in May 2008. The bill would have extended CFTC oversight to foreign markets, but the act died on the Senate floor the following June. After the bill was defeated, the argument over oil speculation changed focus. No longer was the debate over what caused oil prices to rise beginning in 2006, but how long the United States would allow speculation to continue.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2012, 07:44:23 PM »

Sp who is to blame for the 3 dollar plus I have been paying for the last three years? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21030


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2012, 07:47:30 PM »

Hahahaha, they're already using the speculator excuse? These guys are shooting their wads on these faster they can reload. I figured they'd save this one for when it hit $5.

We can thank Obama's energy policies in conjunction with his strong-arming Bernankicide into QE'ing to infinity.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2012, 06:58:59 AM »

Louis Woodhill, Contributor
I apply unconventional logic to economic issues.

Op/Ed|2/22/2012 @ 1:12PM |18,562 views
Gasoline Prices Are Not Rising, the Dollar Is Falling





Panic is in the air as gasoline prices move above $4.00 per gallon. Politicians and pundits are rounding up the usual suspects, looking for someone or something to blame for this latest outrage to middle class family budgets. In a rare display of bipartisanship, President Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner are both wringing their hands over the prospect of seeing their newly extended Social Security tax cut gobbled up by rising gasoline costs.

Unfortunately, the talking heads that are trying to explain the reasons for high oil prices are missing one tiny detail. Oil prices aren’t high right now. In fact, they are unusually low. Gasoline prices would have to rise by another $0.65 to $0.75 per gallon from where they are now just to be “normal”. And, because gasoline prices are low right now, it is very likely that they are going to go up more—perhaps a lot more.

What the politicians, analysts, and pundits are missing is that prices are ratios. Gasoline prices reflect crude oil prices, so let’s use West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil to illustrate this crucial point.

As this is written, West Texas Intermediate crude oil (WTI) is trading at $105.88/bbl. All this means is that the market value of a barrel of WTI is 105.88 times the market value of “the dollar”. It is also true that WTI is trading at €79.95/bbl, ¥8,439.69/barrel, and £67.13/bbl. In all of these cases, the market value of WTI is the same. What is different in each case is the value of the monetary unit (euros, yen, and British pounds, respectively) being used to calculate the ratio that expresses the price.

In terms of judging whether the price of WTI is high or low, here is the price that truly matters: 0.0602 ounces of gold per barrel (which can be written as Au0.0602/bbl). What this number means is that, right now, a barrel of WTI has the same market value as 0.0602 ounces of gold.

During the 493 months since January 1, 1971, the price of WTI has averaged Au0.0732/bbl. It has been higher than that during 225 of those months and lower than that during 268 of those months. Plotted as a graph, the line representing the price of a barrel of oil in terms of gold has crossed the horizontal line representing the long-term average price (Au0.0732/bbl) 29 times.

At Au0.0602/bbl, today’s WTI price is only 82% of its average over the past 41+ years. Assuming that gold prices remained at today’s $1,759.30/oz, WTI prices would have to rise by about 22%, to $128.86/bbl, in order to reach their long-term average in terms of gold. As mentioned earlier, such an increase would drive up retail gasoline prices by somewhere between $0.65 and $0.75 per gallon.

At this point, we can be certain that, unless gold prices come down, gasoline prices are going to go up—by a lot. And, because the dollar is currently a floating, undefined, fiat currency, there is no inherent limit to how far the price of gold in dollars can rise, and therefore no ultimate ceiling on gasoline prices.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke uses a “core CPI index” that excludes food and energy to guide monetary policy. From Big Ben’s point of view, rising gasoline prices are not a problem. For the rest of us, they are becoming a big problem.

Over the centuries, gold has been “the golden constant”. Eventually, all prices equilibrate with gold. This is why gold represents the best available standard in terms of which to define the value of a monetary unit. Forty-one years ago, when the value of the dollar was defined in terms of gold at $35/oz, WTI was selling for $3.56/bbl.

Right now, the threat posed by rising gasoline prices is not just to family budgets. An even greater danger is that the government will use escalating oil prices as an excuse to do something stupid.

After President Nixon abrogated the Bretton Woods monetary arrangement in stages starting in September 1971, both gold prices and oil prices started to rise. The government responded by imposing wage-price controls. This made a bad situation much worse.

This time around, the stupid policies being considered to “deal with” rising gasoline prices include additional cuts in payroll taxes and higher taxes on energy producers.

During the 1970s, the toxic combination of a weak dollar, high tax rates, and onerous regulations introduced a new word into America’s economic vocabulary: stagflation. Reaganomics banished this word to the history books. Now, President Obama and Fed Chairman Bernanke are teaming up to give stagflation another try. It is not likely that Americans will like it any more this time around than they did 40 years ago.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is available online at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/02/22/gasoline-prices-are-not-rising-the-dollar-is-falling/     

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2012, 07:10:34 AM »

Bam’s gas-price plan
Last Updated: 12:22 AM, February 23, 2012

Posted: 11:42 PM, February 22, 2012



As oil hits $105 a barrel, the White House is getting defensive — fearing that $5-plus gasoline this summer might imperil the president’s re-election.

So President Obama is to publicly address the subject today. But does he even have a plan?

Perhaps as prelude, the White House yesterday declared that the president had no “responsibility” for gas prices — a hilarious take, given the gasoline-price scourging Obama laid on George W. Bush in 2008.

We’ll stipulate that pump prices are driven by many factors — not the least being Middle East uncertainty.

But if the American people think Obama hasn’t done everything possible to buffer oil shocks, there’s reason: He hasn’t.

The administration on Tuesday blamed last month’s shelving of the Keystone XL pipeline on “political” acts by Republicans in Congress. In fact, Obama ditched Keystone — which would have brought Canadian crude oil to Gulf Coast refineries — to keep his greenie base happy.

And the pipeline is but one of many Team Obama decisions that have left America’s oil supply more vulnerable to the vagaries of world events.

* Under Obama, the American Petroleum Institute notes, leases on federal lands in the West are down 44 percent, while permits and new well drilling are both down 39 percent, compared to 2007.

* In the wake of the BP oil spill, Obama shut down most Gulf of Mexico drilling; there’s been a 57 percent drop in monthly deepwater permits over the last three years, according to the Greater New Orleans’ Gulf Permit Index.

* The EPA continues to block drilling off the coast of Alaska — where an estimated 27 billion barrels are waiting to be tapped.

Actually, perhaps there is a plan.

In a pre-nomination interview in 2008, now-Energy Secretary Steven Chu told The Wall Street Journal, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Mission accomplished?



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/bam_gas_price_plan_B1bfwSlY9X99J1gwZYctGM#ixzz1nDKVt7Kk

Report to moderator   Logged
blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10933


Getbig!


« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2012, 01:26:56 PM »

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/04/13/174989/sachs-speculators-gas-prices/
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2012, 01:28:07 PM »

Obama accuses GOP of playing politics with higher gas prices
By Amie Parnes and Andrew Restuccia - 02/23/12 02:26 PM ET
   

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/212305-obama-accuses-gop-of-playing-politics-with-higher-gas-prices



President Obama railed against Republicans on Thursday for “licking their chops” and using a spike in gas prices as a political opportunity.

Appearing at the University of Miami in a high-profile speech on energy, Obama aimed to deflect the criticism his administration has received for its energy policies and for higher gas prices.


Obama sought to telegraph a message that he is doing all he can to improve energy policy while accusing Republicans of politicizing the issue.

“Only in politics do people greet bad news so enthusiastically,” Obama said before a crowd of students.

“You pay more and they’re licking their chops? And you can bet since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas. I’ll save you the suspense: step one is drill, step two is drill, and step three is keep drilling.


RELATED ARTICLES
•Obama: GOP 'licking their chops' over high gas prices
“We heard the same thing in 2007 when I was running for president,” he continued. “We hear the same thing every year. We’ve heard the same thing for 30 years.”


But Obama said “the American people aren’t stupid” and continued to emphasize that drilling isn’t the only solution to fixing the nation’s energy problems, “especially since we’re already drilling.”

“It’s a bumper sticker,” Obama said. “It’s not a strategy to solve our energy challenge. It’s a strategy to get politicians through an election.

“You know there are no quick fixes to this problem and you know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices,” he said. “If we’re going to take control of our energy future, if we’re going to avoid these gas price spikes down the line, then we need a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy — oil, gas, wind solar, nuclear, bio-fuels and more.”

Republicans — both on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail — believe Obama is vulnerable to attacks on the high gas prices.

Obama’s speech comes after gas prices rose 3.3 cents nationwide overnight, costing consumers an average of $3.61 a gallon, according to AAA.

Republicans also point to Obama’s decision to reject the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline. The White House argues Republicans forced Obama to deny a permit with a timeframe that did not give the administration adequate time to conduct an environmental and health review.

The GOP has hammered Obama on the issue, arguing he is standing in the way of expanded drilling, and GOP presidential candidates have vowed to lower gas prices.

But federal policymakers have very few options to lower gas prices in the short term, according to experts. Gas prices are largely tethered to oil prices, which are set on global markets. Even a dramatic expansion of domestic oil-and-gas production would have little short-term effect on gas prices.

Still, Obama said he has instructed his administration “to look for every single area where we can make an impact and help consumers in the months ahead, from permitting to delivery bottlenecks to what’s going on in the oil markets.”

“And we will keep taking as many steps as we can in the coming weeks,” he added.

Obama touted what the White House calls an “all-of-the-above” energy plan that focuses on reducing reliance on foreign oil, expanding domestic oil production, improving vehicle fuel efficiency and investing in renewable energy.

While calling for a broad plan, the president also stressed the importance of increased oil-and-gas production, a move meant to counter GOP claims that the president has limited domestic drilling.

“Now, we absolutely need safe, responsible oil production here in America,” Obama said. “That’s why under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years.”

The federal Energy Information Administration said last month that domestic oil production increased from 5.1 million barrels per day in 2007 to 5.5 million barrels per day in 2010. That number is expected to increase to 6.7 million barrels per day in 2020, the highest level since 1994.

Foreign oil imports into the United States are also expected to drop from 49 percent of liquid fuel consumption in 2010 to 36 percent in 2035. Additional oil savings are expected as a result of the administration’s new vehicle fuel economy regulations, the agency said.

Republicans argue the administration doesn’t deserve credit — they say the increase is the result of actions by previous administrations coupled with advances in technology and increased drilling on state and private lands.

The president again took aim at a slew of tax breaks for oil and natural-gas companies, bashing Republicans and oil-state Democrats for opposing bills to eliminate them.

“It’s outrageous. It’s inexcusable,” Obama said. “And every politician who’s been fighting to keep these subsidies in place should explain to the American people why the oil industry needs more of their money. Especially at a time like this.”

The president outlined a plan to cut $39 billion worth of tax breaks during the next decade in his fiscal 2013 budget request. The president echoed the plan in a tax reform framework unveiled by the Treasury Department Wednesday.

Before his speech, Obama toured the university’s Industrial Assessment Center, where students are taught to become industrial energy-efficiency experts as they help small- to mid-sized manufacturers reduce their energy costs.

The center — in swing-state Florida — is one of 24 nationwide facilities across the nation and is part of the Department of Energy’s Industrial Assessment Program, White House officials said.

While he’s in the battleground state, his 14th visit to Florida since taking office, Obama will attend a string of fundraisers, two in Miami and one in Orlando, in the heart of the crucial I-4 corridor where many of the state’s independent voters live.

This story was posted at 2:26 p.m. and updated at 3 p.m.



________________________ ________________________ _________________




* cry-baby-seal.jpg (22.51 KB, 438x445 - viewed 25 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10933


Getbig!


« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2012, 01:35:55 PM »

he's right, look at yourself,your all happy gas is going up
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2012, 01:36:53 PM »

Obama Administration Spins U.S. Oil Production Numbers, Takes Credit for Predecessors’ Pro-Energy Policies

Obama Administration Actions Decrease U.S. Oil Production

 
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 10, 2011 - This week, under mounting public pressure as gasoline prices near the $4 mark, the White House published a blog post touting increased domestic oil production. The Administration was in full SPIN mode, taking credit for actions that were put in place before they took office and ducking forecasts of declining U.S. oil production caused by their own actions that have blocked American energy production.

SPIN: “Oil production last year rose to its highest level since 2003.”

RINSE:

•The Obama Administration’s actions have caused domestic energy production to decrease.

•In 2007, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected total 2010 U.S. oil production on federal lands to be 850 million barrels. Today’s actual production on federal lands is 714 million barrels, a 16 percent decline from what was projected. If it wasn’t for the Obama Administration, the U.S. would be producing more energy.

•This is why FUTURE projections show a decline in U.S. production and an increase in imports. On March 8, 2011 the EIA published new projections that show a decline in total U.S. crude oil production of 110,000 barrels per day in 2011 and 130,000 barrels per day in 2012.

•Finally, the White House does not explain that the vast majority of increased production is occurring on private lands, not public. For example, North Dakota alone produced almost 120 million barrels of oil in 2010, compared to just over 20 million in 2003. The majority of North Dakota’s production is on private land. This begs the question, why are we not using our federal lands to create American jobs and produce American energy resources to lower prices?

SPIN: “Onshore oil production from public lands has also increased over the last year, from 109 million barrels in 2009 to 114 million barrels in 2010.”

RINSE:

•The slight increase in onshore production from federal lands is due to lease sales approved by previous Administrations—not the Obama Administration.

•Since taking office, the Obama Administration has slowed onshore energy development on public lands and issued fewer leases.

•In 2008 there were 2,416 new oil and natural gas leases issued on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land spanning 2.6 million acres. In 2010, under the Obama Administration, the number of new leases issued dropped to 1,308 and acres leased dropped to 1.3 million.

•The total onshore acreage leased under the Obama Administration in 2009 and 2010 are the lowest in over two decades, stretching back to at least 1984.

SPIN: “From 2008 to 2010, oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf increased more than a third – from 446 million barrels in 2008 to an [sic] more than 600 million barrels of estimated production in 2010.”

RINSE:

•Once again, the Obama Administration is attempting to take credit for actions they had nothing to do with. The strong production in the Gulf was due to leases issued in 1996-2000 under the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act – long before President Obama took office.

•The Obama Administration’s actions, such as imposing a de facto moratorium, are causing energy production to decline in the Gulf of Mexico. EIA shows a 300,000 barrel per day decline in current Gulf production and a projected Gulf decline of over 150 million barrels of oil in 2012.
###

Printable PDF of this document
 

Contact: Jill Strait, Spencer Pederson or Crystal Feldman 202-226-9019

 

http://naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/03.10.11-WHDecreasesOilProduction.pdf

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2012, 01:47:09 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M1WlV7vafk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M1WlV7vafk</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4yFsaxw6L8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4yFsaxw6L8</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vwVaEJ55Iw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vwVaEJ55Iw</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abU4509w39s" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abU4509w39s</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn1KJ5vTKQM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn1KJ5vTKQM</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkw6eXyvZwI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkw6eXyvZwI</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Jojrgx8eM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Jojrgx8eM</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10933


Getbig!


« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2012, 01:55:11 PM »

Obama Administration Spins U.S. Oil Production Numbers, Takes Credit for Predecessors’ Pro-Energy Policies

Obama Administration Actions Decrease U.S. Oil Production

 
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 10, 2011 - This week, under mounting public pressure as gasoline prices near the $4 mark, the White House published a blog post touting increased domestic oil production. The Administration was in full SPIN mode, taking credit for actions that were put in place before they took office and ducking forecasts of declining U.S. oil production caused by their own actions that have blocked American energy production.

SPIN: “Oil production last year rose to its highest level since 2003.”

RINSE:

•The Obama Administration’s actions have caused domestic energy production to decrease.

•In 2007, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected total 2010 U.S. oil production on federal lands to be 850 million barrels. Today’s actual production on federal lands is 714 million barrels, a 16 percent decline from what was projected. If it wasn’t for the Obama Administration, the U.S. would be producing more energy.

•This is why FUTURE projections show a decline in U.S. production and an increase in imports. On March 8, 2011 the EIA published new projections that show a decline in total U.S. crude oil production of 110,000 barrels per day in 2011 and 130,000 barrels per day in 2012.

•Finally, the White House does not explain that the vast majority of increased production is occurring on private lands, not public. For example, North Dakota alone produced almost 120 million barrels of oil in 2010, compared to just over 20 million in 2003. The majority of North Dakota’s production is on private land. This begs the question, why are we not using our federal lands to create American jobs and produce American energy resources to lower prices?

SPIN: “Onshore oil production from public lands has also increased over the last year, from 109 million barrels in 2009 to 114 million barrels in 2010.”

RINSE:

•The slight increase in onshore production from federal lands is due to lease sales approved by previous Administrations—not the Obama Administration.

•Since taking office, the Obama Administration has slowed onshore energy development on public lands and issued fewer leases.

•In 2008 there were 2,416 new oil and natural gas leases issued on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land spanning 2.6 million acres. In 2010, under the Obama Administration, the number of new leases issued dropped to 1,308 and acres leased dropped to 1.3 million.

•The total onshore acreage leased under the Obama Administration in 2009 and 2010 are the lowest in over two decades, stretching back to at least 1984.

SPIN: “From 2008 to 2010, oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf increased more than a third – from 446 million barrels in 2008 to an [sic] more than 600 million barrels of estimated production in 2010.”

RINSE:

•Once again, the Obama Administration is attempting to take credit for actions they had nothing to do with. The strong production in the Gulf was due to leases issued in 1996-2000 under the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act – long before President Obama took office.

•The Obama Administration’s actions, such as imposing a de facto moratorium, are causing energy production to decline in the Gulf of Mexico. EIA shows a 300,000 barrel per day decline in current Gulf production and a projected Gulf decline of over 150 million barrels of oil in 2012.
###

Printable PDF of this document
 

Contact: Jill Strait, Spencer Pederson or Crystal Feldman 202-226-9019

 

http://naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/03.10.11-WHDecreasesOilProduction.pdf



posting shit from some repub committee,wow that means alot Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2012, 01:58:55 PM »

Can you refute it?   No.   OilBama is going to wear this albatross all the way to a landslide defeat.   


* arm-leg-las-prices-512-x-501.jpg (45.78 KB, 512x501 - viewed 23 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10933


Getbig!


« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2012, 02:04:02 PM »

Can you refute it?   No.   OilBama is going to wear this albatross all the way to a landslide defeat.   

if i go by your record of being right or telling the truth,i'll take it Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2012, 02:07:38 PM »

if i go by your record of being right or telling the truth,i'll take it Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Why didnt Obama adress the "speculator" issue in Dodd Frank? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21030


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2012, 02:09:19 PM »

posting shit from some repub committee,wow that means alot Roll Eyes

Are you seriously complaining after you just posted a link from ThinkProgress.org? Fuck off, you jobless degenerate.

You far-leftists wanted higher gas prices. Time to live with the consequences of that asinine goal.




Thank you Obama for making American children starve so you could reward your cronies!
Report to moderator   Logged
Option D
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16358


Landslide Coming?


« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2012, 02:11:18 PM »

Ok.. let me put my disclaimer out there.... Im no Obama supporter and im a registered Independent. Ive voiced my opinions on Obama and my desire to vote for Ron Paul.

Now....


Can some of you guys please tell me how, in your own words, with no rant and slant, how Obama and his policies are responsible for the price of oil

Now.. please understand guys... i didnt ask, what they said about Bush or Carter or none of that shit... just how... right now... obama is responsible for the oil prices...


Please.. im begging you.. stay on task here...
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!