Their latest line of fantasy is how the president is responsible for high gas prices and if he would just unshackle the energy industry, we could decrease our dependence on foreign oil.
One small problem with this narrative is (as always) reality.
The other reality item to consider is the world market.
We could drill everywhere the right wants us to drill and it wouldn't matter. We will still be shackled to the world market.
So, the next time that mouth foaming uncle who gets his facts from right wing blogs says that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, politely inform them that President Obama has been doing that.
9 comments:
These days the price of oil is mostly dictated by speculators, fueled by threats of conflict in the Middle East, especially in Iran. Projects like the Keystone XL will make it easier for Canadian oil to reach world markets, which means areas in the U.S. that currently get cheap Canadian oil will no longer get it, and the price everywhere in the US will go up.
You two are economic morons.
Yep. You have already been shown by the government's own sources (Dept of Interior) and by two industry trade groups using those numbers(EIA and IER) that while the oil and gas production is up, the feds have been squelching production everywhere they have control - all numbers point to dramatic drops in federal land energy production. And yet you push your 'Obama is strong on energy' myth in spite of the facts.
The administration, meanwhile, has also taken several steps to limit production.
1. Withdrew areas offered for 77 oil and gas leases in Utah that could cost American taxpayers millions in lost lease bids, production royalties, new jobs and the energy needed to offset rising imports of oil and natural gas.
2. Cancelled lease sales in the Western Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast and delayed exploration off the coast of Alaska and kept other resource-rich areas off-limits.
3. Finalized rules, first announced by Secretary Salazar on January 6, 2010, to establish more government hurdles to onshore oil and natural gas production on federal lands.
4. Withdrew 61 oil and natural gas leases in Montana as part of a lawsuit settlement over climate change.
In addition, more and more alternative energy subsidies and failures are coming to light as throwing taxpayer money down the drain. Why? They are economically unfeasible for replacing oil, coal, and gas on a massive scale.
Not only that, your embedded graph about global prices specifically states how prices move as supply and demand change. Hmmm - exactly the opposite of your "We could drill everywhere the right wants us to drill and it wouldn't matter." More supply from a stable region like the US and Canada would definitely address volatility of market pricing just like how OPEC or even the Saudis can affect pricing by announcing production cuts and increases.
Projects like the Keystone XL will make it easier for Canadian oil to reach world markets, which means areas in the U.S. that currently get cheap Canadian oil will no longer get it, and the price everywhere in the US will go up.
Easier for oil to reach markets means less cost. Increased stable supply with lower production cost means oil on the world market is cheaper. Exactly what the market needs for cheaper gas prices and exactly what Obama admin just killed. The second part of your comment is asinine as transportation to refineries in the US are currently more expensive than would be with the XL Pipeline.
You can't be that ignorant can you? oh, I forgot, you are a public employee and a government shill. Carry on!
two industry trade groups using those numbers(EIA and IER)
The EIA is not an industry trade group. It is the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. The IER is an industry trade group that is heavily biased towards the energy industry and against the federal government.
Here's a new article from the EIA..
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=5450
U.S. crude oil imports during 2011 fell to their lowest level in twelve years and were down 12% from their peak in 2005, as higher domestic oil production and decreased consumption of petroleum products reduced American refiners' purchases of foreign crude.
Purchases of imported crude oil have declined because U.S. refiners had more supplies from domestic crude production to use, particularly higher oil output from Texas and North Dakota's Bakken formation. Texas oil production last year reached its highest level since 1997, and North Dakota appears to have pushed past California in December as the third biggest oil producing state.
No credit whatsoever for the president here? At least for staying out of the way as you continue to insist that he is not? These are facts, 6Kings, facts. You can pretend all you want but they won't go away.
Are we are or are we not a net fuel exporter at present? And what does that mean in terms of your protestations.
while the oil and gas production is up, the feds have been squelching production everywhere they have control - all numbers point to dramatic drops in federal land energy production.
Uh...huh? So production is up and it's down? That doesn't make any sense. What makes even less sense is your statement in light of these facts..
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/DOI-Releases-Report-on-Unused-Oil-and-Gas-Leases.cfm
According to the report, more than 70 percent of the tens of millions of offshore acres under lease are inactive, neither producing nor currently subject to approved or pending exploration or development plans. This includes almost 24 million inactive leased acres in the Gulf of Mexico, which potentially could hold more than 11 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
For onshore leases, the review found that approximately 45 percent of all leases and approximately 57 percent of all leased acres are inactive. That means that out of a total of over 38 million leased onshore acres, almost 22 million leased onshore acres that are not being used. The Department is currently exploring policy options to provide companies with additional incentives for more rapid development of oil and gas resources from existing and future leases.
Help me out here, 6Kings. How exactly is it possible for the feds to both "squelch production" and the oil companies to let the lands they are leasing from these same evil feds sit idle?
more and more alternative energy subsidies and failures are coming to light as throwing taxpayer money down the drain.
Where? Does that include nuclear subsidies as well? Back up this claim with a non-biased source, please.
Increased stable supply with lower production cost means oil on the world market is cheaper.
No. This is simply wrong. You fail to take into account the principles of cartel behavior in basic microeonomics. (See: Mankiw, Ch. 16, Principles of Microeconimics). There's quite a bit in there about OPEC that you aren't considering in your analysis here. If we increase supply here, they will simply collude to maintain their prices. And our own oil companies (as well as Canada's) are going to take their extra supply and sell it to the emerging markets of India and China where demand is higher. Why can't you understand this? Are you unhappy about demand decreasing here? I thought that would be a good thing for reasons of national security.
6Kings, you're doing what the right does all the time...I must be right so therefore I'm going to ignore facts, shove this square peg in a round hole, call liberals stupid, and pretend they are wrong because they can never EVER win. Until you offer a more critical analysis of the situation, your comments are little more than rehashes of oil and gas industry lobbying memos.
Dang, I think it ate my long response. This is apropos
That's why you should always copy and paste before you post:) But don't feel bad-it has happened to me a zillion times!
Simple question for you, 6Kings. What happens if we drill in Anwar, as the cartoon suggests? I guess I'm wondering how you would imagine this would all play out.
Hmm, OPEC cuts productions and prices rise? Kind of like supply and demand in operation? But whatever we do will have no effect. Right.
And so what if we produce more and OPEC cuts back to keep prices high? Better for us to be making more money than shelling it out to OPEC. It's better for more American oil workers to be employed here than OPEC. Isn't it?
It's better to reduce American dependence even further. Isn't it?
See my post today, folks ("Still More Facts"), which can serve as a continuation of the discussion as well as answers to your questions, Dr. I also raise a new one which, I think, will clear about what I believe is a gross misconception about oil.
Post a Comment