I've pretty much had it with people blaming the president for high gas prices. First of all, he can't really control what happens in the Middle East, a major factor in the price hike. Second, drilling more oil here simply means that more oil will get sold to China and India, not us. US imports of oil have declined from 11 billion barrels a day in 2009 to 8 billion barrels a day at the end of 2011. Simply put, we aren't using as much. Remember that we are a net fuel exporter now for the first time in decades and that simple fact still hasn't changed the price of a gallon of gas.
Add in the fact that the number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quadrupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world and guess what? Prices are still high.
Why?
As Dennis Kelleher points out below, a big reason is the speculators...as always....
That graphic says it all...In 2002, 89 percent of crude oil training was commercial with 11 percent non-commercial. Now crude oil trading is 63 percent non-commercial and 37 percent commercial. What was the price of a barrel of oil in 2002?
$31.
Now?
$106.
Obviously, there are other factors to consider but this is the one that isn't talked about much because these are the same fucking people that got us into trouble in the collapse of 2008.
20 comments:
GuardDuck
said...
Mark in 2012 said: "I've pretty much had it with people blaming the president for high gas prices. First of all, he can't really control what happens in the Middle East"
Mark in 2005 said: "Apparently, the discussions centered on how the President has been concerned about high oil prices. He wanted to make sure that Prince Abdullah understood that Americans are upset about this...
Is any one else having trouble keeping a straight face at this point? Um, Ok, for those of you who don’t know ...our President and his family are in business with the Saudi Royal Family and they make billions of dollars from oil together.
I especially feel all tingly inside when I know that my President is best pals with the people from that country. It’s a relationship that has no end in sight from which we all get to benefit by paying out of our noses and living under threat of further terrorism."
Uhhhhwhat? I don't get the dig. It's a known fact that Bush and his family are in the oil business. President Obama is not in the oil business so there's not any interest for him to drive oil prices higher and because he's not part of the cartel, as Bush was, he doesn't have much control over the prices. You guys ever heard of collusion? It seems to me the Bush was putting on a big show back then.
In other words, economic principles still apply despite your idiotic insistence that they don't. Feds (Obamas's henchmen) are squelching production while claiming success by the private and state sectors where he has no control. Disingenuous just like your post. When are you ever going take off the 'Baghdad Bob' outfit?
Do you have a source that backs up that one, 6Kings? They have a lot of "Yes, buts" on there that confuse math and words. And they are not really accurate about natural gas...
Stern, I'm with you. I don't get it either. Obama has no interest in having high oil prices as he is not as heavily invested in the oil business as his predecessor. It's sort of a bizarre rip on the president as high gas prices would likely mean that less people would vote for him. But there is that liberal plot to get everyone to use renewables...
Geez, the source is the American Petroleum Institute and is linked in the blog. The numbers are accurate and your link from early 2009 does nothing to counter the numbers. Why did you use that link? Do you think that the US becoming the largest producer magically changes numbers? By the way, in two years we have seen too much supply relative to demand, the price of natural gas fell (yeah, pesky economics again). That led a number of companies to cap their wells and stop drilling. I am right in the middle if the Barnett Shale and close to the Eagle Ford Shale fields and both areas have drastically cut back until pricing gets better. And related, almost all drilling in Texas is private as the Feds hold very little land as compared to Utah or Nevada where they own the majority of land.
C'mon, 6Kings, really? Of course the API is going to say that stuff because they're biased. They are the trade association for the oil and gas industry. How about a source that is non-biased that can really analyze where we are at? You linked a right wing blog which linked the oil and gas industry...good grief...that's your evidence?
Again, this means that links from Michael Moore's blog and Greenpeace are just as valid as outlets of fact, I guess, right?
My link is from early 2010 and I used it to make the point that we have been a leading natural gas producer for quite some time, overtaking Russia as it notes in that link. Here's a graphic that shows our production related to other countries.
Here are two links link from the EIA which further detail how well we are doing. Check out the increase in exports to Mexico and Canada and the reduction in imports.
So, this whole little childish game is yet another pathetic attempt to somehow paint the president as being anti-business and anti-local energy. Why is it so difficult for you guys to admit that he's doing a good job?
That is all you have? You think the numbers aren't correct? Go ahead and show they aren't. You fail again to show any concept of numbers. You are nothing more than a pathetic shill for th propaganda coming out of the whitehouse. The numbers are accurate and the obama talking points are disingenuous - those are facts. You continue to show you are easily duped and a fool.
EIA received the data from the Office of Natural Resource Revenues (ONRR) in the Department of Interior. The data contain production on federal and Indian lands, both onshore and offshore. They include production volumes for which royalties were paid and production volumes in which no royalties were paid due to lease provisions and/or production transferred to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve under the Royalty-in-Kind programs. According to ONRR, the data can change, but according to EIA, the big picture story will remain.
Conclusion
The big picture is clear that government policies undertaken by the Obama Administration have produced a significant decline in offshore oil production on federal lands in fiscal year 2011. That is certainly not a way to increase domestic production of oil and keep oil and thus gasoline prices in check.
An unbiased source will help, 6Kings, not another biased one. The IER is an organization created to police government regulation and promote free markets for energy. They are run by Bob Bradley, former Director of Policy Analysis for Enron and speechwriter for Ken Lay.
They are also closely associated with the American Energy Alliance whose main goal is to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge and in US coastal waters. In short, they are lobbyists for the oil and gas industry so they are not the unbiased source I requested. Does this mean that I can now haul out Greenpeace and Michael Moore as unbiased sources if they cherry pick date from the Department of the Interior?
Did you bother to read the report that the IER linked? For example, read page two and then compare that with the information presented by the IER. In short, critically think and then offer me a more honest analysis.
Did you bother to look at the linked data, Mark? Or did you just not understand what you were looking at?
For example, here at ONRR gives the 2009 total volumes as: Gas (mcf) 6,600,762,019.90 NGL (gal) 3,666,957,665.31 Oil (bbl) 544,280,588.72
Simple on-page change to 2010 shows: Gas (mcf) 4,244,731,635.21 NGL (gal) 4,085,463,204.98 Oil (bbl) 384,845,704.42
and 2011 as: Gas (mcf) 4,656,332,805.99 NGL (gal) 4,565,449,581.56 Oil (bbl) 502,233,128.88
Oil production took a huge hit in 2010 and in 2011 was still well below 2009 levels. Gas (as gas) is well down, too, though liquefied natural gas has made steady gains.
It is, of course, possible to break it down further, but one wonders if you were looking at Royalty/Revenue columns (in $) and not production (in barrels, gallons, or cubic feet)?
He was too busy looking for ways to assassinate the character of someone involved with the source to actually bother with the facts. That of course isn't a surprise to any of us, is it?
It's not character assassination to check sources for bias, juris. If you don't believe this, than Michael Moore and Greenpeace it is...every single fucking day...as reliable sources of information.
And since you haven't bothered with any of the facts that I have listed (and likely will not to the ones below), do you really expect to be taken seriously?
Larry, the problem you are having is the same one that 6Kings is having...you're not telling the whole story. First of all, both of you have redirected away from the speculator issue which is a big part of the problem with higher gas prices. So, when you carp about the president, drilling and high prices, you are essentially lying. Let's here some thoughts on the speculator issue, hmmm?
Second, while production fell sharply last year on federal lands and federal offshore waters (partly because of the after-effects of the BP spill) it was still 12 percent higher than before Obama became president.
Third, domestic oil production last year averaged 5.6 million barrels a day, the highest output since 2003 and a 4 percent jump since Bush’s final year.
Fourth, you are not taking into account the lower demand in this country and the affect that has on your numbers above. You guys are all about free markets and going where the demand is, right?
Fifth, you are ignoring the fact that natural gas production, meanwhile has soared to the highest levels ever, mainly because of the industry’s success in extracting previously unimagined quantities from shale reserves on private and state-owned lands.
Sixth, there have also been improvements in energy efficiency which has led to a drop off in production.
As is usually the case with you folks, you are narrowly focusing on the data that makes Obama look bad. Include all relevant information and offer a critical view and I might take you more seriously. Perhaps something along the lines of former Pennsylvania environmental secretary John Hanger who said that Obama deserves some credit but most should go to the gas industry. In the end, the federal government did what you guys always want...they stayed out of the way.
It's not character assassination to check sources for bias, juris.
You only examine bias from one side you pusillanimous, partisan panty-sniffer. Nor did you offer any reason why the numbers were wrong (e.g. they ignored certain factors, or were inflated estimates) - you SOLELY focused on the connection to Enron. Funny how you never consider how Krugman provided lip service for Enron.
Um, no, Mark, I wasn't "ignoring" any of that. I was responding very specifically to a specific criticism you made about 6kings link. You claimed he must not have read his own link, and that the numbers were something different than what was claimed. I actually did read the link, something you either didn't do or didn't understand, and the numbers stand. Then you do your standard squidinking and try to obfuscate the point by saying the numbers aren't that important anyway. In which case, why did you go for the cheapshot about the numbers? [buggy_eliza_script]Cue up Mark saying the equivalent of, "I meant to do that, in order to illustrate a point about what awful haters some of my commenters are."[/buggy_eliza_script]
Then you do your standard squidinking and try to obfuscate the point by saying the numbers aren't that important anyway.
Projection/Flipping.
Seriously, are you guys capable of NOT redirecting the focus on me and avoiding the clear facts that don't back up your points? Once again (for like the zillionth time) you have completely mis-characterized what I said and we're playing the "go back and read what I wrote" game so I'm going to make this very simple.
Look at the numbers on page 3 of the EIA report that is linked from IER. Now look at 2008. Then look at 2011. Which number is higher?
Next, comment on this.
Gas sales from onshore Federal lands were generally growing over this period, exceeding offshore sales by FY 2007. The last 2 years have seen declines, but FY 2011 sales from onshore Federal production are still higher than in FY 2007. Natural gas sales from production on Indian lands have decreased each year between 2005 and 2010, but increased slightly in 2011.
Now explain to me how you don't seem to understand English.
Finally, comment on this. Policies that pertain directly to leasing and production activities on Federal and Indian lands are only one among the many factors that are reflected in the sales data. The rapid increase in natural gas production from shale resources over the last 5 years has significantly affected natural gas prices and the relative attractiveness of Federal and Indian lands as areas for development of conventional natural gas resources. Further, private landowners often require drilling within a relatively shorter time period to hold a lease than that required under Federal leases
Again, do you understand the English fucking language? To repeat what I said above...the IER is confusing the math, not being honest or accurate in their assessment because they are leaving out information contained in the very report they link which is why I wondered if he and you actually read the report.
That would be FY09 and FY10, the first two years of the Obama Administration. So after two years of hard cuts, the FY11 sales were pushed back up above 2007 levels.
What was it you were saying about reading comprehension?
the IER is confusing the math
Now that is just hysterical coming from one of the most innumerate persons on the whole fucking internet. Then again, there is a certain consistency to you - where words, and numbers, only mean what you want them to mean (at the given moment).
20 comments:
Mark in 2012 said:
"I've pretty much had it with people blaming the president for high gas prices. First of all, he can't really control what happens in the Middle East"
Mark in 2005 said:
"Apparently, the discussions centered on how the President has been concerned about high oil prices. He wanted to make sure that Prince Abdullah understood that Americans are upset about this...
Is any one else having trouble keeping a straight face at this point? Um, Ok, for those of you who don’t know ...our President and his family are in business with the Saudi Royal Family and they make billions of dollars from oil together.
I especially feel all tingly inside when I know that my President is best pals with the people from that country. It’s a relationship that has no end in sight from which we all get to benefit by paying out of our noses and living under threat of further terrorism."
I'm picturing M blinking with bewilderment - didn't he send those words down the memory hole?
Uhhhhwhat? I don't get the dig. It's a known fact that Bush and his family are in the oil business. President Obama is not in the oil business so there's not any interest for him to drive oil prices higher and because he's not part of the cartel, as Bush was, he doesn't have much control over the prices. You guys ever heard of collusion? It seems to me the Bush was putting on a big show back then.
And the real story...
http://www.qando.net/?p=12664
In other words, economic principles still apply despite your idiotic insistence that they don't. Feds (Obamas's henchmen) are squelching production while claiming success by the private and state sectors where he has no control. Disingenuous just like your post. When are you ever going take off the 'Baghdad Bob' outfit?
Do you have a source that backs up that one, 6Kings? They have a lot of "Yes, buts" on there that confuse math and words. And they are not really accurate about natural gas...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/182347-worlds-largest-producer-of-natural-gas-now-it-s-u-s
Stern, I'm with you. I don't get it either. Obama has no interest in having high oil prices as he is not as heavily invested in the oil business as his predecessor. It's sort of a bizarre rip on the president as high gas prices would likely mean that less people would vote for him. But there is that liberal plot to get everyone to use renewables...
Actually M my comment didn't have a fucking thing to do with Obama - I guess you couldn't understand that.
Geez, the source is the American Petroleum Institute and is linked in the blog. The numbers are accurate and your link from early 2009 does nothing to counter the numbers. Why did you use that link? Do you think that the US becoming the largest producer magically changes numbers? By the way, in two years we have seen too much supply relative to demand, the price of natural gas fell (yeah, pesky economics again). That led a number of companies to cap their wells and stop drilling. I am right in the middle if the Barnett Shale and close to the Eagle Ford Shale fields and both areas have drastically cut back until pricing gets better. And related, almost all drilling in Texas is private as the Feds hold very little land as compared to Utah or Nevada where they own the majority of land.
C'mon, 6Kings, really? Of course the API is going to say that stuff because they're biased. They are the trade association for the oil and gas industry. How about a source that is non-biased that can really analyze where we are at? You linked a right wing blog which linked the oil and gas industry...good grief...that's your evidence?
Again, this means that links from Michael Moore's blog and Greenpeace are just as valid as outlets of fact, I guess, right?
My link is from early 2010 and I used it to make the point that we have been a leading natural gas producer for quite some time, overtaking Russia as it notes in that link. Here's a graphic that shows our production related to other countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Natural_gas_production_world.PNG
Here are two links link from the EIA which further detail how well we are doing. Check out the increase in exports to Mexico and Canada and the reduction in imports.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=5410
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=5370
So, this whole little childish game is yet another pathetic attempt to somehow paint the president as being anti-business and anti-local energy. Why is it so difficult for you guys to admit that he's doing a good job?
How about a source that is non-biased...
You mean like Emily's Health Care story - brought to you by the Obama2012 campaign?
If you were ever emptied of your bias you wouldn't even weigh 10 pounds.
That is all you have? You think the numbers aren't correct? Go ahead and show they aren't. You fail again to show any concept of numbers. You are nothing more than a pathetic shill for th propaganda coming out of the whitehouse. The numbers are accurate and the obama talking points are disingenuous - those are facts. You continue to show you are easily duped and a fool.
Maybe this will help:
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/03/15/fossil-fuel-production-on-federal-lands-at-9-year-low/
Source data is from the dept of the interior.
Department of Interior Data
EIA received the data from the Office of Natural Resource Revenues (ONRR) in the Department of Interior. The data contain production on federal and Indian lands, both onshore and offshore. They include production volumes for which royalties were paid and production volumes in which no royalties were paid due to lease provisions and/or production transferred to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve under the Royalty-in-Kind programs. According to ONRR, the data can change, but according to EIA, the big picture story will remain.
Conclusion
The big picture is clear that government policies undertaken by the Obama Administration have produced a significant decline in offshore oil production on federal lands in fiscal year 2011. That is certainly not a way to increase domestic production of oil and keep oil and thus gasoline prices in check.
An unbiased source will help, 6Kings, not another biased one. The IER is an organization created to police government regulation and promote free markets for energy. They are run by Bob Bradley, former Director of Policy Analysis for Enron and speechwriter for Ken Lay.
They are also closely associated with the American Energy Alliance whose main goal is to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge and in US coastal waters. In short, they are lobbyists for the oil and gas industry so they are not the unbiased source I requested. Does this mean that I can now haul out Greenpeace and Michael Moore as unbiased sources if they cherry pick date from the Department of the Interior?
Did you bother to read the report that the IER linked? For example, read page two and then compare that with the information presented by the IER. In short, critically think and then offer me a more honest analysis.
Did you bother to look at the linked data, Mark? Or did you just not understand what you were looking at?
For example, here at ONRR gives the 2009 total volumes as:
Gas (mcf) 6,600,762,019.90
NGL (gal) 3,666,957,665.31
Oil (bbl) 544,280,588.72
Simple on-page change to 2010 shows:
Gas (mcf) 4,244,731,635.21
NGL (gal) 4,085,463,204.98
Oil (bbl) 384,845,704.42
and 2011 as:
Gas (mcf) 4,656,332,805.99
NGL (gal) 4,565,449,581.56
Oil (bbl) 502,233,128.88
Oil production took a huge hit in 2010 and in 2011 was still well below 2009 levels. Gas (as gas) is well down, too, though liquefied natural gas has made steady gains.
It is, of course, possible to break it down further, but one wonders if you were looking at Royalty/Revenue columns (in $) and not production (in barrels, gallons, or cubic feet)?
Did you bother to look at the linked data, Mark?
He was too busy looking for ways to assassinate the character of someone involved with the source to actually bother with the facts. That of course isn't a surprise to any of us, is it?
It's not character assassination to check sources for bias, juris. If you don't believe this, than Michael Moore and Greenpeace it is...every single fucking day...as reliable sources of information.
And since you haven't bothered with any of the facts that I have listed (and likely will not to the ones below), do you really expect to be taken seriously?
Larry, the problem you are having is the same one that 6Kings is having...you're not telling the whole story. First of all, both of you have redirected away from the speculator issue which is a big part of the problem with higher gas prices. So, when you carp about the president, drilling and high prices, you are essentially lying. Let's here some thoughts on the speculator issue, hmmm?
Second, while production fell sharply last year on federal lands and federal offshore waters (partly because of the after-effects of the BP spill) it was still 12 percent higher than before Obama became president.
Third, domestic oil production last year averaged 5.6 million barrels a day, the highest output since 2003 and a 4 percent jump since Bush’s final year.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm
Fourth, you are not taking into account the lower demand in this country and the affect that has on your numbers above. You guys are all about free markets and going where the demand is, right?
Fifth, you are ignoring the fact that natural gas production, meanwhile has soared to the highest levels ever, mainly because of the industry’s success in extracting previously unimagined quantities from shale reserves on private and state-owned lands.
Sixth, there have also been improvements in energy efficiency which has led to a drop off in production.
As is usually the case with you folks, you are narrowly focusing on the data that makes Obama look bad. Include all relevant information and offer a critical view and I might take you more seriously.
Perhaps something along the lines of former Pennsylvania environmental secretary John Hanger who said that Obama deserves some credit but most should go to the gas industry. In the end, the federal government did what you guys always want...they stayed out of the way.
It's not character assassination to check sources for bias, juris.
You only examine bias from one side you pusillanimous, partisan panty-sniffer. Nor did you offer any reason why the numbers were wrong (e.g. they ignored certain factors, or were inflated estimates) - you SOLELY focused on the connection to Enron. Funny how you never consider how Krugman provided lip service for Enron.
Um, no, Mark, I wasn't "ignoring" any of that. I was responding very specifically to a specific criticism you made about 6kings link. You claimed he must not have read his own link, and that the numbers were something different than what was claimed. I actually did read the link, something you either didn't do or didn't understand, and the numbers stand. Then you do your standard squidinking and try to obfuscate the point by saying the numbers aren't that important anyway. In which case, why did you go for the cheapshot about the numbers?
[buggy_eliza_script]Cue up Mark saying the equivalent of, "I meant to do that, in order to illustrate a point about what awful haters some of my commenters are."[/buggy_eliza_script]
Then you do your standard squidinking and try to obfuscate the point by saying the numbers aren't that important anyway.
Projection/Flipping.
Seriously, are you guys capable of NOT redirecting the focus on me and avoiding the clear facts that don't back up your points? Once again (for like the zillionth time) you have completely mis-characterized what I said and we're playing the "go back and read what I wrote" game so I'm going to make this very simple.
Look at the numbers on page 3 of the EIA report that is linked from IER. Now look at 2008. Then look at 2011. Which number is higher?
Next, comment on this.
Gas sales from onshore Federal lands were generally growing over this period, exceeding offshore sales by FY 2007. The last 2 years have seen declines, but FY 2011 sales from onshore Federal production are still higher than in FY 2007. Natural gas sales from production on Indian lands have decreased each year between 2005 and 2010, but increased slightly in 2011.
Now explain to me how you don't seem to understand English.
Finally, comment on this.
Policies that pertain directly to leasing and production activities on Federal and Indian lands are only one among the many factors that are reflected in the sales data. The rapid increase in natural gas production from shale resources over the last 5 years has significantly affected natural gas prices and the relative attractiveness of Federal and Indian lands as areas for development of conventional natural gas resources. Further, private landowners often require drilling within a relatively shorter time period to hold a lease than that required under Federal leases
Again, do you understand the English fucking language? To repeat what I said above...the IER is confusing the math, not being honest or accurate in their assessment because they are leaving out information contained in the very report they link which is why I wondered if he and you actually read the report.
The last 2 years have seen declines,
That would be FY09 and FY10, the first two years of the Obama Administration. So after two years of hard cuts, the FY11 sales were pushed back up above 2007 levels.
What was it you were saying about reading comprehension?
the IER is confusing the math
Now that is just hysterical coming from one of the most innumerate persons on the whole fucking internet. Then again, there is a certain consistency to you - where words, and numbers, only mean what you want them to mean (at the given moment).
[buggy_eliza_script]Successfully activated.[/buggy_eliza_script]
Post a Comment