DC Tom Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 You couldn't be further from the truth. Of course more oil drilling would reduce the price of oil over the mid to long-term. This isn't rocket science, If there are 85 Million barrels of Demand a day for oil and 88 Million barrels of Supply, then there will be a price determined by the market. If you have 85 Million barrels of demand a day and 89 Million barrels of supply a day , based on the same conditions the price will be lower. It's quite amazing to me to see the president attempt to ignore the laws of supply and demand, he really is saying that if you add to supply, that it won't affect prices. Who buys this ****? Well...the health care bill was predicated on the belief that is you add demand it'll reduce prices. And demand is expected to grow less than expected, which is equivalent to a reduction (q.v.: "deficit reduction"). So the real reason prices are high is because not enough people are driving. If more people drove, demand would go up and prices would go down. Don't believe me? Then why did oil prices start to spike so high when hybrid cars started becoming more main-stream? Obama's a genius, I tell you. He's discovered completely new and different economic principles. He should add a Nobel for Economics to his Peace prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 It's quite amazing to me to see the president attempt to ignore the laws of supply and demand, he really is saying that if you add to supply, that it won't affect prices. Who buys this ****? What suddenly struck me about Obama's position is that the way to bring down the cost of gas is to stop using it. And he has a point, right up to the minute that he tries to explain that by not using gas, the price will drop to a level we can afford to use it on the things we no longer need it for because we found other ways to get around without it. How this guy managed to even organize a closet, let alone a community, is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 You couldn't be further from the truth. Of course more oil drilling would reduce the price of oil over the mid to long-term. This isn't rocket science, If there are 85 Million barrels of Demand a day for oil and 88 Million barrels of Supply, then there will be a price determined by the market. If you have 85 Million barrels of demand a day and 89 Million barrels of supply a day , based on the same conditions the price will be lower. It's quite amazing to me to see the president attempt to ignore the laws of supply and demand, he really is saying that if you add to supply, that it won't affect prices. Who buys this ****? The truth is you can't read, reread what I wrote not what you think I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 The truth is you can't read, reread what I wrote not what you think I meant. Actually, whats closer to the truth is that you aren't able to effectively express your thoughts without posting a youtube video. But if you wish, I will be more than happy to annoyingly break down your post sentence by sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 American consumers feel entitled to get a new car every 3 years, even if they are upside down on that car! Really, didn't we go through this 4 or so years ago. Even if consumers took out a bank note on that "cars for clunkers" thing... Shouldn't they be getting off paying the note? Isn't that gonna free up some extra gas money (on an already fuel efficient vehicle) and THEN SOME in the coming years to save for future transportation costs? What are they doing with the extra money? Going (presumably driving) to Disney World? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 1. Oil is a global traded commodity thus more drilling in the US doesn't lower prices unless you either produced enough to lower world prices or treat it as a domestic resource and sell it to Americans at a price below world market prices - as do countries like Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc etc. What extra drilling does is create some employment and whatever royalties, taxes etc you can get out of it. 2. Comparisons to natural gas are not valid because natural gas is as now not a globally traded commodity (may change in the future) but a domestically and regionally traded commodity. With regards to oil prices the best thing Obama could do is tone down the war with Iran rhetoric and maybe rethink the sanctions against Iran's oil production, also since Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have cut oil production after promising to increase oil production he might think to call and say what the !@#$ is up with that. - with regards to gas prices (not the same thing as oil prices ) the most helpful thing would to be increasing refinery capacity or at least stop the decrease in refinery capacity, refinery bottlenecks probably contribute more to increases in gas prices than increased oil prices. You couldn't be further from the truth. Of course more oil drilling would reduce the price of oil over the mid to long-term. This isn't rocket science, If there are 85 Million barrels of Demand a day for oil and 88 Million barrels of Supply, then there will be a price determined by the market. If you have 85 Million barrels of demand a day and 89 Million barrels of supply a day , based on the same conditions the price will be lower. It's quite amazing to me to see the president attempt to ignore the laws of supply and demand, he really is saying that if you add to supply, that it won't affect prices. Who buys this ****? Actually, whats closer to the truth is that you aren't able to effectively express your thoughts without posting a youtube video. But if you wish, I will be more than happy to annoyingly break down your post sentence by sentence. go for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) Your first sentence contradicts itself. Oil is a global traded commodity thus more drilling in the US doesn't lower prices unless you either produced enough to lower world prices On one hand you say that oil is a globally traded commodity and therefore drilling doesn't lower prices. On the otherhand you state "unless you either produced enough to lower the prices" What the !@#$ does that even mean? To characterize that statement as convoluted doesn't begin to describe my sentiment regarding the gibberish you just laid out. It's an utterly useless comment to make. More drilling doesn't lower prices unless you drill enough to lower prices? That's your argument? Then you say or treat it as a domestic resource and sell it to Americans at a price below world market prices - as do countries like Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc etc. Unless you meant to replace the word "or" with "and" then I could at least begin to see your point, not a logical one, but a point none-the-less. Even so, you would still be incorrect. But for the sake of argument, lets go with "or" as you stated, meaning a completely different direction. I'm not even quite sure where to begin. We use more oil than we domestically produce, that's a fact. So knowing that fact you are suggesting that we would charge the portion that we produce here at a discounted rate? Oh yeah? Who picks up the rest of the tab? Afterall, in order for that to happen it would have to be subsidized by someone. What about the rest of the oil that we have to import? Would that be charged at a different price? If so, I suppose that would mean that we have some gas stations charging $4 a gallon gasoline and others (the subsidized ones) charging $2? Well we know that wouldn't work, so basically the only option at this point would be to subsidize all oil imports as well? How would that work exactly? I suppose the government would cap what the refineries and oil companies in what they could charge, and would have to pay the oil companies the difference between the subsidized and market price. Right? Yeah, that wouldn't be expensive at all. Unless of course you are suggesting that we nationalize the oil companies, therefore doing pretty much what we please with their products. Even this solution would still leave all the unresolved imported barrels of oil that the government would still have to subsidize. It is quite possible that this is what you were talking about considering you mentioned (Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia) But just for ***** and giggles, lets pretend in a Utopia youtube Lybob world, that drilling doesn't lower prices, unless of course you drill enough to lower prices and that all domestic oil could be sold at below market prices, subsidized by the American government. ummm ok, I'm having a hard time moving forward based on this premise, but because I said I would, we'll move forward. The crux of the discussion is whether or not more drilling can lead to lower prices. So what was the point of this statement What extra drilling does is create some employment and whatever royalties, taxes etc you can get out of it. Well, since context matters, to rehash we've already established that drilling doesn't lower prices, unless you drill enough to lower price and/or that we strictly sell domestic oil below market prices. I think it's kind of obvious, you don't believe that extra drilling doesn't lower prices, I mean you did afterall say as much, and you said What extra drilling does is create some employment and whatever royalties, taxes etc you can get out of it. implying that what extra drilling achieves are benefits such as employment, royalties and taxes. But no where did you mention lowering prices. Then you go on to say With regards to oil prices the best thing Obama could do is tone down the war with Iran rhetoric and maybe rethink the sanctions against Iran's oil production, also since Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have cut oil production after promising to increase oil production he might think to call and say what the !@#$ is up with that. - with regards to gas prices (not the same thing as oil prices ) the most helpful thing would to be increasing refinery capacity or at least stop the decrease in refinery capacity, refinery bottlenecks probably contribute more to increases in gas prices than increased oil prices. Nowhere did you mention that we should focus on more domestic oil drilling. You mention Saudi and Kuwait production, but nothing about ours. That doesn't make any sense, why leave ourselves in a position to where we have to grovel to the Saudis when we can produce more ourselves for the futur so we aren't quite in this predicament. Same goes for the "Iran rhetoric" argument, (not withstanding your incredibly naive isolationist view that allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon that would very well begin a nuclear arms race in the middle east which would lead to even higher long-term prices) if we produced more oil domestically, that would lessen our reliance of oil from the Middle East. You see, for every extra barrel we produce here at home, that means we can import one less barrel. Yeah, it's true, thats how it works. So if we are producing 13 M barrels a day and importing 10M, meanwhile global oil demand is 85M and production is 88M, if we can increase our production by another 25%, while keeping the demand flat because of conservation policies, that would increase global excess capacity by another 3-5%. What alot of people don't understand is that excess capacity is a huge determinant of prices, the less the excess, the higher the prices and more susceptible we are to large price spikes due to supply disruptions or fear of those disruptions, such as hurricanes, Nigerian militant chaos, middle eastern instability etc. In short, Oil drilling otherwise known as supply isn't the only factor in dictating prices, but it is a pivotal one, and the more we drill, the more supplies we will increase, and the more we increase in our domestic supplies, the better position we will be in attempting to contain higher oil prices. It's true, despite you and the presidents willingness approach to ignoring the basic laws of supply and demand. Edited March 10, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Today President Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday to underscore his administration’s work to develop alternative energy sources and increase fuel efficiency. “I’m going to keep doing everything I can to help you save money on gas, both right now and in the future,” Obama said. “I hope politicians from both sides of the aisle join me.” (said with a straight face) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Today President Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday to underscore his administration’s work to develop alternative energy sources and increase fuel efficiency. “I’m going to keep doing everything I can to help you save money on gas, both right now and in the future,” Obama said. “I hope politicians from both sides of the aisle join me.” (said with a straight face) . Did he say if he expected to develop alternative energy before this Summers spike in prices? Furthermore, he needs to immediately fire his Energy Secretary who would like gas prices in the $9-$10 range. Obviously Chu is working against the Cheap Energy President. I'm also glad to see that he hopes those Grandma killing Republicans will work with him and not block his efforts for cheap gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Did he say if he expected to develop alternative energy before this Summers spike in prices? Furthermore, he needs to immediately fire his Energy Secretary who would like gas prices in the $9-$10 range. Obviously Chu is working against the Cheap Energy President. I'm also glad to see that he hopes those Grandma killing Republicans will work with him and not block his efforts for cheap gas. If Gasoline prices are above $4.50 a gasoline sometime in the midsummer, those words from Chu will come to haunt him. I mean it's not as if Chu made this comment when he was some young bafoon student activist, he said it in Dec of 2008, right before he was chosen to lead the US Energy policy. What he says is a direct extension of what Obama thinks, thats the way it should be viewed. There is no way around it, if I was a campaign or Super Pac strategist, I would wait to unload these words on the campaign trail, over and over and over and over and over. There are a bunch of ways to attack Obama's energy policy. Solyndra, Chevy Volt (at $10,000 a pop cost to taxpayer), other failed green companies, Keystone, drilling permits plummetting and then using his own words of how oil drilling doesn't lead to lower prices. All these things can easiy fit into a narrative of how Obama trumps his green ideology over pragmatism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 If Gasoline prices are above $4.50 a gasoline sometime in the midsummer, those words from Chu will come to haunt him. I mean it's not as if Chu made this comment when he was some young bafoon student activist, he said it in Dec of 2008, right before he was chosen to lead the US Energy policy. What he says is a direct extension of what Obama thinks, thats the way it should be viewed. There is no way around it, if I was a campaign or Super Pac strategist, I would wait to unload these words on the campaign trail, over and over and over and over and over. There are a bunch of ways to attack Obama's energy policy. Solyndra, Chevy Volt (at $10,000 a pop cost to taxpayer), other failed green companies, Keystone, drilling permits plummetting and then using his own words of how oil drilling doesn't lead to lower prices. All these things can easiy fit into a narrative of how Obama trumps his green ideology over pragmatism. And Exxon-Mobil's 2Q earnings statement trumps ALL of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 And Exxon-Mobil's 2Q earnings statement trumps ALL of that. That would be a wasted strategy. Romney would just say that he has even less control over E-M and oil/gas prices than Barry does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Interesting article on the Keystone pipeline: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46689167/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Interesting article on the Keystone pipeline: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46689167/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/ Interesting article, but too long for me to read through all the bu11sh1t in it.... It's based on the thought, that if we don't earmark Keystone oil for the US, it will make no difference, am I right?? Major problem with that thought however, is OPEC itself.... When the price of oil drops below what they want, they reduce production right? Driving up the price, based on what most of us dread as supply and demand. That drop in production then leads to higher prices once again. Keystone, as well as any "friendly", and domestic production, leads to a constant in that oil supply, and I would argue, has a major effect that potentially, trumps the monopoly effect of OPEC, or any of it's members that get a wild hair; setting the market. Simple really.... The more you can do for yourself, the less control others have over you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Interesting article, but too long for me to read through all the bu11sh1t in it.... It's based on the thought, that if we don't earmark Keystone oil for the US, it will make no difference, am I right?? Major problem with that thought however, is OPEC itself.... When the price of oil drops below what they want, they reduce production right? Driving up the price, based on what most of us dread as supply and demand. That drop in production then leads to higher prices once again. Keystone, as well as any "friendly", and domestic production, leads to a constant in that oil supply, and I would argue, has a major effect that potentially, trumps the monopoly effect of OPEC, or any of it's members that get a wild hair; setting the market. Simple really.... The more you can do for yourself, the less control others have over you.... Well, you should of maybe read the whole article, and you wouldn't of had to type quite so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts