Obama was correct when he stated that oil companies were sitting on leases. We had that problem here in Alaska. Companies were waiting till it became more profitable to develop the fields. We Alaskans got tired of that, too!
Official Debate Thread II (Romney v. Obama)
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
Obama was correct when he stated that oil companies were sitting on leases. We had that problem here in Alaska. Companies were waiting till it became more profitable to develop the fields. We Alaskans got tired of that, too!
Even if we do produce the oil, the problem is refining it. The lack of refineries is what is also spiking the cost.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I definately agree on the switch to natural gass and agree with you on infrastructure and production of LNG but there also has to be a corresponding increase in the production of LNG vehicles as well as a change in the market to create that demand. I think that might take longer than 3-5 years. I hope I'm wrong though. Imagine if the staggering wealth were transfering to the oil rich nations would remian in circulation here in the US? That would end our recesion for sure. There are still some significant issues in fracking maturing as a technology, particularly developing well casings to prevent leakage not to mention the development of infrastructure. The industry also needs to adress the issue of petroleum derived waste which with increasing drilling and fracking is becoming a larger problem. A greater degree of self policing by the industry will probably be needed if the industry wishes to avoid federal regulation and I'm positive they want to avoid that.Incorrect. The national average for gasoline only went over $3 towards the end of his second term.
http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx
That said, the run up is largely due to the increase in global demand as you said. It is just funny listening to the two parties switch positions on this issue. NOW the Dems believe the President has little control and the Reps think it is Obama's fault.
While the politicians can create policies that alter the long term price moves, they can do little in the short term (2 years or less).
The one knock on Obama is his hammering production on Federal Leases by almost 11% last year. That does not help matters. Further expansion of our own production coupled with expansions of nat gas production will help dramatically decrease the price of fuel long term on a relative basis. Not to mention improve our national security and economy.
As I have stated before, it is time to shift our transportation over to nat gas. The technology is here, the nat gas is here, we just need to get production up and the distribution network established. That will take about 3-5 years, but it would improve our economic outlook and reduce our dependency on foreign energy.
Correct. It was an over reaction to the financial crisis. funny how no one bitches about speculators taking it too far in that direction...
It may indicate a rise in the global economy, but not necessarily our economy. The other side is that we have seen a reduction in production on Federal land, that is a result of policy. A reduction in supply can drive prices up just as an increase in demand can. Part of the reason the prices have gone up is tied to the refinery capacity in the US being a bit sporadic of late (just ask CA). That too is out of the hands of the President.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Of course they are sitting on leases. Some they have found have no recoverable oil. Some they have found oil, but it is not economically viable to produce. That doesn't excuse Obama for seeing a decrease in production on federal land.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I disagree. That's been an over stated problem. The main reason why new permits have not been requested to create new refinaries is because of our history of over capacity. There are large numbers of permited refining facilities that have been mothballed and which are still available and are far easier to re-permit and update structurally than it is to obtain new permits for new locations. The lack of new refining capacity is highly over stated and has little impact on domestic cost.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
They all go hand in hand. You won't see distribution systems put in place unless there is demand and there won't be demand if the distribution system is not in place. Which is why this has to be a coordinated effort. Give the auto industry 3-5 years to retool plants and the gas stations the same time to have the distribution system in place. The nat gas vehicles are not more expensive to make, they do not lose in terms of performance, they burn cleaner (obviously)... the demand will be there if the distribution system is put in place.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Tell that to CA.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Don't you think it would also take the political will of the American people to make that happen within that time frame?
Again, I am not blaming Obama for setting the price himself...not like he can make a phonecall, and say"hey drop that price down by a $1". I, and many others are upset that he is keeping us in redtape that will keep us from tapping our own oil to make it work to our fullest potential. Have a look at this:
From Jordan Weissman-
On recent campaign stops, President Obama has taken to summing up America's oil supply problem with the following statistic: We use 20 percent of the world's production, but only have 2 percent of its reserves. Then this past week, the president got pushback from Republicans, who are citing a new government study to allege we have closer to 26 percent of the world's supply.
Who's right? Neither, really. Obama is talking about oil we know is there. Republicans are talking about oil we think is there.
The president likes to refer to our so-called "proven" reserves -- oil that can be recovered with relative certainty given today's economic, technological, and regulatory constraints. It's oil that companies have already discovered, and that they can drill up profitably without breaking the law. Oil in areas where drilling is banned, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, isn't included. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's most recent estimates, the United States has roughly 20 billion barrels of these reserves, around 2 percent of the global total. But proven reserves are only a small part of the petroleum picture, and don't give us a very accurate picture of future supply.
That's where the Republican criticism comes in. This week, the U.S. Geological Survey released a study of the world's "undiscovered, technically recoverable" oil resources. It sounds complicated, but is relatively simple. It's oil we haven't actually found, but believe is there based on geological studies, and think we can get at with current drilling technology, regardless of the legal or economic issues. The new survey did not include the United States, but Republicans have combined its results with previous estimates showing we have 198 billion barrels of this kind of oil. Here's a breakdown.
By this accounting, the world has about 763 billion "undiscovered" barrels of oil, of which roughly 26 percent indeed belongs to us. These figures don't include the actual reserves currently being drilled across the globe, which are quite significant. Saudi Arabia alone has about 262 billion proven barrels available.
Now, here's where the USGS figures really fall short: They ignore a massive chunk of the world's potential future oil resources. The study looks at conventional oil. That's regular old black gold, the kind that made Jed Clampett and that nutjob from There Will Be Blood rich. But there are many other kinds of oil, which get lumped into a category called "unconventional oil." That includes the billions of barrels of tar sands oil in Canada, heavy oil in Venezuela, and shale oil in North Dakota.*
So Obama's numbers almost certainly underestimate the relative size of America's potential oil supply. The Republicans may be overestimating it. Or, depending on the kinds of unconventional oil discoveries we make in the coming years, they could be massively underestimating it too. But both sides are are oversimplifying the issue. Shocking, I know.
Attachments
evince
Truthmatters
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_new...ite&ocid=msnhp
UPDATED 11:36 a.m. EDT: Groundbreaking on new U.S. homes surged in September to its fastest pace in more than four years, a sign the housing sector's budding recovery is gaining traction and supporting the wider economic recovery.
Housing starts increased 15 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 872,000 units, the Commerce Department said on Wednesday.
That was the quickest pace since July 2008, though data on starts is volatile and subject to substantial revisions.
America's economy has shown signs of faster growth in recent months as the jobless rate has fallen and retail sales data has pointed to stronger consumer spending
UPDATED 11:36 a.m. EDT: Groundbreaking on new U.S. homes surged in September to its fastest pace in more than four years, a sign the housing sector's budding recovery is gaining traction and supporting the wider economic recovery.
Housing starts increased 15 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 872,000 units, the Commerce Department said on Wednesday.
That was the quickest pace since July 2008, though data on starts is volatile and subject to substantial revisions.
America's economy has shown signs of faster growth in recent months as the jobless rate has fallen and retail sales data has pointed to stronger consumer spending
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That's a good point. CA is definately an odd duck. In my work a few years back I was switched over to managing waste in the Texas Region because Texas has the most complex waste management laws in the nation to deal with and I have the most regulatory experience in our group. When I tell this to people their usually quite surprized that Texas is the most difficult State to manage. They usually ask "Isn't California the most difficult? They're crazy out there!". To which I reply. "No California is easy to manage cause EVERYTHING is hazardous in California.".
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That's very debatable. The cost of over regulation costs California a lot of industrial growth while doing little to provide additional protections for the environment and human health and safety versus compliance with Federal regulations which are in themselves quite strict. For example, Californias rules to not permit the federal exemptions for managing used oil and universal waste as hazardous waste under RCRA do little to increase protections for the people and the environment in CA vs Federal regulations and have substantial costs. Mostly it increases State level beaurocracy and drives up disposal costs which is why California is the largest exporter of hazardous and industrial waste in the nation.
It's actually more cost affective in California to ship hazardous and industrial waste to other States, even as far as the midwest States, then it is to treat and dispose of them in California. In essence what California does, to a great degree, is ship their problems to other States. I don't find that either rational, ethical or cost affective. As I said, California's an odd duck.
Sorry for the late post. My wife and I had post debate victory sex after the debate.
I see that the conservative mutual admiration society is still going on.
It was a good debate last night. Much more spirited and entertaining. Only this time Obama clearly won the night.
Four areas where Obama Nailed Romney to the wall.
#1. Womens reproductive and economic rights.
#2. Taxes. He wiped Romney on the floor on taxes eloquently demonstrating how Romney's tax cuts and spending increases simply don't add up and how they advantage the upper classes when Romney took raising capital gains taxes off the board.
#3. Libya. Biggest beat down of the night. Did you see how pale Romney got when Barry nailed his ass about politicizing national security? Biggest score of the night for Obama. He looked strong, Romney looked inept.
#4. Immigration. Romney lost big time on immigration. Sure the angry white guy crowd will prefer Romney's response but with the important Latino and immigrant demographics he lost big. During the debate I kept my opinions to my self. My wife, the immigrant, was leaning strongly towards Romney. His response on immigration completely flipped my wife to the Obama camp. Considering immigration was a weakness Romney could and should have exploited that was a major win for Obama.
Best zinger of the night was when Barry told Mitt "No, your 401K is bigger than mine."
So all in all one of the best Presidential debates ever. It was spirited, informative, entertaining and both candidates performed well though Obama was clearly the winner last night.
It will be interesting to see if this reverses Mitts gains completely or by some or not at all or if Mitt gains futher momentum?
My guess is Mitt will lose some if not most of his gains, even if he maintains his only real gain from the first debate, Florida, it's not enough. If Obama regains momentum in Florida, then Mitts campaign is in serious, serious trouble. We'll have to wait about a week to see what the RCP averages indicate but Intrade is indicating that last night was a bad night for Romney.
voters thought romney handled the economy/jobs/and taxes questions better than obama. by huge margins.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
How can you possibly know what? You're nuts if you're citing CNN's instapolls.
ive seen polls?
i'll post a thread later on it
i'll post a thread later on it
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Of course it would. But there is no downside. Conversion kits exist to transform current models over to nat gas (most vehicles anyway). Regular gasoline would remain available. New cars would be required (via emissions standards) to be nat gas within that time frame. As long as we don't give up power (cause we all know we love the horses) or safety, the public won't care as long as they aren't inconvenienced by a lack of availability of pumps. Which is where a mandate comes in from the Fed that all gas stations begin transition/addition to be up and running within the time specified.
I am not going to pretend it will definitely be within 3-5, but I do believe that is a very workable time frame. Add in expansion of oil production and R&D into clean/alt tech and we can hammer oil prices into the ground. We import about (I think) 60% of our oil. Transportation uses about 70% of our oil consumption.
The case for the switch is there. Add in the benefit of keeping the jobs and the money here in the US and the public will be on board.
Just my thoughts on the matter... I don't anticipate either party actually pursuing such a plan.