Obama and energy, four more years?

[billc]

Do we really want 4 more years of failed green energy companies, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars each time, or the high gas prices on the way? Here is what Obama planned and we are now seeing it come to fruition...

http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2...obamas-lethargic-reaction-to-high-gas-prices/

one of the mistaken assumptions about the Obama administration is that it has no energy policy. On the contrary, there is one, best summed up by Steven Chu, the U.S. Secretary of Energy. “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Chu said in 2008. It now appears that the Obama administration has found a way: restricting the supply of oil. At a time when America is exiting the Great Recession, rising gas prices threaten to throw the country back into its clutches.
Unfortunately Secretary Chu’s assumption—that high gas prices will force more “clean tech” innovation is dubious—but his hope of European-level gas prices is quickly being realized. In 2011, Americans spent $4,000 filling up—8% of household budgets—and twice the amount they spend in 2002. It is predicted to go even higher this year. In Los Angeles, America’s car capital, some stations are even charging $4.93 a gallon. In California, where ten percent of America lives, prices reached $4.03 on President Day, according to the AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report, jumping more than 18.9 cents in just the pass week. Since last September, the price of a barrel of oil in America has risen a whopping 34%.

There is a great picture that details Obamas actions on energy but when I tried to put it here it was huge, and I don't know how to shrink it...

And of course it isn't just gas that he wants to increase the price on, here is another golden oldie from obama on energy prices...the money quote comes in at 34 seconds...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRuXrbjlrRg&feature=relate
d

 

[Em MacIntosh]

While I detest fossil fuels, alternative energy is for the affluent. Few people can afford a wind-turbine, a set of solar panels or to dig a geothermal well, let alone a hydro-turbine. I detest the direction of alternative energies because it's just another tool used to restrict upward mobility and increase the gap between rich and poor. It'll be decades before the majority will be able to afford to get most of their kilowatts from alternative energies.

Miniaturization and mass production will make technologies more affordable but that will be quickly capitalized on by the big companies that inflate the costs by ascribing a market value where supply and demand are initially determined based on inflated numbers regarding the subjective value of electricity, not the production/distribution/maintenance costs.

Big oil wants the monopoly on alternative energies once they've sucked the fossil fuel market dry, which may take hundreds, if not thousands of years before the actual planetary reserves become exhausted. As it becomes less and less politically viable, they'll become the champions of alternative energies and the hippies will still be hippies.

I don't care who does it, I'd like to see it get done but it'll be the poor and the middle class that are hurt the most with forced social engineering benefiting the rich and penalties for using cheap, dirty energy layed upon those who already lack upward mobility.

 

[Josh Oakley]

While I detest fossil fuels, alternative energy is for the affluent. Few people can afford a wind-turbine, a set of solar panels or to dig a geothermal well, let alone a hydro-turbine. I detest the direction of alternative energies because it's just another tool used to restrict upward mobility and increase the gap between rich and poor. It'll be decades before the majority will be able to afford to get most of their kilowatts from alternative energies.

Miniaturization and mass production will make technologies more affordable but that will be quickly capitalized on by the big companies that inflate the costs by ascribing a market value where supply and demand are initially determined based on inflated numbers regarding the subjective value of electricity, not the production/distribution/maintenance costs.

Big oil wants the monopoly on alternative energies once they've sucked the fossil fuel market dry, which may take hundreds, if not thousands of years before the actual planetary reserves become exhausted. As it becomes less and less politically viable, they'll become the champions of alternative energies and the hippies will still be hippies.

I don't care who does it, I'd like to see it get done but it'll be the poor and the middle class that are hurt the most with forced social engineering benefiting the rich and penalties for using cheap, dirty energy layed upon those who already lack upward mobility.

As far as alternative energy being for the affluent... Well, yeah. That is basic economics. Supply is limited, demand is higher than supply, and therefore equilibrium price is going to be higher than a lot of people can afford. For now.

Over its lifespan, the technology has gotten relatively cheaper, and the technology more efficient. As long as the trend continues, it will be available to more and more people.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Em MacIntosh]

Sociology permitting. I'm quite pessimistic about upward mobility and how it relates to the legalities of consumption and waste management. Nothing has led me to believe that it's going to get any easier. Pretty much everything I see is pointing toward propogating the current social engineering, dissolving the middle class and strengthening the current global oligarchy (I don't believe in the "illuminati" but it's a well known fact that the rich scratch each other's backs behind closed doors and play with policies that strengthen their holds on those they stand on, internationally). While the upper middle class can afford to produce their own energy and get a credit for the surplus, the prices will be engineered and inflated toward that target market. Sociology is highly engineered so as to make it exceedingly difficult to challenge such policies with your pocket book and reputation intact.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Sociology permitting. I'm quite pessimistic about upward mobility and how it relates to the legalities of consumption and waste management. Nothing has led me to believe that it's going to get any easier. Pretty much everything I see is pointing toward propogating the current social engineering, dissolving the middle class and strengthening the current global oligarchy (I don't believe in the "illuminati" but it's a well known fact that the rich scratch each other's backs behind closed doors and play with policies that strengthen their holds on those they stand on, internationally). While the upper middle class can afford to produce their own energy and get a credit for the surplus, the prices will be engineered and inflated toward that target market. Sociology is highly engineered so as to make it exceedingly difficult to challenge such policies with your pocket book and reputation intact.

So.. do you propose a solution of some kind?

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[WC_lun]

I can understand the negative feeling on the "green" movement. Things haven't progressed nearly as well as many of us had hoped. When it comes to high gas prices though, Obama has little to do with that. The high gas prices are a result of nervousness throughout the world. Fueling much of that nervousness is those in the US who are advocating more war. Just for those that think the Obama administration can make a huge difference, oil drilling in the US has increased 350% over that done during the Bush administration. Gas prices aren't lower, are they?

 

[Tez3]

When you say gas I assume you mean the stuff you use to run car, trucks etc but do you use gas (the invisible stuff ) at all for cooking, heating etc?

 

[jks9199]

When you say gas I assume you mean the stuff you use to run car, trucks etc but do you use gas (the invisible stuff ) at all for cooking, heating etc?

Natural gas is used in many places for heating and cooking -- and even in some places for vehicles, especially public transit buses and taxis of late.

 

[Tez3]

We have vehicles that run on LPG but that's different from the gas we have piped to houses.

 

[billc]

The only reason there is an increase in drilling is because Bush granted more leases during the last years of his presidency. Obama is doing everything he can to stop drilling, while trying to take credit for increases he had nothing to do with. If he is re-elected, it will only get worse with less drilling, less coal, more regulation on coal fired power plants and so on. If you want higher gas prices, more expensive electricity, especially in the cold states during the winter, just vote for giving obama 4 more years, without an election on the other side to keep him accountable.

 

[elder999]

The only reason there is an increase in drilling is because Bush granted more leases during the last years of his presidency. Obama is doing everything he can to stop drilling, while trying to take credit for increases he had nothing to do with..

First off, there have been 113 shallow well offshore permits granted since June of 2010, according to this website, that's in addition to deepsea wells-that's in the Gulf of Mexico alone- and I won't even get in to what's taking place onshore, in places like Wyoming, the Dakotas and here in New Mexico.

So there's been an increase in drilling-or at least movement toward more drilling-in spite of the Gulf oil spill and in spite of what you perceive as Obama's "greensocialistbiggovernmentpajamas" agenda.

If he is re-elected, it will only get worse with less drilling, less coal, more regulation on coal fired power plants and so on..

Dontcha mean "when he is reelected?" :lol:

 

[billc]

Permits aren't drilling and can be stopped before actual drilling takes place. The approval process for actual drilling is being drawn out, probably to keep drilling out of the gulf till after the election, when a new moratorium will be put into place. The guy is against oil, coal and natural gas and will stop it as soon as it is possible to do so after the election.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/24/obama-administration-approving-only-35-percent-of-gulf-drilling-plans/

A new report from a New Orleans-based group reveals that the Obama administration is approving just 35 percent of the oil drilling plans for the Gulf of Mexico so far this year. It is also taking an average of 115 days — nearly four months — to secure approval from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

Those numbers contrast sharply from previous years. This historical average is a 73.4% approval rate. The approval time has nearly doubled; the historical average is 61 days for the government to approve plans.
For plans that require drilling activity, the numbers are even worse. New regulations require all deepwater drilling plans to undergo an environmental assessment process. Those plans have an average approval time of 222 days or more than seven months.
The data were included in the latest release of the Gulf Permit Index from Greater New Orleans Inc. It has monitored this trend since last year’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The delays have continued for more than 18 months later.
Drilling permits don’t fare much better under the Obama administration either. One sign of hope might be a recent uptick in shallow-water permits. Greater New Orleans Inc. reported:

 

[elder999]

Permits aren't drilling and can be stopped before actual drilling takes place. The approval process for actual drilling is being drawn out, probably to keep drilling out of the gulf till after the election, when a new moratorium will be put into place. The guy is against oil, coal and natural gas and will stop it as soon as it is possible to do so after the election.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/24/obama-administration-approving-only-35-percent-of-gulf-drilling-plans/

I really hate that you put me in the loathsome position of defending Obama against stupidity, but stupid is what it is-I mean <sarcasm mode "on">, it makes so much more sense that "the guy s against oil, coal and natural gas," to explain slowing of the permitting process in the Gulf, rather than to chalk it up to caution and additional safeguards after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, like 53,000 barrels a day, for three months, a total of 4.9 million barrels of oil, the largest single marine petroleum event in history.<sarcasm mode "off">

Nah. It's just stupid.:lfao:

 

[WC_lun]

Billi, you miss my point. Drilling is at %350 more than during the Bush administration. Doesn't matter who is responsible. Still gasoline prices are at an all time high. You say if a Republican gets elected and opens up more drilling then oil prices would go down. That just isn't true. As seen with the recent increase in drilling, it would have very little effect. In fact, I think gasoline prices would go even higher with a president who advocates harder line stances in regards to the Middle East, including threats of military violence. So if your voting is based upon gas prices, according to historical evidence, you would be better served NOT to vote Republican in the coming up election given the canidates stances on the Middle East.

 

[elder999]

Billi, you miss my point. Drilling is at 50 more than during the Bush administration. Doesn't matter who is responsible. Still gasoline prices are at an all time high. You say if a Republican gets elected and opens up more drilling then oil prices would go down. That just isn't true. As seen with the recent increase in drilling, it would have very little effect. In fact, I think gasoline prices would go even higher with a president who advocates harder line stances in regards to the Middle East, including threats of military violence. So if your voting is based upon gas prices, according to historical evidence, you would be better served NOT to vote Republican in the coming up election given the canidates stances on the Middle East.

Gasoline prices are completely manipulated by the oil companies-you know, those guys that dirll for the stuff its made from, and make a profit from its sale?

Higher cost=more profit.

I mean, U.S. demand for oil has gone down.Production has gone up. Basic economics says that when the supply goes up, and demand goes down, the price goes down.

Yet here we are with higher gas prices. Some of us, at least.There are, and have always been, regional differences based on delivery and state taxes-there are also discounts available-if I can buy gas at a "discount" the oil companies can certainly sell it at that price and make a profit. Here's the gas pump from my weekly fillup, this past Saturday morning:



I paid $2.64&9/10 a gallon. Right now, the market price is about $3.33 a gallon. On Saturday, it was about $3.15.

It's got nothing to do with how much oil was taken out of the ground at all.

 

[jks9199]

We have vehicles that run on LPG but that's different from the gas we have piped to houses.

LPG is different, but some people's homes are also heated with it & they use LPG for cooking. Others have natural gas piped to their home. They're all in the spectrum of uses for natural gas, though.

 

[billc]

And if obama hadn't said the things he has said about coal and gas prices and taken various actions against oil, I might believe the delays are due to caution. They aren't.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/30...don&#8217;t-match-with-action-on-oil-and-gas/

• Keystone permit rejection. The Keystone XL pipeline would deliver oil from our Canadian ally, relieve some of the pain of high prices at the gas pump, and create jobs in America. Nevertheless, and despite aState Department environmental review concluding that the project poses no significant environmental risk, the President chose to reject TransCanada&#8217;s permit application to build the pipeline.
• Targeted tax hikes. The President continues to threaten the oil industry with targeted tax hikes. Under the rhetoric of eliminating subsidies for the industry, the President&#8217;s proposal would eliminate certain tax treatments for oil that are available to many industries, effectively singling out the oil industry for a tax hike.
• Slowdown of production on federal lands. While American oil production has been increasing, the vast majority of that production is taking place on private lands. Production on federal lands is actually 40 percent lower than it was 10 years ago. The House Natural Resources Committee also reports that under the Obama Administration, 2010 had the lowest number of onshore leases issued since 1984.
• Fracking regulation. Hydraulic fracturing (or &#8220;fracking&#8221 is a proven oil and gas extraction process that should not be subject to overly burdensome regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently considering federal regulation of the fracking process under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The problem is that the agency is following a procedure that even the Department of Energy criticized for its&#8220;selective focus&#8221; on &#8220;negative outcomes.&#8221;

And from today...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...lling_could_make_a_big_difference_113263.html

The Wisdom of Drilling for Oil

By Peter Morici
When Barack Obama assumed the presidency, gas prices were less than $2 a gallon. He proceeded to shut down deep-water drilling in the Gulf, tightened other federal restrictions on petroleum development, and vetoed the Keystone Pipeline. Now, even with Americans driving not a lot more than three years ago and global growth slowing, gas is nearing $4 a gallon.
The liberal theocracy in academia, the media and the Democratic Party leadership relentlessly expounds that drilling for oil in the United States won&#8217;t much affect U.S. gas prices, because petroleum prices are set in global markets. And, more domestic oil production or U.S. access to Canadian petroleum won&#8217;t much change global supplies, or the pace of economic recovery and unemployment.



Balderdash!
Oil prices paid by U.S. refineries in the Gulf do move with global prices but not in lockstep. Increasing North American production would lower U.S. refinery acquisition costs, because U.S. refineries, like others around the world, are built to handle the special characteristics of oil produced by their primary sources supply. And gasoline produced by individual refineries is not wholly fungible either&#8212;differing fuel characteristics are required across the United States and Europe to meet environmental standards
Although tensions with Iran are growing and pushing up oil prices everywhere, prices have diverged between, for example, U.S. and European markets. For years, prices for West Texas Intermediate and North Sea Brent moved closely, but now WTI is selling for $17 less than its North Sea counterpart. This indicates the U.S. market is becoming somewhat separate and less wholly determined by global conditions; hence, more domestic production and increased access to Canadian oil would lower U.S. oil and prices&#8212;more drilling in the Gulf and elsewhere in North America, and the Keystone pipeline would significantly affect gas prices and employment.

 

[Josh Oakley]

The only reason there is an increase in drilling is because Bush granted more leases during the last years of his presidency. Obama is doing everything he can to stop drilling, while trying to take credit for increases he had nothing to do with. If he is re-elected, it will only get worse with less drilling, less coal, more regulation on coal fired power plants and so on. If you want higher gas prices, more expensive electricity, especially in the cold states during the winter, just vote for giving obama 4 more years, without an election on the other side to keep him accountable.

"If"

Lol

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Josh Oakley]

Surprised nobody has brought up the Strait of Hormuz yet

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[elder999]

Surprised nobody has brought up the Strait of Hormuz yet

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

Iran tried to block the Straits of Hormuz several times during their 8 year long war with Iraq (you know, the one where the U.S. sold chemical and biological weapons to Iraq. WMD's that we have receipts for,,,,,,:lfao: ).

They were not very successful.

By most estimates,blocking the straits is a fairly empty threat-they'd be successful at blocking the straits for about a week-less, given the U.S. Naval presence there.....