The Gazette Opinion StaffOpinion Page Editor, The Gazette |
|
Email the author
Obama is big reason behind high gas prices
The price of gas one day before President Obama’s inauguration in January 2009 was $1.84 a gallon. You blamed Bush when gas prices were high during his term, so whose fault is it now? It’s not Iraq or Afghanistan either as both existed with much higher uncertainty during Bush’s terms.
All this time I had thought Bush and Cheney were market manipulators of oil prices or so we were told over and over by Democrats. What’s going on now? There is no higher tax on people than high gas prices.
Obama was in Florida last week saying algae is an answer to our oil problem. That is how out of touch this president is.
Why not natural gas of which we have a huge abundance? Obama just denied going ahead with an oil pipeline across the western U.S. from Canada to the Gulf. Denying good jobs and ensuring high gas prices, Obama 2012.
Matt Shaffer
Cedar Rapids
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Iowa City schools won’t apply for federal grant
Authorities investigating possible connection between abduction cases
Iowa Legislature 2013 adjournment in sight, leaders say
Oklahoma tornado death toll currently 24, not 51, medical examiner says
Linn County casino campaign cost $3.43 million, final figures reveal
In a recent campaign speech, Obama claimed that drilling now wouldn’t increase supplies for 20 years, and in the very next breath he wanted to take credit for production increases in the three years he’s been in office.
Obama has stated again and again he would like to raise the cost of all fossil fuels.
http://floppingaces.net/2012/03/09/obama-mocks-reporter-with-lies-left-wing-press-swallows-it-whole-reader-post/
Mr. Hubler, Mr. Obama is like most other politicians, so let us leave it at that. But he does make a good point – there has been more drilling since he became president. I recently heard that we will actually export some oil.
Presidents have very little, if any impact on oil prices. I saw a show – either the Ed Schultz or Keith Olbermann – they had a montage of FOX “news” people defending George W. and implying that he could not impact prices whatsoever.
What has impacted prices are the wars and oil speculators, as well as ALL the talk of war with Iran by conservatives -some of whom may actually be doing that so prices will go up and make their chances for election successes higher.
The Keystone issue is appartently complex, from what I know of it. Canada wants to sell their oil for a higher market share so whateve oil we were able to derive would be higher. In addition, the relatively few jobs this would entail would be temporary. Lastly the environmental impacts need to be studied more than it has been.
Here’s the montage, Thomas:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203050007
“there has been more drilling since he became president. I recently heard that we will actually export some oil.”
There has been more drilling on private lands and less drilling and fewer permits on public lands since Obama became president. What we export is refined gasoline.
”Presidents have very little, if any impact on oil prices”
That’s not what Democrats were saying during Bush’s term.
The Keystone pipeline was approved by every regulatory agency except the State Department and the only reason it required approval by the State Department was because it was going to cross a boarder.
Last time I checked Canada was a foreign country. Why would we want to run a foreign country pipeline across America. 40 years from now when the pipeline is rusted out and leaking contaiminating the water and soil. The land owners will be responsible for cleaning up the mess, it will cost billions of dollars for the tax payers to pick up the tab. This oil will not bring the cost down one penny at the pump, it will all go on the world market. Bush did raise the price of gas by starting two wars, Iraq is one of the worlds largest oil producers.
We could easily demand that Canada put a value in that would shut off the flow of oil on the Canadian side.
If increased supplies won’t bring prices down, why is it that every time an election rolls around, when the Democrats hold the presidency, they want to raid the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
Enbridge the contractor to build said pipeline, is a company from a foreign country. Most of the material used in building the pipeline would be manufactured in foreign countries. It will be a foreign pipeline that cuts America in half.
It will also bring us more oil from a reliable ally.
Here’s a Canadian view on the Keystone pipeline :
Sorry link didn’t go with previous comment?
Last try, sorry for the inconvenience.
http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/01/video-canadian-talk-show-host-destro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UzEnKdBAb_o
Yes, we’re producing more oil now. As Fred points out, that’s because of increased production on private lands. Production in federally controlled areas is down. So Obama taking any kind of credit for increased oil production is laughable.
And we are not going to be a net oil exporter. We are, however, turning into a net gas exporter. That means we’re importing crude oil and exporting the products.
As for whether a president can affect oil prices, I think its pretty clear they can, within limits. How many times has a US president approached Saudi Arabia and asked them to increase production to keep prices for increasing as fast? Or more recently, the talk in the Obama administration about opening up the strategic reserve?
But let’s also note something else. Its a lot harder for a president to reduce the price of oil than to increase the price. Hampering production when demand is growing is an easy way to cause prices to skyrocket. That’s what Obama has done. Its much harder and takes longer to increase production to meet demand after you’ve fallen behind. And due to Obama’s policies, that’s what’s been happening.
During the Clinton administration, Republicans tried to get more federal areas opened for drilling. Democrats, with the help of environment groups, put a stop to that, saying it would take a decade or more before we saw any results.
During the Bush administration, he tried to increase production even more, but again was hampered by the naysayers saying its not worth it because it would take a decade or more to see any benefit…
Same thing during the Obama administration. Democrats keep saying the same thing, and as a result, the same problem keeps resurfacing time and time again.
And if we had started to build increased production, much of it could have been online by now!
Exactly. We had our “wake up call” in the 70′s. Then promptly hit the snooze button. Then again in the 80′s… the 90′s… the 00′s…
Time to wake up.
President Carter answered the call, then President Reagan ran the phone over with a Big F’n SUV.
How did Carter answer the call? He did absolutely nothing. Reagan decontrolled oil prices which led to their 20 year long decline.
Joel, I just LOLd and then LOLd some more!
Canadian view on Keystone pipeline.
Thank you Julie and Kurt.
Fred, I had intended to add to initial post that any of us (sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome) said that, we were wrong then and now, as well. Which might show that even us Lefties can learn and grow.
Obama does share some of the blame. But that is because of saber rattling with Iran. Many of the Republican Presidential candidates and many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle share blame in this regard as well. Geopolitical instability adds to the upward pressure on oil prices. Opening up areas for drilling will certainly add to the supply, but will not likely offer immediate relief, because it takes years for much of that oil to reach a gas pump. So even if Obama adopted a “drill baby drill” policy, I would not expect to see much of an impact on oil prices. I would welcome the drilling, but know better than to think it’s going to solve the issue.
The main culprit behind the current oil price is the Federal Reserve. The high price of oil, and therefore, gasoline reflects a depreciated dollar. Price oil in terms of gold and see what you get.
The letter writer wants us to believe that the current higher gas prices is President Obama’s fault. So I read the letter a second and third time looking for a single credible fact to support this accusation. I couldn’t find one.
Then I figured it out – - The letter writer is telling us that it is President Obama’s fault because some Democrats said it was Bush’s fault when gas prices were high while he was in office.
The reality – - The current gas prices are the norm and they will go higher. The low prices of late 2008 and early 2009 were abnormal and directly attributable to a severe recession. I would rather see higher gas prices than an economy that is losing 750,000 jobs per month.
It hardly seems like a bit of fortune, but the 2008/2009 era saw a dip in gas prices not only due to the USA recession but due to a worldwide recession. That cooled off demand for oil all over the globe and rolled back fuel prices where-ever the free market operated.
Had the recession been limited to the USA with the rest of the world’s economies continuing to expand, we would have had a truly horrible “double whammy” of massive unemployment and continued high fuel prices. Oil that is produced in the USA is all traded on the global market, it is not a “captive resource”.
The only way Obama or any other POTUS could materially impact the domestic price of oil would be by nationalizing oil production and imposing market controls on its export sales. I doubt that many people right now want to see that happen; although the idea may start to get some traction if the domestic oil companies begin to be perceived as unacceptably gouging their American consumers.
When President Obama talks about today’s sky-high gasoline prices, he almost always laments that there’s little anyone can do in the short term to bring them down.
“There is no silver bullet” is his common refrain, one he used again at his press conference on Tuesday.
But as gasoline prices reach historic highs — they’ve shot up more than 28 cents a gallon in just the past month — the government could make a dent.
That’s because, while the global price of oil determines most of the cost of gasoline, several federal and state government policies artificially add to the cost before it reaches the gas station.
Among them:
Taxes. The most obvious government-imposed costs are state and federal taxes and fees. Combined, these average 45.7 cents a gallon (the federal portion is 18.4 cents). New Yorkers pay the highest rate, at a combined 67.4 cents a gallon. California and Connecticut tie for second at 67 cents. Alaska is lowest at 26.4 cents, according to the Tax Foundation.
The weak dollar. Several analysts note that the Fed’s devaluation of the dollar has led to higher oil prices, which in turn is adding as much as 56 cents per gallon, according to the congressional Joint Economic Committee.
“From the first day the Fed began engaging in quantitative easing back in early 2008, the impact on gas prices has been profound,” noted Eric Parnell, an economics professor at West Chester University, in a recent blog post. “What is even more irksome is that much of this rise in gasoline prices has occurred during a time when gasoline consumption has been falling. Have the laws of supply and demand been repealed? No, they’ve just been severely distorted by policy action.”
Boutique fuels. Thanks to federal and state rules, there are about 18 separate gasoline markets in the country, each with specific requirements about what can and can’t be in their gasoline, mainly to deal with local air quality issues. But the result is higher gasoline prices.
A Government Accountability Office report found that “the proliferation of special gasoline blends has made it more complicated to supply gasoline and has raised costs.” Refiners also have to switch each season between summer and winter blends, which boosts costs.
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., has offered up a Boutique Fuel Reduction Act that would give the EPA more flexibility to waive these local fuel rules.
Environmental rules. In addition to creating local blends, refiners must also meet a long list of costly environmental rules. In late 1999, for example, the EPA required refiners to drastically cut the amount of sulfur in gasoline and diesel, which cost the industry almost $5 billion upfront and $1.5 billion each year to meet, according to the agency.
Strict environmental rules also can drive smaller refiners out of business, resulting in less competition, tighter supplies and higher prices.
Four refineries recently closed on the East Coast, for example. “That’s going to make gasoline more expensive in the region,” said John Hofmeister, the former Shell Oil CEO who has since started Citizens for Affordable Energy.
And as early as next year, the EPA could add dramatically to refinery costs, requiring them to meet new standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The petroleum industry figures this “regulatory tsunami” will add 25 cents to each gallon of gasoline and shutter seven more refineries.
Ethanol mandate. January marked the end of a 45-cent federal subsidy for each gallon of ethanol refiners added to gasoline. The subsidy cost taxpayers $6 billion a year, but ending it could end up adding as much as 4.5 cents a gallon, since gasoline now includes 10% ethanol.
Congress also left in place a 2007 law requiring increasing amounts of ethanol (including so-called advanced biofuels) in gasoline, rising to 36 billion gallons by 2022. The ethanol industry argues that expanded use of ethanol cuts pump prices, pointing to a study saying it’s lowered them 25 cents a gallon on average. Others argue that because ethanol provides 30% less energy than gasoline, it’s actually more expensive on a per-mile basis.
“Any time you force the industry to do something they wouldn’t do otherwise, by definition you must be increasing costs somewhere,” said Michigan State University economist Soren Anderson, who studies the fuel industry. “If ethanol really were cheaper, you wouldn’t need the mandate.”
In any case, the law has cost refiners almost $7 million in fines this year after they failed to add 6.6 million gallons of “advanced biofuels” as required. The problem is these advanced biofuels don’t exist commercially, and nobody’s sure when they will, which means even bigger industry fines going forward as the mandated use increases.
Over the long term, meanwhile, federal restrictions on access to domestic supplies of oil cut production and to some degree affect the price of oil down the road. According to the Institute for Energy Research, the U.S. has huge oil reserves, thanks to new finds and advances in drilling technology that let companies retrieve once-inaccessible deposits. The IER estimates that there are 1.4 trillion barrels of “technically recoverable” oil in the U.S., which is more than the proved reserves of all OPEC countries combined.
New pipelines — such as the Keystone XL line that President Obama recently blocked — could help get a glut of oil from the northern U.S. and Canada down to Gulf Coast refiners.
“We can’t fix the world price of oil today,” says Ken Green, an energy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, “but there are things the government does that it could stop doing to lower the cost of gasoline.”
Didn’t bother to read it did you?
The article lists sources through most of it.
The question is why are you not telling me what is there is not true?
What’s the actual source of the article, Joseph?
Not listing that is what constitutes plagarism.
Not talking to you Lori,
If you insist, I posted it on this opinion forum, so it must be from me! You and Jeff are ass-uming plagarism. As you both search for someone to discredit, save yourself some time and attack my credibility if you must!
Doesn’t matter to whom you’re talking, Joseph. This is a public forum, and anyone can comment on any post, even if it’s not directed at them.
What matters is you posted something without giving the source credit, and you continue to dodge when asked for the source of the article.
Have fun Morris, you already have what you are going to get on this one. Now get off the computer and let Jeff back on.
Try this source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-ways-cut-gas-prices-130200777.html
Or this one, Jon:
http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=603626&p=1&ibdbot=1
Yup. Same source. The Yahoo link simply reprints the investors material. Both can be found in seconds, so why try to cover them up? Weird…
Are you kidding ? I started to watch the video you provided in the link until my eyes glazed-over. Does he ever get off bashing Obama, and the Saudis and Hugo Chavez and … and actually talk about the pipeline ? Maybe you are not aware of the first rule in trying to find facts: Look for sources of information that are trying to provided objective data without bias ! Your source is overtly political. Some peoples intelligence may be insulted but most probably simply considered the source.
Joseph, you wrote none of this. i say that with confidence because I have seen a lot of your writing in your posts. Where did you copy this from?
The letter’s premise was Obama’s alleged responsibility for gas prices. Kurt has linked to a MediaMatters piece which is a montage of Fox talking heads, filmed during the GW Bush presidency, who claimed that the president then had no responsibility for gas prices. BTW, gas prices rose to over $4.00/gallon during Bush’s presidency: isn’t it dishonest to claim gas was only $1.84 whne Obama took office? The only change is that this country had a Republican president then, but has a Democrat president now.
Let’s look at sulphur emissions, regulated by the EPA. Do you really want to return to the bad old days when high levels of sulphur in fuel led to acid rain, with its significant ecological damage? Don’t you see how relaxing environmental regs shifts costs around? Sure, repeal some EPA regs to save a few pennies a gallon: you won’t see the cost of damaged forests and acidified waterways reflected in the price you pay at the pump.
How much control does Obama have over any of these issues? The “boutique fuels” are meant to address environmental issues in specific locations, like California. How can you defend “states’ rights” in some contexts, then deny the concept when it suits your convenience, or saves you a couple of bucks per tankful?
Joseph, this is a long and tedious post, and I don’t think you wrote a single word of it.
I never said I wrote it, I said I submitted it as an opinion on an opinion forum. You two have your shorts in a bunch. Loosen them up you’ll get more oxygen, help clear the embedded fog. It doesn’t really blame B O, it points out policy changes, and things the government could do to effect prices downward at the gas station.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
Get it now, Carpenter?
I got it a long time ago Morris, your and Kirby’s responses just pop right out of Klinzmans play book, whever you think he needs help!
Joseph, by not attributing your source, you imply that this is YOUR opinion, written by YOU. This post is plagiarized, and you are misrepresenting it as your writing.
But, you’ll just keep offering up tepid rationalizations. The deeper problem is that you did not take the time to read the source then rework its information in your own words. Besides misrepresentation, this post indicates how intellectually lazy you are.
I would tell you to be ashamed, but like one of your pals here, I fear you are incapable of that emotion…
I am ashamed of what follows: I am ashamed of any America school that has a marxist / communist being paid by my tax dollars to supposedly represent American ideals rather that communist socialist ones. I am not ashamed of anything I post in this opinion forum whether it is written by me or someone’s ideas that I believe to be true! ?You are wrong, the source for the above message was a 40 year long friend whom I would trust with my life. Where he got it, I do not care. I implied nothing, your words are not mine ever! You sir, are as disturbed as anyone I have ever met in my 65 years. How can your hatred for America and our constitution let you sleep at night in this horrific Republic?
Who is president and what the price of gas is makes little sense. The price of gas in Europe has always been higher than here, and now it is sitting at about 8 dollars a gallon, is Obama in charge of the price of gas there as well? If anything price is controled by demand, even if our demand shrinks, over all demand is going up. Think about all those Buicks being sold in China right now and consider what affect that has on demand. The answer to cheaper gas, is lower demand for gas as a fuel and switching to what will replace it.
The difference between the Bush era and the Obama era regarding energy is that Bush was attempting to increase supply by drilling in ANWR and offshore while Obama is trying to restrict supply so that alternative energy becomes competitive with oil. Energy Secretary Chu has said he wants to see the price of gas in America at the level it is at in Europe.
Oh, and while many pundits and politicians claim that new supplies from ANWR or the Bakken oil field will not reduce prices, there is renewed talk of a raid on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve just in time for the election.
Fred, in 2008 you had Fox News reporting that drilling in the ANWR would only add about 4% to the nation’s daily use of oil.
Of course, in 2008, Fox was reporting about a Republican president…
Oil production is up since the President took office. So is gasoline production. While the Wall Street speculators drive up some of the prices, one of the things that isn’t talked about much is that we are actually exporting more oil than we are bringing in. The same is true with gasoline. An earlier comment about using natural gas has actually contributed to the problem. It is cheaper for energy companies to refine gasoline in the US using our cheap natural gas and then export it at greater profits to other countries. Blanket statements blaming the President is not correct or useful. Learn the truth and put your energies toward changing things at the true source of the problem.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/02/us-exported-more-gasoline-than-imported-last-year/1
Laura,
Where are US companies refining natural gas into gasoline? I do not think that is chemically possible. It is possible to make it into a very clean liquid (GTL, gas-to-liquids) which can be used as diesel or blended with diesel. But that is not widespread – I think it is being done in Qatar and Malaysia.
As for the US exporting more than importing, it just proves that oil and to a lesser extent, gasoline, are world-traded commodities.
They are not refining natural gas into gasoline. They are using natural gas to refine oil into gasoline. It is cheaper to refine it here and ship it overseas than it is to refine it in overseas countries since natural gas prices have gotten so low. So the problem even though more gasoline than ever before is being made here in the US, it isn’t being used here in the US. Oil & energy companies are shipping it out to make larger profits Currently this is something that congress or the white house can’t stop from happening.
No, Laura. They are turning natural gas into gasoline. Here’s an article discussing one of the newer methods: http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21261/
One of the potential aspects of this is there is a lot of natural gas produced during the oil capture process. Currently, its not economical to use it, so its either just burned or vented into the atmosphere (what a waste).
And I don’t see the problem with more gasoline being made here in the U.S. That’s jobs and money for this country. And we need them.
How specifically did President Obama increase crude oil or natural gas production? In his campaign speech he said it would take twenty years to increase production if drilling started today.
Laura, we’re still importing more oil than we’re exporting by a long shot. We are, however, turning into a net gas exporter.
Here’s some Dec ’11 figures on US gas and other fuel exports — the top US export.
http://news.yahoo.com/first-gas-other-fuels-top-us-export-200739553.html
Yes. Gas and other (refined) fuels. Not oil.
From that article, “America is still the world’s largest importer of crude oil.”
Countries like Iran are on the opposite side of that coin. They export gads of crude oil, but since they have little refining capability, they have to import gasoline and other fuels.
Can’t remember which program I heard this on yesterday, but they said that oil speculation was estimated to add 46 cents per gallon to the price of gas. Obama has once again asked that this be looked into.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/08/2683470/obama-orders-oil-speculation-task.html
“The price of gas one day before President Obama’s inauguration in January 2009 was $1.84 a gallon”
That’s a bold faced lie.
Republicans have a problem. The economy is improving under President Obama’s watch.
And it is precisely because the economy is improving, both here and abroad, that gasoline prices are rising.
Because they can no longer blame him for slow growth or rising unemployment, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich are now blaming the president for high gas prices, which is a little like blaming him for a strong economy, a charge he’d gladly plead guilty to.
So here’s my question for the candidates: If Democratic policies are responsible for oil that now costs $102 per barrel, does that mean that Republican policies were responsible for oil that cost $145 per barrel back in 2008?
In fact, George W. Bush oversaw the largest rise in oil prices in U.S. history, from $20 per barrel in 2001. And you know what? It wasn’t his fault either.
Demand is growing, and supply can’t keep up. Global production has been flat since 2005. No president can change that.
But you can’t say Barack Obama hasn’t tried.
President Obama has overseen the largest rise in drilling rigs in U.S. history, from less than 200 in April 2009 to over 1,200 today. U.S. oil production is the highest it’s been in eight years. We now import 15 percent less oil than we did in 2005. For the first time since 1949, the United States is a net exporter of gasoline, diesel, and other fuels.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/fl-aocol-obama-drilling-orlando-0309-20120309,0,3874473.story
Joel,
I agree with a lot of what you said, but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the average price for gasoline in January 2009 was $1.84 per gallon. It does not mean higher prices since then are Obama’s fault, but he does not deserve credit for “overseeing” increased rigs/production either.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
My bad Lawrence, I meant to say somewhere in there it’s not President Obama’s fault. I really need to take time to proof read.
Thank you.
“Bold faced lie!”
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/01/gas-prices-2.html
Here’s a chart of gas prices. Once you access the link click on “6 years” in the upper right-hand corner.
http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx
“In fact, George W. Bush oversaw the largest rise in oil prices in U.S. history, from $20 per barrel in 2001. And you know what? It wasn’t his fault either.”
It partly was… Two wars in the middle east contributed.
It partly wasn’t… He tried to increase production, but Democrats & environmentalists blocked every effort.
“Demand is growing, and supply can’t keep up.”
Yes. It can. If we actually pursue a policy of increasing production. It won’t help now or in the next couple of years, but several years down the road it will make a huge difference. It will also make a huge difference if we continue to throttle oil supply.
When bush was president oil hit 147.00 a barrel, or 42 gallons. Gas was in the mid 4.50 gallon at the pump. The oil refinners will slow down production to make sure there is no oil glut on the markets. They normally run at 80-82% of capacity to keep demand high.
Francis,
I hate to burst your bubble, but oil companies do not control the price of oil or gasoline. What part of globally traded commodity do you not understand? Blame the Fed and US foreign policy; those are the two main contributors to higher oil prices.
They do not control the world market price, but at the pump they can make a differance.
That depends on how you want to look at it.
OPEC came into being for the purpose of reigning in supply to keep prices high. Part of the whole “energy independence” movement arose precisely because OPEC had (and has) a lot of control over supply, and thus cost. Some of us remember how that power was wielded in the 70′s. Even now, when prices spike, we go begging to Saudi Arabia to increase its production to bring the prices down.
So in a manner of speaking, we’ve been bowing to the Saudi royalty for decades.
Sadly, yes.
And just a few days ago, Senator Chuck Schumer sent a letter to Sec. of State Clinton, asking her to convince Saudi Arabia to increase production.
30-40 years and its still the same dance.
In general, two factors drive the cost of oil. Supply and demand.
Demand is increasing. It will continue to increase globally. There is little we can do to control this beyond working towards better efficiency and looking for alternatives.
We can, however, greatly influence supply. Any policy that restricts supply, increases price. Policies that increase supply, decrease price.
So to the extent that Obama’s policies have slowed down oil production on federally controlled lands, he has contributed to higher prices. Yes, prices will increase regardless. But the President does have some say in how fast prices go up and by how much.
Actually, not so much.
Drill baby drill won’t lower gas prices
The problem is this: While increased oil and gas drilling in the United States may create good-paying jobs, reduce reliance on foreign oil and lower the trade deficit, it will have hardly any impact on gas and oil prices.
That’s because the amount of extra oil that could be produced from more drilling in this country is tiny compared to what the world consumes.
Plus, any extra oil the country did produce would likely be quickly offset by a cut in OPEC production.
“This drill drill drill thing is tired,” said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, which calculates gas prices for the motorist organization AAA. “It’s a simplistic way of looking for a solution that doesn’t exist.”
The feds’ convenient oil market crackdown
According to a 2009 study from the government’s Energy Information Administration, opening up waters that are currently closed to drilling off the East Coast, West Coast and the west coast of Florida would yield an extra 500,000 barrels a day by 2030.
The world currently consumes 89 million barrels a day, and by then would likely be using over 100 million barrels.
After OPEC got done adjusting its production to reflect the increased American output, gas prices might drop a whopping 3 cents a gallon, the study said.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm
“That’s because the amount of extra oil that could be produced from more drilling in this country is tiny compared to what the world consumes.”
I wouldn’t call it tiny. We could easily give Russia a “run for the money” when it comes to being the top oil producing country. 500,000,000 barrels a day is not trivial. And that’s just a fraction of the potential increase.
“But the amount that we’re talking about domestically, it wouldn’t move gas prices from $4 a gallon to $3.”
No, but it might keep it from being $5 as soon.
“After OPEC got done adjusting its production to reflect the increased American output, gas prices might drop a whopping 3 cents a gallon, the study said.”
I’ll take a 3 cent/gallon drop over a $1 gallon increase any time.
Still want to claim your above lengthy comment as your own prose, Joseph?
http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=603626&p=1&ibdbot=1
Thanks Morris; Does that also cause you to LOL repeatedly? Just another attempt to attack a source without every addressing the points presented.
“Just another attempt to attack a source without every addressing the points presented.”
I simply outed your source since you refused to give it up, Joseph. How you see that as an attack is beyond me.
It’s pretty well established above that Mr. Shaffer is sorely out of touch. Gas was at $1.84 when Mr. Obama was inaugurated because we were in the midst of a dreadful recession caused in large part by the misapplication of supply-side economics. Less than a year before, gas prices were close to where they are today, and sometimes even higher. Unrest and wars in the Middle East, coupled with refusal of Big Oil to build new refineries over the past 30 years bear the brunt of the blame.
There’s a provocative commentary on this very subject (published a couple of days ago) at http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/07/gouged-at-the-pump-2/
I think the “Keystone XL” pipeline may eventually be built though very likely not on the initial proposed route because of concerns about a threat to the Ogallala Aquifer and other environmental concerns. See this one link. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110919-keystone-xl-tar-sands-pipeline-groundwater/
However the idea that it will have a significant effect on fuel prices in the US is by no means certain. Crude and the fuels derived are an international commodity and there are lucrative foreign markets. Take China, for example, at present they are the largest World market for automobiles and if they manage to move the huge numbers of have-nots in their population, that is over 4-times that of the US, into the middle class, and reduce the high taxes and registration fees on autos to limit auto owneship, their use of fuel will rise dramatically. (I was there recently and as it is they have modern highways filled with late model cars.) Any idea that we are going to drill our way back to $3 gas is fantasy if my opinion.
There is a video of a Canadian speaking about the proposed Keystone pipline. Note the maps and contention that there are already thousands of miles of pipelines crossing the Ogallal aquifier! I was told that the reason we need oil shipped to Texas refineries is that they are some of the only ones able to process tar sand sources efficiently? Increased supply will bring prices down.
http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/01/video-canadian-talk-show-host-destro
link.
Conservatives 4 Palin?
As a source. That’s just wrong. On so many levels.
So did you look at it Joel or decide to just pick at the URL? Of course that would also be so wrong!
“There is a video …” Where is this video and what are the qualifications of “(the) Canadian” ? Here’s a link to a source that claims there are zero oil pipelines crossing the Nebraska Sand Hills, an area that has a relationship to the Ogallala Aquifer. In addition the link details the miles of natural gas, “hazardous materials” and crude oil pipelines in Nebraska (647 miles transporting crude oil). http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110831/keystone-xl-primer-nebraska-oil-gas-pipelines-sandhills-ogallala-aquifer-heineman-obama
And I still keep wondering why the people of North Dakota don’t build more refining capacity there.
Refineries were built along coasts because the oil was coming across the ocean. Now we’re shipping oil half-way (or more) across the continent to get it to the coast because that’s where the refineries are.
Here is an interesting link on the Keystone project.
The words “Keystone Pipeline” invoke strong reactions. It seems that people are either very much in favor of or very much against TransCanada’s proposed construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would transport diluted bitumen, a viscous form of crude oil, from Alberta, Canada to Steele City, Nebraska, with another branch from Cushing, Oklahoma to Port Arthur, Texas. The pipeline consists of 36-inch diameter pipes, buried 4 feet underground, which would carry up to 830,000 barrels of crude per day. What makes it most controversial is that the proposed route runs near several aquifers that provide drinking and irrigation water, in particular the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska, which provides drinking water for two million people and supports $20 billion in agriculture. It also crosses an active seismic area, which had a 4.3 earthquake in 2002. The threat of pipeline leaks and spills is a very valid one, and on its face, this pipeline seems particularly risky. But, like many issues involving the extraction and transport of crude oil, a closer look reveals a much more complex and tricky to solve situation. This post is a bit fact-heavy, so bear with me.
http://thebullockpulpit.typepad.com/the-bullock-pulpit-calcu/2012/02/the-keystone-xl-pipeline-not-the-blog-i-thought-i-would-write.html
The last paragraph of the article you linked to is a bunch of crap! The US wouldn’t be making any investment in the Keystone XL pipeline. It is entirely privately funded.
True Canada is not the US. At least Canada is an ally and not a sworn enemy, (Chavez!) Let me offer my choice, it’s not a mystery.
Wikipedia;
The proposed route of the pipeline crossed the eastern part of the Nebraska Sandhills; opponents of the project argued that this route posed an unacceptable risk to the Ogallala Aquifer owing to the possibility of contamination from oil spills. In August 2011, an environmental-impact report by the U.S. State Department found the Sandhills route would be the most economically feasible, and would be unlikely to have significant environmental impacts.