Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  Should The Government Intervene And Lower Gas Prices? (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Should The Government Intervene And Lower Gas Prices?
Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 8251
From: The Goober Galaxy
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 09, 2011 07:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Five Ways the Government Could Make Oil Prices Fall

By JOSEPH LAZZARO Posted 2:50 PM 03/08/11

Oil's surge to more than $105 per barrel -- which has caused the average price of unleaded regular to jump more than 40 cents in less than a month to about $3.50 per gallon -- is rooted more in psychology than in fundamentals.

Globally, there's no shortage of oil, nor any lack of gasoline in the U.S., but traders' fears that the civil unrest in minor oil exporter Libya may spread to major oil exporters Saudi Arabia or Iran has led an oil price spike, led by market speculators and large end users of oil.

However, the U.S. government is not powerless: It can help take some pressure off oil's price -- if it addresses both market psychology and oil's fundamentals. Here's how:

1. Random Releases From the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Previous draw-downs from the SPR, which currently holds 727 million barrels of oil, in 1990-91 (Desert Storm, 17 million barrels), 1996-97 (deficit reduction, 28 million barrels), and 2005 (Hurricane Katrina supply disruption, 11 million barrels) did cause prices to decline somewhat. Another sale in 2011 might do an even better job, if properly structured.

For example, if Washington announced that it plans to release, at random times, an unspecified amount of oil from the SPR, that would immediately create more downside price risk and scare some of the speculative net long positions -- for oil traders who don't take delivery of oil -- out of the market. This psychological component -- not the actual amount sold -- is the SPR's primary price weapon.

Next, on the day of SPR sales, the government could without prior notice announce that it's releasing 3 million, or 5 million, or even 20 million barrels of oil. This second "supply shock wave" would further depress oil prices, and trigger stop-loss sales by an additional speculative "net longs." After seeing their trades stopped-out due to unpredictable oil dumping from the SPR, which could cause oil to suddenly drop $3 or $4 in minutes, many more speculators would no doubt exit the market and likely lower prices even more. Subsequent surprise sales would enhance the impact.

Savings: About $15 per barrel, or about 37.5 cents per gallon of gasoline.


2. Double Margin Requirements for Oil Speculators

Oil speculators aren't the only factor in today's $100-plus-per-barrel prices, but they're playing a role, and DailyFinance's Peter Cohan has a idea that will complement random SPR sales: The New York Mercantile Exchange and Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) should double their margin requirements for oil contracts, currently $6,075 and $5,200, respectively. Cohan points out that if regulators did so, it would decrease speculators' ability to gamble with borrowed money -- something that would lower oil prices.

Savings: $15 per barrel of oil, or 37.5 cents per gallon of gasoline.


3. Temporary Moratorium on Federal and State Gas Taxes

The U.S. government and the states can also suspend their gasoline taxes for a specified period of time. The federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, and the states tack on an average tax of 48.1 cents per gallon (high: California, 64.2 cents; low: New Jersey, 32.9 cents). That would drop gas prices by an average of 64.5 cents per gallon.

If states can't afford a full, temporary suspension, perhaps they can opt to cut them in half -- still a significant price reduction for motorists.

Savings: An average of 64.5 cents per gallon for a full moratorium, about 32 cents for a 50% moratorium.


4. Temporarily Suspend Winter/Summer Gasoline Formula Laws

Every summer, the Environmental Protection Agency requires that many states, including California and New York, use a special summer gasoline formula that's less likely to evaporate during warmer weather, reducing harmful emissions.

However, the summer blend costs more to make, and it also raises refiners' costs by requiring them to tailor gasoline types for different states. So, a temporary suspension of the summer gasoline requirement would lower prices at the pump slightly.

True, the air wouldn't be as clean in those states in the summer, but if a temporary suspension could lower gasoline prices by 10 cents or 15 cents a gallon, the trade-off would be worth it, at least in the short term.

Savings: 10 to 15 cents per gallon of gasoline.


5. Strictly Enforce 55-MPH Speed Limit

Many motorists probably won't like this tactic, but it would lower gas prices. Most vehicles get much better gas mileage at 55 mph than at 65 or 70. If the U.S. government provided cash incentives for the states to strictly enforce the 55-mph speed limit, gas consumption would drop substantially, and it would lower prices, or at least limit increases.

The key is getting universal or near-universal compliance with the 55-mph limit to create the largest drop in gasoline demand possible.

First imposed during the 1973-74 energy crisis -- the world's first oil shock -- the 55-mph limit saved not only gas, but lives. The U.S. had an average of 4,000 fewer traffic-related deaths per year until the law was repealed.

Savings: About 10% of fuel consumed, or about 35 cents per gallon.


If All Five Steps Are Taken: Total savings of $1.52 to $1.89 per gallon.

Of course, most of these measures would face significant resistance. States with tight budgets would balk at any attempt to decrease their gas-tax revenue. Inducing nationwide compliance with a 55-mph speed limit would be even harder. But even if only a few of these steps were taken, and gas prices fell by a lower amount -- for example, 70 cents to 90 cents -- that would still represent a substantial savings for most motorists.

That price reduction would help propel the U.S. economic expansion forward by increasing consumers' disposable income and reducing businesses' transportation costs.

But these are just short-term measures. Long-term, the U.S. needs to increase vehicle efficiency in a big way and to wean itself first off imported oil, then off oil in general, with a national policy to increase energy efficiency across society. It's in the country's best interests not to be held hostage to the volatile and economically damaging effects of reliance on oil.


See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/five-ways-the-government-could-make-oil-prices-fall/19872131/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-sb-n%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk3%7C205367&icid=sphere_copyright

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3400
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 09, 2011 11:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is all it took to drop crude oil prices from more than $149 per barrel to just over $33 per barrel...in just a few months.

Bush Lifts Drilling Moratorium, Prodding Congress

WASHINGTON — President Bush lifted a presidential moratorium on drilling for oil and natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf on Monday, hoping to prod Congress to act to clear the way for exploration along the country’s coastline in response to soaring energy prices.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/washington/14drillcnd.html

Drill baby drill
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/004296.html

IP: Logged

juniperb
Moderator

Posts: 1869
From: Blue Star Kachina
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 10, 2011 11:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for juniperb     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
At this time, I would say no.

The economic climate is based on more than oil and it wouldn`t help the ecomomy/stock market much.

New unemployment figures, Middle East crisis and China`s ecomomic slump all fingure in to the over all picture.

Lowering gas prices would be putting a band aid on a broken leg imho.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-open-lower-as-apf-2850721087.html

------------------
The Earth Laughs In Flowers
... R.W.Emerson

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 5307
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 10, 2011 11:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't mind either way. If it were me, I wouldn't.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3400
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 11, 2011 03:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, I hope everyone is going to enjoy O'BomberGas at $5-$6 or $7 per gallon.

O'Bomber and his Socialist hacks in the Interior and Commerce Depts have done and still are doing everything in their power to make sure America IS dependent on foreign nations for our energy supplies.

The only way O'Bomber has gotten away with this so far is that most Americans don't know the United States is the richest nation on earth in energy resources.

Wait until Americans find out....


New report says U.S. has largest fossil fuel reserves in world

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/10/new-report-says-u-s-has-largest-fossil-fuel-reserves-in-world/

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 5307
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 11, 2011 12:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The CRS doesn't make its reports public. Interesting that the Daily Caller thinks it knows what they contain.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3400
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 11, 2011 03:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So acoustic...are you attempting to say the United States is NOT the richest nation on earth in energy resources?

Or acoustic, are you saying US Senators don't have any authority to see CRS reports...or share that information with others?

However, you should know we are the richest energy resource nation in the world. After all acoustic I told you way, way, way back in 2008.

Poor O'Bomber. Just as he was strangling US energy sources with drilling and mining bans, along comes another spike in oil prices to kick him in his sorry butt.

Everyone is sure to enjoy their expensive O'BomberGas experience.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 5307
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 11, 2011 04:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm saying what I said, which is that the Daily Caller doesn't have access to reports put out by the CRS. You'd think your writer would be more specific if she meant next Thursday. Articles are written in advance of publishing, so you'd think she meant the day that her article was published would be the day of release by Inhofe's office. Yesterday, Inhofe released no such thing.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3400
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 11, 2011 06:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So now you're attempting to weasel out of the impression you attempted to create that the Daily Caller's report is in error.

No sale.

In as much as there's nothing in the CSR report which is secret, Senators can share the report information with whom ever they choose anytime they choose.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 5307
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 11, 2011 06:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Daily Caller's report may very well be in error. We don't have anything to back up it's story (if you hadn't noticed).

quote:
In as much as there's nothing in the CSR report which is secret, Senators can share the report information with whom ever they choose anytime they choose.

That could very well be true, but our journalist didn't cite that she got her information from Inhofe.

It's shady at best, and there's no way to weasel out of this assessment.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3400
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 11, 2011 10:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You have no reason to believe the Daily Caller reporting is in error. There's not a particle of evidence the reporting isn't solid.

The CRS report only confirms what's been known about US energy resources for years....except by the idiot in the White House who continues to moan that the US has 2% of world oil and uses 25%.

This is just your usual bloviating bullshiiit.

Wising up leftists is mission impossible.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 5307
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 12, 2011 12:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I need not remind you that neither you nor the Daily Caller have provided any evidence to support the Daily Caller's article.

I do, in fact, have reason to disbelieve the Daily Caller, and it's not just that Tucker Carlson started the website. Data that is available suggests that the U.S. is 14th (in the world) in recoverable, proven oil reserves. China's 13th. Russia's 8th. Canada's 2nd.
Country Comparison :: Oil - proved reserves

To bloviate is, "To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner." As such, it's pretty clear I haven't bloviated at all. All of my posts have been rather concise, and to the valid point. Your information is/was suspect, and I called it accurately. That's all. You've attempted to denigrate my position without attempting to prove the validity of the article. You'd have to actually be wiser to wisen me up.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3400
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 12, 2011 09:29 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As usual acoustic, you don't read with any competency or comprehension. What a waste of US taxpayer money for education!

quote:
Data that is available suggests that the U.S. is 14th (in the world) in recoverable, proven oil reserves. China's 13th. Russia's 8th. Canada's 2nd.
...acoustic

The Daily Caller article doesn't say the US has the largest oil reserves.

"..Environment and Natural Resources Committee, will release a report Thursday from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) showing that the United States’ combined recoverable natural gas, oil and coal endowment is the largest on Earth."

Logical, reasonable people have already deduced the reason leftists continue to foam at the mouth whenever Americas' vast energy resources enter a discussion.

The leftist battleship argument is that the world is running out of fossil fuel stocks at an alarming rate. America is guilty of using more than our fair share and must resign ourselves to doing with less and be willing to pay artificial skyrocketing prices to heat and cool our homes, fuel our cars and produce and transport our goods.

Yes, to hear O'Bomber and other leftist twits and morons, America is guilty. We must impoverish ourselves and reduce our standard of living to worship at the alter of leftist twit guilt.

Leaving coal and natural gas out of the equation..to say nothing of shale oil...there are MORE proven oil reserves in the world right now than at any time in the past since record keeping began.

So, while leftist morons blither, blather, bloviate and spew bullshiiit about rationing fossil fuel stocks...to save the earth...and conserve "what little we have left", switching to other so called "green" non polluting energy sources; THEY also reject other forms of so called "green energy", like nuclear electric production and hydroelectric power.

Leftists are however, quite willing to starve people in third world nations who are living days away from starvation by mandating the use of ethanol made from corn to use in our motor vehicles. The use of corn to make ethanol has caused the price of corn to skyrocket on world markets, pricing corn out of the reach of the very poor...and those relief agencies which help feed them.

Such leftist compassion makes a mockery out of true compassion. My advice leftists...wipe those phony compassionate looks off your leftist faces and remove those colored ribbons of concern from your clothes.

You don't measure up in any way.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 5307
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 12, 2011 01:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You were making it about oil in particular, Jwhop, with your claim of having told me two years ago.

Now...nowhere in your latest post do you offer a defense of that article. Every new post of yours fails to accomplish the one task you seem to have set out to do.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3400
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 12, 2011 02:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Is it possible you could be this big a ditz?

"Data that is available suggests that the U.S. is 14th (in the world) in recoverable, proven oil reserves. China's 13th. Russia's 8th. Canada's 2nd.
...acoustic"

"You were making it about oil in particular, Jwhop, with your claim of having told me two years ago."..acoustic

Not I acoustic. It was you who attempted to narrow the energy resources being discussed to OIL.

"Jwhop, with your claim of having told me two years ago"...acoustic.

You're not even correct about what I told you 2 years ago.

"Yet, there are more energy resources here in the United States in the form of oil, oil shale and coal than exist under the sands of every nation in the middle east combined."...jwhop
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/004267.html

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 5307
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 12, 2011 06:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh, that's interesting. Linking to a thread I didn't even post in. How is it you told me now?

You and I discussed oil at great length several times two years ago. If you don't recall this, use that search function for something useful.

Bottom line here as far as I can see is that you're failing at making your point, a point that was accented by using a Daily Caller article whose source can't be verified.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3400
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 13, 2011 11:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh well acoustic, I see.

If you didn't see it or hear it, it didn't happen!

Just as in the case of Hitler failing to whisper in your ear..."I'm a Socialist" means...Hitler was not a Socialist.

Well acoustic, here's another episode where Americas' energy reserves were discussed as "energy reserves" as opposed to OIL reserves.

But acoustic, I understand; since you didn't see the discussion, it never happened.

"If American citizens knew the US is sitting on the most abundant energy sources in the world........"
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/004618.html

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 5307
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 13, 2011 02:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thank you for yet another useless post.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3400
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 13, 2011 03:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well acoustic, what's one useless post compared to your 4900?

Keep up the good work and you'll be named the King of Useless.

IP: Logged

littlecloud
Moderator

Posts: 967
From:
Registered: Nov 2010

posted March 13, 2011 04:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for littlecloud     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From the title alone I say no. The gov't already has it's hands in too many things it ought not too. In this case it has it's hands buried deeply. It is my belief that they are the one's causing the increase in the price of oil. 'I find it hard to believe that they can put a man on the moon but not be able to seal the hole causing the oil spill', to quote a passerby.

Aside from the fact that there are other ways more environmentally friendly to energize our daily lives. I say this from the viewpoint of preserving nature not from global warming. This is earth is our home and we do not benefit from destroying it.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 5307
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 24, 2011 01:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Is Obama to Blame for $4 Gasoline?
Democrats, Republicans spin oil data in dispute over high gas prices.
March 24, 2011

Summary
Conflicting, false and misleading statements on oil production and gasoline prices have become the currency of politicians lately, as oil tops $100 per barrel and gasoline hovers near $4 per gallon. Among some of the claims that got our attention:

  • Top Republicans blame President Obama's moratorium on deepwater drilling for rising gasoline prices. The moratorium delayed drilling of some new wells, but did not affect the output of wells already in production. A projected drop in total domestic oil production this year should amount to six-tenths of 1 percent of all U.S. consumption of liquid fuels. A Wall Street oil analyst told us the moratorium has had "zero" effect on prices.
  • Obama said domestic oil production last year was its highest since 2003. That's true, but U.S. oil production is projected to drop this year.
  • Rep. Kevin McCarthy said "under this administration our output has gone down 13 percent." McCarthy is wrong. U.S. oil production was up in 2009 and 2010, and is projected to decline only 2 percent this year.
  • Sarah Palin said Obama is "allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports" from unstable countries. But there has been a decline, not an increase, in total oil imports from Middle Eastern and African countries, as well as countries identified by the State Department as "dangerous or unstable," since Obama took office.

Analysis
It has become a familiar Republican refrain to blame rising gas prices on President Barack Obama and his policies, particularly his decision after the Gulf oil spill on April 20, 2010, to impose a moratorium on deepwater drilling. The administration immediately halted approval of new drilling permits and ordered a safety review that resulted in a May 27 announcement of a six-month drilling moratorium. The moratorium was lifted earlier than expected in October, but the administration has been slow to issue new deepwater permits, leading Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and other GOP critics to call it a "perma-torium." The first permit was only issued Feb. 28.

The $4-Per-Gallon President?

On her Facebook page, Sarah Palin wrote a post March 15 headlined the "$4-Per-Gallon President." In it, she blamed the president's "anti-drilling" policies --his moratorium, proposed 2012 budget and regulatory policies -- for driving down domestic oil production and causing "pain at the pump." She said gas prices have gone up "67 percent since he took office," claiming it is "no accident."

    Palin, March 15: The evidence of the President's anti-drilling mentality and his culpability in the high gas prices hurting Americans is there for all to see.

On "Fox News Sunday" March 13, Sen. Mitch McConnell was asked if Obama is to blame for rising gas prices, and the Senate GOP leader responded that "he certainly participated" in raising gas prices. "This administration in the last two years has been shutting down wells," he said.

A blog item posted March 16 on the website of House Speaker John Boehner blamed the president for higher gas prices. The post, which carried the headline "Higher Gas Prices & Thousands of Jobs Lost: The Impact of Obama's De Facto Gulf Moratorium," cited the congressional testimony of a Republican official, Louisiana's secretary of natural resources Scott Angelle, who claimed that the administration's moratorium and delays in issuing new permits raised gas prices 37 cents per gallon from May 26, 2010, (the day before the moratorium) until the end of 2010. (It is worth noting, however, that the price of gasoline had gone up $1 per gallon before the Gulf oil spill. A gallon of gasoline in the U.S. rose from $1.83 on Jan. 19, 2009, a day before Obama took office, to $2.83 on April 19, 2010, the day before the oil spill, EIA historical data shows.)

So, why have gasoline prices gone up and what impact have Obama's policies had on oil production and gasoline prices?

We talked to Fadel Gheit, a former Mobil Oil executive who is now a senior energy analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. Asked about the impact of the deepwater moratorium, Gheit said the moratorium had a "negative impact on production, but not as much as the politicians would like us to believe." The impact of the moratorium on gas prices? "Nothing. Zero," he said.

Moratorium Impact on the Gulf

The moratorium had no affect on wells already in production, according to Nicholas Pardi, a spokesman for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. But it did affect drilling of new wells, and it's important for new wells to start producing oil as the old wells experience a natural decline in production.

Department of Interior spokeswoman Eileen Angelico told us that 21 rigs were forced to suspend activity on exploratory or developmental wells. Gary Long, an engineer for the Energy Information Administration, estimated that each rig could produce three wells a year. Each deepwater well can produce an average of about 5,000 barrels a day, but ultra-deep wells can produce sometimes more than double that. How long does it take for a new well to produce oil? Long said it could take just three months -- or as long as four years.

So, the moratorium had an impact on production. But how much?

First of all, U.S. oil production in the Gulf of Mexico last year was 1.64 million barrels per day -- a record, despite the spill and moratorium. We confirmed that it was indeed a record year for Gulf oil production based on EIA data (since 1981) and Department of Interior data (dating to 1947), as provided by EIA spokesman Jonathan Cogan. (Gheit credited improved technology and increased experience in deepwater drilling for the steady climb in Gulf production.)

This year, however, oil production is expected to decline in the Gulf.

In its latest monthly short-term energy report, the Energy Information Administration on March 8 projected that oil production in the Gulf will decline this year by 240,000 barrels per day. Doug Morris, who is part of the EIA team that estimates oil production for the monthly reports, said some of the expected decline in Gulf oil production is "definitely related to the moratorium" and regulatory changes. And, he added, "some of it's due to natural decline."

It's important to note that even before the oil spill and the moratorium, the EIA projected in April 2010 that oil production in the Gulf would decline this year. Before the spill, the EIA expected the Gulf to produce 110,000 less barrels per day in 2011. As we said, it is now expected to decline by 240,000 barrels a day this year. The difference is 130,000 barrels per day.

But domestic production elsewhere will partially offset the decline in the Gulf. EIA estimates that the net result will be a decrease of about 110,000 barrels per day -- which amounts to six-tenths of 1 percent of the total 19.30 million barrels per day that the U.S. is expected to consume this year. Gheit said such a relatively small decline "doesn't even move the needle" on gas prices. He blamed global events -- not the president's policies -- for rising gas prices.

    Gheit, March 17: Only the naive will think that will have a direct impact. It doesn't even move the needle. Is 100,000 barrels (a day) going to make a difference? It's not. A cent or two per gallon? It might. But there are much bigger factors. It is like a perfect storm.

The "perfect storm," he said, includes a series of refinery accidents, including an April 2, 2010, blast in Washington state that killed seven people; a labor strike in October 2010 that caused disruptions and closings of oil refineries in France; "operating problems" at refineries in Venezuela, Mexico and South America; and an increase in demand for oil because of the improving economy. Of course, there is the unrest in the Mideast -- which has pushed oil prices above $100 per barrel.

"All in all, oil prices have been on the rise in the last six months -- before the Middle East. It has been moving for more than a year now. Oil prices are inflated and will remain inflated for factors other than supply and demand," Gheit said.

U.S. Oil Production: Up or Down?

While Republicans have criticized Obama's energy policies, the president has touted -- as he did in a March 11 press conference -- that oil production rose last year.

    Obama, March 11: Last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003. Let me repeat that. Our oil production reached its highest level in seven years. Oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time high.

Obama is right on both counts. EIA data (table 4a) shows that total domestic production of crude oil was 5.51 million barrels per day, including 1.64 million barrels per day from the Gulf of Mexico. Historical EIA data shows that the last time the U.S. produced that much total oil was in 2003, when it generated 5.68 million barrels per day. (We already addressed that 2010 was indeed a record year for the Gulf.)

So, why did Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California say on CNN's "State of the Union" that oil production has gone down?

    McCarthy, March 13: You know, under this administration, our output has gone down 13 percent.

McCarthy is wrong. He undoubtedly meant to say that oil production in the Gulf is projected to go down 13 percent this year -- which is how Sen. Jon Kyl correctly stated it later on the same program. But that figure represents a projection, not an actual decline, and overall decline in domestic production is expected to be 2 percent once you factor in a rise in domestic production elsewhere. It's another example of selective use of figures to make a partisan point.

Gheit said the longer range "picture is not as grim" as some make it out to be. He pointed to the Bakken Shale deposit in North Dakota, which the EIA says produced 49.4 million barrels in 2009. Gheit said North Dakota could be producing 1 million barrels a day by 2014. "That would more than exceed any shortfall in the Gulf," he said. (The Bakken isn't the world's largest oil reserve as claimed in a chain e-mail that has circulated for years, but it is helping U.S. production significantly.)

U.S. Oil Imports: Up or Down?

How much oil the U.S. imports also has been a source of confusion.

Earlier this month we wrote about seemingly conflicting comments made by Obama and McConnell. The president said that imports declined last year to less than 50 percent of U.S. consumption, while the Kentucky senator warned that the U.S. imports 60 percent of our oil. McConnell was talking about total imports, while Obama was talking about net imports (total imports minus exports). Both can claim to be correct, but the EIA sides with Obama's math when gauging U.S. dependency on foreign oil.

As you can see, it is easy to cite official numbers to support a partisan narrative.

Also on imports, Palin claimed in that same March 15 Facebook post that the administration's inaction on drilling permits is "allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world."

There is no question that the U.S. for a long time has relied on importing oil from dangerously unstable parts of the world. But has Obama allowed us to become "increasingly dependent"? No.

First of all, net imports are trending downward. Our reliance on imported liquid fuels -- as the EIA calls oil and other petroleum products -- declined to less than 50 percent of U.S. consumption in 2010. And, despite an expected uptick this and next year, it will decline through 2035. The EIA's 2011 Annual Energy Outlook, released December 2010, projects our reliance on imported liquid fuels will drop to 42 percent by 2035.

    EIA, December 2010: U.S. dependence on imported liquid fuels measured as a share of total U.S. liquid fuel use, which reached 60 percent in 2005 and 2006 before falling to 52 percent in 2009, is expected to continue declining over the projection period, to 42 percent in 2035.

Our reliance on imports from foreign countries -- whether stable or unstable -- is projected to trend down in the long-term, even though there may be ups and downs along the way.

Now, Palin did not specify which countries she meant when she wrote about "foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world." The Middle East and Africa are unquestionably two "dangerously unstable parts of the world," so let's look at U.S. imports from those regions last year compared with 2008, President George W. Bush's last year in office. (To do so, we looked at EIA data for U.S. imports -- using the 2008 "annual-thousand barrels per day" figures and calculating a comparable figure using the 2010 monthly import data.)

EIA data shows the U.S. imported 2.3 million barrels a day from 13 countries in the Middle East in 2010 -- down from 3 million barrels per day in 2008. They were: Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar, United Emirates, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Oman, Syria and Tunisia. Likewise, the U.S. imported 1.6 million barrels per day from 11 countries in Africa -- down from 1.7 million barrels in 2008. They were: Angola, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Liberia, Mauritania and Nigeria.

The percentage decline was steeper in the Middle East (24 percent) than it was in Africa, where it was just 8 percent.

However, the U.S. overall imported less oil in 2010 compared with 2008, because of increased domestic production and a weakened economy. The U.S. imported 11.75 million barrels per day in 2010, down from 12.91 million barrels per day in 2008, or roughly a 9 percent drop.

So, in order to properly judge whether we are "increasingly dependent" on imports from countries in these two regions, we have to look at the imports from the Middle East and Africa as a share of total U.S. imports. In that case, oil from African countries represented 14 percent of total U.S. imports in 2010 -- about the same as it did in 2008. The share of oil from the Middle East, however, declined from 24 percent of U.S. imports in 2008 to 20 percent in 2010.

Overall, the two regions accounted for 37 percent of our imported oil in 2008 and 33 percent of our imported oil in 2010. So by this measure, Palin was wrong to say Obama was making the country "increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world."

Perhaps another way to judge our reliance on troubled countries is to look at the State Department's list of "dangerous or unstable nations," which recommends that Americans "avoid or consider the risk of travel to that country." This isn't the best method, because some countries do not have unstable governments but can be dangerous to tourists in some areas. Japan, for example, is on the list of "dangerous or unstable countries," because of the recent earthquake and tsunami and subsequent damage to nuclear reactors.

Nevertheless, there were 34 countries listed when we checked on March 18, and the U.S. imported oil products from half of them in the last three years -- including Mexico and Saudi Arabia, two of our major suppliers, according to EIA figures.

The U.S. imported about 5.4 million barrels of petroleum and other liquids per day from those 17 nations in 2008. That was about 42 percent of the 12.91 million barrels per day that the U.S. imported that year. And the U.S. imported about 4.8 million barrels of petroleum per day from those same countries in 2010, or 41 percent of the 11.75 million barrels of petroleum it imported each day last year.

So, going by the countries that the State Department considers to be "dangerous or unstable," Palin would be wrong when looking at total imports since Obama became president. Individually, however, imports were up from some nations and down from others.

Six of the State Department's "dangerous or unstable" countries are among our top 15 oil suppliers: Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, Iraq, Algeria and Colombia. Four were down from 2008 (Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Mexico) and two were up (Colombia and Nigeria).

The U.S. actually imports more petroleum from our northern neighbor, Canada, than it does from any other country. And Canada does not appear on the State Department's list of "dangerous or unstable nations." Nor do Venezuela, Russia, Angola, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Ecuador, the Virgin Islands or Kuwait, which are all in the top 15 countries from which the U.S. imports oil and other petroleum products.

¨C by Eugene Kiely and D¡¯Angelo Gore, with Michael Morse and Lara Seligman

Sources
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Response and Restoration. Deepwater Horizon / BP Oil Spill Response. 21 Apr 2010, accessed 23 Mar 2011.

"Salazar Meets with BP Officials and Engineers at Houston Command Center to Review Response Efforts, Activities." Press Release. U.S. Department of the Interior. 6 May 2010.

"Salazar Calls for New Safety Measures for Offshore Oil and Gas Operations; Orders Six Month Moratorium on Deepwater Drilling." Press Release. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 27 May 2010.

Pardi, Nicholas, spokesman, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. E-mail to FactCheck.org. 14 March 2011.

Guarino, Mark. "Deep-water drilling moratorium lifted: why neither side is happy." Christian Science Monitor. 12 Oct 2010.

Blackmon, Douglas. "Barbour Slams Obama¡¯s Energy Policies." Wall Street Journal. 15 Mar 2011.

Tracy, Tennille and Stephen Power. "Deep-Water Permit Is First Since BP Spill." 1 Mar 2011.

"BOEMRE Approves First Deepwater Drilling Permit To Meet Important New Safety Standards in Gulf of Mexico." Press Release. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. 28 Feb 2011.

Palin, Sarah. "The $4-Per-Gallon President." Facebook.com. 15 Mar 2011.

"Joe Cirincione, Sen. Mitch McConnell on Crisis in Japan; Sens. Mark Warner, Sen. Saxby Chambliss on Efforts to Cut Deficit." Transcript. Fox News Sunday. 13 Mar 2011.

Seymour, Don. "Higher Gas Prices & Thousands of Jobs Lost: The Impact of Obama¡¯s De Facto Gulf Moratorium." Online Posting. Speaker of the House John Boehner. 16 Mar 2011, accessed 23 Mar 2011.

Angelle, Scott. Testimony on ¡°Obama Administration¡¯s De Facto Moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico: Community and Economic Impacts.¡± 16 Mar 2011.

Energy Information Administration. Retail Gasoline Historical Prices. Accessed 23 Mar 2011.

The Equities Group. Oppenheimer & Co. Accessed 23 Mar 2011.

Energy Information and Administration. Annual Federal Offshore ¡ª Gulf of Mexico Field Production of Crude Oil. 29 Jul 2010, accessed 23 Mar 2011.

U.S. Department of the Interior: Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Region. Monthly Production by Planning Areas with Daily
Production Rates. 1 Mar 2011.

Energy Information and Administration. "Short-Term Energy Outlook." 8 Mar 2011.

Energy Information and Administration. "Short©\Term Energy and Summer Fuels Outlook." 6 Apr 2010.

Murphy, Kim. "Deadly Washington blast is latest refinery accident." Los Angeles Times. 3 Apr 2010.

Vaughan, Vicki. "Seventh Tesoro blast victim died Sunday." San Antonio Express-News. 26 Apr 2010.

Bird, David. "French Strike Pushes Oil Above $82." Wall Street Journal. 8 Oct 2010.

Bush, Bill. " Petroleum demand strong in February." American Petroleum Institute. 18 Mar 2011.

Energy Information and Administration. Average Consumer Prices and Expenditures for Heating Fuels During the Winter. Mar 2011, accessed 23 Mar 2011.

Energy Information and Administration. U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels per Day). 29 Jul 2010, accessed 23 Mar 2011.

"State of the Union with Candy Crowley." Transcript. CNN. 13 Mar 2011.

Energy Information and Administration. Crude oil and condensate production rises at Bakken and other U.S. shale plays. 14 Mar 2011, accessed 23 Mar 2011.

Bank, Justin. "U.S. Offshore Oil Reserves." FactCheck.org. 16 Mar 2009.

Morse, Michael. "Obama, McConnell Take Oil Import Data for Spin." FactCheck.org. 14 Mar 2011.

Energy Information and Administration. Monthly Energy Review. Petroleum Trade: Overview. Feb 2011, accessed 23 Mar 2011.

Energy Information and Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2011 Early Release Overview. 16 Dec 2010.

Cogan, Jonathan, spokesman, Energy Information Agency. E-mail to FactCheck.org. 23 Mar 2011.

U.S. Department of State. Current Travel Warnings. Accessed 18 Mar 2011.

Energy Information Administration. "Year-to-Date Imports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products by PAD District, January-December 2010." Dec 2010, accessed 24 Mar 2011.

Energy Information Administration. Petroleum Statistics. Accessed 18 Mar 2011.

Energy Information Administration. Total Petroleum Imports By Country of Origin. Accessed 18 Mar 2011.
http://factcheck.org/2011/03/is-obama-to-blame-for-4-gasoline/

IP: Logged

juniperb
Moderator

Posts: 1869
From: Blue Star Kachina
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 24, 2011 02:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for juniperb     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My understanding is speculators had one of the biggest hands on it . My question is should there be stronger regulations regarding oil and speculators?

------------------
~The Earth Laughs In Flowers~
... Emerson

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 5307
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 24, 2011 02:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3400
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 28, 2011 12:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Posting lengthy articles which attempt to absolve O'Bomber of blame in skyrocketing energy...oil and gasoline prices, won't cut the mustard.

The equation is simple; it always was simple.

America is the biggest customer for crude oil in the world.

Any disruption of crude oil supplies from the oil markets sends prices up..unless demand tanks.

O'Bomber has taken the Gulf of Mexico offline for oil exploration and development of existing oil fields.

O'Bomber has put a moratorium on new drilling...in the Gulf, off shore..east and west and in Alaska.

Oil markets reacted predictably and quickly.

Oil markets reacted predictably and quickly when Bush signed an executive order which said "Drill baby drill" and crude oil prices fell from $149 per barrel to about $34..and gasoline prices fell from over $4 per gallon to under $2.

Foreign oil producers and oil brokers who held long futures contract on crude oil wet themselves. Foreign oil producers because they could see they might lose the biggest market for their oil in the world when America started producing more of our own and oil brokers because they knew the price of crude oil would plummet if America got serious about supplying more of our own demand.

O'Bomber relieved all the producers and brokers anxiety when he took American production offline.

The result was entirely predictable...skyrocketing prices.

O'Bomber is guilty of causing the rapid rise of crude and gasoline prices and his actions were deliberate....and political.

Oh, and who gets hurt the most by O'Bomber's actions?

Those least able to absorb the rising costs of everything they buy...including food.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3400
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 28, 2011 12:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
March 28, 2011
The energy superpower
Thomas Lifson

According to the Congressional Research Service, which nation has the largest energy reserves of all? Surprise! It is the United States. Peter C. Glover of the Energy Tribune writes:

In case anyone missed it, let me repeat something that is of a magnitude of 10 on the scale of news-quakes for Joe Public USA: America's combined energy resources are, according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service (CSR), the largest on earth. They eclipse Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th) and Canada (6th) combined - and that's without including America's shale oil deposits and, in the future, the potentially astronomic impact of methane hydrates.

The energy facts in the CRS report should be making front page news all over America. Mostly it isn't. Given the devastating news from Japan and New Zealand, it may be right to postpone dancing in the streets. But something else is going on. Even though they are going to dominate global energy supply for decades to come the insidious war on vital fossil fuels continues apace.

It is scandalous that the United States imports an ever-increasing share of our energy, dependent on the world oil market and its many nefarious oil powers. Glover writes:

Obama's State of the Union address made it perfectly clear that his energy paradigm remains wedded to a non-fossil-fuelled notion of a carbon Neverland that insists that erratic, under-performing windmills can do the job equally well. Meanwhile a myriad cast of characters are lining up to tell the Emperor that he and his energy policies have no clothes - and not just the usual suspects either.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/the_energy_superpower.html

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a