Gas prices-Bush era, gas prices-Obama era [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Gas prices-Bush era, gas prices-Obama era


IGotIt
04-04-2012, 17:39
Interesting how Bush was blasted for "high" gas prices, and now there is a "good" side to the high prices of gas. Watch to the end. You'll have a laugh.


http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qKdScVerrBU&vg=medium

wjv
04-04-2012, 17:51
Bush gas prices
Media message was: Collusion between Bush and his Oil buddies.

Obama gas prices
Media message is: Supply & demand, the WH cannot control oil prices. It's all beyond our control.

series1811
04-05-2012, 08:22
Too funny. Democrats just haven't been able to grasp how much credibility they lost when it became so easy to go back and pull their old statements up on places like Youtube.

That was always one of the funny things about the Clintons. As brilliant as they were/are, they have always been flawed in the credibility department so badly, that they really believed they should get to start every day with a clean slate, and not be held responsible for previous lies and/or past statements.

It's a liberal/Democratic epidemic and the only thing keep them going is the doctrine that you can fool some of the people, all of the time.

Guss
04-05-2012, 09:22
So how will Mitt handle it? Will he agree with Obama that it can't be controlled? Or will he pretend he can control it? In what way will Mitt offer to mess around with the free market?

Goaltender66
04-05-2012, 09:27
I'm reasonably certain Mitt Romney would have allowed Keystone XL to move forward, thus keeping Canada in a position of captive supplier and enabling a cheaper source of oil for us (thank you, NAFTA). Alas, Obama's move means that if we now want Canadian oil, we now have to outbid China for it.

So how will Mitt handle it? Quite likely how any sane non-ideologue would...support domestic production, including refinement.

LASTRESORT20
04-05-2012, 09:29
I'm reasonably certain Mitt Romney would have allowed Keystone XL to move forward, thus keeping Canada in a position of captive supplier and enabling a cheaper source of oil for us (thank you, NAFTA). Alas, Obama's move means that if we now want Canadian oil, we now have to outbid China for it.

So how will Mitt handle it? Quite likely how any sane non-ideologue would...support domestic production, including refinement.


This ^^^

series1811
04-05-2012, 09:32
I'm reasonably certain Mitt Romney would have allowed Keystone XL to move forward, thus keeping Canada in a position of captive supplier and enabling a cheaper source of oil for us (thank you, NAFTA). Alas, Obama's move means that if we now want Canadian oil, we now have to outbid China for it.

So how will Mitt handle it? Quite likely how any sane non-ideologue would...support domestic production, including refinement.

This. Obama is not just doing nothing about oil prices. He is doing things like this that are making them worse.

Guss
04-05-2012, 09:40
I'm reasonably certain Mitt Romney would have allowed Keystone XL to move forward, thus keeping Canada in a position of captive supplier and enabling a cheaper source of oil for us (thank you, NAFTA). Alas, Obama's move means that if we now want Canadian oil, we now have to outbid China for it.

So how will Mitt handle it? Quite likely how any sane non-ideologue would...support domestic production, including refinement.
But the global price is in control. You can pump as much as you like, but additional production would have to satisfy the growing demand of countries like India and China before it would affect the global price. If we race to empty the North American reserves, that just leaves us more vulnerable in the future.

And Obama isn't against the pipeline, he just thinks the environmental factors need a little more study first.

Goaltender66
04-05-2012, 10:07
But the global price is in control. You can pump as much as you like, but additional production would have to satisfy the growing demand of countries like India and China before it would affect the global price. If we race to empty the North American reserves, that just leaves us more vulnerable in the future.

And Obama isn't against the pipeline, he just thinks the environmental factors need a little more study first.

Two problems with this.

First, Canada was set to supply us with oil at under the global market price because a) they're good folks, eh, and b) being a captive supplier, NAFTA, etc. It's a lot easier to supply oil to the US via Keystone than it is to load it up on tankers and sail it to China, plus assuming transactional costs and risks. Those risks, along with the relationship with the US, was, until Obama said no, deemed to be worth the discount in the eyes of the Canadians.

So no, the global price is not by definition always in control. Unfortunately, Obama's zeal to deny Republicans a policy win in an election year forced PM Harper to look at diversifying Canada's oil interests, hence their agreement with China. Even worse, there's no going back on this. Canada has decided it's now in their best interests to enter the world oil market instead of being a good neighbor (neighbour) and selling us oil at a discount...thanks to Obama.

Second, the same dynamic holds with domestic production. Oil is not going to necessarily leave our shores for China and India because transactional costs will, at the margin, outweigh any discount from supply-driven price decreases in the domestic market.

The theory about reserving US supply is somewhat misguided, I think. You'd have us purchase an expensive commodity elsewhere, including paying for the transaction, instead of taking advantage of the local resource?

ETA: Oh, and you say Obama isn't against it, he just wants to "study" it first? That's misleading in the extreme. The EPA has had the environmental impact study since at least early 2009 as part of the application. They ruled in mid 2010 that they wanted to see something else in the impact study, which was satisfied two months later. Obama's EPA sat on it for a little over a year until Obama said in November 2011 he would decide in 2013.

In January of this year he outright rejected the application. He didn't push it back for more study. It's done and gone.

So how much "more" study is needed beyond the three years worth of wheel-turning the Obama Administration already wasted?

brickboy240
04-05-2012, 10:12
Obama's fiscal policy is as much to blame as his energy policy.

Don't buy that old saw about Iran or global use or supply and demand....the banks around the world are printing money like mad and that is devaluing our currency, making it take more USDs to buy a barrel of oil than before.

Doubt it? Well listen to the one guy that got the whole meltdown right many years before it happened....

The truth about rising gas prices, the stock market, & Warren Buffett's taxes - YouTube

F350
04-05-2012, 10:25
As far as "global pricing" goes there is a very simple answer (IMHO) just as Alaska views oil there as belonging to the citizens of Alaska and everyone gets a check.....Oil on "PUBLIC" lands in the US belongs to the American people; so part of every oil lease on public lands includes a requirement that, say 50% of all oil produced MUST be sold, refined and consumed in the US.

In the event of over supply in the US a provision that if supply hits "X" then overseas sales are permitted until supplies are reduced to "Y".

Guss
04-05-2012, 11:44
Two problems with this.

First, Canada was set to supply us with oil at under the global market price because a) they're good folks, eh, and b) being a captive supplier, NAFTA, etc. It's a lot easier to supply oil to the US via Keystone than it is to load it up on tankers and sail it to China, plus assuming transactional costs and risks. Those risks, along with the relationship with the US, was, until Obama said no, deemed to be worth the discount in the eyes of the Canadians.

So no, the global price is not by definition always in control. Unfortunately, Obama's zeal to deny Republicans a policy win in an election year forced PM Harper to look at diversifying Canada's oil interests, hence their agreement with China. Even worse, there's no going back on this. Canada has decided it's now in their best interests to enter the world oil market instead of being a good neighbor (neighbour) and selling us oil at a discount...thanks to Obama.

Second, the same dynamic holds with domestic production. Oil is not going to necessarily leave our shores for China and India because transactional costs will, at the margin, outweigh any discount from supply-driven price decreases in the domestic market.

The theory about reserving US supply is somewhat misguided, I think. You'd have us purchase an expensive commodity elsewhere, including paying for the transaction, instead of taking advantage of the local resource?

ETA: Oh, and you say Obama isn't against it, he just wants to "study" it first? That's misleading in the extreme. The EPA has had the environmental impact study since at least early 2009 as part of the application. They ruled in mid 2010 that they wanted to see something else in the impact study, which was satisfied two months later. Obama's EPA sat on it for a little over a year until Obama said in November 2011 he would decide in 2013.

In January of this year he outright rejected the application. He didn't push it back for more study. It's done and gone.

So how much "more" study is needed beyond the three years worth of wheel-turning the Obama Administration already wasted?
The problem with your theory is that you think the transportation saving (A) is significant, and (B) it somehow would benefit OUR wallets instead of benefiting the OIL INDUSTRY. By the time it gets to you, the oil will be billed at global prices and any savings will go to the Koch Bros., etc.

The pipeline will proceed when everything looks good, so it's back to the drawing board.

Goaltender66
04-05-2012, 12:31
The problem with your theory is that you think the transportation saving (A) is significant, and (B) it somehow would benefit OUR wallets instead of benefiting the OIL INDUSTRY. By the time it gets to you, the oil will be billed at global prices and any savings will go to the Koch Bros., etc.

The pipeline will proceed when everything looks good, so it's back to the drawing board.

Now you are lapsing into populism, not economics.

Mine is not a theory...it is economic and historical fact. Canada has been selling us discounted oil for years, because the US had a monopoly on Canada's oil exports. The arrangement benefitted both parties...Canada had a reliable customer, and we received discounted oil. Obama threw it all away, pissed off a major ally, and now our main goal must be to secure another cheap source of oil. Domestic production is the obvious answer, and it has been the answer for quite some time now (and it's plain the marginal cost of a barrel purchased from Saudi Arabia is greater than that purchased from Canada or, for that matter, produced in Oklahoma). Yet Obama doesn't want to do that either. In fact, his own energy secretary has admitted that policies aimed at lowering gas prices are not a priority in this Administration.

Plus, the big bad scary OIL INDUSTRY is not quite as monolithic as you think. Seller profit on a gallon of gas is something like two cents. The remainder is in COGS (refinement, delivery, commodity pricing) and taxes. Since gasoline is about as substitutable a product as you can get, economics shows that marginal price settles pretty closely to marginal cost.

And finally, I don't think you've been paying attention: approving Keystone XL now isn't going to do anything about the Canadians. They've decided that the arrangement between us is over and done with. The mere fact that Obama said no forced the Canadians to start diversifying their oil exports. Plus, he's rejected it. He hasn't kicked the can down the road. In January Congress forced him to make a decision instead of voting present, and he miffed a huge no-brainer.

series1811
04-05-2012, 12:37
The pipeline will proceed when everything looks good, ......

WTF does that mean?

Guss
04-05-2012, 12:59
Has there ever been an instance where an oil company has promised reduced prices if the government did them a favor and delivered? Are we even seeing any promises now?

Goaltender66
04-05-2012, 13:02
Has there ever been an instance where an oil company has promised reduced prices if the government did them a favor and delivered? Are we even seeing any promises now?

I've read your question four times and it made less sense each time.

Want to try again?

Guss
04-05-2012, 13:08
We're at an 8-year high for domestic oil production. Has it made any difference at the pump.

Oil is what's termed a "fungible" product. Those giant oil tankers with their foreign crews can ship it pretty cheaply. Face it, it's a global market.

The only president who has shown the ability to control domestic prices is Hugo Chavez, and we don't want to go there.

Goaltender66
04-05-2012, 13:19
We're at an 8-year high for domestic oil production. Has it made any difference at the pump.

And do you know why? Because all of that production is from private, not public lands, and the price of oil has made it profitable to drill at previously unprofitable sites.

There's cheaper oil to be found on federal lease lands, but Obama won't open those up. This is driving the price up because production costs are higher, which translates into a more expensive barrel.

Oil is what's termed a "fungible" product. Those giant oil tankers with their foreign crews can ship it pretty cheaply. Face it, it's a global market.

Fungible means it's easily substituted, not that it transports cheaply.

So is it your argument that shipping oil from Saudi Arabia to the Gulf Coast is just as cheap as sending it from Oklahoma?

Plus, you continue to ignore the very plain fact that Canada was our captive supplier and selling us oil below market for years. You keep latching onto that "global market" mantra with the same disturbing regularity that a now-disappeared member of the forum did.

The only president who has shown the ability to control domestic prices is Hugo Chavez, and we don't want to go there.

Interesting, given that the complaints from the populists just four years ago was that Dick Cheney controlled oil prices. I think that's the entire point of the thread.

This administration has shown a disturbing willingness to actually harm the domestic energy market, not help it. Getting the government out of the way of refinery building and enabling inexpensive and domestic supply sources are the two main components of a remediation strategy. You don' t have to be a dictator to have a good energy policy, especially when the product in question is subject to extreme competitive forces absent government distortion of the market.

Guss
04-05-2012, 13:24
The U.S. is the 9th leading oil EXPORTER. If we can't hold on to what we've got and use it ourselves, that tells you that the oil will be sold on the global market for what the oil companies can get for it. Now that might mean that they buy Canadian oil and ship
Alaskan oil, but the net result after the shell game is that oil companies make money and we get bigger bills.

Goaltender66
04-05-2012, 13:27
The U.S. is the 9th leading oil EXPORTER. If we can't hold on to what we've got and use it ourselves, that tells you that the oil will be sold on the global market for what the oil companies can get for it. Now that might mean that they buy Canadian oil and ship
Alaskan oil, but the net result after the shell game is that oil companies make money and we get bigger bills.
Very misleading.

Actually, we're the ninth leading exporter of refined oil products. We're actually a net importer of crude (last I checked, the world's largest...). Dry up the supply of crude as Obama is doing, and our exports dry up as well, then so long to any hope we have of energy independence.

Guss
04-05-2012, 13:41
Very misleading.

Actually, we're the ninth leading exporter of refined oil products. We're actually a net importer of crude (last I checked, the world's largest...). Dry up the supply of crude as Obama is doing, and our exports dry up as well, then so long to any hope we have of energy independence.
The CIA Factbook combines both crude and refined.
Our supplies are not drying up because of Obama. The oil companies are still sitting on undeveloped reserves they have leased. Obama jumped on them about that and we seem to be getting better production.

Lethaltxn
04-05-2012, 13:45
This thread is getting good. :popcorn:

Goaltender66
04-05-2012, 13:49
The CIA Factbook combines both crude and refined.
Our supplies are not drying up because of Obama. The oil companies are still sitting on undeveloped reserves they have leased. Obama jumped on them about that and we seem to be getting better production.

Well, lucky for you I am here.

As of last week, weekly net imports of crude hit 9,736k barrels. Net exports of refined fuel products were 658k bbe/day. Of what we exported, 28% was in oils (lubricating, etc) and 50% was in various fuel oils (distillate, residual). What finished gasoline we do export (about 14% of our total exported product) pretty much goes to NAFTA partners. Isn't that neat? Canada sells us cheap crude, we refine it and they get a nicely refined product without having to build a messy refinery.

And oil companies are not just "sitting on leased reserves." Obama won't open federal land to drilling. Period. Private land is what's left and those are being vigorously pursued, thanks to the energy policies, or lack thereof, of this administration.

G-19
04-05-2012, 18:09
Gas was around a buck, when Clinton was president. I guess this actually proves it ain't party related, more likely greed related.

Goaltender66
04-05-2012, 18:45
Gas was around a buck, when Clinton was president. I guess this actually proves it ain't party related, more likely greed related.

Actually, energy policy under Clinton wasn't substantially different than it was under previous administrations. He tried to get that dumb BTU tax passed, but outside of that the most radical thing he floated was probably the Climate Change Action Plan...but most if not all of those provisions were voluntary. Clinton just didn't want to trade political capital for high gas prices, knowing that to do so would cost him and his party. So he pretty much declined to make life overly difficult for energy companies, in stark contrast to our current President.