We want higher Gas prices: Obama Official

Energy Secretary Stephen Chu has already stated that he wants Gasoline Prices to reach the levels of Europe.  On Tuesday Chu did something that is rare among Obama officials.  He told the truth.  When asked if the goal of the Energy Department was to get the price of gasoline Down, Chu replied:   

“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.

“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,”

Well we have to give Chu credit for being candid.  He wants higher gas prices to justify giving $500,000,000 bailouts to rich Obama contributors such as George Kaiser and the Solyndra fiasco.  Chu is actually a bit refreshing compared to the lying Eric Holder who still can’t tell us about Fast and Furious over a year after a U.S. Border Control Agent was murdered. 
Remember Liberals don’t care about other people’s pain.  What $8.00 gallon gasoline does to the average working stiff is just collateral damage to an appartchik like Chu. The damage being done to independent truck drivers can’t be imagined.  Liberals want control of the economy so they can dole out sweetheart deals like wind turbine manufacturing  to political cronies.   

61 thoughts on “We want higher Gas prices: Obama Official”

  1. IF -the overall goal is not to get the price gasoline down
    AND IF – the overall goal is to decrease dependency on oil
    THEN Chu wants higher gas prices

    He wants higher gas prices

    Syllogistic fallacies

    fallacy of the ambiguous middle
    fallacy of the undistributed middle

  2. Oops. I wasn’t quite done with that. I was having argument with myself as to whether it was fallacy of the ambiguous middle or fallacy of the undistributed middle.

    In any case. The premise that a reduction in depenency oil translates into higher gasoline prices fails because there is no direct evidence that less dependency equals higher prices. Structuring logical arguments is often difficult when you fail to pay attention to the premises to ensure that they clear and unambiguous. Nice try though.

  3. Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Mr. Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in September.

    Admitted it’s a dumb idea: Link

  4. IF -the overall goal is not to get the price gasoline down
    AND IF – the overall goal is to decrease dependency on oil
    THEN Chu wants higher gas prices

    Chu wants higher gas prices because he said that he does, although he admitted later that it’s a dumb idea. And it is a dumb idea, similar to increasing electric prices based on pseudo-science. Link

    Structuring logical arguments is often difficult…

    Tell me about it. Maybe you should begin with structuring your sentences.

  5. The elites do not understand or care that higher gas prices mean that alot of families will go without what they also need, which could be a brake job or shoes for their children.
    Their green energy policies might not be viable for another 20 or 30 years if at all, so they are risking the health and welfare of average Americans. They are also risking the health of a very fragile economy. They do not care.
    Bambi and Moochele can fly around the world and then tell us we need to tighten our belts.
    Im ready to use my belt around someone’s neck I am so angry. My family is struggling, my parents lost their home and now we are looking at 6 or 7 dollars a gallon this summer.
    Powder is dry.

  6. “The elites do not understand or care that higher gas prices mean that alot of families will go without what they also need, which could be a brake job or shoes for their children.”

    And the morons think that families won’t figure out ways to drive less, even though the last time gas reached $4/gallon that’s exactly what they did.

    “Im ready to use my belt around someone’s neck I am so angry.”

    Allow me to suggest that if the feeling is really strong, you could always you use it around your own.

  7. “my parents lost their home ”

    I am sorry your parents misplaced their home. Of course, I know you really mean they were unable to service their mortgage obligation and went through either a short sale or the foreclosure process. But I wonder if you are implying that it was the government’s fault that they were unable to service the mortgage or that our nation’s economic problems started in 2008? Finally, I wonder if you should be getting angry about a future prediction which has yet to happen? I mean, if gas is not 6 or 7 dollars a gallon this summer, you will have gotten angry over something that did not happen.

  8. Herein lies the arrogance of a liberal retard:

    “And the morons think that families won’t figure out ways to drive less, even though the last time gas reached $4/gallon that’s exactly what they did.”

    So families merely need to drive less when gas doubles in price in 3-4 years?

    What if said family lives in a house (where they tied-up the bulk of their networth and is un-sellable due to an historic downward fluctation in the real estate market created by quasi-governmental mandates) in a subdivision (approved by the local and state government, serviced by roads and utilities approved by the state and federal government), several miles from work, school and amenities, while the current government (state and federal) does nary a thing to allow for the sustainability of said communities they approved and/or enabled through policy decisions?

    No matter, jackasses like Geezer will say, ‘meh…just drive less’.

    No wonder folks like Deborah are angry…and rightfully so!!!

  9. “What $8.00 gallon gasoline does to the average working stiff is just collateral damage to an appartchik like Chu.”

    Did the Communists ever give a rat’s ass that an errant policy decision could result in the starvation of millions?

  10. But I wonder if you are implying that it was the government’s fault that they were unable to service the mortgage….

    It’s likely due to many politicians being economically illiterate, although some apparently saw too big to fail becoming a failure.

  11. Funny how excitable “conservatives” like QP get when the market gives them gasoline they can’t afford.

    I didn’t say she SHOULD “just drive less.” I predicted she WILL “just drive less,” based on the fact that gasoline consumption dropped 5% as soon as the price hit $4/gallon. As you might recall, the price spike disappeared when gasoline consumption dropped. I guess you don’t recall that, because how can you panic and blame Obama properly when you keep your childish fears in check?

    Don’t blame Deborah’s poor decision-making — living too far from where she works, etc. — on the “government” that approved the development where she lives. If we’re going to play that game, a big portion of blame belongs to the “conservatives” who allowed public transit to wither away in the apparent belief that gasoline would stay cheap until the end of days.

  12. If gas is anywhere near $5 a gallon in November, Omaba loses. You see, reality is Omaba’s greatest vulnerability. He can cite vague statistics and meaningless trends, endlessly droning on about the ‘recovery,’ but gas prices and grocery prices are real and are being paid by real people- the electorate.

  13. I think these predictions are scary stories made up for our benefit. As I said on a recent podcast, the last time gas was to go to $4 a gallon, it never hit that and the recent scary stories of $5 make me think it won’t go much past $4.

    The reason for that seems to be simple psychology. Come up with a really BIG number and scare the pants off the driving public and when gas is just jacked up to a smaller number we all breathe a sigh of relief and think we got a great deal. This way we accept the lower price and never question why it was jacked up at ALL for no good reason.

    The speculators are the banks, and they are the ones making boatloads of loot from rising oil prices, and if the last few years have taught us anything at all, it’s how the banks know how to play us like violins. Sad.

  14. “If gas is anywhere near $5 a gallon in November, Omaba loses.”

    Just keep telling yourself that, Rick. Who’s going to replace him — “President” Perry, as you predicted so confidently? LMAO.

  15. I heard Morris recently recalling Clinton’s obsession with gas prices, and I think Clinton was right. If gas is anywhere near $5 a gallon, Omaba loses. Guaranteed.

  16. No, not ‘guaranteed’…I momentarily forgot how weak a candidate the GOP will be running.

  17. “If gas is anywhere near $5 a gallon, Omaba loses. Guaranteed.”

    So that’s what Republicans have been reduced to — hoping that Obama will be undermined by something he has no way of controlling.

    It will be especially interesting to see what the voters’ remorse will be like once the new Republican president bombs Iran. Taht isn’t going to lower oil prices, I hope you realize.

  18. But Obama DOES have control over the cost of gas. One of the reasons that gas prices are high, based on the price of crude oil, is because Obama encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood of radical Islamic revolutionaires and extremists, who are destablizing the Middle East. Risk scares the markets and causes suppliers to hold back supply.

    Another reason is that when the dollar sags against world markets, the price of crude oil priced in dollars goes up. Massive over-spending has driven the US towards insolvency, causing the dollar to slump.

    Another reason is that Obama’s Administration is at war with oil suppliers.

    Gas is already at $5 a gallon in parts of Florida and California. Gas was $4.04 per gallon for the cheapest grade in Washington, D.C. on Saturday. (It is far more at the gas station near the WaterGate, but that is always unusually high because there are no other choices nearby.)

  19. http://www.californiagasprices.com/

    Gas today hit $6.19 per gallon at CHEVRON, 811 W Olympic Blvd & Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California

    Gas was $5.21 per gallon at Mobil , 201 S Azusa Ave & Garvey Ave S, West Covina, California

    $5.09 per gallon at Chevron , 901 N Alameda St & N Main St, Los Angeles, California

    The average for California was $4.335 per gallon, with a national average of $3.717 per gallon

  20. Remember, elitist know-it-all Geezer was in here proclaiming that George W. Bush had absolutely no control over high gas prices, and it was ludicrous for all of the Democrat establishment (and mainstream media) to attack him constantly for it.

    Oh wait …. he didn’t do any of that. That’s the real story here.

  21. “But Obama DOES have control over the cost of gas. One of the reasons that gas prices are high, based on the price of crude oil, is because Obama encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood of radical Islamic revolutionaires and extremists, who are destablizing the Middle East. Risk scares the markets and causes suppliers to hold back supply.”

    I won’t call that the biggest load of crap ever, but it’s pretty close.

    The President had little to no control over gas prices.
    Suppliers are not holding back supply and Saudia Arabia can make up nearly all of the decrease in supply.
    There is no lack of supply. We continue to export gasoline.
    Crude oil (especially sweet crude which is easier to refine) prices are increasing because of increased demand, especially in India and China.
    Lastly, investors have role (albeit small) in driving up prices because they are betting that prices will rise because of both demand and instability in the Middle East.

    Releasing crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which the President can do does not lower prices significantly but it makes people feel good.

    Driving less does not lower prices because the majority of the demand for oil is not in the U.S. it is in Chine.

    There is no shortgage of supply and as I said Saudia Arabia can pump it out to more than make up for any shortgage (real or perceived).

    I can even fathom what neural connections are being made inside that brain!!!!

  22. There is no lack of supply. We continue to export gasoline.
    Crude oil (especially sweet crude which is easier to refine) prices are increasing because of increased demand, especially in India and China.

    ??????

  23. In any event, given that the increased demand around the world is inevitable as more people seek to warm themselves closer to the fire that runs the engine of progress and the American way of life why shouldn’t Americans create more wealth and jobs for themselves? After all, there is evidence that we would be more environmentally conscious than the Chinese anyway.

    On a side note, these reasons are more important: Another reason is that when the dollar sags against world markets, the price of crude oil priced in dollars goes up. Massive over-spending has driven the US towards insolvency, causing the dollar to slump.
    Another reason is that Obama’s Administration is at war with oil suppliers.

    E.g.

    Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years,” Obama told the audience at the University of Miami. “That’s why we have a record number of oil rigs operating right now – more working oil and gas rigs than the rest of the world combined.”
    The increase in domestic drilling was almost entirely in areas for which the Obama administration exercised no authority, as oil production on federal land declined by 11 percent in fiscal year 2011….. But oil production on state lands increased that year by 14 percent and increased by 12 percent on private lands.
    “A lot of the wells that were supposed to be drilled weren’t because of the moratorium,” Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy at the IER, told CNSNews.com. “Drilling is up in the U.S. on lands he has no say over. On lands he has all the say over, drilling is down.”
    …..
    “We’re taking every possible action to safely develop a near hundred-year supply of natural gas,” said Obama, “something that experts believe will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.”
    However, FactCheck.org said that foreign-oil dependence has been declining since 2005, when President George W. Bush was in office. It went on to cite the same Energy Information Administration report from 2011 that said, “There is no single explanation for the decline in U.S. oil import dependence since 2005. Rather, the trend results from a variety of factors. Chief among those is a significant contraction in consumption.
    ….“This decline partly reflects the downturn in the underlying economy after the financial crisis of 2008,” the EIA report continued.Obama Falsely Takes Credit For Expanding Domestic Oil Drilling

    Ultimately, that’s it. If you want to entertain yourself with the exponentially expensive idea that you’re “saving the earth” and so on then the surest way to do that is to turn off the engine of progress, shut the economy down and give up the American way of life. Given that Obama does want to entertain himself with ideas of that sort, his destruction of wealth and the exponentially cost of his administration’s policies are not surprising.

  24. In the news:

    Obama, promoting his energy policies in a politically prominent state that will host the Democratic National Convention, called on Congress to provide $1 billion in grants to local communities to encourage greater use of fuel-efficient technologies.More of the same: Link

    “We need to invest in the technology that will help us use less oil in our cars and our trucks, and our buildings, and our factories,” Obama said. “That’s the only solution to the challenge. Because as we start using less, that lowers the demand, prices come down.”

    He can’t have it both ways, asserting that demand isn’t related to supply but then saying that prices will come down as we use less at the same time.

    His argument: “Supply doesn’t affect price… but when we use less in the future then prices will come down.”

  25. “There is no lack of supply. We continue to export gasoline.
    Crude oil (especially sweet crude which is easier to refine) prices are increasing because of increased demand, especially in India and China.”
    “??????”

    All current demand is being met. Oil exporting countries can increase production at will to meet demand. Crude oil prices have risen because of demand, not supply. What was being said, was that the problem was on the supply side and oil producers were cutting back on supply (“causes suppliers to hold back supply”). I am saying the problem is on the demand side of the curve. The problem is, in order to blame Obama one has to create a supply side problem.

    To compensate for the international market’s loss of Libyan crude, Saudi Arabia increased their output. Once Libyan crude is running freely, Saudia Arabia plans to decrease their output, all in the interest of maintaining a stable supply. A stable supply side and increase demand results in higher prices.

    It should also be noted that only 25% of our oil imports come from the Middle East.

    Bottom line, gas prices have risen, but it’s not because Obama destabilized the Middle East (which he did not do any in event) resulting in a disruption in supply.

    His method of analyzing cause and effect is similar to the attorney for the elderly lady who set a hot cup of coffee between her legs and then try to blame McDonalds when she burned herself.

  26. Dave writes in #22
    “Saudia Arabia can make up nearly all of the decrease in supply.”

    COULD? So what? ARE NOT, is the issue.

    Saudi Arabia has CUT oil production at the same time that the EU has imposed an embargo on Iranian oil.

    COULD doesn’t count for anything.

    “There is no lack of supply. We continue to export gasoline”

    The gasoline markets are irrelevant, Dave.

    The price of gasoline is driven by the cost of CRUDE OIL, what gasoline is made out of.

    Dave more and more reveals himself as a “seminar caller” PRETEND moderate who will go to any lengths to defend the Far Left and Democrats in power.

    Crude oil is at $104 per barrel, when it was down as low a $18 per barrel in the 1990’s.

    The cost of gasoline is driven by the cost of the crude oil from which it is made.

    So I WILL call Dave’s argument the biggest load of balderdash I’ve heard this month (there being so much of it in our society).

    Does Dave not know that gasoline is made from crude oil and crude oil is at record high prices?

    Or was Dave hoping we didn’t realize that?

  27. All current demand is being met. Oil exporting countries can increase production at will to meet demand. Crude oil prices have risen because of demand, not supply.

    It doesn’t make much sense for Americans to limit their own capacity to meet demand* world wide in favor of spending enormous amounts of wealth “stabilizing” other regions of the world.

    *And this is the current policy of the federal government, which is apparently based on a mix of pseudo-science and socialism. I.e. it’s not based on reality. Fortunately it’s not the policy of state governments or private markets, otherwise Americans would be even farther toward the side of smothering the sources of energy that create “the economy” and their way of life. The thing about it is, many on the Left don’t want Americans to have their way of life due to their tendency toward image based thought or a static view of things.

    E.g.

    ….aspects of rampant consumerism have resulted in startling anomalies. Worldwatch reports that worldwide annual expenditures for cosmetics total U.S. $18 billion; the estimate for annual expenditures required to eliminate hunger and malnutrition is $19 billion. Expenditures on pet food in the United States and Europe total $17 billion a year; the estimated cost of immunizing every child, providing clean drinking water for all, and achieving universal literacy is $16.3 billion.

    But this isn’t actually a statement of the dynamic and living values guiding their economic decisions. So if government tried to “redistribute” the wealth currently being created in cosmetics toward providing clean drinking water then all that would happen is the destruction and waste of wealth and its redistribution into governmental pyramid schemes based on coercion.

    There is, of course, no easy solution to the problem. The authors call for green taxes….

    And there you go. The thing about abject stupidity and ignorance of this sort is that it may be that Western women wearing less make up or paying more for it will not necessarily result in a single African child getting clean drinking water. It could just as easily result in the “infantry” of a warlord getting all the water.

    In the process of redistributing wealth its creation is typically destroyed. So in the end the sacrifices involved are typically for nothing.

    The goal is to focus not so much on sacrifice, but on how to provide a higher quality of life using the lowest amount of raw materials,” he said. “We need to change the way we produce goods and the way we consume them.”As Consumerism Spreads, Earth Suffers…

    And he knows how to “distribute” goods around the world better than you do… so set up a system where Western women wear less make up so that African children will have clean drinking water.

    Just kidding, they won’t. Although they might be able to entertain themselves with the idea that they were saving the children. So maybe that could be monetized so that Westerners could buy and sell moral vanity to each other instead of cosmetics.

  28. Dave writes in #25:

    Bottom line, gas prices have risen, but it’s not because Obama destabilized the Middle East (which he did not do any in event) resulting in a disruption in supply.

    First, again, gas prices have risen because crude oil prices have risen. Gas is made from crude. This is like the city dwelling granddaughter who visits her farmer grandfather. The grandfather shows her how he milks the cows: “That’s where we get milk from.” The granddaughter responds, perplexed and a little disturbed: “Grandpa, in the city we get our milk from a carton!”

    Second, crude oil has risen, as one of 3 failures by Barack Obama as President, because Barack Obama has thrown gasoline on the fire of the Muslim Brotherhood rather than exhibiting the sophisticated foreign policy finesse and expertise we were promised. We were cheated. Obama is a bungling amateur when it comes to foreign policy issues, not the wiser, broad-minded “man of the world” we were told. My sister’s Golden Retriever Penny (R.I.P.) would have done a better job of world foreign policy. (Penny would make friends with any one, but don’t dare try to steal her food.)

    Dave, crude oil trades in a global market. There is no North America price versus Middle East price. There is one world-wide price, because the value of the oil so vastly exceeds the cost of shipping, that the shipping cost fades away as negligible. So if the price being paid in Germany jumps, oil brokers can shift

    While I will not claim to have any insider experience in the industry, I did once find a buyer for 20 million barrels of oil. A Latvian said he had a contact willing to sell from Nigeria. I found a buyer. I would have been rich. But when the buyer imposed reasonable safeguards, the seller evaporated, and the deal fell through.

    I learned enough to assure you that an oil tanker on its way from Saudi Arabia could be redirected at sea. The oil on a 2 million barrel oil tanker can be — and often is — sold and resold a dozen times from when the tanker leaves port until it off loads. Title to the oil may be changing hands constantly while the oil sails along at sea. If the price jumps in Argentina, the ship can be redirected at sea. A buyer in Argentina can bid more, buy the oil from its last owner, and redirect the ship to wherever the price is highest.

    As a result, there is only a world price.

    If the price goes up anywhere, oil flows to wherever the price is highest, until the differences are evened out and eliminated. That can take from minutes to hours (usually minutes), until the price becomes the same everywhere in the world.

    Risk of war in the Middle East, particularly the closure of the Straits of Hormuz, causes prices to soar. Why? Because business people are not stupid. The risk of their operations has vastly increased. Insurance charged out of London by Lloyd’s for each voyage will soar. The risk of losing a tanker in the Straits, in a war zone increases.

    The increased likelihood of a shortage causes any one with a brain to stockpile crude, fill up every storage tank they can, and park oil tankers off shore, or slow tankers down, to make sure their company will have enough in case of a shortage.

    It is so commonly accepted that oil prices soar when there is the danger of war in the Middle East that I am surprised we are even discussing this.

    The only real controversy here is protecting Barack Obama from the consequences of his obvious failures.

    Whatever it takes to protect the Democrat.

  29. The point was, and remains, that crude oil prices are high because of demand not because of Obama, you silly person you.

    “It doesn’t make much sense for Americans to limit their own capacity to meet demand* world wide in favor of spending enormous amounts of wealth “stabilizing” other regions of the world.”

    Very true. Exporting Americanism has been abject failure nearly every time any President engaged in that fools errand. While it is right and proper for us to express concern and even to support nation building, the cost cannot and should not be our own nation’s well being. So the next time some (I was going to say neocon, but I will refrain) knowledgeable American leader wants to hold up signs saying Mission Accomplish, let’s remember the cost in lives, our national security, and economic well being.

  30. The point was, and remains, that crude oil prices are high because of demand not because of Obama, you silly person you.

    Obama’s actions have exacerbated the problem of high demand instead of allowing Americans to profit from it.

    Very true. Exporting Americanism has been abject failure nearly every time any President engaged in that fools errand.

    Yet Obama continues these same failed policies. Note the bitter irony of expending enormous amounts of national wealth (and causing pollution and destruction) to “stabilize” various regions of the world instead of working to profit from your own sources of energy. If what you say is true then isn’t Obama on the same fool’s errand that Bush was on? It seems like you can admit that one was a fool squandering wealth but not the other.

  31. …..let’s remember the cost in lives, our national security, and economic well being.

    Was Libya a war for oil?

  32. Dave defends Obama in #30: “The point was, and remains, that crude oil prices are high because of demand not because of Obama, you silly person you.”

    Price is determined where supply intersects demand, as illustrated on a supply-demand graph. Price is neither determined by demand alone or supply alone. The market-clearing price occurs at the intersection of supply and demand.

    Regardless of the demand, where Democrats have artificially restricted supply by government interference in the marketplace, supply is lower than what would naturally be true in the free market, and market prices are higher.

    Where the government interferes with supply decisions (including exploration, drilling, selling, etc.), less oil is supplied than the free market would provide if left to act freely. With less oil being supplied to meet the existing demand, prices are higher (significantly higher).

    Add to that the reality that existing supply is unreliable and might not be available if war breaks out, or if Middle Eastern countries decide to withold supply for political reasons, and the price of crude oil soars — because of the Democrats.

    The USA is estimated to have 8 times as much recoverable crude oil locked up in SHALE OIL as Saudia Arabia’s proven oil reserves. Yet environmental whackos (ENGLISH LESSON: not all environmentalists are whackos, and not all whackos are environmentalists, but SOME people are whackos of the environmentalist flavor) have been blocking or slowing down the development of shale oil for decades.

    Obama’s blocking of the Keystone Pipeline ought to be enough to destroy his re-election hopes all by itself.

    Blocking extraction of oil on 2,000 acres at ANWR out of 17.5 million acres is restricting the supply.

    Restricting off-shore drilling is restricting the supply of oil. (NOTE: Oil rigs were pushed out into very deep water, drilling down 2 miles below the surface, and had an accident, because Democrats would not let them drill in safer, shallower waters.)

    Every time you fill up with gas, thank an environmental whacko for the price you are paying at the pump.

  33. Dave writes in #26: “All current demand is being met”

    That is the definition of the market-clearing price. The market clears, when buyers bid up the price to the point where suppliers are willing to sell at that price, in sufficient quantity to supply all of the demand.

    The market “clears” as they say when “All current demand is being met.”

    The price at which “All current demand is being met” is the price at which the supply curve intersects the demand curve.

    As price goes up, fewer buyers (demand) are willing to pay the higher price.

    As prices go up, more suppliers are willing to sell at the higher price. As prices go down, fewer suppliers are willing to part with their supply.

    Where these intersect is the market price, where supply meets demand.

    When the government interferes with supply, both adding costs to suppliers and reducing the amount supplied, the market-clearing price goes up. Buyers have to pay more to demand the same quantity of oil supplied.

    Remember that suppliers of oil can always leave the oil in the ground and sell it later. So the price has to look attractive.

    For example, if there is the danger of war, why not just wait until the war is over before placing 2 million barrels at risk in a ship snaking through the Straits of Hormuz.

  34. Meatball, the country of Estonia has been running on shale oil for decades. The country of Estonia is teaching Jordan (which has no natural oil reserves) how to extract shale oil, and has been advising the U.S. Department of Energy.

    Shale oil is profitable when crude oil remains above $40 – $50 per barrel. The problem is that the price of oil needs to stay CONSISTENTLY and RELIABLY above $40 to $50 per barrel. The reason that shale oil has broken so many hearts is that oil would get high enough to make shale oil interesting, and get investments started, then oil prices would drop again, causing the shale oil investments in pilot projects to come to a screeching halt.

    I used to have an entire website up showing links and resources to US Government and research information about shale oil. I still have the data, but just economized on the money of paying for web hosting every month. I could repost the website.

    But the US Government and environmental whackos are the primary obstacle to tapping an Estimated 1 to 2 Trillion Barrels of oil locked in shale in the Rocky Mountains and West, in locations stretching from Utah North all the way to Canada. That could be as much as 8 times the total proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

    It is the government and out and out lies by leftists that is causing your family to pay so much at the pump.

    America could be energy independent by now.

    America could have stopped sending billions of dollars to Middle Eastern countries, so that we then have to spend billions more on national defense.

    Your children (or nephews and nieces) will live in debt because environmental whackos LIED about shale oil starting with a 1979 “report” in the Carter Administration.

    We could have changed the world by not paying for hostile countries and Islamic despots to build up armies and threats, and saved all that money on national defense, if liberals hadn’t lived in fantasy land and blocked development of America’s natural resources.

  35. As for leases going “untapped” this is another liberal fantasy and lie. Is it possible for a liberal to every just tell the truth?

    Oil companies are giving a HUNTING LICENSE to go SEARCH for oil.

    A lease is just an opportunity to search for a needle in a hay stack. Nobody knows where the oil is… until they go searching for it by drilling — at great expense.

    So the number of leases that are going untapped is: ZERO.

    Nobody knows where the oil is. But drilling is very expensive. So the oil companies must prioritize where is the most likely place to drill. If they come up dry — and no one pays for their failed wells. Georgetown law students want someone to pay the cost of getting drilled, but when the oil companies strike out, it comes out of their own pockets.

    Oil companies lease the right to go searching in a vast swath of ocean or Gulf — and then have to figure out where to drill.

    And did you know that there a backlog – a waiting list — of YEARS to get hold of an oil rig to schedule a drilling project on? So, no, there are no leases going “untapped.” Oil exploration companies are drilling in the most probable locations in order to hopefully strike oil before they run out of money searching.

  36. Meatball writes: “Also, a majority of Floridians (including former Gov Jeb Bush, for the most part) oppose off shore drilling in Florida waters. State’s rights much?”

    Yes, Federalism. (There is no actual meaning to the phrase “states rights” which has never been how true conservatives have talked about limited government. RACIST DEMOCRATS fighting against civil rights for Blacks talked about “states rights.” But that’s not a conservative term.)

    The Republican policy is to get the Federal government out of the way, and let each State decide for itself.

    That is the conservative position.

    However, the reason there is some resistance to off-shore drilling is because nuts in the environmental movement …

    (WE INTERRUPT THIS POST FOR AN ENGLISH LESSON: the phrase refers to the small subset of people who are BOTH (a) nuts AND (b) in the environmental movement BOTH AT THE SAME TIME: It does NOT refer to nuts who are NOT environmentalists, NOR does it refer to OTHER enviromentalists who may be perfectly SANE, WISE, REASONABLE, SENSIBLE, or motivated by COMMON SENSE: The combination of two adjectives or descriptors NARROWS the concept to only those for whom BOTH limitations are applicable. NOTICE THE LACK OF A VERB, which might occur, for example in “All cars are [see the verb] green” as compared with “I hate green cars [no verb connecting green with cars].” However, there exists a smaller subset of people who are BOTH environmentalists AND nuts at the same time. Thank you for taking the time to learn the English language).

    … screech about off-shore drilling as if you will be walking along the beach and staring at an oil rig. The visible horizon is about 20 miles out to sea. Oil rigs would be more like 200 miles from shore. So Floridians could walk along the beach every single day and never even know that there were any oil rigs out there.

  37. http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/03/07/gas-prices-now-a-big-factor-in-presidential-election/

    CBS: Latest News
    Gas Prices Now A Big Factor In Presidential Election
    March 7, 2012 7:10 PM

    Last night, CBS News exit polls found 77 percent of those voting in seven Super Tuesday states say rising gas prices were an important factor in their vote.

    The poll reflects growing consumer anxiety as gas prices have risen nearly 50 cents a gallon in just over two months.

    Consumers have been telling us they are cutting corners because for most driving is a necessity.

    In Minnesota the average price is 3-58. The current national average for a gallon of regular is 3-76, but some analysts are predicting that gas could rise to $5 by the summer.

    * * *

    Voters in Super Tuesday contests say gas prices were the most critical factor in their vote

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I am still puzzled by moderate Dave’s fierce determination to defend Barack Obama’s record on energy.

    It looks like the Republican nominee will be the candidate whom Dave would have recommended most: Mitt Romney. If the GOP candidate is the most to Dave’s liking in terms of being (allegedly) moderate, why the determination to absolve Obama of responsibility?

    Now, I definitely agree that blaming anyone falsely is not a good thing, and a failure to understand what is really going on in a complicated world is also shallow and superficial.

    But I don’t think you can get away from Obama’s record of — at the very least — being asleep at the switch, if not engaged in an all-out war against reality on the energy front.

  38. President Barack Obama has suffered the second embarrassment over oil imports within the space of a week. Brazil, whose offshore deposits of oil were sought by the Obama administration, has signed contracts with China for the product.
    ….
    Obama went to Brazil last month to put in a bid for the oil, offering loans and other support to develop the oil in an “environmentally responsible matter,” The Hill reported at the time. Republicans criticized that initiative, pointing out Obama has placed roadblocks in the way of domestic development of oil and gas reserves.
    Brazil’s decision comes on the heels of Obama’s refusal to permit the building of the Keystone XL pipeline to bring oil from Canada’s tar sands in Alberta to Texas oil refineries, according to the Los Angeles Times. The decision was criticized by Republicans as well as union officials who point out that 20,000 jobs the pipeline would bring would therefore not be created.
    Obama’s policy in regard to oil and gas has been a study in incompetence driven by an ideological mania against hydrocarbon fuel in favor of more politically correct forms of energy production. This has not only led to what amounts to a campaign against oil and gas production in the U.S., but embarrassing scandals such as Solyndra, brought on by unwise federal loan guarantees to dubious green energy companies.
    This is occurring at a time when Iran is threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz through which much of the world’s oil passes from Persian Gulf fields. The very threat has led to a spike in the price of oil and of gasoline.
    Unfortunately, Obama shows no sign of learning from his mistakes. A responsible president would move quickly to exploit more accessible sources of oil, lifting restrictions on domestic production and quickly signing off on the pipeline deal with Canada, an American ally. Obama, however, is doing neither of these things. (Brazil Stiffs Obama on Oil Deal, Exposing President’s Incompetence
    By Mark Whittington)

  39. President Obama’s ideologically-motivated opposition to the Keystone XL oil pipeline has gotten all the headlines lately, but critics forget that our brilliant leader had a Plan B for obtaining oil. That’s “B” as in “Brazil.”
    Obama has put a tremendous amount of effort into cultivating the Brazilian oil industry. In fact, he offered Brazil’s Petrobras oil company $2 billion in loan subsidies [Which they didn’t need or take.] to encourage precisely the kind of offshore exploration he has forbidden American companies to engage in. His offshore drilling moratorium has already cost the American economy over a billion dollars, and killed 20,000 jobs.
    In November, the Obama Administration made the bizarre decision to stiff American aircraft manufacturer Hawker-Beechcraft for a billion-dollar no-bid contract to manufacture a light attack plane. The company had already spent $100 million producing a plane that met all of the Air Force’s requirements. The contract was given to a company essentially owned by the Brazilian government, Embraer, which has very little experience producing such aircraft. Hawker-Beechcraft unsuccessfully appealed to the General Accounting Office over this decision, then filed suit in federal court. Some wondered at the time whether this was a gift to win Brazil’s favor.
    The President was on a Brazilian junket when he launched the war on Libya via long-distance telephone call. He cheerfully assured the Brazilian oil industry, in words he would never use to an American energy company, that “when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.” Of course, he was also prattling on about American jobs energy independence at the time. His critics noticed the wide gulf between his words and deeds….
    (Obama’s Brazilian Oil Disaster
    So much for Plan B.
    by John Hayward)

    If all the energy, pollution and resources spent on Team America, World Police “stabilizing” the world were spent on loan guarantees and so on for companies building pipelines in America instead of international companies then I wonder if we’d be better off? No? No, apparently instead we have to shut down our economy while engaging in useless forms of “shared sacrifice” to “save the world”… which actually won’t save the world in the least. And it will be the least of these that will suffer due to Obama.

  40. Apparently imaginary alternative sources of energy will decrease demand and therefore lower prices but tapping into the vast amount of energy already available in reality will not do Americans any good in any way or create wealth for them.

    Lol… I wish this idiocy didn’t affect me and my way of life because it has some entertainment value.

    In any case, note that as soon as these alternative sources of energy become real instead of imaginary then it’s likely that some other reason will be imagined to emerge in nature to prevent their use too…. naturally.

  41. “More oil that is not concentrated in the Mideast is good for the world and good for America. It would be a lot better if we had the drilling here,” Petrowski told Fox News. “And it seems a double standard and it seems somewhat hypocritical to a country that desperately needs jobs … that we’re encouraging other countries to create the jobs that we need.”
    Well, guess what? Brazil is ready to sell that oil.
    To China.
    The Washington Times reports on the latest Obama disaster:

    Less than a month after President Obama visited Brazil in March to make a pitch for oil, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was off to Beijing to sign oil contracts with two huge state-owned Chinese companies.
    The deals are part of a growing oil relationship between the two countries that, thanks to a series of billion-dollar agreements, is giving China greater influence over Brazil’s oil frontier. …
    “With the Lula and Carioca discoveries alone, Brazil added a possible 38 billion barrels of estimated recoverable oil,” said Luis Giusti, a former president of Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA, referring to the new Brazilian oil fields.
    “That immediately changed the picture,” he said, adding that Brazil is on track to become “an oil giant.”

    And when you’re looking to become an oil giant, who needs a no-growth dwarf like Barack Obama? ….
    So, there will be plenty of offshore drilling going on, but it won’t be done by American companies creating American jobs and earning American dollars, and we won’t be getting the oil. Plan B was an epic disaster. Plan C involves dependency on China instead of the Middle East, and a more primitive, restricted American economy settling for the “green energy” junk Obama’s top contributors are pushing.
    (Obama’s Brazilian Oil Disaster
    So much for Plan B.
    by John Hayward)

    This will effect your way of life more than some entitled lawyer sniveling about birth control coverage that will eventually be making upwards of $180,000/year generally preventing production in the economy. There will probably have to be a revaluation of everything in American civilization at some point.

    The price of American higher education in terms of student loan debt due to the federal government: about $1 trillion*

    The cost of the destruction of America’s economic language due to the abject stupidity and ignorance produced: Priceless!

    *

    “It’s going to create a generation of wage slavery,” says Nick Pardini, a Villanova University graduate student in finance who has warned on a blog for investors that student loans are the next credit bubble — with borrowers, rather than lenders, as the losers.
    Full-time undergraduate students borrowed an average $4,963 in 2010, up 63% from a decade earlier after adjusting for inflation, the College Board reports.

    (And you thought the oil companies were driving up the price of their product?)

  42. meatball writes in #40:

    Suddenly, I’m a liberal. There must be very few hard core righties out there John.

    Meatball, I did not say anything at all about you. Where are you finding any comment about you? Yes, it is possible to discern in people’s comments the world view and philosophy from which they are speaking, the assumptions about the world that they are making. Sometimes the liberal philosophy driving their thinking drips from every word, because the assumptions about how the world works is stuck in a liberal mindset. In this case, however, I don’t think I said anything at all about Meatball. I did say that Dave (from Virginia) has portrayed himself as an economic-oriented political moderate, not beholden to any party. And for the most part, Dave has lived up to the part. But more and more and on gas prices — SHAPING UP TO BE THE FATAL BLOW TO OBAMA’S RE-ELECTION — Dave shows a curious desperation to defend Obama, even against the kind of Republican (Mitt Romney) you would think moderate Dave would love. (In fact, isn’t that how Mitt Romney was sold to us…. that he would win over the Dave’s of the world? So why is Dave defending Obama against the Republican we were told voters like Dave would love?)

    Two questions. What is the carbon content of oil shale deposits found in North America, and what is the carbon content of deposits found in Estonia?

    First, thank you for actually focusing on meaningful issues. I do not know the scientific specifications, but I do know that the oil shale deposits in North America are known to be of superior quality, able to produce the highest quality crude oil (once extracted from the shale rock by a process called “retorting”).

    I had posted at my former website dozens of US Government studies and reports, and actual engineering experiences. The quality of the shale oil has never been questioned, and the high quality of America’s shale oil has always been understood as being beyond question.

    Because it makes a pretty big difference in the cost of production.

    The only difference in the cost of production that has been identified between Estonia and the USA is that Estonia has a super-abundance of fresh water available in the locations where it is extracting shale oil. The locations in America’s West are water-starved. Therefore, different processes are used where water is abundant.

    But this is not a problem. Ignorant environmental whackos repeat the lie that “retorting” the shale oil requires a supply of water. NO, IT DOES NOT. The shale oil itself is 8% water by weight. UNOCAL HAD TO BUILD EVAPORATION PONDS TO GET RID OF ALL THE EXCESS WATER PRODUCED from UNOCAL’s test run in America’s West, because water is PRODUCED by retorting the oil shale.

    However, the process used is different where input water is scarce than where water is abundant to jump-start the process.

    But, beware of assumptions. The $40-$50 threshold — that America’s shale oil is viable when the normal price for crude oil is $40 – $50 per barrel is based upon America’s shale oil.

    $40-$50 is not a figure from Estonia. That is an economic analysis of American companies proposing to actually do the work of extracting shale oil in America’s Western States. And that analysis is from American engineering companies offering TO ACTUALLY DO IT at that price. These are not mere opinions, but firm offers. This is companies saying “Let us do it.”

    The US Government has given small test licenses to allow test runs. But the government has not yet allowed large-scale development. There are companies lined up on the waiting list begging to do this.

    However, as I said, the biggest problem with the price of crude oil has been that it is not stable. A world price for oil of $60 per barrel — that remains stable for many years — would be a greater incentive to developing shale oil than the price of crude oil swinging wildly between $100 per barrel and $50 per barrel from year to year.

    Liberal eggheads who want to be philosopher kings fail to understand that businesses need to be able to predict future conditions. Businesses need stability. That is why Obama is destroying the economy, because nobody knows what the regulatory environment will be in 5 years.

    Oh yea, what was Deepwater Horizon doing when disaster struck. (hint : it wasn’t pumping oil).

    The disaster was very serious. However, drilling in 2 miles of water is far more dangerous than drilling in the shallow waters where the environmentalists won’t let oil companies drill.

  43. http://autos.yahoo.com/news/bad-karma–our-fisker-karma-plug-in-hybrid-breaks-down.html

    ..Bad Karma: Our Fisker Karma plug-in hybrid breaks down
    By Consumer Reports Staff | ConsumerReports.org – 14 hours ago
    ..
    Our Fisker Karma cost us $107,850. It is super sleek, high-tech—and now it’s broken.

    We have owned our car for just a few days; it has less than 200 miles on its odometer. While doing speedometer calibration runs on our test track (a procedure we do for every test car before putting it in service by driving the car at a constant 65 mph between two measured points), the dashboard flashed a message and sounded a “bing“ showing a major fault. Our technician got the car off the track and put it into Park to go through the owner’s manual to interpret the warning. At that point, the transmission went into Neutral and wouldn’t engage any gear through its electronic shifter except Park and Neutral.

    We let the car sit for about an hour and restarted it. We could now engage Drive and the same error message disappeared. After moving it only a few feet the error message reappeared and when we tried to engage Reverse the transmission went straight to Park and again no motion gear could be engaged. After calling the dealer, which is about 100 miles away, they promptly sent a flatbed tow truck to haul away the disabled Fisker.

    We buy about 80 cars a year and this is the first time in memory that we have had a car that is undriveable before it has finished our check-in process.

  44. Okay, Meatball, I guess I did say this:

    37Jon Moseley
    As for leases going “untapped” this is another liberal fantasy and lie. Is it possible for a liberal to every just tell the truth?
    Oil companies are giving [given] a HUNTING LICENSE to go SEARCH for oil.

    But what I meant to say was that this is a liberal argument floating around. I did not mean to say that Meatball is the ORIGIN of the argument.

    My apologies. You are repeating a liberal talking point. But that does not mean you REALIZE you are being taken in. You heard the argument out there, and you are repeating it. That does not make you a liberal. And you may be very sincere in repeating the argument, hoping for an answer. But I could have said that better.

    But if you dig deeper, pun intended, the leases are not to be “tapped” — as in drilled. They are vast swaths to be *EXPLORED* — and then only those with real oil will be “tapped” (as in drilled).

    So if the government authorizes an oil company to explore 50 square miles, and they do, and decide there isn’t any oil there, then the lease has served its purpose. They aren’t going to drill a hole in the ground where there isn’t any oil. So the fact that no one is drilling in a leased area does not mean they didn’t go looking, such as with underground / underwater sonar mapping, etc.

  45. “If the GOP candidate is the most to Dave’s liking in terms of being (allegedly) moderate, why the determination to absolve Obama of responsibility?”

    Really very simple. I love the truth more than I love any candidate. I did not vote for Obama and I will not be voting for Obama in this election. But candidates should stand on the merits of their abilities and performance. For example, one of the primary reasons I did not vote for Obama was because I felt that he did not have the national security qualifications necessary to be the Commander In Chief. His performance has demonstrated I was incorrect. It is easy to admit that when one is focused on the truth. I do not fault Obama for the economy because despite those are convinced that the White House controls the economy, the only real authority they have over legislation is the bully pulpit. These are truths. I will never value anything above the truth. I know attorneys shape and reshape the truth to fit the circumstances and the objectives but that reshaping doesn’t make it the truth. I rarely hear truth coming from attorneys. Does anyone have any experience to the contrary?

  46. Dave wrote in #51: “Really very simple. I love the truth more than I love any candidate.”

    I agree with that and I admire that. As a goal, I have no problem with that at all. More people should be like that.

    However, I just think you are straining out gnats in this particular example. Rather than searching for the truth, I think you are going out of your way to resist the conclusion that Obama does not have a good record here.

    YES, IT IS TRUE that Presidents do not have a control panel in the oval office with levers they can move up and down to control the economy, gas prices, etc. Yes, you are right, that any President’s influence over these complicated things is limted and imperfect. Any action that a President takes will have only an indirect, imperfect, and incomplete effect on the economy.

    I have no problem with you wanting to avoid superficial and shallow thinking about complicated events.

    But I just don’t see how Obama can claim to have made things better.

    Now, to be fair, the Democrats and Obama put all their chips on heavy-handed government interference in the economy by funding Solyndra and Fisker Motors and thinking that the government can FORCE green energy into existene by government edict. Liberals are (for the moment) absolutely convinced that green energy and green jobs can be magically created with a snap of the fingers. Liberals cannot understand that there are fundamental economic and engineering reasons why the economy runs on oil and why wind, solar, and electric has not yet taken off.

    Obama and the Democrats think that they can over-ride the laws of physics and of economics simply by the force of their personality and government edict.

    So, Obama *DID* have a plan — to be fair.

    But Obama’s strategy has failed, and will fail.

Comments are closed.