# gas prices and obama

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sifreak21, Mar 1, 2012.

1. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829

Oil production is up in the US because the price of Oil has made drilling in areas/wells that before weren't profitable, but not because of any support for expanding drilling from the Administration, you know, like in ANWR.

If the admin wanted to increase oil, then they would simply open up ANWR, but until they do, Dems claims that they are doing anything substantial to increase oil production are hollow.

2. ### joepistoleOrdo Ad ChaoValued Senior Member

Messages:
17,513
Wrong again Arthur. Instead of citing biased opinon pieces perhaps you should read real articles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...public-lands/2012/04/03/gIQArPlDtS_story.html

p/s Any well wither on private land or public land needs to have government permits - one of them nasty little details again.

3. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
No Joe,
The figures quoted are correct. Not only did Oil from Federal lands drop in 2011, but total Fossil Fuels from Federal Lands is lower than at any time since 2003.

Significantly Lower.

Code:
Fiscal Year- Crude Oil -Natural Gas Plant Liquids - Natural Gas - Coal - Total

2003 4.0 0.35 7.3  9.6 21.2
2004 3.9 0.39 6.9 9.9 21.1
2005 3.8 0.36 6.6 9.8 20.5
2006 3.4 0.32 6.0 9.3 19.0
2007 3.6 0.40 6.0 9.6 19.6
2008 3.3 0.39 6.0 10.3 20.0
2009 3.7 0.34 5.8 9.8 19.6
2010 4.3 0.42 5.5 9.6 19.9
2011 3.7 0.41 5.0 9.5 18.6 
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/federallands/

4. ### joepistoleOrdo Ad ChaoValued Senior Member

Messages:
17,513
I suggest you go back and read the article. Additionally, wither an oil well is on private or public land, it still needs permits. So your whole argument about private versus public land is a red herring.

5. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
The EIA figures don't lie Joe, and yes it does matter if it is on Federal or Private land.

The permit process is a piece of cake for Private property, but on Federal land you can't even explore on Federal Land without a lease or drill without an EIS completed, and those are the things that the Obama admin has been holding back on.

http://www.ohiodnr.com/Portals/11/oil/pdf/oil_gas_faq.pdf

But it's not the permits that are the issue for Federal Lands, indeed, it takes so long AFTER the lease is granted to do the exploration, get the permits, drill the test wells, get the production permits and then finally put in the actual wells that the small increase in oil we were seeing was from leases/permits granted back when Clinton and Bush were president.

Last edited: Apr 4, 2012
6. ### joepistoleOrdo Ad ChaoValued Senior Member

Messages:
17,513
No they don't. That is not the issue. That is a red herring; a distraction; not grermane.

What is germane is that oil production is up under the Obama administration - reversing a decade long trend of declining production. Those numbers don't lie either. The facts are that under the Obama adminsitration, the permitting process has been made faster and more efficient.

So Republican/Tea Party claims that President Obama is restricting production is just plain bunk. The numbers don't support your claims. So you want to slice and dice to try to piece together a claim.

Even if that is true, how is it relevant? It isn't.

It does take some time to permit and drill wells, but 10 years? You are playing fast and loose with facts and credulity again Arthur. And you think a 14 percent increase in oil production is "small". I doubt you would say the same if a Republican were in office. And frankly, it doesn't matter if the permits were approved under Bush or Clinton. Republicans are claiming that domestic production is down because of President Obama's polices thus causing fuel prices to increase.

That claim ignores the well documented fact that domestic oil production is up and the Obama administration has streamlined the drilliing permitting process - something Bush II and Clinton failed to do.

It also ignores the fact that domestic oil prices determined by global market conditions, not domestic oil production. And global oil prices are managed by a cartel.

Facts and reason have never been important to Republican/Tea Party folks. So why should it start here?

7. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
Yes, some Federal leases take 10 years to produce Joe.

You have to do the exploration, seismic studies, permits, EIA studies, test wells and finally production wells, so yes, 10 years can go by before you start producing oil from the time you secure a lease.

But it's near impossible to get a Federal lease and be producing oil in 2 years, so taking any credit for what's going on in 2010 (the year that oil on Federal lands went up) is dishonest.

And as the figures show the production of oil from Federal lands went back down in 2011 to the same level as 2009.

Which is the Republican issue, production of oil on FEDERAL lands, you know Joe, like ANWR.

As to your claim of "the Obama administration has streamlined the drilliing permitting process", no, under Republican pressure that's something that will happen IN THE FUTURE, and has nothing to do with current production.

When this will happen is not clear.

Last edited: Apr 4, 2012
8. ### joepistoleOrdo Ad ChaoValued Senior Member

Messages:
17,513
The bottom line is the Republican claim that Obama is somehow responsible for the high price of fuel is not based in fact or reason Arthur. First you guys try to claim oil production under Obama is down. That was proven wrong. Then you try to draw a distinction between oil produced on public versus private land as if that made a difference. That was debunked as well. And then you ignore the fact that the US is a net fuel exporter.

Now you are trying to claim that the permitting process takes up to 10 years - more time than Obma has been in office. If that is the case, then why are you Republicans trying to blame Obama for having an impact on drilling and current fuel prices?

You are desperate Arthur. You are stretching credulity again.

Last edited: Apr 5, 2012
9. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
No, they are saying he is doing little to help bring them down.
Like opening up ANWR.

And no one said the permitting process took 10 years, I said it can take that long from getting a lease to getting production (depending on location, some locaitons are obviously more difficult than others), but the key is virtually no leased areas signed since Obama became president would get into production by 2011, so he's simply taking credit for leases/permits signed before he took office.

And the net fuel exports, compared to the amount of oil we import means nothing.
Nor compared to the amount of fuel we use. The main reason we are a net exporter of some refined products is simply because of the ongoing recession in the US means we have slightly more Refinery capacity than we need.

But we are using a bit under 15 million barrels per day of oil of which we have a net import of about 9 million barrels of oil a day, and we only export about 900 thousand barrels of refined products.

http://205.254.135.7/dnav/pet/pet_sum_sndw_dcus_nus_4.htm

But the United States still imports just under half of the petroleum we use.

10. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,530
It's quite straightforward.

If the price of gas is high, it is the fault of Obama's evil anti-progress and anti-American policies.

If the price of gas is low, then Obama has nothing to do with gas prices.

If the oil supply is low, it is the fault of Obama's evil anti-business and anti-American policies.

If the oil supply is high, then Obama has nothing to do with oil supplies.

If the economy is doing poorly, then it's due to Obama's reckless spending, his healthcare policies and his ill-considered bailouts.

If the economy is recovering, then the president has nothing to do with the economy.

I'm sure you can find the underlying principle there.

Because he's Obama. Republicans blame Obama. Period.

11. ### joepistoleOrdo Ad ChaoValued Senior Member

Messages:
17,513
I think you nailed it.

12. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
No, never hit one nail at all on either side of the equation.

I'm continually amazed by people who always want to claim that actual problems are just politics.

13. ### joepistoleOrdo Ad ChaoValued Senior Member

Messages:
17,513
Well maybe if Republicans/Tea Partiers started being honest and stopped trying to deceive them, people would have a different opinion.

The bottom line here is that not one of the allegations you and your fellow Republican have made about President Obama in this thread has been truthful. And then you get upset when people call you a liar.

Using your last claim/justification, you are about 7 years too early in blaming President Obama for any price issues resulting from oil supply. So why are you and your fellow Republicans blaming President Obama for the current increase in fuel prices if according to you, if it takes 10 years to put wells into production?

Last edited: Apr 5, 2012
14. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,530
Remember the "Obama will grab your guns" meme? Now the right wing is saying "well, he didn't, just to deceive us and lull us into a false sense of security - but next year he DEFINITELY will!" That sort of thinking may extend to gas prices, oil drilling etc etc.

Messages:
4,937
16. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
In the 2008 EIA analysis of ANWR they came up with 3 estimates:

In the mean-oil resource case, ANWR oil production peaks at 780,000 barrels per day
The low-resource-case production peaks at 510,000 barrels per day
The high-resource-case production peaks at 1,450,000 barrels per day.

(it would take ~10 years to start producing oil and peak production would take another 10 years before starting to decline).

So at the mean estimate, that's about 5% of our daily oil use (but still considering we use about 25% of the world's oil that is still a decent increase in oil production)

BUT

The upside for ANWR is much higher (and we won't know is we don't drill will we?) and represents about 10% of our oil, and more importantly, that amount would reduce our imports by about 15% (at today's use rates)

They also point out:

As to the financial impact, in the high resource cases, ANWR oil production reduces cumulative net expenditures on imported crude oil and liquid fuels by about \$327 billion (2006 dollars), but the price of oil has gone up since 2006, so the impact would be even higher now.

Which means the argument to not drill because it can't help that much, is silly.

17. ### Repo ManValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,937
Which means the argument to not drill because it can't help that much, is silly.

The argument being made is that Obama isn't doing everything he can to make sure that gasoline is affordable. With that context, pointing out that exploiting the ANWR would make only a negligible difference on the price paid at the pump is hardly silly. And you well know the decision isn't his to make anyway.

There are also very valid environmental concerns about drilling there.

18. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
No, I said, "LIKE opening up ANWR".

Now you are reframing that as ONLY opening up ANWR, and then showing that ANWR was only X% of our oil use.

But there are many more lease sites that the admin could open up.

Then you framed it as an economic issue.
Clearly there are very valid economic reasons for opening up just ANWR, indeed the upside is a potential reduction of oil imports of up to 15%.

So after having that pointed out, now you are claiming there are environmental issues, but we've been drilling in the arctic for a long time and know how to do it.

And of course he can't do it alone, but neither he nor his party is supporting it either, which is the point.

19. ### Repo ManValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,937
ANWR was mentioned, and I pointed out (as Fox news was so helpful to mention back in '08 when a Republican was president) that the effect on net prices at the pump would be negligible.

McCain wasn't in favor of opening ANWR up either, so chances are if he were president, the situation would be the same. You may continue your silly semantic games all you like (I bet you had the most raging boner when you caught Tiassa in an error on page one) but I have a question for you; if we threw all caution to the wind, disregarded all environmental concerns, what do you think the net result on gasoline prices would be? Because most people on the street don't care one whit about lining the pockets of the oil companies, but only what they have to pay at the pump.

Actually, forget it. You're terrible, and I'm not going to discuss anything with you anymore.

Last edited: Apr 5, 2012
20. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
Yup, as expected you are right back to discussing the impact of JUST ANWR.

No of course just opening up ANWR alone wouldn't have a big impact. No one claims it would, but it would have a positive impact if it was coupled with opening up other Federal areas.

And, no. No one is saying "throw caution to the winds" or disregard all environmental concerns either or line the pockets of the oil companies (it will take them a decade and billions to get oil out of ANWR), you are now just throwing out every possible objection you can make, but the real problem is you simply aren't interested in ncreasing our ability to provide more oil.

Which more leases on Federal land and opening up ANWR would help to do.