Wherein Obama becomes the best president ever for the oil industry...

[rb336]

US to become the worlds top oil producer

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/...EU.IEA.Report/

[ghettopalmetto]

Here is what I thought to be the most profound statement in the article. Emphasis mine.

The IEA added that global trends in the energy markets will be influenced by some countries' retreat from nuclear power, the fast spread of wind and solar technologies and a rise in unconventional gas production.
The agency concluded that despite the rising use of low carbon energy sources, huge subsidies will keep fossil fuels "dominant in the global energy mix."

[3WC]

Right, but not for the reason you think.

Obama by restricting production has caused the price of crude to be $20/bbl higher than it should be.

The International Energy Agency [[IEA) in Paris is notoriously unreliable in it's predictions. Nobody can predict with accuracy what oil consumption or production will be more than 5 yearsout, if the, Besides, its predictions have many qualifiers that they're worthless.

[noise]

Right, but not for the reason you think.

Obama by restricting production has caused the price of crude to be $20/bbl higher than it should be.

The International Energy Agency [[IEA) in Paris is notoriously unreliable in it's predictions. Nobody can predict with accuracy what oil consumption or production will be more than 5 yearsout, if the, Besides, its predictions have many qualifiers that they're worthless.

The President certainly doesn't have that much influence on global oil prices.

[rb336]

Right, but not for the reason you think.

Obama by restricting production has caused the price of crude to be $20/bbl higher than it should be..

and how much oil is under production under Obama v. Bush? oh yeah - not less, more

[Det_ard]

and how much oil is under production under Obama v. Bush? oh yeah - not less, more

Despite Obama's policies, not because of them. Read a little.

[3WC]

Rb, you just don't get it. Never will. Ideologues rarely do.

Obama's basic energy plan is to raise the price of gasoline to $8.00/gallon, the usual price in Europe. Geithner has been preaching that policy before congress since 2008, and Pelosi has never passed up an opportunity to preach the same thing. As recently as 3 months ago Energy Sec. Chu all explain that the Administration 's rationale is to FORCE consumers to buy fuel efficient small cars AND rally voters behind plans to heavily subsidize alternative energy schemes.

The administration admits that it cannot raise gas taxes to increase the price of gas as they do in Europe - that would be political suicide - so they try to raise the price by restricting crude production; they have imposed so many restrictions to drilling in the GOM, other offshore areas and wherever they can on federal land onshore.

I of course benefit because my production is not on federal land and therefore the restrictions on supply hurt other producers, not me. Restrictions on supply results in higher crude prices. Comprende?

Oil production is up despite Obama's efforts to restrict it. Production is up as a result of technology, primarily horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing. Those technologies have enabled producers to exploit large deposits of hydrocarbon laden shale formations In ND and MT [[Bakken Shale), Eagle Ford Shale [[S. TX), Barnettt Shale [[N. TX) Marcellus Shale [[several states) and many others.

Every time oil companies report profits higher than Obama thinks theyshould make he calls hem price gougers and blames them for the increased price of gasoline. He pretends to be looking out for the poor consumer. He's such a hypocrite.

Just last week the EPA announced hearings on several more highly restrictive rules designed to inhibit drilling in these shale plays with the resultant substantial increases in crude and Nat gas prices.

You gotta love Obama despite the fact he's a pathological liar and feels, rightly so, that the American public are stupid and a bunch of sheep.

[Zacha341]

Ahh, so nice to be like Europe, France for example... I'm looking forward to it...

Obama's basic energy plan is to raise the price of gasoline to $8.00/gallon, the usual price in Europe. Geithner has been preaching that policy before congress since 2008, and Pelosi has never passed up an opportunity to preach the same thing. As recently as 3 months ago Energy Sec. Chu all explain that the Administration 's rationale is to FORCE consumers to buy fuel efficient small cars AND rally voters behind plans to heavily subsidize alternative energy schemes.

[noise]

Anybody here know how much oil Canada produces versus how much it consumes?

Anybody here know how much Canadians pay for gas?

Obama's fault?

[3WC]

Noise:

Answer #1: I could find out in a second but am not inclined to do so. However, Canada produces far more oil than it consumes and exports most to the U.S., keeping our prices lower than they's be otherwise. As a result of Obama's refusal to permit the pipeline [[after the operator obtained State Dept approval), it will as soon as possible start selling as much oil as it can to China. Works for me; like I want more oil coming into the country?

Answer # 2: No, but more than they do here. Canada's costs are much lower but taxes much higher. Blame that on Canada's idiot leaders and the Canadian breed of sheep voters.

Answer # 3: See answer to # 2 above.

Anyway, you apparently missed the whole point of my post. Since you appear to like paying Obama's tax on oil here, knock yourself out. Enjoy. Drink more of that Kool-Aid.

[noise]

What makes you think I was responding to you? I didn't even read your posts.

Everyone's an idiot except you, I suppose!

[3WC]

Sure you read my posts. Everyone does, even those not following this thread. No shame in that.

You asked reasonable questions, although you of course knew the answers. That's called sarcasm. Not bad either. Just though I'd answer them to enlighten others who may not know the answers.

Of course not everyone on here is an idiot. However, if the shoe fits, wear it. Hell, even I acted like an idiot once [[I think.)

[3WC]

P.S. Rb, help me out here, OK.

[oladub]

What makes you think I was responding to you? I didn't even read your posts.

Everyone's an idiot except you, I suppose!

Re your first two questions in post #9: 3WC is a subset of "Anybody". Why the surprise and petulance when you get a question answered that you addressed to "Anybody"? What response were you expecting and from whom?

[Jimaz]

Anybody here know how much Canadians pay for gas?

OntarioGasPrices.com

Obama's fault?

Nope. San Andrea's.

[noise]

I just viewed this thread while not logged in and had the misfortune of seeing oladub's continued inability to follow a conversation. Logged back in and the ignore feature saved the day.

[oladub]

I just viewed this thread while not logged in and had the misfortune of seeing oladub's continued inability to follow a conversation. Logged back in and the ignore feature saved the day.

Noise, I do find you hard to follow. Please reread posts 9,10,11, and 14. The reason you feel so misunderstood might be because you often fail to communicate by using pronouns where nouns would work better, do not explain whatever it is you are talking about, and fail to make references to whatever posts you are referring to. You didn't even answer my questions found in post 14 in reference to the exchange found on posts numbers 9,10, and 11, "Why the surprise and petulance when you get a question answered that you addressed to "Anybody"? What response were you expecting and from whom?"

[Gistok]

3WC.... your sardonic Texan wit aside... if the shale oil extracted in Montana and North Dakota becomes a bigger part of our future energy needs... how is it transportable [[via pipeline) in winter months when its' properties are such that it is not transportable in cold weather?

[rb336]

Rb, you just don't get it. Never will. Ideologues rarely do.

First, I'm being called an ideologue for stating FACTS. I am not an ideologue, I'm a pragmatist. I value clean air and water, mercury-free fish, coral reefs and the great, beautiful diversity of life on earth more than I value a billionaire's increase in net worth. Which of those is better for the largest possible number of people? That is how I look at virtually every problem - what solution - and solutions are long-term - will improve things for the largest possible number of people with the least harm to the fewest. Then I go where the data takes me.

Obama's basic energy plan is to raise the price of gasoline to $8.00/gallon, the usual price in Europe. Geithner has been preaching that policy before congress since 2008, and Pelosi has never passed up an opportunity to preach the same thing.

Really? when and where? do you have a youtube clip?

As recently as 3 months ago Energy Sec. Chu all explain that the Administration 's rationale is to FORCE consumers to buy fuel efficient small cars AND rally voters behind plans to heavily subsidize alternative energy schemes.

again, I have read people sayin Chu said similar things, but I have never seen or heard a clip of such or read it from a source that does not have its own agenda. Please provide

The administration admits that it cannot raise gas taxes to increase the price of gas as they do in Europe - that would be political suicide - so they try to raise the price by restricting crude production; they have imposed so many restrictions to drilling in the GOM, other offshore areas and wherever they can on federal land onshore.

again, your statement goes against the fact that we are producing more. and yeah, I just love where fewer restrictions and oversight got us a few years ago in the gulf. There are still reports of dolphin deaths related to the spill. it's short-term thinking with little or no regard for long-term impact.

Oil production is up despite Obama's efforts to restrict it. Production is up as a result of technology, primarily horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing. Those technologies have enabled producers to exploit large deposits of hydrocarbon laden shale formations In ND and MT [[Bakken Shale), Eagle Ford Shale [[S. TX), Barnettt Shale [[N. TX) Marcellus Shale [[several states) and many others.

So why didn't it reach that level under oil-friendly Dubya? Those technologies were around then as well.

Every time oil companies report profits higher than Obama thinks theyshould make he calls hem price gougers and blames them for the increased price of gasoline. He pretends to be looking out for the poor consumer. He's such a hypocrite.

I've never heard him say anything of the sort. Pure bullshit.

Just last week the EPA announced hearings on several more highly restrictive rules designed to inhibit drilling in these shale plays with the resultant substantial increases in crude and Nat gas prices.

Are you talking about the Windfall permit? The fracking study, which from what I have heard is going to confirm the safety of fracking? got a copy of the announcement you could post?

You gotta love Obama despite the fact he's a pathological liar and feels, rightly so, that the American public are stupid and a bunch of sheep.

utter bullshit

[rb336]

Noise:

Answer #1: I could find out in a second but am not inclined to do so. However, Canada produces far more oil than it consumes and exports most to the U.S., keeping our prices lower than they's be otherwise. As a result of Obama's refusal to permit the pipeline [[after the operator obtained State Dept approval), it will as soon as possible start selling as much oil as it can to China. Works for me; like I want more oil coming into the country?

the pipeline is receiving resistance from the states and communities through which it is being routed. There is no - zero- reason to build a pipeline to Houston if the desire is to have the oil used HERE. Why Houston? It's a port, and Canada is having problems with the First Nations about expanding the BC pipeline. Canada wants its product on the world market. How will abetting that goal help our oil price?

Answer # 2: No, but more than they do here. Canada's costs are much lower but taxes much higher. Blame that on Canada's idiot leaders and the Canadian breed of sheep voters.

Price per litre in Windsor is around 121.2/liter, so call it $1.22 or $4.62/gallon. yeah, their gas prices are higher, {and that has put the Canadian economy in a tailspin }
[[I'm using {} to indicate sarcasm, in case there was any question)

[TKshreve]

the pipeline is receiving resistance from the states and communities through which it is being routed. There is no - zero- reason to build a pipeline to Houston if the desire is to have the oil used HERE. Why Houston? It's a port, and Canada is having problems with the First Nations about expanding the BC pipeline. Canada wants its product on the world market. How will abetting that goal help our oil price?

Not to mention the jobs created by this pipeline were inflated and very temporary. They used employment positions such as "dancers, choreographers and speech therapist" and other non-construction jobs to fill out the grossly overestimated projection of 20,000 jobs. Just so we would hastily sign it into law without putting any consideration towards the externalities caused by the Keystone Pipeline. Somehow we were supposed to believe more pipeline equaled lower gas prices and more jobs. Oh, and completely ignore any environmental impact that would therein result. Because that's just another example of regulation getting in the way of business.

The Keystone Pipeline was simply a red herring for the debate over job creation at the time. Nothing more.

Quote from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/keystone-pipeline-debate-heats-up/2011/11/04/gIQA824rpM_story.html

[oladub]

I could never figure out why Canadian oil was supposed to be transported all the way to Texas to be refined except if it was to be exported. Refineries could have been located at the border in Minnesota or Montana instead if the oil was mostly intended for the US market. So let's assume it was always meant to be exported.

That being a given, the Canadian Prime Minister has already made the decision and Canada is moving forward with exporting the oil to China. There are already two small pipelines across the Rockies to Canada's west coast. The new and substantial pipelines will be located along side them. It isn't as if possible oil spills and the creation of jobs won't happen because of President Obama's decisions. The good and the bad will simply be happening in Canada. Our loss is China's gain.

[old guy]

Do Republicans Realize That Keystone Pipeline Won’t Bring Gas to U.S.?

Mar 3, 2012 12:00 AM EST
Though it’s become a firebrand issue that labels Obama as the “anti-oil president,” the TransCanada pipeline was never meant to bring gas to the U.S. It would go to Asia.


Rep. Ed Markey, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Markey agrees it would be “a very good thing if the U.S. could be reliant on North American-produced oil,” but that’s not what the Canadians intend, he says. Keystone oil is headed for Port Arthur, Texas—a foreign-trade zone that allows tax-free transactions—and then on to Asia, not the U.S. This is an important point that is rarely made. “That foreign-trade zone is what made me suspicious of what the real agenda was for this oil,” says Markey.

At a congressional hearing in December, Markey asked the president of TransCanada if he would agree to allowing Keystone XL oil and its refined products to stay in the U.S. He said no. So Markey then proposed an amendment to that effect, and Republicans said no—that it couldn’t be done, because the market for oil is not just domestic; it’s global. What Canada wants to do, says Markey, “is create a connection between Alberta and Asia and use the United States as the place where the pipeline gets constructed. And so if that’s all we are is a middleman in this transaction, then the American people should know that.”

and......

DILBIt PIPELINE SAFETY CONCERNS
As tar sands oil companies send increasing volumes of DilBit
to the United States, the risks of pipeline spills are becoming
more apparent. DilBit pipelines, which require higher
operating temperatures and pressures to move the thick
material through a pipe, appear to pose new and significant
risks of pipeline leaks or ruptures due to corrosion, as well as
problems with leak detection and safety problems from the
instability of DilBit. For example, in July 2010, an Enbridge
tar sands pipeline spilled over 840,000 gallons of diluted
bitumen into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River watershed. The risks of corrosion and the abrasive nature of DilBit
are made worse by the relatively high heat and pressure at
which these pipelines are operated in order to move the thick
DilBit through the pipe. Industry defines a high pressure
pipeline as one that operates over 600 pounds per square
inch [[psi). Due to the high viscosity or thickness of DilBit,
pipelines—such as the Keystone tar sands pipeline—operate
at pressures up to 1440 psi and at temperatures up to 158
degrees Fahrenheit. In contrast, conventional crude pipelines
generally run at ambient temperatures and lower pressures.

This whole deal is a bad idea in my opinion.

[rb336]

The PM may have totally screwed the pup on this because of aforementioned First Nations issues:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle4572255/

[oladub]

The PM may have totally screwed the pup on this because of aforementioned First Nations issues:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle4572255/

This situation is normal in Canada. I have followed a couple of other similar situations in which the Indians objected to pipelines violating sacred land. In both cases, the impasse was resolved when enough cash and jobs were offered the tribes involved. BC, however, sometimes exercises a lot of control over energy matter which may affect other provinces and international considerations. For instance, although hydro generated electricity is subsidized elsewhere in Canada, the BC government forbade the construction of additional hydro dams.