[RedMoonProject]

I was going to make this a separate post, but it fits in here just fine. In this video, Michelle Bachmann hits it out of the park and lays down the facts about why The Obama-Fuhrer has been attacking the energy sector and how it is helping to destroy the economy and your budget. Obama doesn’t want you to have access to energy. He wants to control you and keep you as confined as possible. Any vote for any Democrat in the upcoming election is a vote for higher and higher gas prices. Count on it.
YouTube

This post has been edited by RedMoonProject: 19 April 2012 - 02:06 PM

[The-Stig]

RedMoonProject, on 19 April 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

I was going to make this a separate post, but it fits in here just fine. In this video, Michelle Bachmann hits it out of the park and lays down the facts about why The Obama-Fuhrer has been attacking the energy sector and how it is helping to destroy the economy and your budget. Obama doesn’t want you to have access to energy. He wants to control you and keep you as confined as possible. Any vote for any Democrat in the upcoming election is a vote for higher and higher gas prices. Count on it.
YouTube

fantastic video

[Wyn]

pict, on 19 April 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

Yes, it's quite astounding a president's policies will affect energy prices...

One could almost say startling...

[satellite66]

NJ turnpike gas went down a penny today crisis over. Obama has lowered gas price. His policies are working. Saints be praised the messiah has saved us again.

This post has been edited by satellite66: 20 April 2012 - 10:48 AM

[MADGestic]

pict, on 18 April 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

I'll answer it.



Obama's dictatorial EPA is increasing the price of energy coupled with his silly green agenga which is inefficient and therefore costly. And for your information, we sit on more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, we aren't allowed to drill it because of enviro-nuts.



And Obama has decreased oil production here, he brags about issuing leases but this doesn't allow drilling. The two-faced turd has cut back on issuing drilling permits.



Also, his moratorium in the gulf in breach of a court order caused rigs to go elsewhere.



So there, your question is answered.

Yeah I suppose that's an "answer" albeit it just raises more questions (and a desire for some citations).



How is the EPA "dictatorial" now? Was the EPA (which was created at least a couple of decades ago) "dictatorial" during prior administrations? What makes "Obama's" EPA different?



Yes, of course "green" technology is new(ish) and therefore expensive but what has that got to do with the global oil market? The fact that new technology is expensive only highlights the profitability of old technology. Last time I checked, fossil fuel producers were still raking in enormous profits (due in part to massive tax breaks at the federal level). Oh wait, I get it… since more folks are driving hybrids the oil concerns must jack up prices to make up for lost revenue… something like that?



Please provide citations for "more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia"… that is highly counterintuitive especially since Middle Eastern reserves are still relatively sweet and easy to access.



The Deepwater Horizon disaster was indeed an eye-opening tragedy which emphasized the still extant cowboy culture of drill early and often; but when "drill, baby, drill" became "spill, baby, spill", I think many reasonable folks realized that "drill at all costs" shouldn't include our food supply and the lost lives of loved ones. I may be a capitalist but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm cruel, uncaring, and immune to enlightenment.



And do you really think that the rigs went "elsewhere"? Do you know what it costs to move one of those things? It's like moving an office tower… on water! They didn't move; they're still out there; hundreds of rigs, many of which are abandoned rusting hulks.

pict, on 18 April 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

And now the moron's EPA is going after natural gas production: (snip link, see above)



So there you have it, Obama and his EPA are deliberately curtailing energy production and increasing costs. …

I am well aware of the overabundance of coal and natural gas supplies; in another thread I referred to their market prices as being in "a race to the bottom". But this thread is not about energy prices; we're talking retail gasoline prices. I'm happy to help you vent your ire but now it's time to focus.

pict, on 18 April 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

And here's something else for your education:… (snip link, see above)

Yeah, sure, I'm not arguing that… especially since it has nothing to do with retail gasoline prices!

pict, on 18 April 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

Here's some more education for you regarding the coal industry… (full stop snip)

See above re: "[N]othing to do with retail gasoline prices!" Clearly you want to rail against President Obama; go right ahead, that doesn't bother me. I was just wondering how much influence the POTUS has on retail prices; and, so far, I don't feel that I've received much compelling information.

[Wyn]

MADGestic, on 20 April 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

I was just wondering how much influence the POTUS has on retail prices; and, so far, I don't feel that I've received much compelling information.

Funny, you didn't seem to need "compelling information" when you guys were bleating about high gas prices that were President Bush's "fault".

[MADGestic]

Wyn, on 20 April 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

Funny, you didn't seem to need "compelling information" when you guys were bleating about high gas prices that were President Bush's "fault".

Citations please; when have I ever "bleated" about retail gasoline prices?

Go ahead, take your time; I suspect it's hard to back up one's arguments when one is rolling on the floor like that.

[Wyn]

MADGestic, on 21 April 2012 - 12:16 AM, said:

Citations please; when have I ever "bleated" about retail gasoline prices?

Go ahead, take your time; I suspect it's hard to back up one's arguments when one is rolling on the floor like that.

Obviously you don't know the meaning of the phrase "you guys", look it up.

Go ahead, take your time, although I suspect it's hard to read when one is fiddling with their glasses like that.

[pict]

Quote

quote name='MADGestic' timestamp='1334975605' post='684934352'Yeah I suppose that's an "answer" albeit it just raises more questions (and a desire for some citations).

No it actually doesn't, it only does for you because you won't accept facts.

Quote

How is the EPA "dictatorial" now? Was the EPA (which was created at least a couple of decades ago) "dictatorial" during prior administrations? What makes "Obama's" EPA different?

Don't you keep up with what's going on? With regards to refineries they're being hammered by new 'global warmiong' EPA regulations. And up in Alaskan waters an oil project was put on hold because, wait for it. Emissions hadn't been calculated for a boat which would be operating. And I've already explained to you the difference between leases and drilling permits.

Quote

Yes, of course "green" technology is new(ish) and therefore expensive but what has that got to do with the global oil market? The fact that new technology is expensive only highlights the profitability of old technology. Last time I checked, fossil fuel producers were still raking in enormous profits (due in part to massive tax breaks at the federal level). Oh wait, I get it… since more folks are driving hybrids the oil concerns must jack up prices to make up for lost revenue… something like that?

As far as Obama and the EPA is concerned 'green' has everything to do with it. They want everything green at the expense of natural fuels. I use the term natural because drillable oil isn't only a fossil fuel, just so you know.

Quote

Please provide citations for "more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia"… that is highly counterintuitive especially since Middle Eastern reserves are still relatively sweet and easy to access.

No, I'm not going to waste my time pandering to your ignorance. But here's a clue, Obama himself stated there are more natural gas reserves in the United States than the Middle East. Work out what that means with regards to oil reserves here, with your great charisma.

Quote

The Deepwater Horizon disaster was indeed an eye-opening tragedy which emphasized the still extant cowboy culture of drill early and often; but when "drill, baby, drill" became "spill, baby, spill", I think many reasonable folks realized that "drill at all costs" shouldn't include our food supply and the lost lives of loved ones. I may be a capitalist but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm cruel, uncaring, and immune to enlightenment.

It wasn't an eye-opening tragedy at all, it's happened before elsewhere. Also, the Obama administration made it worse by not following proper procedures after it happened. The oil didn't need to reach the shore.

Quote

And do you really think that the rigs went "elsewhere"? Do you know what it costs to move one of those things? It's like moving an office tower… on water! They didn't move; they're still out there; hundreds of rigs, many of which are abandoned rusting hulks.

I don't "think" they went elsewhere, I know for a fact some went elsewhere and not just a couple either. A rig is like an aircraft, it can only make money and profits when operating.

Quote

I am well aware of the overabundance of coal and natural gas supplies; in another thread I referred to their market prices as being in "a race to the bottom". But this thread is not about energy prices; we're talking retail gasoline prices. I'm happy to help you vent your ire but now it's time to focus.

It still shows what the EPA is up to, there's no reason to stop either coal production or coal fueled power plants. But of course you neglect to take this into consideration.

Quote

Yeah, sure, I'm not arguing that… especially since it has nothing to do with retail gasoline prices!

It's all part of the same picture.

Quote

See above re: "[N]othing to do with retail gasoline prices!" Clearly you want to rail against President Obama; go right ahead, that doesn't bother me. I was just wondering how much influence the POTUS has on retail prices; and, so far, I don't feel that I've received much compelling information.

Of course you don't, because your commentary shows youre a pro-Obama, greenie global warming supporter. You're willing to ignore what he's doing to the economy with regards to both oil and all energy costs. Even though I've adequately laid it all out for you.

No wonder I don't waste my time proving things via links for the likes of you, I could but you aren't worth my time.

This post has been edited by pict: 21 April 2012 - 01:29 PM

[Howsithangin]

MADGestic, on 20 April 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

How is the EPA "dictatorial" now? Was the EPA (which was created at least a couple of decades ago) "dictatorial" during prior administrations? What makes "Obama's" EPA different?

MORE dictatorial? I'm not sure. I've been in the environmental field for 18 years. It's always been dictatorial. As well as inconsistent, agenda-driven, intermittently competent, and bombastic. But more dictatorial? Not sure. It certainly has been handed a hell of a lot more power under this regime however.

MADGestic, on 20 April 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Please provide citations for "more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia"… that is highly counterintuitive especially since Middle Eastern reserves are still relatively sweet and easy to access.

Are you honestly equating quantity of oil reserves to their ease of access?

I'm away on a laptop and don't have the bandwidth to search the sources that I'd like. Will follow-up when I can



Just for discussion: Proven reserves aren't everything link

MADGestic, on 20 April 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

The Deepwater Horizon disaster was indeed an eye-opening tragedy which emphasized the still extant cowboy culture of drill early and often; but when "drill, baby, drill" became "spill, baby, spill", I think many reasonable folks realized that "drill at all costs" shouldn't include our food supply and the lost lives of loved ones. I may be a capitalist but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm cruel, uncaring, and immune to enlightenment.

Quiz question: Why were they drilling in waters so deep? Why could they not drill closer to shore where water depth wasn't quite such a problem?

And you are correct, natural gas & coal discussions are not relevant.

[MADGestic]

pict, on 21 April 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

No it actually doesn't, it only does for you because you won't accept facts.



Don't you keep up with what's going on? With regards to refineries they're being hammered by new 'global warmiong' EPA regulations. And up in Alaskan waters an oil project was put on hold because, wait for it. Emissions hadn't been calculated for a boat which would be operating. And I've already explained to you the difference between leases and drilling permits. […]

Are you my friend "keeping up with" the profits of fossil fuel providers? From Exxon Valdez to Deepwater Horizon, I haven't heard of any of these corporations going out of business. What you perceive as "hammered" apparently hasn't prevented any of the global players from folding. I think I detect a tinge of histrionics here.

Quote

As far as Obama and the EPA is concerned 'green' has everything to do with it. They want everything green at the expense of natural fuels. I use the term natural because drillable oil isn't only a fossil fuel, just so you know. […]

Really? "Everything" to do with it? And what else do you include under the supposedly "natural" umbrella? Whale oil?

Quote

[…] No, I'm not going to waste my time pandering to your ignorance. But here's a clue, Obama himself stated there are more natural gas reserves in the United States than the Middle East. Work out what that means with regards to oil reserves here, with your great charisma. […]

See my posts here and everywhere regarding the "race to the bottom" of coal and natural gas prices; yet you ask if >>>I'm<<< "paying attention"?!! :-)

Quote

[…] It wasn't an eye-opening tragedy at all, it's happened before elsewhere. Also, the Obama administration made it worse by not following proper procedures after it happened. The oil didn't need to reach the shore. […]

Good God, are you even paying attention to what you're posting? I posited that reasonable folks question whether drill at any cost includes our food and loved ones; and in response you toss off "it's happened before"?!! Well duh-uh, that's a friggin problem, not a refutation. (And trying to shift the blame onto Obama is really shallow and transparent.)

Quote

[…] I don't "think" they went elsewhere, I know for a fact some went elsewhere and not just a couple either. A rig is like an aircraft, it can only make money and profits when operating. […]

Actually oil rigs are not at all like aircraft; unless you mean that after landing your first flight you just walk away and abandon your supposed profit-making machine on the runway, in everyone's way and never to move again. Don't make me look up how many non-profitable (much less non-operational) rigs are still in situ… let it suffice to say that it does not support your attempted simile.

Quote

[…] It still shows what the EPA is up to, there's no reason to stop either coal production or coal fueled power plants. But of course you neglect to take this into consideration. […]

We're trying to talk about retail gasoline prices here; the tangents of EPA and power have already been addressed.

Quote

[…] It's all part of the same picture. […]

I don't know about you but when I need to juice up the car, I don't pull up to a coal-fired power plant and complain about the President… but maybe that's just me.

Quote

[…] Of course you don't, because your commentary shows youre a pro-Obama, greenie global warming supporter. You're willing to ignore what he's doing to the economy with regards to both oil and all energy costs. Even though I've adequately laid it all out for you.



No wonder I don't waste my time proving things via links for the likes of you, I could but you aren't worth my time.

If you were paying attention (or made even a half-assed search effort) you would quickly realize that I am not "pro-Obama" in any rational sense of the term. So please continue to not waste your time providing links for "the likes of" me; folks like us tend to develop our opinions based upon objective facts.



***kiss kiss***

Howsithangin, on 22 April 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

MORE dictatorial? I'm not sure. I've been in the environmental field for 18 years. It's always been dictatorial. As well as inconsistent, agenda-driven, intermittently competent, and bombastic. But more dictatorial? Not sure. It certainly has been handed a hell of a lot more power under this regime however. […]

So… business as usual?

Quote

[…] Are you honestly equating quantity of oil reserves to their ease of access?

Are you honestly suggesting that ease of access has nothing to do with the equation?

Quote

[…] I'm away on a laptop and don't have the bandwidth to search the sources that I'd like. Will follow-up when I can



[…]



Just for discussion: Proven reserves aren't everything link



[…]



Quiz question: Why were they drilling in waters so deep? Why could they not drill closer to shore where water depth wasn't quite such a problem? […]

Is this a rhetorical "quiz"? Easy sweet crude is a thing of the past…(Next thing you know old Jeb's a millionaire)… that is inarguable. Even middle east producers are concerned about production versus internal (much less external) demand.



Why were they drilling so deep? Well duh because like a little old lady with a fistful of quarters on a bus trip to a casino, they're looking to strike it rich no matter the odds. They've hit on a couple of winners but keep chasing that jackpot.



Look, the chase is not sustainable. It takes millions of years for the planet to make oil and it's taken just a century for us to figure out how to leverage it. We have to take more chances to match current much less future consumption and it's ultimately a losing proposition. And folks are beginning to realize that food and water and lives are not a reasonable tradeoff… especially not when America's traditionally cheap gasoline hovers around $4 per gallon.

Quote

And you are correct, natural gas & coal discussions are not relevant.

Thank you.

[pict]

Quote

name='MADGestic' timestamp='1335326943' post='684935537'
Are you my friend "keeping up with" the profits of fossil fuel providers? From Exxon Valdez to Deepwater Horizon, I haven't heard of any of these corporations going out of business. What you perceive as "hammered" apparently hasn't prevented any of the global players from folding. I think I detect a tinge of histrionics here.

No histronics, I'm afraid you're detecting your own ignorance of the subject. My points you responded to with your comments above completely miss the mark, deliberately on your part, of course.

Quote

Really? "Everything" to do with it? And what else do you include under the supposedly "natural" umbrella? Whale oil?

Being a smartass doesn't work with me, loverboy. You know exactly what I mean, Obama is deliberately reducing the production of all natural energy sources in order to promote an inefficient green agenda. Currently, his policies most noticable is the price of oil.

Quote

See my posts here and everywhere regarding the "race to the bottom" of coal and natural gas prices; yet you ask if >>>I'm<<< "paying attention"?!! :-)

A complete deflection once again, well no, it again only proves your ignorance regarding the link between oil and gas. That's why I won't waste my time informing you of the facts, it takes too long and in fact, I've done it on here before. But I ain't wasting my time all over again on you.

Quote

Good God, are you even paying attention to what you're posting? I posited that reasonable folks question whether drill at any cost includes our food and loved ones; and in response you toss off "it's happened before"?!! Well duh-uh, that's a friggin problem, not a refutation. (And trying to shift the blame onto Obama is really shallow and transparent.)

Oh I'm paying attention, and of course it's happened before, so have car and plane crashes so I guess we should halt them doing their job as well in the interest of safety.

You should check out the safest method, then the second-safest method of drilling, it may enlighten your ignorance of the subject. I ain't going to explain it to an deliberate ignoramus who supports green technologies. And I'll remind you the oil need never have reached the Gulf shore, Obama and his minions allowed that to happen.

Quote

Actually oil rigs are not at all like aircraft; unless you mean that after landing your first flight you just walk away and abandon your supposed profit-making machine on the runway, in everyone's way and never to move again. Don't make me look up how many non-profitable (much less non-operational) rigs are still in situ… let it suffice to say that it does not support your attempted simile.

See, once again you haven't a clue on the subject. A rig only makes money when it's drilling, the same way an aircraft only makes money when it's flying. But you missed the metaphor, how startling!

Quote

We're trying to talk about retail gasoline prices here; the tangents of EPA and power have already been addressed.

And I've already explained how the EPA is trying and succeeding in curtailing oil production on this very thread, I'm not going to repeat myself for you because you ain't worth my time.

Quote

I don't know about you but when I need to juice up the car, I don't pull up to a coal-fired power plant and complain about the President… but maybe that's just me.

You will need to do that if Obama has his way, plug it in before you drive and pay a fortune to charge it up. There's a link to my mentioning coal fired power plants in the previous sentence. Provided you have the brains or the willingness to work it out.

Quote

If you were paying attention (or made even a half-assed search effort) you would quickly realize that I am not "pro-Obama" in any rational sense of the term. So please continue to not waste your time providing links for "the likes of" me; folks like us tend to develop our opinions based upon objective facts.

Well you're certainly ignorant when it comes to oil prices, Obama and the EPA, and you're a greenie so you support his silly agenda.

Quote

***kiss kiss***

Keep that for your pals, lover-boy.

This post has been edited by pict: 24 April 2012 - 11:43 PM

[MADGestic]

But I thought we were pals...

[pict]

MADGestic, on 24 April 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

But I thought we were pals...

heheheheh...

[Scootaloo]

AntiWeasel, on 09 April 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

Prices are a sign of confidence - plain and simple. Always have been, always will be...

Yeah, that "supply and demand" stuff has nothing to do with it. Adam Smith? Total rube. Besides, he was Scottish, what the hell do THEY know, amirite?



Look chief, this is pretty simple. Supply is steady, but demand is rising. This translates into a net increase of costs to the consumer. Just wait until the oil held in reserve by the petroleum companies starts to run low, and the "supply" end of this scale starts to shrink.

"THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO DRILL MORE! EVERYWHERE! ALL THE TIME!" I hear you scream.

You think so? You're wrong. See we can open up every single possible oil well we can dream of, and at best we could stabilize global prices for, hmmm, I'd give it a month, maybe two before demand again begins to outstrip supply again. And yeah, global prices. All that oil you want to suck out of American soil? That's not America's oil, oh hell no. That's ExxonMobil's oil. or Shell's oil. or BP's oil. Every last drop is getting put on the global market, regardless of its place of origin, and you'll only see a drop of it if you're paying the marked price at the pump; which will still be high because there's about three billion people in south and east Asia competing with you for that stuff.

Now, of course, we could tell the oil corporations to go get bent, nationalize our own oil and set up a system to use that oil to build infrastructure for more sustainable and stable means of generating energy.. .but you know what? That would be socialism with a dash of environmentalism thrown in for flavor. How horrible would that be, right?

[Howsithangin]

MADGestic, on 24 April 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Are you honestly suggesting that ease of access has nothing to do with the equation?

It has nothing to do with proven reserves, no. Which is what you were equating.

MADGestic, on 24 April 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Why were they drilling so deep? Well duh because like a little old lady with a fistful of quarters on a bus trip to a casino, they're looking to strike it rich no matter the odds. They've hit on a couple of winners but keep chasing that jackpot.

BS

They were driven offshore because the EPA forbids drilling closer to shore.

thanks for playing

[satellite66]

Hmmm. Does this count as reason for high prices? I guess Obama has no control over this either? Someones argument just went down in flames. This seems dictatorial to me.

http://www.rightnati...howtopic=184775

[MADGestic]

satellite66, on 26 April 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

Hmmm. Does this count as reason for high prices? I guess Obama has no control over this either? Someones argument just went down in flames. This seems dictatorial to me.



http://www.rightnati...howtopic=184775

I will take a look at that topic when I have the opportunity but (besides the cross-post) I can't help but notice that that thread is pendant upon an editorial from a pseudo-news organization. Surely you know that CNS was formerly known as "Conservative News Service", has a long and unbroken record of propaganda with the word "news" whispered over it, and is easily recognizable as a player in the fringe-right noise machine/echo chamber. If you are basing your opinion on such a source then I heartily recommend broadening your reading horizons.

[MADGestic]

Howsithangin, on 25 April 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

It has nothing to do with proven reserves, no. Which is what you were equating. […]

We're talking about the market my friend; you know, price at the pump? (See topic.) Efficiency of production is unquestionably and inarguably part of the equation. If rigs have indeed moved… (an as yet undemonstrated assertion)… profit is the only thing that could make that happen.

Quote

[…] BS



They were driven offshore because the EPA forbids drilling closer to shore.



thanks for playing

Your comment is not the rebuttal that you apparently think it is. Unsurprisingly, producers are chasing the money. That's why they're in the game; to make money. If the cost of fighting governmental proscriptions (including lobbying) cuts too deeply into their profits then they will go somewhere else.



Remember, I'm one of those who think the longer you leave it in the ground the more valuable it becomes. Barring miraculous discoveries of large sweet and easy fields, the end is in sight for "traditional" oil production. It will be used up; perhaps not in our lifetimes but not too far in the future. Pump prices will continue to fluctuate but the trend is going to be upwards.



(Anyone else remember when gasoline was $0.25 per gallon? No? How about $1 per gallon? Remember that?)



I'm still waiting for anyone to address the supposed "moving" of oil rigs; that barely happens at all. Most rigs are abandoned, sunk, sold as scrap, repurposed, or otherwise deliberately/unintentionally destroyed. The "mobility" of oil rigs is largely a myth; they get parked and that's about it. This has been going on for decades (it's part of the business) and therefore, trying to blame it on a particular administration is quite obviously political and shallow.

[pict]

MADGestic, on 26 April 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

I will take a look at that topic when I have the opportunity but (besides the cross-post) I can't help but notice that that thread is pendant upon an editorial from a pseudo-news organization. Surely you know that CNS was formerly known as "Conservative News Service", has a long and unbroken record of propaganda with the word "news" whispered over it, and is easily recognizable as a player in the fringe-right noise machine/echo chamber. If you are basing your opinion on such a source then I heartily recommend broadening your reading horizons.

Stop your deflecting, anytime you're proven wrong you go for the source, you're always the same. Well, this time the 'source' includes the video of your precious EPA goon stating exactly what the source is reporting.

As for your long winded anti-conservative harping. It only proves you're a pro-Obama supporter of his green agenda, at the expense of course, of developing our natural resources.

As for 'heartily' recommending anyone 'broadening their reading horizons.' I heartily recommend you pull your head out of your arse.

This post has been edited by pict: 27 April 2012 - 07:16 AM