Obama's highest gas prices ever.

[witness23]

Nope, you have it BACKWARDS. The speculation argument is the "strawman" argument.

Why, because you say so? Please share with the viewing audience your sources backing up your assertions.

Government restrictions, bogus environmental regulations are the reality AND the TRUE cause.

Why because you think so? Those most certainly contribute to the cost of fuel, but they are far from the driving factors of fuel costs.

A stupid picture is also a VERY weak argument. In fact, it is no argument at all.

ummmmm...... I wasn't putting up the argument, Humble was doing a fine job at that. I thought I would just point out the obvious by using a picture.

 

[layoutshooter]

What ever you want. Nothing like a valid counter, or lack there of, to what I said was the cause of high energy costs.

Supplies are uncertain, due primarily to insecure production world wide. Finished product in the U.S. is low, primarily due to lack of production capability, caused by federal regulations, that have prohibited the building of new refining plants to keep up with rising demands. Prices are high in the U.S. because, in part, we are prohibited from developing EVERY possible energy source domestically. We have the resources to be self sufficient but are not allowed to develop them.

Government is the primary reason world energy prices are high. Obama, and Democrats in general, want energy prices to be high to curtail use to slow, global warming or climate change or what ever they are calling it today. They have been saying so for decades.

Government is the CAUSE of problems, not the solution.

 

[Humble2drive]

Finished product in the U.S. is high, primarily due to lack of production capability, caused by federal regulations, that have prohibited the building of new refining plants to keep up with rising demands.

Finished product is "high" due to "lack of production"?

Government is the primary reason world energy prices are high. Obama, and Democrats in general, want energy prices to be high to curtail use to slow, global warming or climate change or what ever they are calling it today. They have been saying so for decades.

Government is the CAUSE of problems, not the solution.

Thanks for your umpteenth speech (ad nauseam)on how Government has been cause of all problems for decades.
Are you planning on pointing to any specific Obama energy policy or just sticking with the usual "they said" drivel?

 

[layoutshooter]

Finished product is "high" due to "lack of production"?



Thanks for your umpteenth speech (ad nauseam)on how Government has been cause of all problems for decades.
Are you planning on pointing to any specific Obama energy policy or just sticking with the usual "they said" drivel?

Sorry, mistyped, but you knew that.


Shutting down production in the Gulf after the spill. Not allowing production in National Forests. Using the EPA to pass "regulations" they could never get through congress.

We also have BILLIONS of bogus loans to "energy companies" what were, are and did go bankrupt. We are "subsidizing" energy on EVERY level, with government funds, which will, in the end, drive prices up. Just as it will do with farm subsidies. I am not speaking of "tax cuts" I am speaking of dollars taken from tax




Obama's own words on coal production and usage.


"What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them."

How about wind power, Al Gore's "pot "O" gold"?

Here is a good WSJ article on it.

[h=1]The Multiple Distortions of Wind Subsidies[/h][h=2]Producers get so much from the government that they can pay utilities to take their power and still make a profit.[/h]
[h=3]By PHIL GRAMM[/h]Federal subsidies for new wind-power generation will end on Dec. 31 unless they are renewed by Congress. For the sake of our economy and the smooth operation of the energy market, Congress should let the subsidies lapse. They waste taxpayer money, subvert the allocation of capital, and generate a social cost many times the price tag of the subsides themselves.
Since 1992, the federal government has expended almost $24 billion to encourage investment in wind power through direct spending, tax breaks, R&D, loan guarantees and other federal support of electric power. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that a one-year extension of existing federal subsidies for wind power would cost taxpayers almost $12 billion.
The costs of wind subsidies are extraordinarily high—$52.48 per one million watt hours generated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By contrast, the subsidies for generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear power are $3.10, from hydropower 84 cents, from coal 64 cents, and from natural gas 63 cents.
In addition, wind power benefits from federal mandates requiring the use of renewable energy by federal agencies along with preferential treatment by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Many states provide additional tax breaks, subsidies and mandates for wind power. The total value of these additional subsidies has never been calculated.
But the cost to taxpayers is only part of the problem. Subsidized, wind-generated electricity is displacing other, much cheaper sources of power. The subsidies are so high that wind-power producers can pay utilities to take the electricity they produce and still make a profit. Such "negative pricing" has occurred for some time in the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest and in Texas—and, according to the Energy Information Administration, it will likely grow.
Enlarge Image

Bloomberg News


In West Texas, where wind power is a larger percentage of total electricity production than in any other part of the country, negative energy-price distortions have occurred 8% or more of the time for the last five years. Donna Nelson, the chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission, warned in September that the market distortion caused by negative prices "makes it difficult for other generation types to recover their cost and discourages investment in new generation."
The net result is that federal subsidies are triggering an inefficient and costly transformation of grid resources from low-cost megawatts to high-cost "maybe" watts—electricity generated only when the wind blows.
When electricity demand peaked in Chicago on July 6, 2012, wind energy, which comprised 2,700 megawatts of capacity, was able to supply only four megawatts of electricity, a stunning 99.8% failure rate. In Europe, one day this February wind power produced almost a third of Germany's electricity—but four days later it produced none (it was a still day).
Power grids that rely on wind-generated electricity have to maintain redundant, backup generating capacity in case the wind isn't blowing and the demand for electricity is high. Many of these backup sources, such as coal and gas-fired plants, have to be kept up and running to be available when they are needed—even if they are not used. This partially offsets the environmental benefits of wind power.
Wind-power is an ancient technology—a Greek mathematician, Heron of Alexandria, is generally credited with building the first windmill 2,000 years ago. Charles Brush, an industrialist, was the first to generate electricity from a windmill in this country in Cleveland almost 125 years ago. But it never proved to be commercially viable.
In the 1990s, the federal government began subsidizing wind power based on the hope that, with a helping hand, the technology would improve rapidly, costs would decline, and the industry would become economically viable. Congressman Phil Sharp (D., Ind.), the original proponent of the subsidies, argued in 1991 for "a sunset provision to ensure that the temporary incentive does not become a permanent subsidy."
But the sun has never set. Again and again—on seven subsequent occasions in all—federal subsidies for wind were extended.
Yet wind power is less economically viable today than it was when the current subsidies started in 1992. After the expected gains in moving from one-off production to assembly-line production, no major technological breakthrough has occurred that would substantially lower the cost of wind-power electricity generation. The Department of Energy's "2009 Wind Technology Market Report" finds average wind-power costs were higher in 2009 than they were in 1994, two years after the subsidies began. As Energy Secretary Steven Chu has observed on more than one occasion, wind energy is a "mature technology."
Meanwhile, as the production of natural gas has surged in the past few years, the price paid for this energy source has declined dramatically, to $3.29 per million BTUs at last report. This is less than one-fourth the July 2008 price, according to Energy Information Administration data.
Declining costs for electricity will give America a comparative advantage in industrial jobs that entail high levels of energy use, such as aluminum, glass, iron and steel, cement and petrochemical production. It also means, however, that wind-power subsidies will become even more costly and disruptive. As Dieter Helm notes in his important new book, "The Carbon Crunch," wind subsidies make "new gas investment much more risky and . . . gas contracting difficult, since how much gas the power station buys as its fuel depends on factors outside its control: the wind speed."
It is increasingly difficult to make a case that taxpayers should continue to subsidize wind-generated electricity. The end of the subsidy will not induce owners of existing windmills to shut them down, since so much of the cost is fixed in the original construction project and so little of their costs are entailed in operating the windmill once it is constructed. Under current law, billions of dollars in subsidies will continue to be paid out over the next decade on existing projects even if the subsidies for projects built in the future expire.
If unimpeded, the expanded use of cheap natural gas to generate electricity will raise living standards and attract millions of new industrial jobs back to our shores. A vote to stop wind subsidies from being extended is, therefore, a vote for cheaper, more reliable power, higher living standards, reindustrialization and fiscal sanity.
Mr. Gramm, a former Republican U.S. senator from Texas, is a senior partner of US Policy Metrics and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
A version of this article appeared December 26, 2012, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Multiple Distortions of Wind Subsidies.

Phil Gramm: The Multiple Distortions of Wind Subsidies - WSJ.com

 

[davekc]

Gee.....don't forget we sent 3 billion to Brazil for drilling so they can sell it back to us at outrageous prices. Yep...Obama policies are certainly helping.

 

[Ragman]

Gee.....don't forget we sent 3 billion to Brazil for drilling so they can sell it back to us at outrageous prices. Yep...Obama policies are certainly helping.

Correction - This loan was approved during the Bush Administration.

snopes.com: Obama Lends $2 Billion to Brazilian Oil Company

 

[layoutshooter]

Correction - This loan was approved during the Bush Administration.

snopes.com: Obama Lends $2 Billion to Brazilian Oil Company

What did he do to stop it?

 

[Ragman]

What did he do to stop it?

That's not the point. The point is - calling it an Obama policy is misleading.

 

[layoutshooter]

That's not the point. The point is - calling it an Obama policy is misleading.

Depends on how you look at it. Once he allowed it to continue it became his policy. He could have stopped it. I can hear it now:

"In the interest of provide jobs for U.S. citizens, U.S. energy independence and a stable domestic supply, I am rescinding all loans and aid to Brazil and directing that those loans and aid be moved to insure U.S. domestic energy supplies."

INSTEAD we hear about bankrupting the U.S. coal industry.

YEP, good dude up there in the White House.

 

[Humble2drive]

Gee.....don't forget we sent 3 billion to Brazil for drilling so they can sell it back to us at outrageous prices. Yep...Obama policies are certainly helping.

If we are thinking about the same thing, the money (2b) was in the form of a *loan through the Export Import Bank of the U.S. and funded by J.P. Morgan. Morgan stood to make a profit off the deal at no cost to taxpayers. It was not for drilling but for exploration and development. The purpose was less about supplying the U.S. with oil but more about Petrobras agreeing to purchase*U.S. Equipment, supplies and services. A winning deal for Morgan and for U.S. Exporters.

The approval was made during the Bush administration and finalized during the first few months of the Obama administration.
At this time I have seen nothing to indicate the the U.S. will pay outrageous prices. In fact, China will be their biggest customer.

A link to your version of the story would be interesting. Check under your "Favorites" at Foxnews.com.

 

[Humble2drive]

LOS said:
Sorry, mistyped, but you knew that.

Actually I didn't. I don't see any mistype and don't understand the statement.

LOS said:
Shutting down production in the Gulf after the spill. Not allowing production in National Forests. Using the EPA to pass "regulations" they could never get through congress.

So, back to decreased domestic supply? I can certainly understand what you are saying and it does have an impact; however, those factors have much less impact than the global factors mentioned earlier. You fail to address any of those and continue to think that the U.S. Operates in a bubble.

 

[layoutshooter]

Actually I didn't. I don't see any mistype and don't understand the statement.



So, back to decreased domestic supply? I can certainly understand what you are saying and it does have an impact; however, those factors have much less impact than the global factors mentioned earlier. You fail to address any of those and continue to think that the U.S. Operates in a bubble.

Never mind, I fixed it already.

I am very well aware of global factors. Very much aware of China and India and their emerging economies and the impact they cause on global supplies, and prices. They don't need addressed.

The way to fix this problem is to not look at it as a problem and to look at it as an opportunity. That is the difference between a government solution and a real one.

The United States has the resources, and the brain power, to produce 100% of it energy needs domestically. It can be done in a manner that will cause minimal impact on the environment. In fact, I believe that we can even improve the environment while providing for our needs.

IF we were to embark on that quest we would see first see a increase in job growth. Good, high paying jobs, just as Canada has seen with their increased production.

IF we were to embark on that quest we would see and increase in tax revenues, without raising rates. More people working, more industrial activity, more taxes. I would never raise tax rates.

We need to stop analyzing and over analyzing the situation and just worry about what WE, the United States can do, within our borders, to take advantage of the resources and the brain power we have to profit, in every way, from the opportunity that we have.

Government is in the way. It has been in the way for a very long time. Yes, I understand how that happened. I remember, I have seen the damage caused to the environment and to people when companies act in an irresponsible manner. Now we are seeing government at in an irresponsible manner.

I contend that the reason we have not progressed in other forms of fuels etc is due to government interference. Government, as in elected officials, does not attract the "brightest bulbs in the pack". How can we expect them to have the vision to see past the problem to a solution when they don't have the brain power, the expertise or the experience to do so? We are a country of 350 million, why do we expect that a group of only 537, arguably not the "cream of the crop" to find answers?

In other words, don't worry it to death. Quit saying it can't be fixed because we don't live in a bubble. Instead of sending the profits to Canada, Mexico etc, keep it here. Prices will come down if we went into full production, but even if they did not, we would have jobs that paid enough for people to afford a tank of gas.

This is the United States. We CAN have it all. We CAN have unlimited, clean, inexpensive energy, a strong, vibrant environment AND a thriving economy. The ONLY thing holding us back is government. LET THE PEOPLE DO IT! They need to stop controlling, directing, and solely do the job assigned to them under the Constitution, which they are not doing. They are the problem the Poeple are the solution.

 

[Ragman]

Government is in the way. It has been in the way for a very long time. Yes, I understand how that happened. I remember, I have seen the damage caused to the environment and to people when companies act in an irresponsible manner. Now we are seeing government at in an irresponsible manner.

I contend that the reason we have not progressed in other forms of fuels etc is due to government interference. Government, as in elected officials, does not attract the "brightest bulbs in the pack". How can we expect them to have the vision to see past the problem to a solution when they don't have the brain power, the expertise or the experience to do so? We are a country of 350 million, why do we expect that a group of only 537, arguably not the "cream of the crop" to find answers?

In other words, don't worry it to death. Quit saying it can't be fixed because we don't live in a bubble. Instead of sending the profits to Canada, Mexico etc, keep it here. Prices will come down if we went into full production, but even if they did not, we would have jobs that paid enough for people to afford a tank of gas.

This is the United States. We CAN have it all. We CAN have unlimited, clean, inexpensive energy, a strong, vibrant environment AND a thriving economy. The ONLY thing holding us back is government. LET THE PEOPLE DO IT! They need to stop controlling, directing, and solely do the job assigned to them under the Constitution, which they are not doing. They are the problem the Poeple are the solution.

Now we are talking. It is government that is the problem. Not just Bush, Obama, or whoever in in the White House. Not just Democrats, Republican, but the government in general.

Blaming who ever is president is just politics and nothing else.

So there! Na-Naner

 

[layoutshooter]

Now we are talking. It is government that is the problem. Not just Bush, Obama, or whoever in in the White House. Not just Democrats, Republican, but the government in general.

Blaming who ever is president is just politics and nothing else.

So there! Na-Naner

I have ALWAYS said that! Obama though, it particularly EVIL! Besides, it's HIS turn in the hot seat. HE was a finger pointer, a blamer, his entire career. Now that he is in office he has shown that he does NOT have the ability to trust the People. He has proven that he is just another "boss" in the worst sense of the word, even a blooming dictator.

Government has ceased to function. It did so a LONG time ago but it is now really showing up. No budget, a do nothing congress, taxes out of control. Add to that a president who is hell bent on removing the Bill of Rights and a Soviet style bureaucracy doing the president's bidding and we are in REAL trouble.

It is now time for the People to stand up and say enough is enough. Give us back our power and get out of our way. WE can fix what you have broken. Either let us do or we are going to force you to do so.

 

[sthfl2000]

Can I get an Amen!

 

[Humble2drive]

Never mind, I fixed it already.

I am very well aware of global factors. Very much aware of China and India and their emerging economies and the impact they cause on global supplies, and prices. They don't need addressed.

The way to fix this problem is to not look at it as a problem and to look at it as an opportunity. That is the difference between a government solution and a real one.

The United States has the resources, and the brain power, to produce 100% of it energy needs domestically. It can be done in a manner that will cause minimal impact on the environment. In fact, I believe that we can even improve the environment while providing for our needs.

IF we were to embark on that quest we would see first see a increase in job growth. Good, high paying jobs, just as Canada has seen with their increased production.

IF we were to embark on that quest we would see and increase in tax revenues, without raising rates. More people working, more industrial activity, more taxes. I would never raise tax rates.

We need to stop analyzing and over analyzing the situation and just worry about what WE, the United States can do, within our borders, to take advantage of the resources and the brain power we have to profit, in every way, from the opportunity that we have.

Government is in the way. It has been in the way for a very long time. Yes, I understand how that happened. I remember, I have seen the damage caused to the environment and to people when companies act in an irresponsible manner. Now we are seeing government at in an irresponsible manner.

I contend that the reason we have not progressed in other forms of fuels etc is due to government interference. Government, as in elected officials, does not attract the "brightest bulbs in the pack". How can we expect them to have the vision to see past the problem to a solution when they don't have the brain power, the expertise or the experience to do so? We are a country of 350 million, why do we expect that a group of only 537, arguably not the "cream of the crop" to find answers?

In other words, don't worry it to death. Quit saying it can't be fixed because we don't live in a bubble. Instead of sending the profits to Canada, Mexico etc, keep it here. Prices will come down if we went into full production, but even if they did not, we would have jobs that paid enough for people to afford a tank of gas.

This is the United States. We CAN have it all. We CAN have unlimited, clean, inexpensive energy, a strong, vibrant environment AND a thriving economy. The ONLY thing holding us back is government. LET THE PEOPLE DO IT! They need to stop controlling, directing, and solely do the job assigned to them under the Constitution, which they are not doing. They are the problem the Poeple are the solution.

Mostly irrelevant to the current topic but well said!

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't believe it is irrelevant. I believe that Obama, his policies and the policies and control of government over energy producers are EXACTLY why we have high prices and low supplies now. I believe that is was planned to have this effect. I believe that they, the government that bad, that evil, that controlling. I believe that they will stop at NOTHING to enslave the People. This has been going on since Carter, or before. Both parties are responsible and both have the same end in mind, to make subjects out of free men. It is working.

Thank you, I am glad you enjoyed what I wrote.

 

[Ragman]

Can I get an Amen!

Amen, Hallelujah, now pass the peas!

 

[layoutshooter]

Amen, Hallelujah, now pass the peas!

PEAS? At a HUNKER? Have you lost it? BE ASHAMED!! It's a big fire, large hunks of red meat and copious amounts of adult beverages!

 

[Ragman]

PEAS? At a HUNKER? Have you lost it? BE ASHAMED!! It's a big fire, large hunks of red meat and copious amounts of adult beverages!

I'm ashamed of myself.