Obama made gas prices go up?

As much as I am not on board with the current President, it's speculators that are driving the price of oil with a bit of OPEC thrown in for good measure. OPEC produces a bit more and prices go down. However, they are happy with high oil prices.

They better keep prices high for themselves because I see new technologies emerging in the next several of years. High gas prices makes developing alternative technologies useful.

However, once such technology comes out OPEC can kill it by selling oil for roughly $15 a barrel and STILL make money.


Obama COULD relieve the hurt on the U.S. economy and poor people very quickly by helping to lower meat and produce prices. Due to his regulations requiring more and more ethanol in gasoline, the price of CORN is going through the roof. Which in turn is what farmers use to feed their cattle. Tons of smaller farming outfits are slaughtering their herds right now due to drought and them not being able to feed them (due to high corn prices). What happens next year? Meat prices will go through the roof! However, if he doesn't do anything he looks 'green' and the corn growers/refineries are happy...

Drove me nuts when people blamed Bush for the high oil prices and the whole 'war for oil' non-sense... Same holds true for this guy...
 


This was Mahr's biggest Hit. Don't discard it. (Unless you're a true-believer, then it'll really piss you off.)

Once again, wrong. The Jesus Camp movement is hardly mainstream and not supported by the majority of Christians. By the way, while I do not advocate their strange behaviour, they were not praying to Bush but for Bush. Either way I do not support nor agree with their behavior.


As for oil - what can a president do? Allow drilling where the oil companies want to drill. Allow the free market to bring in reasonable green energy. Reduce restrictions on the building of new oil refineries (when was the last one built?). That's a few things.
 
Once again, wrong. The Jesus Camp movement is hardly mainstream and not supported by the majority of Christians. By the way, while I do not advocate their strange behaviour, they were not praying to Bush but for Bush. Either way I do not support nor agree with their behavior.
Once again, you're not reading what was written.

Mahr didn't make Jesus Camp. Mahr did Religulous, which was a great argument against ALL religion.
 
The US Dollar is up or flat over the last 12 months over all other major world currencies.

  • Euro +14.99%
  • Japanese Yen +2.69%
  • Chinese Yuan -0.44%
  • Swiss Franc +19.28%
  • Canadian Dollar +1.36%
  • Australian Dollar +3.77%
  • Indian Rupee +21.48%

When the dollar was weaker, gas prices were cheaper at the pump but actually cost Americans more in terms of spending power. It's recovered some, so prices stabilized. Although, much of the cost of gas has to do with oil speculation on Wall Street rather than anything systemic.

don't believe in everything you hear from bloomberg. traders barely have the capacity to affect any commodity significantly, let alone oil. the only reasons for the high price are dramatically lower production and inflation. in terms of gold (real money), oil has never been cheaper.

btw id like to give a shout out to my man bernanke for bumping up my positions this friday :)
 
what can a president do? Allow drilling where the oil companies want to drill. Allow the free market to bring in reasonable green energy. Reduce restrictions on the building of new oil refineries (when was the last one built?). That's a few things.

In one day the president could tighten position limits, impose a 1% tobin tax on all energy speculation and with it offset/eliminate existing oil and gasoline taxes, call the governor of every state and tell them each to find a place for a new refinery, and deliver a speech to the country indicating that he had done all this and that he fully intends to facilitate the creation of twenty million private sector jobs in the next x years and will see to it that energy prices stay low for the duration of the recovery.

That, an unannounced release of some reserve, and a few FBI/SEC/FTC raids on select trading houses and energy accounting departments would do the trick.
 
In one day the president could tighten position limits, impose a 1% tobin tax on all energy speculation and with it offset/eliminate existing oil and gasoline taxes, call the governor of every state and tell them each to find a place for a new refinery, and deliver a speech to the country indicating that he had done all this and that he fully intends to facilitate the creation of twenty million private sector jobs in the next x years and will see to it that energy prices stay low for the duration of the recovery.

That, an unannounced release of some reserve, and a few FBI/SEC/FTC raids on select trading houses and energy accounting departments would do the trick.

translation: regulation, regulation, government intervention, more regulation

yes! let's keeping digging ourselves out of this hole!
 
Drove me nuts when people blamed Bush for the high oil prices and the whole 'war for oil' non-sense...

It's hard to not think that cheap oil was one of the motivators for going to Iraq, given that the administration touted such oil as a way to make the whole thing cost effective (cheapest! war! ever!), especially when the Deputy Defense Secretary testified before Congress "The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We’re dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
 
translation: regulation, regulation, government intervention, more regulation

yes! let's keeping digging ourselves out of this hole!

The question was what the president could do. Those are some things he could do. Simple as that.
 
It's hard to not think that cheap oil was one of the motivators for going to Iraq, given that the administration touted such oil as a way to make the whole thing cost effective (cheapest! war! ever!), especially when the Deputy Defense Secretary testified before Congress "The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We’re dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Iraq has huge oil reserves and to say they could not finance part of their own reconstruction would be silly. However, remember - people were saying that Bush started this war because the U.S. wanted access to Iraq oil reserves. Which after bidding out the oil contracts went to Russian and Chinese firms and not Americans.

This is the last I post about that since such discussions can go on for months and month with nothing productive to come of it. Got work to do.
 
Globalization drives gas prices up as more tankers ship raw materials across the world then back as products. Regardless of who's president.

I have a diesel volkswagon and it costs more than premium gas due to "supply and demand" rather than cost of refining.
 
привет;1853367 said:
Whenever I tell someone this they are fascinated to find out the cost of oil barely changes. Just that our fiat currency is losing it's value.

"huh what's fiat??"

You can thank the government for that shit. Printing money like its going out of fashion.
 
Which after bidding out the oil contracts went to Russian and Chinese firms and not Americans.

Iraq: Chevron deal

Exxon Mobil, the world largest and most powerful oil company with immense clout in Washington and a major contract for developing the West Qurna Phase 1 mega-field in southern Iraq

Chevron, the second largest U.S. oil titan, has joined the fray by taking over two oil exploration zones


ExxonMobil Iraq

Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq - Features - Al Jazeera English

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry
 
Moxie, just to clarify but I respectfully think you are missing my original point.

The war for oil crowd said that the U.S. went in pretty much only for oil contracts for Bush's buddies. Iraq: Chevron deal was made recently. NOT in 2003! That oil companies were/are interested in competing for contracts (they are businesses after all) is natural - however - and this is my main point - Iraq gave out the contracts independently. Yes, U.S. tried to lobby their .gov but the U.S. did NOT make the decision FOR them.

Your secret memo's were from the U.K. and oil companies having discussions with their .gov is natural. However, notice they didn't say - Right after the war you have the green light to get the oil rights...

Most importantly: In your Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq link:

"Major western companies, such as Chevron and ConocoPhillips, that had hoped to sign contracts were unable to do so. A third round [of contracts] took place in December 2010 and saw no major western oil companies (except Shell) win contracts. I believe that there was an Iraqi backlash against the awarding of contracts to the large western major oil companies. Thus, in December 2010, fields went to Russian oil companies Lukoil and Gazprom, Norway's Statoil, and the Angolan company Sonangol, among others."

Hope that clarify things a bit.
 
Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry

At best the above makes an argument that British involvement in the war was suggested by an oil company in order to get in on the action. Just because someone put in a memo that the British conspicuously participate does not mean that this was the reason they participated. I can lobby for something and if it goes through can I take the credit? Hardly a smoking gun.

In the end though we know that oil certainly was a major part of the war. Of course it was. Without oil Iraq could never afford nukes or be a threat to worldwide business (read that - free flow of oil). There was never a secret about that.

Iraq's problem is they went all crazy against the world. Threatening Kuwait and then Saudi Arabia (1990's). These independent countries had their western slaves clean up the problem. As they did again with the more recent war. Little do they know that the reason we do not drill much is because we are depleting their supply of oil first and then the West will have the monopoly. Fun times.
 
Iraq's problem is they went all crazy against the world. Threatening Kuwait and then Saudi Arabia (1990's). These independent countries had their western slaves clean up the problem. As they did again with the more recent war. Little do they know that the reason we do not drill much is because we are depleting their supply of oil first and then the West will have the monopoly. Fun times.

I don't think Iraq was much of a threat to anybody in 2003. Their military was destroyed in the Gulf War, and twelve years of sanctions had basically decimated the country, which was held together by scotch tape and baling wire.

We invaded the country to establish a military presence in the region, and control the remaining oil reserves, not simply to hand them to U.S. oil companies. Of course, the gross incompetence of the administration prosecuting the war may have thrown a wrench in those long term plans.

The oil in the Gulf region is critical because it's the largest remaining reserves of light crude elephant fields, the kind that flows easily and is relatively cheap to extract. The west, particularly North America, has nothing like that. We peaked in oil production forty years ago, and what we're left with now is oil shale and tar sands, which are many times more energy intensive to extract. The idea that we're sitting on huge reserves of cheap, light crude that we're going to tap into some day is completely false.
 
The oil in the Gulf region is critical because it's the largest remaining reserves of light crude elephant fields, the kind that flows easily and is relatively cheap to extract. The west, particularly North America, has nothing like that. We peaked in oil production forty years ago, and what we're left with now is oil shale and tar sands, which are many times more energy intensive to extract. The idea that we're sitting on huge reserves of cheap, light crude that we're going to tap into some day is completely false.

You're right. There's not likely to be any innovation in extraction. I mean... why try?
 
Strawman + sarcasm. That wasn't worth the electrons it took to display it on my screen.

Alternatively, why don't you educate yourself on oil production, reserves, extraction technology, etc. Then form an opinion based on facts and knowledge of the industry. That's what I've done.

There have been remarkable innovations in extraction technology, e.g. horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing like they're using in the Bakken. Those are effective, but also require one barrel of oil to produce three, which is the underlying problem, the diminishing returns on tight oil.

I suggest you check it out for yourself. It's one of the three most important issues of our time, along with the global economic (cluster fuck) system and the environment.

Or, you could remain ignorant and just post sarcastic nonsense and logical fallacies here on WF. Up to you.
 
You must be new.

Uh, yeah. See the post count? But even if it was 4000, I'd still call bullshit on bullshit. Just because this is a forum full of arrested adolescents is no reason to let ignorance run rampant. That's particularly true when it's about an issue as important as energy. Just sayin'.