# Gasoline Expected to Rise to $5.00 to $6.00 a gallon



## Philobeado

Obama's plan to get us off the use of oil is to get the price of gas up to $7 per gallon. He's well on his way to achieving that goal.

Obama Supporter: 'Obama Will Pay For My Gas And My Mortgage'


----------



## strollingbones

i was visiting a conservative friend of mine...who worked the oil field in the gulf for years.....he swears all we have to do is uncap the wells already there...and when i mentioned the bp disaster...he pointed out that was drilling....not uncapping....how much of this is true?  i am not sure....after all he is a conservative


----------



## Mr. H.

What makes anyone think that Obama, or any other President, has sway over world oil pricing?


----------



## Philobeado

Mr. H. said:


> What makes anyone think that Obama, or any other President, has sway over world oil pricing?[/QUOTE
> 
> Do you deny that the gulf oil drilling ban has had no effect on prices?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Geo political events are driving commodities traders into a form of panic buying.
They have run up the price of crude oil( West Texas Intermediate crude) on the New York Mercantile Exchange( NYMEX) has run up from $84 per barrel three weeks ago to over $100 per barrel before settling today with a slight drop.
The price yesterday fell due to a news story alleging Libyan leader Kadhafi had been shot and killed.
Although Other OPEC nations have pledged ot make up for the roughly 1.5 million barrel daily output form Libya's wells, commodities traders continue to fear anti- government strife will spread to other Gulf Arab nations and most importantly, Saudi Arabia.
Unfortunately with the US and other economies on shaky ground, this does not bode well for any kind of economic recovery. In fact some analysts have stated that if the present spike in oil and gasoline prices continues, it could send the US and European economies into a second tail spin.
In any event, there is no end in sight of the current run up in prices.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Mr. H. said:


> What makes anyone think that Obama, or any other President, has sway over world oil pricing?


Yeah...Obama and his pie in the sky ideas about solar and wind energy and his idiotic drilling bans.
Clinton and his seizing of lands under which there are billions of barrels of unharvested oil and natural gas.


----------



## MikeK

thereisnospoon said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes anyone think that Obama, or any other President, has sway over world oil pricing?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...Obama and his pie in the sky ideas about solar and wind energy and his idiotic drilling bans.
> Clinton and his seizing of lands under which there are billions of barrels of unharvested oil and natural gas.
Click to expand...

Jimmy Carter put in place a plan that would by now have made us at least competitive with Germany in its development of solar technology which presently supplies over 25% of their electrical energy.  Because we import only 20% of our energy (oil) from the Middle East we would by now be totally independent of that source.  

But Ronald Reagan scrapped Carter's solar energy plan and he removed the solar panels that Carter had installed on the White House roof.  

mediastudy.com


----------



## Old Rocks

The best place to look for the truth on how much oil there is available are the USGS figures. You see Conservatives claiming 400 billion to a trillion barrels for the Bakken formation, then read from the USGS that the field has about 3 1/2 to 4 billion recoverable barrels. Since we use between 10 and 20 million barrels a day of oil in this nation, that is about a years supply for us.

World production has flatlined for a while now in the face of rising demand. On a demand and supply market. Come on, now, you free market mavens, doesn't that have a certain meaning?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

I just find it interesting that the same people who were blaming Bush for the high gas prices three years ago are steadily mum over the current rapid increase.  If it was Bush's fault then, is it not Obama's fault now?


----------



## Old Rocks

Bush created much of the problems that drove the oil prices up with his incompetant and idiotic adventures in the Mideast. Today, the problems are created by the people in the Mideast that wish to have a say in their own government. 

In both cases, there is also the background fact of rising demand and declining production.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Old Rocks said:


> Bush created much of the problems that drove the oil prices up with his incompetant and idiotic adventures in the Mideast. Today, the problems are created by the people in the Mideast that wish to have a say in their own government.
> 
> In both cases, there is also the background fact of rising demand and declining production.


To respond to both posts..
Government incompetence combined with an insistence in kowtowing to environmental lobbyists and deference t foreign intersts has created this intolerable condition here in the US.
 Given our vast reserves of these natural resources, we should be calling the shots in oil and natual gas production. Still with all the nonsense occuring the US is the #3 largest oil producing nation on the planet. We should be #1.
Now with this latest oil and gasoline price spkie our economy will take a nosedive.
Stat heard yesterday...For every penny rise in the price of gas, over $100 biillion in spending power is removed from our pockets....
BTW, the problems we are seeing in the Middle East today would have occured with or without US interference. Bank on that.


----------



## JamesInFlorida

Philobeado said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes anyone think that Obama, or any other President, has sway over world oil pricing?[/QUOTE
> 
> Do you deny that the gulf oil drilling ban has had no effect on prices?
Click to expand...


It's about state rights. Here in Florida for example we should have the right to either allow, or deny oil drilling off of our shores. The constitution doesn't grant the federal government-or any body to either allow, or restrict oil drilling. Therefore it's up to the states individually.

We don't want drilling because it'll greatly hinder our economy. Our tourism would get hit really hard-let alone if something like the BP spill happened again, which would then hit our fishing, boating, ports, etc.. We have too much to risk just to slightly lower gas prices for the nation as a whole. Floridians shouldn't be subjected to unconstitutional risks to our economy just for people in the other 49 states (talk about big government).

The majority of Floridians are against off-shore drilling here. It's against our *state* law not to drill here. If you can point out an area of the US constitution that states the federal government has the right to overstep that law-by all means show it. If you can't (which you can't)-too bad, so sad-get over it.


----------



## Douger

Irrelevant to me. I make my own bio-diesel from restaurant waste.


----------



## xsited1

dont taz me bro said:


> i just find it interesting that the same people who were blaming bush for the high gas prices three years ago are steadily mum over the current rapid increase.  If it was bush's fault then, is it not obama's fault now?



oh hell no!


----------



## thereisnospoon

JamesInFlorida said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes anyone think that Obama, or any other President, has sway over world oil pricing?[/QUOTE
> 
> Do you deny that the gulf oil drilling ban has had no effect on prices?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about state rights. Here in Florida for example we should have the right to either allow, or deny oil drilling off of our shores. The constitution doesn't grant the federal government-or any body to either allow, or restrict oil drilling. Therefore it's up to the states individually.
> 
> We don't want drilling because it'll greatly hinder our economy. Our tourism would get hit really hard-let alone if something like the BP spill happened again, which would then hit our fishing, boating, ports, etc.. We have too much to risk just to slightly lower gas prices for the nation as a whole. Floridians shouldn't be subjected to unconstitutional risks to our economy just for people in the other 49 states (talk about big government).
> 
> The majority of Floridians are against off-shore drilling here. It's against our *state* law not to drill here. If you can point out an area of the US constitution that states the federal government has the right to overstep that law-by all means show it. If you can't (which you can't)-too bad, so sad-get over it.
Click to expand...


The majority of Floridians aren't even Floridians. They live half the year in New York or New Jersey.
You go ahead and keep buying into the enviro-nazi propaganda. If there were oil rigs off the FL coast, you would not have a clue their presence. The entire story behind FL's off shore ban was based on the California spills of the 1970's. Oil production technology is far more advanced. The BP explosion was an accident. 
If anything, FL taxpayers would benefit from off shore oil production in the form of royalties from said production.
Look, it's either we here in the US start realizing that with economic freedom comes a little risk or we remain under the thumb of people who don't like us very much.
BTW, to a certain distance off the shoreline ,yes the State has jurisdiction. Beyond that , I believe it is three miles, offshore waters come under federal jurisdiction. It is through cooperation between the federal government and states that offshore drilling is limted.
However, if push came to shove and the country needed the oil, we'd get it. and of course the respective state would receive ample compensation.
This is not about "slightly lower gas prices"..This is about doing the right thing and harvesting our own natural resources. You complain about risk. You mention fisheries and tourism twice. Sounds like you have an agenda. an agenda that is somewhat self centered.
Newsflash...we're all in this together. Last time I checked Florida was still part of the United States of America.
This is about economic independence and economic security. Do not ever forget that.
We don't get to that point without a little risk. 
If we used your theory about avoiding risk, there would be no air travel and no cars.

The States Rights clause in the Constitution  does not apply here.


----------



## Mr. H.

Old Rocks said:


> Bush created much of the problems that drove the oil prices up with his incompetant and idiotic adventures in the Mideast. Today, the problems are created by the people in the Mideast that wish to have a say in their own government.
> 
> In both cases, there is also the background fact of rising demand and declining production.



You left out the Yom Kippur War and ensuing embargo, Iranian Revolution, and the war between Iran and Iraq. Or were all those Bushes fault too?


----------



## Mr. H.

MikeK said:


> Jimmy Carter put in place a plan that would by now have made us at least competitive with Germany in its development of solar technology which presently supplies over 25% of their electrical energy.  Because we import only 20% of our energy (oil) from the Middle East we would by now be totally independent of that source.
> 
> But Ronald Reagan scrapped Carter's solar energy plan and he removed the solar panels that Carter had installed on the White House roof.
> 
> mediastudy.com



Cartier financed his pipe dreams on the backs of American industry and workers by confiscating billions of dollars of private capital in the guise of the "Windfall Profits Tax". Domestic oil production took a nose dive as a result. Imports skyrocketed. 

No- he is the precise reason we are so fucked up today. He had his chance and blew it. 

Imports are imports. We would be totally independent of Middle East oil today if we were to open the Outer Continental Shelf and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, ANWR, and if we LIFT THE GODAMN MORATORIUM IN THE CENTRAL GULF.


----------



## JamesInFlorida

thereisnospoon said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's about state rights. Here in Florida for example we should have the right to either allow, or deny oil drilling off of our shores. The constitution doesn't grant the federal government-or any body to either allow, or restrict oil drilling. Therefore it's up to the states individually.
> 
> We don't want drilling because it'll greatly hinder our economy. Our tourism would get hit really hard-let alone if something like the BP spill happened again, which would then hit our fishing, boating, ports, etc.. We have too much to risk just to slightly lower gas prices for the nation as a whole. Floridians shouldn't be subjected to unconstitutional risks to our economy just for people in the other 49 states (talk about big government).
> 
> The majority of Floridians are against off-shore drilling here. It's against our *state* law not to drill here. If you can point out an area of the US constitution that states the federal government has the right to overstep that law-by all means show it. If you can't (which you can't)-too bad, so sad-get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of Floridians aren't even Floridians. They live half the year in New York or New Jersey.
> You go ahead and keep buying into the enviro-nazi propaganda. If there were oil rigs off the FL coast, you would not have a clue their presence. The entire story behind FL's off shore ban was based on the California spills of the 1970's. Oil production technology is far more advanced. The BP explosion was an accident.
> If anything, FL taxpayers would benefit from off shore oil production in the form of royalties from said production.
> Look, it's either we here in the US start realizing that with economic freedom comes a little risk or we remain under the thumb of people who don't like us very much.
> BTW, to a certain distance off the shoreline ,yes the State has jurisdiction. Beyond that , I believe it is three miles, offshore waters come under federal jurisdiction. It is through cooperation between the federal government and states that offshore drilling is limted.
> However, if push came to shove and the country needed the oil, we'd get it. and of course the respective state would receive ample compensation.
> This is not about "slightly lower gas prices"..This is about doing the right thing and harvesting our own natural resources. You complain about risk. You mention fisheries and tourism twice. Sounds like you have an agenda. an agenda that is somewhat self centered.
> Newsflash...we're all in this together. Last time I checked Florida was still part of the United States of America.
> This is about economic independence and economic security. Do not ever forget that.
> We don't get to that point without a little risk.
> If we used your theory about avoiding risk, there would be no air travel and no cars.
> 
> The States Rights clause in the Constitution  does not apply here.
Click to expand...


-How does the States Right clause in the Constitution not apply here? Explain.
-Again I ask you where in the Constitution does it give the rights for the federal government to have federal waters past the 3 miles, and where does it allow the federal government to allow off shore drilling off the shore of other states


-For the record, I'm a "real" Floridian
-It's not about the environment-it's about our economy here in Florida. I don't care whether there's drilling in Alaska, or off California shores-it's not my state. I wouldn't be the one at risk. If those states want to do it-more power to them. For me it's not about being an "enviro-nazi".

-Oil is not a normal commodity that follows a typical supply and demand curve. The demand is intricate in virtually everything (shipping, plastic, travel, etc.). It's the demand that makes oil so expensive-not the supply. The sooner people realize this-the better..
-I agree you don't get much if you don't risk. That's fine. People should risk their own state. The people of this state doesn't want off shore drilling. Period. Florida doesn't tell other states what to do-others shouldn't tell ours what to do.

-Yes you're right 3 miles off the coast and you're in federal waters (about 9 miles into the gulf-as low tides hit parts of land out there). However federal waters themselves aren't constitutional. Point out where in the constitution it gives the federal government the constitutional power of such. Also the federal government shouldn't subject Florida to the risk if Florida doesn't want it (we don't). Again if other states do-fine drill there.

And maybe us in Florida wouldn't notice the rigs off shore. Maybe you're right. But tourists still wont come anywhere near as much. People from other places would look at Florida and say...oh look they have drilling-let's go somewhere else for vacation. And that doesn't affect the other states-it affects ours. All things the same-are people going to go to a place with beaches that has offshore drilling, or no offshore drilling? They're going to go to the one without drilling.


----------



## Big Fitz

Philobeado said:


> Obama's plan to get us off the use of oil is to get the price of gas up to $7 per gallon. He's well on his way to achieving that goal.
> 
> Obama Supporter: 'Obama Will Pay For My Gas And My Mortgage'


$8/gallon is the goal.  That is the point of success for the Obama regime.

Break the nation.


----------



## MaggieMae

Philobeado said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes anyone think that Obama, or any other President, has sway over world oil pricing?[/QUOTE
> 
> Do you deny that the gulf oil drilling ban has had no effect on prices?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't even when the disaster was taking place. You DO know, I hope, that all oil drilled in the United States doesn't stay in the United States. That, and the deep sea drilling moratorium was lifted last October. You might begin by keeping current, then move to any one of hundreds of articles that will tell you that oil is a speculative commodity, it's price depending on betting how high it will go.
Click to expand...


----------



## thereisnospoon

JamesInFlorida said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about state rights. Here in Florida for example we should have the right to either allow, or deny oil drilling off of our shores. The constitution doesn't grant the federal government-or any body to either allow, or restrict oil drilling. Therefore it's up to the states individually.
> 
> We don't want drilling because it'll greatly hinder our economy. Our tourism would get hit really hard-let alone if something like the BP spill happened again, which would then hit our fishing, boating, ports, etc.. We have too much to risk just to slightly lower gas prices for the nation as a whole. Floridians shouldn't be subjected to unconstitutional risks to our economy just for people in the other 49 states (talk about big government).
> 
> The majority of Floridians are against off-shore drilling here. It's against our *state* law not to drill here. If you can point out an area of the US constitution that states the federal government has the right to overstep that law-by all means show it. If you can't (which you can't)-too bad, so sad-get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of Floridians aren't even Floridians. They live half the year in New York or New Jersey.
> You go ahead and keep buying into the enviro-nazi propaganda. If there were oil rigs off the FL coast, you would not have a clue their presence. The entire story behind FL's off shore ban was based on the California spills of the 1970's. Oil production technology is far more advanced. The BP explosion was an accident.
> If anything, FL taxpayers would benefit from off shore oil production in the form of royalties from said production.
> Look, it's either we here in the US start realizing that with economic freedom comes a little risk or we remain under the thumb of people who don't like us very much.
> BTW, to a certain distance off the shoreline ,yes the State has jurisdiction. Beyond that , I believe it is three miles, offshore waters come under federal jurisdiction. It is through cooperation between the federal government and states that offshore drilling is limted.
> However, if push came to shove and the country needed the oil, we'd get it. and of course the respective state would receive ample compensation.
> This is not about "slightly lower gas prices"..This is about doing the right thing and harvesting our own natural resources. You complain about risk. You mention fisheries and tourism twice. Sounds like you have an agenda. an agenda that is somewhat self centered.
> Newsflash...we're all in this together. Last time I checked Florida was still part of the United States of America.
> This is about economic independence and economic security. Do not ever forget that.
> We don't get to that point without a little risk.
> If we used your theory about avoiding risk, there would be no air travel and no cars.
> 
> The States Rights clause in the Constitution  does not apply here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -How does the States Right clause in the Constitution not apply here? Explain.
> -Again I ask you where in the Constitution does it give the rights for the federal government to have federal waters past the 3 miles, and where does it allow the federal government to allow off shore drilling off the shore of other states
> 
> 
> -For the record, I'm a "real" Floridian
> -It's not about the environment-it's about our economy here in Florida. I don't care whether there's drilling in Alaska, or off California shores-it's not my state. I wouldn't be the one at risk. If those states want to do it-more power to them. For me it's not about being an "enviro-nazi".
> 
> -Oil is not a normal commodity that follows a typical supply and demand curve. The demand is intricate in virtually everything (shipping, plastic, travel, etc.). It's the demand that makes oil so expensive-not the supply. The sooner people realize this-the better..
> -I agree you don't get much if you don't risk. That's fine. People should risk their own state. The people of this state doesn't want off shore drilling. Period. Florida doesn't tell other states what to do-others shouldn't tell ours what to do.
> 
> -Yes you're right 3 miles off the coast and you're in federal waters (about 9 miles into the gulf-as low tides hit parts of land out there). However federal waters themselves aren't constitutional. Point out where in the constitution it gives the federal government the constitutional power of such. Also the federal government shouldn't subject Florida to the risk if Florida doesn't want it (we don't). Again if other states do-fine drill there.
> 
> And maybe us in Florida wouldn't notice the rigs off shore. Maybe you're right. But tourists still wont come anywhere near as much. People from other places would look at Florida and say...oh look they have drilling-let's go somewhere else for vacation. And that doesn't affect the other states-it affects ours. All things the same-are people going to go to a place with beaches that has offshore drilling, or no offshore drilling? They're going to go to the one without drilling.
Click to expand...


in all of your pontificating you exposed yourself for what you really are....A NIMBY.....Not In My Back Yard. 
You stated very clearly that you do not care about other states. You are just fine with the harvesting of natural resources just as long as YOU don't have to deal with it.
It is at this point your argument loses all credibility....You are on the losing side here. Discussion terminated. You have made your agenda clear. No further discussion with you is necessary. 
You Floridians are the last people who should talk about exploiting your state for every dime you can get. So don't go there. Yer done. OUT. 
You may now have the last word.


----------



## thereisnospoon

MaggieMae said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes anyone think that Obama, or any other President, has sway over world oil pricing?[/QUOTE
> 
> Do you deny that the gulf oil drilling ban has had no effect on prices?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't even when the disaster was taking place. You DO know, I hope, that all oil drilled in the United States doesn't stay in the United States. That, and the deep sea drilling moratorium was lifted last October. You might begin by keeping current, then move to any one of hundreds of articles that will tell you that oil is a speculative commodity, it's price depending on betting how high it will go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moratorium was lifted because legally Obama had no leg to stand on. Obama's cock block on the oil business was going to be squashed by the courts.
> Obama basically screwed the pooch because many of the deep water rigs were relocated and will not be coming back. That was the goal. Obama wanted to weaken US oil production and he succeeded.
> Meanwhile foreign countires such as China, Brazil and Viet Nam are going to be drilling in the Gulf beyond the reach of US Territorial waters and there's nothing we can do about it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. H.

Can you fix that broken quote?
It looks as if I'm making both statements- which I'm not.


----------



## JamesInFlorida

thereisnospoon said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of Floridians aren't even Floridians. They live half the year in New York or New Jersey.
> You go ahead and keep buying into the enviro-nazi propaganda. If there were oil rigs off the FL coast, you would not have a clue their presence. The entire story behind FL's off shore ban was based on the California spills of the 1970's. Oil production technology is far more advanced. The BP explosion was an accident.
> If anything, FL taxpayers would benefit from off shore oil production in the form of royalties from said production.
> Look, it's either we here in the US start realizing that with economic freedom comes a little risk or we remain under the thumb of people who don't like us very much.
> BTW, to a certain distance off the shoreline ,yes the State has jurisdiction. Beyond that , I believe it is three miles, offshore waters come under federal jurisdiction. It is through cooperation between the federal government and states that offshore drilling is limted.
> However, if push came to shove and the country needed the oil, we'd get it. and of course the respective state would receive ample compensation.
> This is not about "slightly lower gas prices"..This is about doing the right thing and harvesting our own natural resources. You complain about risk. You mention fisheries and tourism twice. Sounds like you have an agenda. an agenda that is somewhat self centered.
> Newsflash...we're all in this together. Last time I checked Florida was still part of the United States of America.
> This is about economic independence and economic security. Do not ever forget that.
> We don't get to that point without a little risk.
> If we used your theory about avoiding risk, there would be no air travel and no cars.
> 
> The States Rights clause in the Constitution  does not apply here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -How does the States Right clause in the Constitution not apply here? Explain.
> -Again I ask you where in the Constitution does it give the rights for the federal government to have federal waters past the 3 miles, and where does it allow the federal government to allow off shore drilling off the shore of other states
> 
> 
> -For the record, I'm a "real" Floridian
> -It's not about the environment-it's about our economy here in Florida. I don't care whether there's drilling in Alaska, or off California shores-it's not my state. I wouldn't be the one at risk. If those states want to do it-more power to them. For me it's not about being an "enviro-nazi".
> 
> -Oil is not a normal commodity that follows a typical supply and demand curve. The demand is intricate in virtually everything (shipping, plastic, travel, etc.). It's the demand that makes oil so expensive-not the supply. The sooner people realize this-the better..
> -I agree you don't get much if you don't risk. That's fine. People should risk their own state. The people of this state doesn't want off shore drilling. Period. Florida doesn't tell other states what to do-others shouldn't tell ours what to do.
> 
> -Yes you're right 3 miles off the coast and you're in federal waters (about 9 miles into the gulf-as low tides hit parts of land out there). However federal waters themselves aren't constitutional. Point out where in the constitution it gives the federal government the constitutional power of such. Also the federal government shouldn't subject Florida to the risk if Florida doesn't want it (we don't). Again if other states do-fine drill there.
> 
> And maybe us in Florida wouldn't notice the rigs off shore. Maybe you're right. But tourists still wont come anywhere near as much. People from other places would look at Florida and say...oh look they have drilling-let's go somewhere else for vacation. And that doesn't affect the other states-it affects ours. All things the same-are people going to go to a place with beaches that has offshore drilling, or no offshore drilling? They're going to go to the one without drilling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in all of your pontificating you exposed yourself for what you really are....A NIMBY.....Not In My Back Yard.
> You stated very clearly that you do not care about other states. You are just fine with the harvesting of natural resources just as long as YOU don't have to deal with it.
> It is at this point your argument loses all credibility....You are on the losing side here. Discussion terminated. You have made your agenda clear. No further discussion with you is necessary.
> You Floridians are the last people who should talk about exploiting your state for every dime you can get. So don't go there. Yer done. OUT.
> You may now have the last word.
Click to expand...


You're so full of it. I simply said I think if a state wants to allow harvesting their resources (at great risks)-it should be left up to the state, and not the federal government. That's my point-if you can't grasp that-you really need to work on your reading comprehension.

If California, Alaska, etc. want to drill, or if they don't want to drill (the people of the state)-then I don't mind either way if they do or not. But here in Florida the people don't want it. It's not a NIMBY, it's a whoever's backyard it is should be able to decide-because the federal government doesn't have the authority to do so under the constitution.

I don't expect a response, when you're going as far as to strawman my point. You also dodged my question several times: where in the US constitution does it give the federal government the rights to impose off-shore drilling availability on the states.

So keep on putting words in my mouth, while not backing up your own claims, and by starting the personal attack route (which in itself weakens your arguments-as you're obviously no longer able to argue the points).

PS-keep using that paintbrush over there, I hear it's really good for painting all sorts of things.


----------



## thereisnospoon

JamesInFlorida said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> -How does the States Right clause in the Constitution not apply here? Explain.
> -Again I ask you where in the Constitution does it give the rights for the federal government to have federal waters past the 3 miles, and where does it allow the federal government to allow off shore drilling off the shore of other states
> 
> 
> -For the record, I'm a "real" Floridian
> -It's not about the environment-it's about our economy here in Florida. I don't care whether there's drilling in Alaska, or off California shores-it's not my state. I wouldn't be the one at risk. If those states want to do it-more power to them. For me it's not about being an "enviro-nazi".
> 
> -Oil is not a normal commodity that follows a typical supply and demand curve. The demand is intricate in virtually everything (shipping, plastic, travel, etc.). It's the demand that makes oil so expensive-not the supply. The sooner people realize this-the better..
> -I agree you don't get much if you don't risk. That's fine. People should risk their own state. The people of this state doesn't want off shore drilling. Period. Florida doesn't tell other states what to do-others shouldn't tell ours what to do.
> 
> -Yes you're right 3 miles off the coast and you're in federal waters (about 9 miles into the gulf-as low tides hit parts of land out there). However federal waters themselves aren't constitutional. Point out where in the constitution it gives the federal government the constitutional power of such. Also the federal government shouldn't subject Florida to the risk if Florida doesn't want it (we don't). Again if other states do-fine drill there.
> 
> And maybe us in Florida wouldn't notice the rigs off shore. Maybe you're right. But tourists still wont come anywhere near as much. People from other places would look at Florida and say...oh look they have drilling-let's go somewhere else for vacation. And that doesn't affect the other states-it affects ours. All things the same-are people going to go to a place with beaches that has offshore drilling, or no offshore drilling? They're going to go to the one without drilling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in all of your pontificating you exposed yourself for what you really are....A NIMBY.....Not In My Back Yard.
> You stated very clearly that you do not care about other states. You are just fine with the harvesting of natural resources just as long as YOU don't have to deal with it.
> It is at this point your argument loses all credibility....You are on the losing side here. Discussion terminated. You have made your agenda clear. No further discussion with you is necessary.
> You Floridians are the last people who should talk about exploiting your state for every dime you can get. So don't go there. Yer done. OUT.
> You may now have the last word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of it. I simply said I think if a state wants to allow harvesting their resources (at great risks)-it should be left up to the state, and not the federal government. That's my point-if you can't grasp that-you really need to work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> If California, Alaska, etc. want to drill, or if they don't want to drill (the people of the state)-then I don't mind either way if they do or not. But here in Florida the people don't want it. It's not a NIMBY, it's a whoever's backyard it is should be able to decide-because the federal government doesn't have the authority to do so under the constitution.
> 
> I don't expect a response, when you're going as far as to strawman my point. You also dodged my question several times: where in the US constitution does it give the federal government the rights to impose off-shore drilling availability on the states.
> 
> So keep on putting words in my mouth, while not backing up your own claims, and by starting the personal attack route (which in itself weakens your arguments-as you're obviously no longer able to argue the points).
> 
> PS-keep using that paintbrush over there, I hear it's really good for painting all sorts of things.
Click to expand...


Couldn't help yourself could ya?.....LOL
since you opened the door, this is what YOU wrote......I don't care whether there's drilling in Alaska, or off California shores-it's not my state. I wouldn't be the one at risk. If those states want to do it-more power to them. For me it's not about being an "enviro-nazi".

That in and of itself is classic NIMBY.....Look, you cannot get up early enough to get anything past me. I see EVERYTHING....
Mess with the bull, you get the horns, pal.
Facts are facts. Beyond three miles there is little a state can do regarding offshore energy exploration. It is through mutual cooperation and federal mandate that certain areas until now that have been deemed off limits.
However, if the need arises, exploration and drilling could commence. 
Again, yours and other states which are involved would receive royalty payments from oil and natural gas harvesting. The potential damage to tourism economy would be negated by the revenue from the fossil fuels. And I am willing to go way out on a limb that tourists would not suddenly stop going to Florida because oil rigs were working 50- 100 miles off shore. 
NIMBY gets you a little reprieve. Then you get swept aside.
Get a grip on the facts at hand.


----------



## MaggieMae

thereisnospoon said:


> Geo political events are driving commodities traders into a form of panic buying.
> They have run up the price of crude oil( West Texas Intermediate crude) on the New York Mercantile Exchange( NYMEX) has run up from $84 per barrel three weeks ago to over $100 per barrel before settling today with a slight drop.
> The price yesterday fell due to a news story alleging Libyan leader Kadhafi had been shot and killed.
> Although Other OPEC nations have pledged ot make up for the roughly 1.5 million barrel daily output form Libya's wells, commodities traders continue to fear anti- government strife will spread to other Gulf Arab nations and most importantly, Saudi Arabia.
> Unfortunately with the US and other economies on shaky ground, this does not bode well for any kind of economic recovery. In fact some analysts have stated that if the present spike in oil and gasoline prices continues, it could send the US and European economies into a second tail spin.
> In any event, there is no end in sight of the current run up in prices.



So you agree that it isn't government policy that drives the price of oil but Wall Street. Good.


----------



## MaggieMae

thereisnospoon said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes anyone think that Obama, or any other President, has sway over world oil pricing?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...Obama and his pie in the sky ideas about solar and wind energy and his idiotic drilling bans.
> Clinton and his seizing of lands under which there are billions of barrels of unharvested oil and natural gas.
Click to expand...


You can't even comprehend your own words in your previous post:
_
"*Geo political events are driving commodities traders into a form of panic buying.*
*They* have run up the price of crude oil( West Texas Intermediate crude) on the New York Mercantile Exchange( NYMEX) has run up from $84 per barrel three weeks ago to over $100 per barrel before settling today with a slight drop."_


----------



## MaggieMae

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I just find it interesting that the same people who were blaming Bush for the high gas prices three years ago are steadily mum over the current rapid increase.  If it was Bush's fault then, is it not Obama's fault now?



I never blamed Bush. That's because *I read the causes*, which can't be blamed on American political maneuvering, but we all know not enough people seek out the actual truth about much of anything.


----------



## MaggieMae

Old Rocks said:


> Bush created much of the problems that drove the oil prices up with his incompetant and idiotic adventures in the Mideast. Today, the problems are created by the people in the Mideast that wish to have a say in their own government.
> 
> In both cases, there is also the background fact of rising demand and declining production.



I disagree. The Saudis never threatened to cut their oil supply, which would have had a devastating effect, and neither did the Canadians. The reasons the price of oil skyrocketed were the same as they are today. The only ones making money off the turmoil in the Mideast are the speculators.

Did Speculation Fuel Oil Price Swings? - 60 Minutes - CBS News


> ...And when oil doubled to more than $147 a barrel, no one was more suspicious than Dan Gilligan.
> 
> As the president of the Petroleum Marketers Association, he represents more than 8,000 retail and wholesale suppliers, everyone from home heating oil companies to gas station owners.
> 
> When 60 Minutes talked to him last summer, his members were getting blamed for gouging the public, even though their costs had also gone through the roof. He told Kroft the problem was in the commodities markets, which had been invaded by a new breed of investor.
> 
> "Approximately 60 to 70 percent of the oil contracts in the futures markets are now held by speculative entities. Not by companies that need oil, not by the airlines, not by the oil companies. But by investors that are looking to make money from their speculative positions," Gilligan explained.
> 
> Gilligan said these investors don't actually take delivery of the oil. "All they do is buy the paper, and hope that they can sell it for more than they paid for it. Before they have to take delivery."
> 
> "They're trying to make money on the market for oil?" Kroft asked.
> 
> "Absolutely," Gilligan replied. "On the volatility that exists in the market. They make it going up and down."


----------



## MaggieMae

Mr. H. said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy Carter put in place a plan that would by now have made us at least competitive with Germany in its development of solar technology which presently supplies over 25% of their electrical energy.  Because we import only 20% of our energy (oil) from the Middle East we would by now be totally independent of that source.
> 
> But Ronald Reagan scrapped Carter's solar energy plan and he removed the solar panels that Carter had installed on the White House roof.
> 
> mediastudy.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cartier financed his pipe dreams on the backs of American industry and workers by confiscating billions of dollars of private capital in the guise of the "Windfall Profits Tax". Domestic oil production took a nose dive as a result. Imports skyrocketed.
> 
> No- he is the precise reason we are so fucked up today. He had his chance and blew it.
> 
> Imports are imports. We would be totally independent of Middle East oil today if we were to open the Outer Continental Shelf and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, ANWR, and if we LIFT THE GODAMN MORATORIUM IN THE CENTRAL GULF.
Click to expand...




Obama team lifts Gulf Coast oil drilling moratorium - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's plan to get us off the use of oil is to get the price of gas up to $7 per gallon. He's well on his way to achieving that goal.
> 
> Obama Supporter: 'Obama Will Pay For My Gas And My Mortgage'
> 
> 
> 
> $8/gallon is the goal.  That is the point of success for the Obama regime.
> 
> Break the nation.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's it.


----------



## MaggieMae

thereisnospoon said:
			
		

> in all of your pontificating you exposed yourself for what you really are....A NIMBY.....Not In My Back Yard.
> You stated very clearly that you do not care about other states. You are just fine with the harvesting of natural resources just as long as YOU don't have to deal with it.
> It is at this point your argument loses all credibility....You are on the losing side here. Discussion terminated. You have made your agenda clear. No further discussion with you is necessary.
> You Floridians are the last people who should talk about exploiting your state for every dime you can get. So don't go there. Yer done. OUT.
> You may now have the last word.



Something tells me, if it ever came down to it, you would be rethinking your position if one of these was parked in your back yard ~~






And one of these plunked on those vacant lots nearby ~~


----------



## MaggieMae

thereisnospoon said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't even when the disaster was taking place. You DO know, I hope, that all oil drilled in the United States doesn't stay in the United States. That, and the deep sea drilling moratorium was lifted last October. You might begin by keeping current, then move to any one of hundreds of articles that will tell you that oil is a speculative commodity, it's price depending on betting how high it will go.
> 
> 
> 
> The moratorium was lifted because legally Obama had no leg to stand on. Obama's cock block on the oil business was going to be squashed by the courts.
> Obama basically screwed the pooch because many of the deep water rigs were relocated and will not be coming back. That was the goal. Obama wanted to weaken US oil production and he succeeded.
> Meanwhile foreign countires such as China, Brazil and Viet Nam are going to be drilling in the Gulf beyond the reach of US Territorial waters and there's nothing we can do about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, and that's why he lifted the ban on offshore drilling just six months *before* the BP spill.
> 
> Obama lifts ban on offshore drilling - washingtonpost.com
Click to expand...


----------



## rightwinger

I blame Reagan

He had the chance to take out Ghadaffi and blew it


----------



## thereisnospoon

MaggieMae said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geo political events are driving commodities traders into a form of panic buying.
> They have run up the price of crude oil( West Texas Intermediate crude) on the New York Mercantile Exchange( NYMEX) has run up from $84 per barrel three weeks ago to over $100 per barrel before settling today with a slight drop.
> The price yesterday fell due to a news story alleging Libyan leader Kadhafi had been shot and killed.
> Although Other OPEC nations have pledged ot make up for the roughly 1.5 million barrel daily output form Libya's wells, commodities traders continue to fear anti- government strife will spread to other Gulf Arab nations and most importantly, Saudi Arabia.
> Unfortunately with the US and other economies on shaky ground, this does not bode well for any kind of economic recovery. In fact some analysts have stated that if the present spike in oil and gasoline prices continues, it could send the US and European economies into a second tail spin.
> In any event, there is no end in sight of the current run up in prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that it isn't government policy that drives the price of oil but Wall Street. Good.
Click to expand...


Oh your poor uninformed girl.
But for our government policy regarding the lack of vision on natural resources and kowtowing to the environmental lobby, we would be not only the largest exporter of oil but the largest producer. We could essentially ignore OPEC and the Middle East.
In the last 30 years no new oil refineries have been built in the US for one reason. Government policies enacted by left wing politicians. SO much land with eons of recoverable oil and gas reserves were snapped up by the federal government and placed off limits. This was done to appease the enviro-lobby and in deference to foreign interests. Particularly OPEC.
Now, every time someone in the Middle East farts, we have an oil and gas price spike.
ENOUGH!!!!!


----------



## thereisnospoon

MaggieMae said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes anyone think that Obama, or any other President, has sway over world oil pricing?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...Obama and his pie in the sky ideas about solar and wind energy and his idiotic drilling bans.
> Clinton and his seizing of lands under which there are billions of barrels of unharvested oil and natural gas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even comprehend your own words in your previous post:
> _
> "*Geo political events are driving commodities traders into a form of panic buying.*
> *They* have run up the price of crude oil( West Texas Intermediate crude) on the New York Mercantile Exchange( NYMEX) has run up from $84 per barrel three weeks ago to over $100 per barrel before settling today with a slight drop."_
Click to expand...


Moron......25% of the oil consumed in the US comes from the Gulf of Mexico.
Obama shut off oil drilling there. 
That in and of itself jeopardizes supply. The markets react to the amount of available product vs the demand for said product.
The marketplace simply reacts to geopolitical policy and events.
Your feeble attempt to use oversimplification to make your point is actually quite amusing.
You work in 10 second soundbites and movie critic style blurbs.


----------



## Flopper

*The 21 Arab oil billionaires whose assets are 2.6 trillion stand to benefit handsomely from the OPEC's plan to push oil prices even higher in anticipation increased demand.  Doesn't that make you feel good all over, knowing capitalism is at work, producing the very best product at best possible price.*


----------



## dilloduck

thereisnospoon said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...Obama and his pie in the sky ideas about solar and wind energy and his idiotic drilling bans.
> Clinton and his seizing of lands under which there are billions of barrels of unharvested oil and natural gas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even comprehend your own words in your previous post:
> _
> "*Geo political events are driving commodities traders into a form of panic buying.*
> *They* have run up the price of crude oil( West Texas Intermediate crude) on the New York Mercantile Exchange( NYMEX) has run up from $84 per barrel three weeks ago to over $100 per barrel before settling today with a slight drop."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moron......25% of the oil consumed in the US comes from the Gulf of Mexico.
> Obama shut off oil drilling there.
> That in and of itself jeopardizes supply. The markets react to the amount of available product vs the demand for said product.
> The marketplace simply reacts to geopolitical policy and events.
> Your feeble attempt to use oversimplification to make your point is actually quite amusing.
> You work in 10 second soundbites and movie critic style blurbs.
Click to expand...


It's quite clear we are paying more for fuel because of the markets reaction and not the actual price of the fuel. 
If Obama cut loose and allowed drilling everywhere the markets would again react and that same gallon of fuel will magically cost us less.


----------



## thereisnospoon

MaggieMae said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush created much of the problems that drove the oil prices up with his incompetant and idiotic adventures in the Mideast. Today, the problems are created by the people in the Mideast that wish to have a say in their own government.
> 
> In both cases, there is also the background fact of rising demand and declining production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. The Saudis never threatened to cut their oil supply, which would have had a devastating effect, and neither did the Canadians. The reasons the price of oil skyrocketed were the same as they are today. The only ones making money off the turmoil in the Mideast are the speculators.
> 
> Did Speculation Fuel Oil Price Swings? - 60 Minutes - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> ...And when oil doubled to more than $147 a barrel, no one was more suspicious than Dan Gilligan.
> 
> As the president of the Petroleum Marketers Association, he represents more than 8,000 retail and wholesale suppliers, everyone from home heating oil companies to gas station owners.
> 
> When 60 Minutes talked to him last summer, his members were getting blamed for gouging the public, even though their costs had also gone through the roof. He told Kroft the problem was in the commodities markets, which had been invaded by a new breed of investor.
> 
> "Approximately 60 to 70 percent of the oil contracts in the futures markets are now held by speculative entities. Not by companies that need oil, not by the airlines, not by the oil companies. But by investors that are looking to make money from their speculative positions," Gilligan explained.
> 
> Gilligan said these investors don't actually take delivery of the oil. "All they do is buy the paper, and hope that they can sell it for more than they paid for it. Before they have to take delivery."
> 
> "They're trying to make money on the market for oil?" Kroft asked.
> 
> "Absolutely," Gilligan replied. "On the volatility that exists in the market. They make it going up and down."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


he is 100% correct. I saw that same 60 minutes segment. Add to that is commodity traders go where the best positions exist. 
Traders in US currency were particularly keen on selling their positions in Dollars and moving over to oil and gasoline. Why? Because of US monetary and government policies which devalued the US Dollar. Quite simply put, when the federal government runs up debt, it simply prints more currency to cover the debt. The increase in supply of US Currency results in the Dollar being worth less. Because Crude oil prices are based on the US Dollar, when the US Dollar loses value the price of oil rises. 
Now, with all the additional cash invested in energy futures volatility is not only expected, it is damned likely. 
Here's the rub. When oil and gas prices rise far beyond the levels expected by market fundamentals, even more volatility occurs. Hence the reason why Crude oil fell from a record $147/barrel to $30 in just 6 months. But guess what? Traders made money on that too by betting that the price of energy futures would fall.
The market is disconnected from the consumer side of the equation.
When this most recent spike levels off, I predict prices to fall once again. Perhaps as low as $70 per barrel.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Flopper said:


> *The 21 Arab oil billionaires whose assets are 2.6 trillion stand to benefit handsomely from the OPEC's plan to push oil prices even higher in anticipation increased demand.  Doesn't that make you feel good all over, knowing capitalism is at work, producing the very best product at best possible price.*


Holy shit....
Genius, OPEC nations are every bit as susceptible to oil price spikes and sudden drops.
That said, if the price rises too quickly and in violation of market fundamentals, OPEC will increase production to stem the rising prices. If they do not and allow the price to rise too high, the potential for a sudden collapse of the price can be devastating.
For example. About mid January read a statement from the Saudi OPEC oil minister stating he wanted crude prices to stay below $100 per barrel to protect against the potential for a 2009 type collapse.

If what you state is true then there would be no incentive for OPEC to raise production quotas. They could in fact decrease production to hold product off the market in order to let the price skyrocket.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Flopper said:


> *The 21 Arab oil billionaires whose assets are 2.6 trillion stand to benefit handsomely from the OPEC's plan to push oil prices even higher in anticipation increased demand.  Doesn't that make you feel good all over, knowing capitalism is at work, producing the very best product at best possible price.*



Capitalism really isn't at work here.  If it was we'd be drilling our own oil and providing competition.


----------



## MaggieMae

thereisnospoon said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geo political events are driving commodities traders into a form of panic buying.
> They have run up the price of crude oil( West Texas Intermediate crude) on the New York Mercantile Exchange( NYMEX) has run up from $84 per barrel three weeks ago to over $100 per barrel before settling today with a slight drop.
> The price yesterday fell due to a news story alleging Libyan leader Kadhafi had been shot and killed.
> Although Other OPEC nations have pledged ot make up for the roughly 1.5 million barrel daily output form Libya's wells, commodities traders continue to fear anti- government strife will spread to other Gulf Arab nations and most importantly, Saudi Arabia.
> Unfortunately with the US and other economies on shaky ground, this does not bode well for any kind of economic recovery. In fact some analysts have stated that if the present spike in oil and gasoline prices continues, it could send the US and European economies into a second tail spin.
> In any event, there is no end in sight of the current run up in prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that it isn't government policy that drives the price of oil but Wall Street. Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh your poor uninformed girl.
> But for our government policy regarding the lack of vision on natural resources and kowtowing to the environmental lobby, we would be not only the largest exporter of oil but the largest producer. We could essentially ignore OPEC and the Middle East.
> In the last 30 years no new oil refineries have been built in the US for one reason. Government policies enacted by left wing politicians. SO much land with eons of recoverable oil and gas reserves were snapped up by the federal government and placed off limits. This was done to appease the enviro-lobby and in deference to foreign interests. Particularly OPEC.
> Now, every time someone in the Middle East farts, we have an oil and gas price spike.
> ENOUGH!!!!!
Click to expand...


Oil from everywhere is sold on the GLOBAL MARKET to the highest bidders. Until that changes, the entire state of Texas could be soaking in oil, and it still wouldn't be piped to storage facilities exclusively in the United States, unless of course, the end distributors are the highest bidders.


----------



## MaggieMae

thereisnospoon said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...Obama and his pie in the sky ideas about solar and wind energy and his idiotic drilling bans.
> Clinton and his seizing of lands under which there are billions of barrels of unharvested oil and natural gas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even comprehend your own words in your previous post:
> _
> "*Geo political events are driving commodities traders into a form of panic buying.*
> *They* have run up the price of crude oil( West Texas Intermediate crude) on the New York Mercantile Exchange( NYMEX) has run up from $84 per barrel three weeks ago to over $100 per barrel before settling today with a slight drop."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moron......25% of the oil consumed in the US comes from the Gulf of Mexico.
> Obama shut off oil drilling there.
> That in and of itself jeopardizes supply. The markets react to the amount of available product vs the demand for said product.
> The marketplace simply reacts to geopolitical policy and events.
> Your feeble attempt to use oversimplification to make your point is actually quite amusing.
> You work in 10 second soundbites and movie critic style blurbs.
Click to expand...


You're entitled to your own fiction, but not your own facts.

FACT-CHECK: Sen. McConnell on Gulf of Mexico Oil Production/Consumption | Meet the Facts : Meet the Press Needs Fact-checking

PolitiFact | Hatch says '30 percent of our oil' comes from the Gulf

And here are all the F.A.C.T.S you need to know for your reeducation.

Crude Oil : Consumer Energy Alliance


----------



## MaggieMae

dilloduck said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even comprehend your own words in your previous post:
> _
> "*Geo political events are driving commodities traders into a form of panic buying.*
> *They* have run up the price of crude oil( West Texas Intermediate crude) on the New York Mercantile Exchange( NYMEX) has run up from $84 per barrel three weeks ago to over $100 per barrel before settling today with a slight drop."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moron......25% of the oil consumed in the US comes from the Gulf of Mexico.
> Obama shut off oil drilling there.
> That in and of itself jeopardizes supply. The markets react to the amount of available product vs the demand for said product.
> The marketplace simply reacts to geopolitical policy and events.
> Your feeble attempt to use oversimplification to make your point is actually quite amusing.
> You work in 10 second soundbites and movie critic style blurbs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's quite clear we are paying more for fuel because of the markets reaction and not the actual price of the fuel.
> If Obama cut loose and allowed drilling everywhere the markets would again react and that same gallon of fuel will magically cost us less.
Click to expand...


How much louder does the fact that *the global market sets prices for ALL CRUDE OIL DRILLED AND CAPTURED* need to be? If a huge reserve say, off the coast of Santa Barbara starts wildly producing crude oil, and Standard Oil owns the drilling and production rights, if Japan is the highest bidder, Japan gets that oil.


----------



## MaggieMae

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The 21 Arab oil billionaires whose assets are 2.6 trillion stand to benefit handsomely from the OPEC's plan to push oil prices even higher in anticipation increased demand.  Doesn't that make you feel good all over, knowing capitalism is at work, producing the very best product at best possible price.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism really isn't at work here.  If it was we'd be drilling our own oil and providing competition.
Click to expand...


We are drilling here, but, AGAIN, it's the oil companies like Exxon who offer it up to the highest bidder. That's competition and that's capitalism at work. The only way all oil drilled in the continental United States could remain in the states would be if oil production was nationalized. And what's that? Socialism.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

MaggieMae said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The 21 Arab oil billionaires whose assets are 2.6 trillion stand to benefit handsomely from the OPEC's plan to push oil prices even higher in anticipation increased demand.  Doesn't that make you feel good all over, knowing capitalism is at work, producing the very best product at best possible price.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism really isn't at work here.  If it was we'd be drilling our own oil and providing competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are drilling here, but, AGAIN, it's the oil companies like Exxon who offer it up to the highest bidder. That's competition and that's capitalism at work. The only way all oil drilled in the continental United States could remain in the states would be if oil production was nationalized. And what's that? Socialism.
Click to expand...


We aren't drilling anywhere near are capacity.  We have ANWR, we have plenty of more reserves in the Gulf, not to mention off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.  There has been a moratorium on drilling for nearly a year now and the Obama administration has issued only one drilling permit so far.  

Furthermore, I don't think you really understand the economics.  Nobody said the oil we drill had to remain in the states.  The added supply to the world market would bring down the price regardless of who it is being sold to.  As for production needing to be nationalized, I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.  It's not logical.


----------



## JamesInFlorida

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism really isn't at work here.  If it was we'd be drilling our own oil and providing competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are drilling here, but, AGAIN, it's the oil companies like Exxon who offer it up to the highest bidder. That's competition and that's capitalism at work. The only way all oil drilled in the continental United States could remain in the states would be if oil production was nationalized. And what's that? Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't drilling anywhere near are capacity.  We have ANWR, we have plenty of more reserves in the Gulf, not to mention off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.  There has been a moratorium on drilling for nearly a year now and the Obama administration has issued only one drilling permit so far.
> 
> Furthermore, I don't think you really understand the economics.  Nobody said the oil we drill had to remain in the states.  The added supply to the world market would bring down the price regardless of who it is being sold to.  As for production needing to be nationalized, I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.  It's not logical.
Click to expand...


Oil prices fluctuate from nation to nation, hell they fluctuate from state to state. Go on long trip by car in the US and you'll see a pretty large price range when it comes to the gas in different areas. so having new supplies wouldn't necessarily lower prices everywhere-the prices are so much higher in certain areas because of the demand-not the supply.

Oil is not a normal commodity-it's dictated by demand SO much more than the supply, because the demand is massive-and even if the prices goes up-people will still be forced to purchase it one way or another. We use oil for shipping, harvesting crops/farms, transportation, plastic creation, etc. For almost every product produced, and consumed: oil is needed in some way, shape or form. There's a reason why 4/5 of the corporations that make the most amount of money in the US are oil companies (Walmart's the other for the record)-it has a lot less to due with supply than a normal product.

Prices are usually lowered when there are larger supplies because the scarcity is lowered. However when everybody is a consumer of a product-it's accurate to say that the usual supply-demand curve isn't totally applicable. Having a larger supply of oil wouldn't lower prices-because the demand wouldn't go down-it would remain the same (and as the population grows, oil demand grows too).

When supply goes up, demand goes down (because you're stretching out your market). But you can't tap out a market in which everybody is a consumer (directly or indirectly). If the supply of oil goes up-will more people purchase more oil? Most likely not.


----------



## JamesInFlorida

thereisnospoon said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> in all of your pontificating you exposed yourself for what you really are....A NIMBY.....Not In My Back Yard.
> You stated very clearly that you do not care about other states. You are just fine with the harvesting of natural resources just as long as YOU don't have to deal with it.
> It is at this point your argument loses all credibility....You are on the losing side here. Discussion terminated. You have made your agenda clear. No further discussion with you is necessary.
> You Floridians are the last people who should talk about exploiting your state for every dime you can get. So don't go there. Yer done. OUT.
> You may now have the last word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so full of it. I simply said I think if a state wants to allow harvesting their resources (at great risks)-it should be left up to the state, and not the federal government. That's my point-if you can't grasp that-you really need to work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> If California, Alaska, etc. want to drill, or if they don't want to drill (the people of the state)-then I don't mind either way if they do or not. But here in Florida the people don't want it. It's not a NIMBY, it's a whoever's backyard it is should be able to decide-because the federal government doesn't have the authority to do so under the constitution.
> 
> I don't expect a response, when you're going as far as to strawman my point. You also dodged my question several times: where in the US constitution does it give the federal government the rights to impose off-shore drilling availability on the states.
> 
> So keep on putting words in my mouth, while not backing up your own claims, and by starting the personal attack route (which in itself weakens your arguments-as you're obviously no longer able to argue the points).
> 
> PS-keep using that paintbrush over there, I hear it's really good for painting all sorts of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't help yourself could ya?.....LOL
> since you opened the door, this is what YOU wrote......I don't care whether there's drilling in Alaska, or off California shores-it's not my state. I wouldn't be the one at risk. If those states want to do it-more power to them. For me it's not about being an "enviro-nazi".
> 
> That in and of itself is classic NIMBY.....Look, you cannot get up early enough to get anything past me. I see EVERYTHING....
> Mess with the bull, you get the horns, pal.
> Facts are facts. Beyond three miles there is little a state can do regarding offshore energy exploration. It is through mutual cooperation and federal mandate that certain areas until now that have been deemed off limits.
> However, if the need arises, exploration and drilling could commence.
> Again, yours and other states which are involved would receive royalty payments from oil and natural gas harvesting. The potential damage to tourism economy would be negated by the revenue from the fossil fuels. And I am willing to go way out on a limb that tourists would not suddenly stop going to Florida because oil rigs were working 50- 100 miles off shore.
> NIMBY gets you a little reprieve. Then you get swept aside.
> Get a grip on the facts at hand.
Click to expand...


If the people of Florida wanted off-shore drilling I would say ok they should be allowed to drill here. My stance on every other state is the same. So I don't have different standards with other states vs my own.

The revenue gathered from drilling would go to the state government-not to the people affected directly (fishers, hotels, businesses by the beaches, theme parks, etc.) Talk about big government.

And no I don't believe those who don't live in the backyard should have a say in it. I shouldn't have a say about the state of others-and others shouldn't have a say in mine.

I'm guessing you're a big government guy huh?


----------



## Care4all

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The 21 Arab oil billionaires whose assets are 2.6 trillion stand to benefit handsomely from the OPEC's plan to push oil prices even higher in anticipation increased demand.  Doesn't that make you feel good all over, knowing capitalism is at work, producing the very best product at best possible price.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism really isn't at work here.  If it was we'd be drilling our own oil and providing competition.
Click to expand...


We're not drilling oil here in the USA?  huh?


----------



## Old Rocks

Still the same basic math. We use 24% of the world's oil, and have 3% of the world's reserves.


----------



## Care4all

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I just find it interesting that the same people who were blaming Bush for the high gas prices three years ago are steadily mum over the current rapid increase.  If it was Bush's fault then, is it not Obama's fault now?



well, president bush brought us in to a full fledged war in Iraq....and war presence in the middle east was a guaranteed, major hike in oil....it always is....

civil unrest in the middle east will ALWAYS raise oil prices, and make the Exxons of the world, REAP the benefits....perpetual war will always raise the price of oil....


----------



## MaggieMae

Old Rocks said:


> Still the same basic math. We use 24% of the world's oil, and have 3% of the world's reserves.



But that justifies the argument that more drilling here is required. Frankly, I don't much care if they do or don't, but big investors are actually more interested in putting their money into alternative energy sources anyway because they know that's where the future lies.

http://www.connectivecapital.com/pdf/CC EE Institutional Investor (2009.07).pdf


----------



## Flopper

thereisnospoon said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The 21 Arab oil billionaires whose assets are 2.6 trillion stand to benefit handsomely from the OPEC's plan to push oil prices even higher in anticipation increased demand.  Doesn't that make you feel good all over, knowing capitalism is at work, producing the very best product at best possible price.*
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit....
> Genius, OPEC nations are every bit as susceptible to oil price spikes and sudden drops.
> That said, if the price rises too quickly and in violation of market fundamentals, OPEC will increase production to stem the rising prices. If they do not and allow the price to rise too high, the potential for a sudden collapse of the price can be devastating.
> For example. About mid January read a statement from the Saudi OPEC oil minister stating he wanted crude prices to stay below $100 per barrel to protect against the potential for a 2009 type collapse.
> 
> If what you state is true then there would be no incentive for OPEC to raise production quotas. They could in fact decrease production to hold product off the market in order to let the price skyrocket.
Click to expand...

OPEC is a cartel; with one of its principal goals is the determination of the best means for safeguarding the organization's interests, individually and collectively.  The fact that they regard the free market as a destructive force says loads about the organization. The huge investments they have in western economies gives them a vested interest in seeing that there is sufficient oil to keep these economies growing, but not so much as to allow prices to fall.  Price fixing benefits the producer and never the consumer.


----------



## Flopper

MaggieMae said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that it isn't government policy that drives the price of oil but Wall Street. Good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh your poor uninformed girl.
> But for our government policy regarding the lack of vision on natural resources and kowtowing to the environmental lobby, we would be not only the largest exporter of oil but the largest producer. We could essentially ignore OPEC and the Middle East.
> In the last 30 years no new oil refineries have been built in the US for one reason. Government policies enacted by left wing politicians. SO much land with eons of recoverable oil and gas reserves were snapped up by the federal government and placed off limits. This was done to appease the enviro-lobby and in deference to foreign interests. Particularly OPEC.
> Now, every time someone in the Middle East farts, we have an oil and gas price spike.
> ENOUGH!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oil from everywhere is sold on the GLOBAL MARKET to the highest bidders. Until that changes, the entire state of Texas could be soaking in oil, and it still wouldn't be piped to storage facilities exclusively in the United States, unless of course, the end distributors are the highest bidders.
Click to expand...

The only way we can keep oil prices down in the US is to either nationalize the oil industry, which is very unlikely or produce enough oil to saturate world markets, which is even less likely.


----------



## Flopper

MaggieMae said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still the same basic math. We use 24% of the world's oil, and have 3% of the world's reserves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that justifies the argument that more drilling here is required. Frankly, I don't much care if they do or don't, but big investors are actually more interested in putting their money into alternative energy sources anyway because they know that's where the future lies.
> 
> http://www.connectivecapital.com/pdf/CC EE Institutional Investor (2009.07).pdf
Click to expand...

Drilling more in the US will have only a minor impact on oil prices.  Oil produced in the US will be sold on the world market.  However, if the US were energy independent and Arab oil flow was interrupted, the government could intervene limiting exports to insure sufficient supplies in the US.  The argument that more production in the US will lead to very low fuel prices is without merit.  The only difference we would see would be due to transportation cost.


----------



## steeliniraq

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I just find it interesting that the same people who were blaming Bush for the high gas prices three years ago are steadily mum over the current rapid increase.  If it was Bush's fault then, is it not Obama's fault now?



Quiet now. Dont use too much common sense or else we will have to listen to BS excuses as to why it was Bush's fault and not Obama.


----------



## Synthaholic

thereisnospoon said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's about state rights. Here in Florida for example we should have the right to either allow, or deny oil drilling off of our shores. The constitution doesn't grant the federal government-or any body to either allow, or restrict oil drilling. Therefore it's up to the states individually.
> 
> We don't want drilling because it'll greatly hinder our economy. Our tourism would get hit really hard-let alone if something like the BP spill happened again, which would then hit our fishing, boating, ports, etc.. We have too much to risk just to slightly lower gas prices for the nation as a whole. Floridians shouldn't be subjected to unconstitutional risks to our economy just for people in the other 49 states (talk about big government).
> 
> The majority of Floridians are against off-shore drilling here. It's against our *state* law not to drill here. If you can point out an area of the US constitution that states the federal government has the right to overstep that law-by all means show it. If you can't (which you can't)-too bad, so sad-get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The majority of Floridians aren't even Floridians. They live half the year in New York or New Jersey.*
> You go ahead and keep buying into the enviro-nazi propaganda. If there were oil rigs off the FL coast, you would not have a clue their presence. The entire story behind FL's off shore ban was based on the California spills of the 1970's. Oil production technology is far more advanced. The BP explosion was an accident.
> If anything, FL taxpayers would benefit from off shore oil production in the form of royalties from said production.
> Look, it's either we here in the US start realizing that with economic freedom comes a little risk or we remain under the thumb of people who don't like us very much.
> BTW, to a certain distance off the shoreline ,yes the State has jurisdiction. Beyond that , I believe it is three miles, offshore waters come under federal jurisdiction. It is through cooperation between the federal government and states that offshore drilling is limted.
> However, if push came to shove and the country needed the oil, we'd get it. and of course the respective state would receive ample compensation.
> This is not about "slightly lower gas prices"..This is about doing the right thing and harvesting our own natural resources. You complain about risk. You mention fisheries and tourism twice. Sounds like you have an agenda. an agenda that is somewhat self centered.
> Newsflash...we're all in this together. Last time I checked Florida was still part of the United States of America.
> This is about economic independence and economic security. Do not ever forget that.
> We don't get to that point without a little risk.
> If we used your theory about avoiding risk, there would be no air travel and no cars.
> 
> The States Rights clause in the Constitution  does not apply here.
Click to expand...


Totally incorrect.  Stop talking out your ass.


----------



## uscitizen

Umm Obama did not invade and occupy Iraq and Afganistan?

Obama say let the market decide when Enron was ripping CA for billons?

did Obama say that Iraqs oil revenue would pay for their rebuilding?

Yeah Obama sucks, but We will be paying for Bush and his accolytes for decades.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Care4all said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it interesting that the same people who were blaming Bush for the high gas prices three years ago are steadily mum over the current rapid increase.  If it was Bush's fault then, is it not Obama's fault now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, president bush brought us in to a full fledged war in Iraq....and war presence in the middle east was a guaranteed, major hike in oil....it always is....
> 
> civil unrest in the middle east will ALWAYS raise oil prices, and make the Exxons of the world, REAP the benefits....perpetual war will always raise the price of oil....
Click to expand...

Umm, the oil companies are not reaping benefits. When the market forces cause the price to rise, the oil producers costs rise.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Synthaholic said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about state rights. Here in Florida for example we should have the right to either allow, or deny oil drilling off of our shores. The constitution doesn't grant the federal government-or any body to either allow, or restrict oil drilling. Therefore it's up to the states individually.
> 
> We don't want drilling because it'll greatly hinder our economy. Our tourism would get hit really hard-let alone if something like the BP spill happened again, which would then hit our fishing, boating, ports, etc.. We have too much to risk just to slightly lower gas prices for the nation as a whole. Floridians shouldn't be subjected to unconstitutional risks to our economy just for people in the other 49 states (talk about big government).
> 
> The majority of Floridians are against off-shore drilling here. It's against our *state* law not to drill here. If you can point out an area of the US constitution that states the federal government has the right to overstep that law-by all means show it. If you can't (which you can't)-too bad, so sad-get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The majority of Floridians aren't even Floridians. They live half the year in New York or New Jersey.*
> You go ahead and keep buying into the enviro-nazi propaganda. If there were oil rigs off the FL coast, you would not have a clue their presence. The entire story behind FL's off shore ban was based on the California spills of the 1970's. Oil production technology is far more advanced. The BP explosion was an accident.
> If anything, FL taxpayers would benefit from off shore oil production in the form of royalties from said production.
> Look, it's either we here in the US start realizing that with economic freedom comes a little risk or we remain under the thumb of people who don't like us very much.
> BTW, to a certain distance off the shoreline ,yes the State has jurisdiction. Beyond that , I believe it is three miles, offshore waters come under federal jurisdiction. It is through cooperation between the federal government and states that offshore drilling is limited.
> However, if push came to shove and the country needed the oil, we'd get it. and of course the respective state would receive ample compensation.
> This is not about "slightly lower gas prices"..This is about doing the right thing and harvesting our own natural resources. You complain about risk. You mention fisheries and tourism twice. Sounds like you have an agenda. an agenda that is somewhat self centered.
> Newsflash...we're all in this together. Last time I checked Florida was still part of the United States of America.
> This is about economic independence and economic security. Do not ever forget that.
> We don't get to that point without a little risk.
> If we used your theory about avoiding risk, there would be no air travel and no cars.
> 
> The States Rights clause in the Constitution  does not apply here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally incorrect.  Stop talking out your ass.
Click to expand...


Really? Examples please.....Have at it or stow it.
The uninformed have no right to an opinion. Since you insist on being uninformed, well...


----------



## uscitizen

thereisnospoon said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it interesting that the same people who were blaming Bush for the high gas prices three years ago are steadily mum over the current rapid increase.  If it was Bush's fault then, is it not Obama's fault now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, president bush brought us in to a full fledged war in Iraq....and war presence in the middle east was a guaranteed, major hike in oil....it always is....
> 
> civil unrest in the middle east will ALWAYS raise oil prices, and make the Exxons of the world, REAP the benefits....perpetual war will always raise the price of oil....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, the oil companies are not reaping benefits. When the market forces cause the price to rise, the oil producers costs rise.
Click to expand...


Umm seems like they had record profits back when gas was $4/gal.

the way I remember it anyway.


----------



## Care4all

uscitizen said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, president bush brought us in to a full fledged war in Iraq....and war presence in the middle east was a guaranteed, major hike in oil....it always is....
> 
> civil unrest in the middle east will ALWAYS raise oil prices, and make the Exxons of the world, REAP the benefits....perpetual war will always raise the price of oil....
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, the oil companies are not reaping benefits. When the market forces cause the price to rise, the oil producers costs rise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm seems like they had record profits back when gas was $4/gal.
> 
> the way I remember it anyway.
Click to expand...


yes, they have had record profits the past +/- 8 years, you are correct....

and higher oil prices with little increase in their production costs, along with the quick trigger to raise gasoline prices when oil goes up on the market, but twiddling their thumbs to reduce the retail price when it goes down on the market. and tax loopholes.... has lined their pockets with gold...the Midas touch!


----------



## JamesInFlorida

thereisnospoon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The majority of Floridians aren't even Floridians. They live half the year in New York or New Jersey.*
> You go ahead and keep buying into the enviro-nazi propaganda. If there were oil rigs off the FL coast, you would not have a clue their presence. The entire story behind FL's off shore ban was based on the California spills of the 1970's. Oil production technology is far more advanced. The BP explosion was an accident.
> If anything, FL taxpayers would benefit from off shore oil production in the form of royalties from said production.
> Look, it's either we here in the US start realizing that with economic freedom comes a little risk or we remain under the thumb of people who don't like us very much.
> BTW, to a certain distance off the shoreline ,yes the State has jurisdiction. Beyond that , I believe it is three miles, offshore waters come under federal jurisdiction. It is through cooperation between the federal government and states that offshore drilling is limited.
> However, if push came to shove and the country needed the oil, we'd get it. and of course the respective state would receive ample compensation.
> This is not about "slightly lower gas prices"..This is about doing the right thing and harvesting our own natural resources. You complain about risk. You mention fisheries and tourism twice. Sounds like you have an agenda. an agenda that is somewhat self centered.
> Newsflash...we're all in this together. Last time I checked Florida was still part of the United States of America.
> This is about economic independence and economic security. Do not ever forget that.
> We don't get to that point without a little risk.
> If we used your theory about avoiding risk, there would be no air travel and no cars.
> 
> The States Rights clause in the Constitution  does not apply here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally incorrect.  Stop talking out your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Examples please.....Have at it or stow it.
> The uninformed have no right to an opinion. Since you insist on being uninformed, well...
Click to expand...


Well I live here in Florida-and there certainly is a lot of people from the northeast here-it's not the "majority" of people. Based on my personal experience I'd estimate about 20% of the people I know are from the northeast, which is still a large percentage.


----------



## RevBig

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> We aren't drilling anywhere near are capacity.  We have ANWR, we have plenty of more reserves in the Gulf, not to mention off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.  There has been a moratorium on drilling for nearly a year now and the Obama administration has issued only one drilling permit so far.  Furthermore, I don't think you really understand the economics.  Nobody said the oil we drill had to remain in the states.  The added supply to the world market would bring down the price regardless of who it is being sold to.  As for production needing to be nationalized, I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.  It's not logical.



I think we should sit on our oil and go to work on the political minions making it OUR oil only for domestic use, subsiding the cost of gasoline not allowing it to peak over say five dollars a gallon. Its OUR oil we the taxpayers own it! Not the highway robbers (and I am being nice, they are worse than thieves) like Exxon and BP. Of course I am a avowed hard core isolationist that thinks the entire western hemisphere should be united and isolated, but that's another subject~    

rb


----------



## Care4all

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism really isn't at work here.  If it was we'd be drilling our own oil and providing competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are drilling here, but, AGAIN, it's the oil companies like Exxon who offer it up to the highest bidder. That's competition and that's capitalism at work. The only way all oil drilled in the continental United States could remain in the states would be if oil production was nationalized. And what's that? Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't drilling anywhere near are capacity.  We have ANWR, we have plenty of more reserves in the Gulf, not to mention off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.  There has been a moratorium on drilling for nearly a year now and the Obama administration has issued only one drilling permit so far.
> 
> Furthermore, I don't think you really understand the economics.  Nobody said the oil we drill had to remain in the states.  The added supply to the world market would bring down the price regardless of who it is being sold to.  As for production needing to be nationalized, I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.  It's not logical.
Click to expand...


I think you are wrong....absolutely wrong, (unless of course you can prove you are right) 

Never in the history of big oil finds and drilling of those finds in the gulf or alaska or where ever, has oil prices gone down because of this added oil, NEVER.

Also, oil companies will go to extract the easy oil first and by far deep water oil in the Gulf is NOT EASY oil, it is more expensive than pulling oil out of the ground in Iraq or Saudi arabia...

do you have any idea of how many oil leases we have out there where the oil companies HAVE NOT even tried to extract the oil?  they got the leases so that some day, when easy oil runs out, they have their stake in the hard stuff, but they have made no effort to extract it...  and you are worried about the moratorium...?

Drilling off the coasts, in the gulf, in alaska wildlife region...will not and will never, reduce the price of oil for us.

That's the sad truth.

and since we do not nationally keep our own oil, it is on the global market....the oil from those areas probably will not even come to us, but be exported somewhere....

Also, where do you get that we are not drilling anywhere near our capacity?

We are drilling all over the place in the US...?  thousands if not tens of thousands of oil wells being pumped across our great country....?


----------



## Synthaholic

thereisnospoon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The majority of Floridians aren't even Floridians. They live half the year in New York or New Jersey.*
> You go ahead and keep buying into the enviro-nazi propaganda. If there were oil rigs off the FL coast, you would not have a clue their presence. The entire story behind FL's off shore ban was based on the California spills of the 1970's. Oil production technology is far more advanced. The BP explosion was an accident.
> If anything, FL taxpayers would benefit from off shore oil production in the form of royalties from said production.
> Look, it's either we here in the US start realizing that with economic freedom comes a little risk or we remain under the thumb of people who don't like us very much.
> BTW, to a certain distance off the shoreline ,yes the State has jurisdiction. Beyond that , I believe it is three miles, offshore waters come under federal jurisdiction. It is through cooperation between the federal government and states that offshore drilling is limited.
> However, if push came to shove and the country needed the oil, we'd get it. and of course the respective state would receive ample compensation.
> This is not about "slightly lower gas prices"..This is about doing the right thing and harvesting our own natural resources. You complain about risk. You mention fisheries and tourism twice. Sounds like you have an agenda. an agenda that is somewhat self centered.
> Newsflash...we're all in this together. Last time I checked Florida was still part of the United States of America.
> This is about economic independence and economic security. Do not ever forget that.
> We don't get to that point without a little risk.
> If we used your theory about avoiding risk, there would be no air travel and no cars.
> 
> The States Rights clause in the Constitution  does not apply here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally incorrect.  Stop talking out your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Examples please.....Have at it or stow it.
> The uninformed have no right to an opinion. Since you insist on being uninformed, well...
Click to expand...

Show that the majority of Floridians aren't Floridians.  Back up your shit, asshole.


----------



## Big Fitz

uscitizen said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, president bush brought us in to a full fledged war in Iraq....and war presence in the middle east was a guaranteed, major hike in oil....it always is....
> 
> civil unrest in the middle east will ALWAYS raise oil prices, and make the Exxons of the world, REAP the benefits....perpetual war will always raise the price of oil....
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, the oil companies are not reaping benefits. When the market forces cause the price to rise, the oil producers costs rise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm seems like they had record profits back when gas was $4/gal.
> 
> the way I remember it anyway.
Click to expand...

They get between 8-10% profit margin.  That on average came out to less than 5 cents a gallon.

Federal tax on a gallon was 18 cents IIRC.  Means that they received almost quadruple the same amount of money that the oil companies got.

State taxes vary widely from less than a nickle to over 35 cents a gallon.

You going to complain about that level of profiteering we paid at the pump to the government?

Who's doing the gouging really?  In WI, gas stations took to putting stickers on showing the total tax on a price of gas.  It was 57 cents at the time total.


----------



## rightwinger

Gas prices could hit $3 by autumn


----------



## Warrior102

What Republicans are saying gas prices don't matter?


----------



## Old Rocks

So strange to still hear the babble about 'Gotta drill more!". Gasoline and diesel are now our major exports. And we have a down world market, so the price of oil is reflecting that lack of demand. Of course, if we get a worldwide depression out of Europe foolishly following the Austrian economists advice, then the price of gas will be way down. For those of us that have any money at all.


----------



## Flopper

Philobeado said:


> Obama's plan to get us off the use of oil is to get the price of gas up to $7 per gallon. He's well on his way to achieving that goal.
> 
> Obama Supporter: 'Obama Will Pay For My Gas And My Mortgage'


If that's true, he's not doing a very good job of it.  Gas prices are down 50 cents in the last two months and the prospect is for lower prices.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Philobeado said:


> Obama's plan to get us off the use of oil is to get the price of gas up to $7 per gallon. He's well on his way to achieving that goal.
> 
> Obama Supporter: 'Obama Will Pay For My Gas And My Mortgage'



I didn't know government set the price of gas.


----------



## rightwinger

Flopper said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's plan to get us off the use of oil is to get the price of gas up to $7 per gallon. He's well on his way to achieving that goal.
> 
> Obama Supporter: 'Obama Will Pay For My Gas And My Mortgage'
> 
> 
> 
> If that's true, he's not doing a very good job of it.  Gas prices are down 50 cents in the last two months and the prospect is for lower prices.
Click to expand...


She doesn't have to worry about putting gas in her car or worry about her mortgage

Conservatives trumpeted that statement as her saying Obama was going to give it to her for free.  After all, she is a black person. She could not have been saying she pays for those things herself


----------



## thereisnospoon

Old Rocks said:


> So strange to still hear the babble about 'Gotta drill more!". Gasoline and diesel are now our major exports. And we have a down world market, so the price of oil is reflecting that lack of demand. Of course, if we get a worldwide depression out of Europe foolishly following the Austrian economists advice, then the price of gas will be way down. For those of us that have any money at all.



Ok that makes sense. About as much as " why winterize the house, it's hot outside!"..
This is the perfect time to go ahead and get our selves off foreign oil. 
With global prices down, it may make sense to sell more product here.
The problem is we have to smash the enviro fags into oblivion and build some refineries here. Then we can tell OPEC to cram their oil up their collective ass.
The Left has been sitting on both sides of this issue while creating the narrative for far too long.


----------



## Old Rocks

Lordy, lordy. With 2% of the reserves, and using 24% of the supply, you propose drilling enough to get us off of foreign oil? Our rate of use gaurantees that we either find an alternative to oil, or we become totally dependent on some countries that really do not have our interests in mind.


----------



## Old Rocks

Build refineries here? We are exporting major amounts of diesel and gasoline right now. With the existing refineries. So what is the point of building more refineries?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Old Rocks said:


> Lordy, lordy. With 2% of the reserves, and using 24% of the supply, you propose drilling enough to get us off of foreign oil? Our rate of use gaurantees that we either find an alternative to oil, or we become totally dependent on some countries that really do not have our interests in mind.


Ok..Mr Facts. We believe you.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Old Rocks said:


> Build refineries here? We are exporting major amounts of diesel and gasoline right now. With the existing refineries. So what is the point of building more refineries?



We're NOT exporting nearly as much refined fuel as crude oil. 
Normally it is not cost efficient to refine here. So we export oil and buy gasoline on the world market. 
The oil companies can get a better price by doing this.
As the market price falls, it becomes more profitable to make gas and diesel HERE and sell it HERE.
If you want to pay more for fuel, go ahead. I have a business to run and need to keep my costs down.


----------



## Old Rocks

thereisnospoon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build refineries here? We are exporting major amounts of diesel and gasoline right now. With the existing refineries. So what is the point of building more refineries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're NOT exporting nearly as much refined fuel as crude oil.
> Normally it is not cost efficient to refine here. So we export oil and buy gasoline on the world market.
> The oil companies can get a better price by doing this.
> As the market price falls, it becomes more profitable to make gas and diesel HERE and sell it HERE.
> If you want to pay more for fuel, go ahead. I have a business to run and need to keep my costs down.
Click to expand...


*Ever consider doing a little research before flapping yap?*

#1 U.S. export? Gasoline, diesel & jet fuel, believe it or not. #rsrh | Maley's Energy Blog

NEW YORK (AP)  For the first time, the top export of the United States, the worlds biggest gas guzzler, is  wait for it  fuel.

Measured in dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these fuels.

Just how big of a shift is this? A decade ago, fuel wasnt even among the top 25 exports. And for the last five years, Americas top export was aircraft.

The trend is significant because for decades the U.S. has relied on huge imports of fuel from Europe in order to meet demand. It only reinforced the image of America as an energy hog. And up until a few years ago, whenever gasoline prices climbed, there were complaints in Congress that U.S. refiners were not growing quickly enough to satisfy domestic demand; that controversy would appear to be over.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Old Rocks said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build refineries here? We are exporting major amounts of diesel and gasoline right now. With the existing refineries. So what is the point of building more refineries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're NOT exporting nearly as much refined fuel as crude oil.
> Normally it is not cost efficient to refine here. So we export oil and buy gasoline on the world market.
> The oil companies can get a better price by doing this.
> As the market price falls, it becomes more profitable to make gas and diesel HERE and sell it HERE.
> If you want to pay more for fuel, go ahead. I have a business to run and need to keep my costs down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ever consider doing a little research before flapping yap?*
> 
> #1 U.S. export? Gasoline, diesel & jet fuel, believe it or not. #rsrh | Maley's Energy Blog
> 
> NEW YORK (AP)  For the first time, the top export of the United States, the worlds biggest gas guzzler, is  wait for it  fuel.
> 
> Measured in dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these fuels.
> 
> Just how big of a shift is this? A decade ago, fuel wasnt even among the top 25 exports. And for the last five years, Americas top export was aircraft.
> 
> The trend is significant because for decades the U.S. has relied on huge imports of fuel from Europe in order to meet demand. It only reinforced the image of America as an energy hog. And up until a few years ago, whenever gasoline prices climbed, there were complaints in Congress that U.S. refiners were not growing quickly enough to satisfy domestic demand; that controversy would appear to be over.
Click to expand...


Not according to this article. As of this writing the US exported a few hundred thousand more barrels per day than it imported.
The focal point here is the NET import/export.
It still is not cost effective for US oil producers to refine gasoline in this country.
Case and point. Sunoco had a refinery in suburban Philadelphia that because the company could not find a buyer closed the facility and thus shortened our refining capacity by 175kbpd AND Conoco closed another facility in the same area the cost the US 187kbpd....
So if gasoline production is so lucrative, why then are refineries being shut down?
Ok. I get it. You and ONLY you have all the answers.
Oh, here's the link....
Janet McGurty | Journalist Profile | Reuters.com


----------



## Old Rocks

thereisnospoon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're NOT exporting nearly as much refined fuel as crude oil.
> Normally it is not cost efficient to refine here. So we export oil and buy gasoline on the world market.
> The oil companies can get a better price by doing this.
> As the market price falls, it becomes more profitable to make gas and diesel HERE and sell it HERE.
> If you want to pay more for fuel, go ahead. I have a business to run and need to keep my costs down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ever consider doing a little research before flapping yap?*
> 
> #1 U.S. export? Gasoline, diesel & jet fuel, believe it or not. #rsrh | Maley's Energy Blog
> 
> NEW YORK (AP)  For the first time, the top export of the United States, the worlds biggest gas guzzler, is  wait for it  fuel.
> 
> Measured in dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these fuels.
> 
> Just how big of a shift is this? A decade ago, fuel wasnt even among the top 25 exports. And for the last five years, Americas top export was aircraft.
> 
> The trend is significant because for decades the U.S. has relied on huge imports of fuel from Europe in order to meet demand. It only reinforced the image of America as an energy hog. And up until a few years ago, whenever gasoline prices climbed, there were complaints in Congress that U.S. refiners were not growing quickly enough to satisfy domestic demand; that controversy would appear to be over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to this article. As of this writing the US exported a few hundred thousand more barrels per day than it imported.
> The focal point here is the NET import/export.
> It still is not cost effective for US oil producers to refine gasoline in this country.
> Case and point. Sunoco had a refinery in suburban Philadelphia that because the company could not find a buyer closed the facility and thus shortened our refining capacity by 175kbpd AND Conoco closed another facility in the same area the cost the US 187kbpd....
> So if gasoline production is so lucrative, why then are refineries being shut down?
> Ok. I get it. You and ONLY you have all the answers.
> Oh, here's the link....
> Janet McGurty | Journalist Profile | Reuters.com
Click to expand...


Janet McGurty | Journalist Profile | Reuters.com

Removed from the regions operable baseline capacity were: Sunocos 178,000 bpd Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania refinery, ConocoPhillips 187,000 bpd Trainer, Pennsylvania, refinery and the 64,000 bpd Yorktown, Virginia refinery, which Western Refining sold to Plains All American and is currently in use as terminal to store oil products.

All three refineries had been idled by the end of 2011.

Gas Pains? U.S. Diesel, Gas Exports Surpass Imports : NPR

To be clear, we're talking about finished petroleum products, not crude oil. The U.S. still imports about half the crude it consumes.

Refineries are touting this new export statistic  after all, gasoline and diesel are manufactured products. They say a boost in exports keeps more manufacturing jobs in the U.S. But one reason exports are increasing is that demand for gas in this country is declining.

People like Rachel Ezekiel-Fishbein of Elkins Park, Pa., are choosing to drive more efficient cars and consuming less gas. She stopped driving a Honda Odyssey minivan that gets about 14 miles per gallon in the city. Now, she drives a red Prius hybrid that's getting about 40 mpg.

In the process, Ezekiel-Fishbein is saving more than $2,000 a year and buying 700 fewer gallons of gasoline. And she's not alone. Department of Energy statistics show Americans are using less gasoline these days. Consumption peaked in 2007 and has been declining since.

"It's sort of an obvious choice," says Ezekiel-Fishbein. "It's better for the Earth ... It's better for your budget, you're teaching your kids good values. What's the downside to this choice?"

The downside falls to refineries. As it happens, while demand was declining, refineries were becoming more efficient, actually boosting their production. It's basic economics: Declining demand plus increasing production is not a winning formula.

Now the country stands to lose some refineries. Sunoco and ConocoPhillips have announced that three refineries on the outskirts of Philadelphia will shut down if the companies can't find buyers. That could put an estimated 2,600 people out of work

*So refined petroleum products have become our biggest single export, even while we are shutting down refineries. I would have to say that indicates more than adaquete refinery capacity.*


----------

