Right Wingers eating crow on price of gasoline. $1.39 in Indiana.

[NotfooledbyW]

Toddster 13025301

You forget about the Keystone pipeline too?

Didn't forget. Keystone has been discussed. He is against Keystone. The correct decision it was. Most of our imported crude oil coming from one country alone (double all the others) is coming from Canada.

He can't be against it and he probably has little if anything to do with it.

Tar Sands - provide an example of Obama whining about it so it can be discussed in an intelligent manner.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

13025299

Yeah, that's funny.

What is funny? Do you have anything in your arsenal of dim wit that shows that "All of the Above" did not include more domestic drilling?

Let's see what you got?

that shows that "All of the Above" did not include more domestic drilling?

Fewer federal permits. Is that your proof he wanted more drilling?

Please, let's see your proof he wanted more drilling.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster 13025301

You forget about the Keystone pipeline too?

Didn't forget. Keystone has been discussed. He is against Keystone. The correct decision it was. Most of our imported crude oil coming from one country alone (double all the others) is coming from Canada.

He can't be against it and he probably has little if anything to do with it.

Tar Sands - provide an example of Obama whining about it so it can be discussed in an intelligent manner.

Keystone has been discussed. He is against Keystone.

Yes. He's against making it easier, and safer, to bring in more oil from Canada.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Toddster 13025323

Fewer federal permits. Is that your proof he wanted more drilling?

It's proof he reacted to the Deep Horizon disaster in the proper way and forced BP to pay. Eleven workers were killed in that disaster. If you don't care about environmental damage perhaps you care about workers dying on Federal regulated oil drilling assets. But maybe not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster 13025323

Fewer federal permits. Is that your proof he wanted more drilling?

It's proof he reacted to the Deep Horizon disaster in the proper way and forced BP to pay. Eleven workers were killed in that disaster. If you don't care about environmental damage perhaps you care about workers dying on Federal regulated oil drilling assets. But maybe not.

So it's not proof he wanted more drilling. Good, now we're getting somewhere.

So he must have increased permits onshore, right? I'll wait for your proof.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Toddster 13025301

You forget about the Keystone pipeline too?

Didn't forget. Keystone has been discussed. He is against Keystone. The correct decision it was. Most of our imported crude oil coming from one country alone (double all the others) is coming from Canada.

He can't be against it and he probably has little if anything to do with it.

Tar Sands - provide an example of Obama whining about it so it can be discussed in an intelligent manner.

Keystone has been discussed. He is against Keystone.

Yes. He's against making it easier, and safer, to bring in more oil from Canada.

Not the argument. That is an opinion and it doesn't matter now anyway, we and all the others are producing more than the world needs and so is Canada I presume.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle 13025065

I'm talking about Obama's campaign slogan to diffuse criticism of his energy policies..."all of the above". SAYING that your energy policy includes increased drilling for oil and natural gas when your Administration did all it could to make life miserable for fossil fuel producers...is nothing more than campaign rhetoric.

Life is not and was not made miserable for fossil fuel producers. The U.S. became the third largest crude oil producer in the world while Obama has been president to the point we are now, where global supply outstrips demand. If anything Obama kept the oil producers from going hog wild (on Federal land) on a limited resource thus saving them from wasting investment and research funding on developing too many wells that the global market could not bear. Such over drilling we know has lowered prices so much that excess drilling no longer would reap a return on investment. Many well sites are being shuttered or reduced as we speak.

Obama has good reason to limit fracking on public land in some western states because of the water issues and several other not fully researched matters.

If that made oil drillers miserable who should care.

You manage to combine blatant partisanship with total ignorance, TotallyfooledbyObama!

Obama had ZERO to do with the increase in oil production! Production from areas that he had control of actually decreased! Production from areas he had no control over increased dramatically! "Over drilling" is not what lowered prices! Prices came down because of two things...the use of fracking allowed US oil producers to tap into vast unused oil fields (increasing supply!)...and then the Saudis responded to the glut of shale oil coming on the market by drastically cutting the cost of THEIR oil in an attempt to shut down shale oil production! Many shale oil operations have indeed been scaled back because of what the Saudis are doing but that shale oil is still there under ground and will be exploited when and if the Saudis raise the price of oil again or tensions in the Middle East boil over into war.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ray 13025235

So why is it Obama gas, because he happened to be playing golf while the oil industry worked hard extracting fuel he was always against?

You have provided no evidence or basis to prove that Obama is against extracting fossil fuel. Let alone that he was always against extracting fossil fuels. No evidence exists. You think he doesn't know that Air Force One is fueled by extracted fuel by the oil industry.

He would have had to ground Air Force One and as Commander in Chief tell the U.S. Military to carry out operations without using extracted fossil fuel if he were against it and always was.

I have not seen that happen at all. Maybe you have. Who knows what you read and listen to.

What's laughable is that you think Barry's love of flying around the country on Air Force One somehow proves that he's pro fossil fuels! All it really proves is that Obama is a hypocrite. He'll hop on AF1 and fly from Washington DC out to Kansas to give a speech on how we need to stop burning fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere. Then he'll jump back on AF1 and fly back to Washington DC.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Toddster 13025323

Please, let's see your proof he wanted more drilling.

He said so:

“We can’t have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in the past. We need an energy strategy for the future – an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.”– President Barack Obama, March 15, 2012

There is no every source except fracking and offshore drilling.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle 13025350

What's laughable is that you think Barry's love of flying around the country on Air Force One somehow proves that he's pro fossil fuels!

I did not stop at AF1. Re read my post. Your response is non responsive to the argument.

Obama is pro-drilling and pro-all American made energy sources as proven by my preceding post. Containing this;


“We can’t have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in the past. We need an energy strategy for the future – an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.”– President Barack Obama, March 15, 2012

Every source. That is every source.

In case you don't know what every means:

"all possible; the greatest possibledegree of:"


Obama chose that word for a reason. He is pro fracking and pro-offshore drilling. Also proven by the fact that so much fracking took place while he was President in the private market and the moratorium on offshore permits has long been lifted and he had authorized limited drilling in the arctic sea.

. But according to the president, it’s impossible to stop oil exploration in the Arctic completely.

Despite low global crude prices (helped along by a natural gas boom in the United States), the Arctic remains an appealing long-term development project for oil companies — it’s one of the last untapped areas on the planet, and by some estimates could hold as much as 20 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas resources. Oil companies like Shell, which recently received the green lightfrom the Obama administration to begin drilling in the Chukchi Sea as soon as this summer, have been trying to gain access to the Arctic for years; Shell alone has spent over $6 billion and spent more than 6 years fighting legal battles to gain access to the Arctic

Obama Explains Why He Approved Arctic Drilling In The Face Of Climate Concerns

So there you go. Obama approved drilling in high risk areas he could have easily stopped.

Do you know what was the result of that approval?


""""Shell Exits Arctic as Slump in Oil Prices Forces Industry to Retrench""""

.By CLIFFORD KRAUSS and STANLEY REED SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 As oil prices have continued their steady decline this year, rig after rig has been shut down, costing thousands of jobs in the United States. Yet major oil producers have been loath to pull the plug on their most ambitious projects — the multibillion-dollar investments that form the backbone of their operations.Until now. On Monday, Royal Dutch Shell ended its expensive and fruitless nine-year effort to explore for oil in the Alaskan Arctic — a $7 billion investment — in another sign that the entire industry is trimming its ambitions in the wake of collapsing oil prices

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/2...dutch-shell-alaska-oil-exploration-halt.html?


A nine year $7 billion investment by Royal Dutch Shell abandoned after getting Obama to approve this high risk drilling.

Why you ask? Here's why:

. But the company announced that its one well drilled this summer “found indications of oil and gas, but these are not sufficient to warrant further exploration.” In a statement, it also acknowledged “the high costs associated with the project and the challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska.”

So they quit:

And their $7 billion nine year price tab gets passed on eventually to the price at the pump etc. What about taxpayer costs to review this lease. Not a drop of oil extracted from under the Arctic seabed.

So yes Obama is pro-drilling. In the Arctic Sea - Royal Dutch Shell is not. Well, until they get oil priced at $100 a barrel again like it was nine years ago when this particular boondoggle was born.

 

[Oldstyle]

You are one of the most naive people I've ever run across, TotallyfooledbyObama!

Time after time the Obama Administration's policies were completely anti-fossil fuels...and yet you buy his re-election rhetoric about an "all-of-the-above" strategy and ignore what he actually DID?

Barack Obama is NOT "pro-drilling"...he's never been pro-drilling...and I highly doubt he ever will BE pro-drilling! Your claiming that he is simply shows how easy it is to con you!

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle 13025350

What's laughable is that you think Barry's love of flying around the country on Air Force One somehow proves that he's pro fossil fuels!

I did not stop at AF1. Re read my post. Your response is non responsive to the argument.

Obama is pro-drilling and pro-all American made energy sources as proven by my preceding post. Containing this;


“We can’t have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in the past. We need an energy strategy for the future – an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.”– President Barack Obama, March 15, 2012

Every source. That is every source.

In case you don't know what every means:

"all possible; the greatest possibledegree of:"


Obama chose that word for a reason. He is pro fracking and pro-offshore drilling. Also proven by the fact that so much fracking took place while he was President in the private market and the moratorium on offshore permits has long been lifted and he had authorized limited drilling in the arctic sea.

. But according to the president, it’s impossible to stop oil exploration in the Arctic completely.

Despite low global crude prices (helped along by a natural gas boom in the United States), the Arctic remains an appealing long-term development project for oil companies — it’s one of the last untapped areas on the planet, and by some estimates could hold as much as 20 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas resources. Oil companies like Shell, which recently received the green lightfrom the Obama administration to begin drilling in the Chukchi Sea as soon as this summer, have been trying to gain access to the Arctic for years; Shell alone has spent over $6 billion and spent more than 6 years fighting legal battles to gain access to the Arctic

Obama Explains Why He Approved Arctic Drilling In The Face Of Climate Concerns

So there you go. Obama approved drilling in high risk areas he could have easily stopped.

Do you know what was the result of that approval?


""""Shell Exits Arctic as Slump in Oil Prices Forces Industry to Retrench""""

.By CLIFFORD KRAUSS and STANLEY REED SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 As oil prices have continued their steady decline this year, rig after rig has been shut down, costing thousands of jobs in the United States. Yet major oil producers have been loath to pull the plug on their most ambitious projects — the multibillion-dollar investments that form the backbone of their operations.Until now. On Monday, Royal Dutch Shell ended its expensive and fruitless nine-year effort to explore for oil in the Alaskan Arctic — a $7 billion investment — in another sign that the entire industry is trimming its ambitions in the wake of collapsing oil prices

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/2...dutch-shell-alaska-oil-exploration-halt.html?


A nine year $7 billion investment by Royal Dutch Shell abandoned after getting Obama to approve this high risk drilling.

Why you ask? Here's why:

. But the company announced that its one well drilled this summer “found indications of oil and gas, but these are not sufficient to warrant further exploration.” In a statement, it also acknowledged “the high costs associated with the project and the challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska.”

So they quit:

And their $7 billion nine year price tab gets passed on eventually to the price at the pump etc. What about taxpayer costs to review this lease. Not a drop of oil extracted from under the Arctic seabed.

So yes Obama is pro-drilling. In the Arctic Sea - Royal Dutch Shell is not. Well, until they get oil priced at $100 a barrel again like it was nine years ago when this particular boondoggle was born.

Did you even read that article that you cited? I would suggest that you do so now, you buffoon. It proves my point that Barack Obama has been anti drilling his entire time in office.

I know you're not the brightest bulb on the tree but when the article says that Royal Dutch Shell has been drilling for NINE YEARS in that area...THEN OBVIOUSLY THEIR DRILLING THERE WAS NOT APPROVED BY BARACK OBAMA BUT BY HIS PREDECESSOR!

 

[ScienceRocks]

What's funny is you bitch about Obama being bad for energy but gasoline and natural gas is being pumped out of our ground faster then at anytime in history.

Obama kicks ass!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Toddster et al simply look so foolish.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray 13025235

So why is it Obama gas, because he happened to be playing golf while the oil industry worked hard extracting fuel he was always against?

You have provided no evidence or basis to prove that Obama is against extracting fossil fuel. Let alone that he was always against extracting fossil fuels. No evidence exists. You think he doesn't know that Air Force One is fueled by extracted fuel by the oil industry.

He would have had to ground Air Force One and as Commander in Chief tell the U.S. Military to carry out operations without using extracted fossil fuel if he were against it and always was.

I have not seen that happen at all. Maybe you have. Who knows what you read and listen to.

What's laughable is that you think Barry's love of flying around the country on Air Force One somehow proves that he's pro fossil fuels! All it really proves is that Obama is a hypocrite. He'll hop on AF1 and fly from Washington DC out to Kansas to give a speech on how we need to stop burning fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere. Then he'll jump back on AF1 and fly back to Washington DC.

And let's not forget Piglosi's private plane when she was in leadership. She flew across the country so many times she could tell you of the terrain before you approach it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just in case your written words mean nothing:

Ray 13025243

Okay, then prove your accusations. Show me one Republican that knew the price of fuel would decrease in spite of DumBama getting elected. I dare you.

It's not mine to prove anyway. We can only deal with material evidence. And since no material evidence existed at the time that re-electing Obama would have a major impact on gasoline prices with such specific claims of a $2 to $6 price increase to a $4 commodity which is governed by so many forces outside a U.S. President's control that it would absolutely absurd to think those predictions could come true. If they can't predict that specifically and base predictions on nothing, then it is quite fair to call them lies. Find me a material report that informed anyone that gas prices would skyrocket in the basis of Obama's reelection.

It would have to define what Obama was sure to do that would have such a resounding affect on the price of a gallon of gas. His chance to raise the federal gasoline tax by $2 or more was taken away in 2010. And there is no indication that Obama planned or wanted to do so.

Maybe you got something? Let's see it.

It's not yours to prove? So what you're saying is that you can run around here calling people liars and when asked for proof, say it isn't yours to prove?

You made the claim, it is yours to prove. You can't prove somebody isn't a liar. Regardless of how many reports and links we provide that prove DumBama and the Democrats were making it harder on fuel suppliers to provide us with ample fuel, you only ask for more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ray, just give it up.

You are fumbling and bumbling, mumbling and crumbling and stumbling.

You are just an umbling.

Genuflect to the obamapump.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What's funny is you bitch about Obama being bad for energy but gasoline and natural gas is being pumped out of our ground faster then at anytime in history.

Obama kicks ass!

It has nothing to do with your hero. The oil is being produced from private lands.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What's funny is you bitch about Obama being bad for energy but gasoline and natural gas is being pumped out of our ground faster then at anytime in history.

Obama kicks ass!

It has nothing to do with your hero. The oil is being produced from private lands.

The is a red herring fallacy.

Get back to us when you are willing to be serious

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What's funny is you bitch about Obama being bad for energy but gasoline and natural gas is being pumped out of our ground faster then at anytime in history.

Obama kicks ass!

It has nothing to do with your hero. The oil is being produced from private lands.

The is a red herring fallacy.

Get back to us when you are willing to be serious

I'm a petroleum engineer/geologist. I spend my day looking at the geology below the surface for hydrocarbons. I look at public and private lands. Theres a reason the public lands aren't being drilled. The reservoir volumes in those areas aren't economically feasible.