Oil

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
ZIP | Thursday, March 22, 2012 @ 2:12 pm |

Obama: Drilling “Every Inch” of U.S. Would Not Cut Gas Prices…

obama-pipe-500x263.jpg


The 1.4 trillion barrels of oil under his feet beg to differ.
Via Washington Times:
President Obama used some dramatic imagery Thursday to defend his claims that more oil and gas drilling won’t help bring down gas prices.

In a speech at a Cushing, Okla., storage yard for pipes that will be used for the southern leg of the Keystone XL oil pipeline project, Mr. Obama said that even drilling on every inch of available land in the U.S. would do nothing to bring down gas prices.

“If I put an oil rig on the South Lawn [of the White House], if we put one next to the Washington Monument, we would still have to buy the rest of our needs from somewhere else,” he said.
But the president’s critics have taken sharp issue with many of his assertions about drilling.

The Institute for Energy Research, an industry-funded think tank, argues that the U.S. is sitting on 1.4 trillion barrels of oil — enough for a 200-year supply without a drop of foreign oil supplied.

While overall U.S. oil production has increased under Mr. Obama, opponents argue that he is reaping the benefits of President George W. Bush’s expansion of oil and gas leases.

Just an FYI ....

This country has increased domestic drilling every year since 1936, yet the price of oil/gas STILL INCREASED each year.

How do you NOW imagine that even more drilling will bring the price down if over 76 years increased drilling has only resulted in oil/gas increasing?

Dont cha think your missing something??

Peace

TOS
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
I found the best part of your post this:

""The Institute for Energy Research, an industry-funded think tank, argues that the U.S. is sitting on 1.4 trillion barrels of oil""

Do you even know who this group is or what they do?? First of all, they ARE NOT SCIENTIST. THEY ARE POLITICAL TALKING HEADS funded by the OIL industry to say whatever the OIL industry wants them to say.

These "characters" are the same talking heads who appear on FOX news as "guest contibutors".... Do you think they are a little slanted towards the oil company??
Institute for Energy Research | Staff

Institute for Energy Research | Board

Their home page is a pure political page featuring ANTI OBAMA rhetoric disguised as information for people like you.
Institute for Energy Research

If you dont think this group is full of B.S. , then youre living on mars or vacationing on NEWTS lunar hotels.

ITS A LOBBYING GROUP and nothing more funded by the very criminals holding the american people hostage at the pump. When will you get it??

Good thing im not holding my breath on that one.

Peace

TOS
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
That's an interesting question. I would be interested in lining up the subsidies each receives and do a real apples to apples comparison.

It may be possible that we define subsidies differently. I think normally people that are pro large government see all that exists as possible because the government allows it to exist. An example would be when an oil company can deduct equipment expense on their taxes it may be viewed as a subsidy because the government through the tax system treats them much like they do other companies. (That could be a side argument for a simpler tax structure if a tax structure is even needed.) I do not subscribe to this view. I see a subsidy as a payment or a transfer of money. I can see a scenario where you can expand that definition a little to things like loan guarantees for lower interest rates than the free market would provide as a subsidy. We see attacks on big oil but not big government. I think I could live better without government than I could without energy. As a general rule I would support lower taxes for everyone but specifically I see no reason to punish success or punish productivity.

I also thought that you may have specific subsidies in mind that you would like to cut. As a general principal I'd be all for cutting any subsidy. You then back that up with you support subsidies for some industries but not others. In that case I would oppose you picking winners and losers in the markets through government for everyone else.

I get the feeling that your overall opinion is that renewable energy companies are at a disadvantage in the marketplace to non renewable energy companies because the government favors them. If this is the true I'd have interest in your case if you've formulated one although it would be unlikely that I would agree.


There are many examples of subsidies that do not involve a transfer of cash so I may be missing something. Government cheese is the classic example here. Another example of subsidies would be when a government subsidizes wages to create an incentive for an industry to hire additional workers to reduce unemployment/underemployment(in a way the government would be giving a subsidy to a third party and not directly to the company) so I am open to the possibility that I am missing some great subsidy to oil companies.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll

Did you miss this part of the story??

It also noted that developing the oil would pose “socioeconomic challenges,” which included bringing “a sizable influx of workers who along with their families put additional stress on local infrastructure” and “making planning for growth difficult for local governments.”

There are tons of problems to solve long before ANY kind of drilling could even start. This is federal land. In addition, not all oil is the same. Some is harder and more expensive to refine. Thats why we use mostly middle eastern oil, its the cheapest to refine.

Peace

TOS
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
Hi every one there is no doubt that vehicles is really essential need of every person for travelling and their vehicles need to oil to perform its all tasks if we use good quality oil then our vehicles perform excellent running!!!!!

Good point---has nothing at all to do with the thread but good point nonetheless.
 
Top