Can we trust President Obama in a second term?

There's so much sarcasm, mixed with seriousness, mixed with people who don't understand sarcasm, mixed with trolls in here that I am baffled and honestly I am scared.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]We would add to the world's supply which drops the price. It would also reduce futures which drops the price. And in that scenario OPEC would increase production which drops the price.

Also permits are down under Obama (which also drives up speculation)

KC_Hokie

On top of that President Obama blocked the Keystone pipeline.

So to say the President has zero to do with the price of oil is just fundamentally wrong.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"] No it would not decrease the price. We cannot produce enough oil to begin to affect the price of oil. And once again even if domestic oil companies further increased production, they would sell to the highest global bidder. We would have better luck reducing oil consumption as a whole. For example, the Obama administration has raised the corporate average fuel economy standards imposed on automakers. If consumers buy more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, demand for gasoline falls, as does the burden imposed by high gas prices. A even better approach would be to gradually raise the gasoline tax to levels similar to those in Western Europe, where fuel-efficient cars are the norm. A tax on the carbon content of fuels would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as 'corporate average fuel economy' requirements for automobiles. Of course no one running for president can safely make such a proposal because of people's failure to look at the underlying economics. The confused public debate on this topic is representative of a more general problem. The voting public is not very good at attributing credit and blame to presidents. They get too much credit when things go well and too much blame when things go badly. I question if every man and women really should have a vote.Hubadubalubahu

On top of that President Obama blocked the Keystone pipeline.

So to say the President has zero to do with the price of oil is just fundamentally wrong.

Im black he's black hell yeah. OBAMA BABY

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]We could easily double our output. We only drill on a fraction of known oil reserves. That would drop the price of oil.

On top of that President Obama blocked the Keystone pipeline.

So to say the President has zero to do with the price of oil is just fundamentally wrong.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"] Let me try this for the last time even though you seem to ignore everything I am saying. Oil is a global market in which America is a big consumer but a small supplier. That means we are, in economics jargon, "price takers." Even if or when production increases it is just too small a change to matter and even if domestic oil companies further increased production, they would sell to the highest global bidder. If you're not convinced by economic theory or the opinions of economists, consider some recent history. Presumably, no one would call President George W. Bush unfriendly to the oil industry. Yet the price of gasoline rose steadily during most of his administration. In February 2001, just after Mr. Bush took office, the average price of regular gasoline was $1.45 a gallon. By June 2008, that price had risen to $4.05. Still think presidents and oil-friendly policies can determine oil prices? It's true that by the end of the Bush presidency, prices had fallen back to $1.69, as oil prices plummeted with the rest of the global economy. But I think we can all agree that a global financial crisis is too high a price to pay for cheap gasoline.mattbbpl

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]And economists who understand the futures market and OPEC's patterns will tell you that if the U.S. opened all federal land/water to drilling you effect both supply and the futures market. The Keystone pipeline also would have taken oil directly from Canada to refineries in the U.S. President Obama blocked it. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] Do you have a source? Literally every economist I've seen weigh in on this issue disagrees.

mattbbpl

I'm not sure what further evidence you need to show that the futures market is easily influenced by supply.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]This happened on Wednesday this week: "OIL FUTURES: Crude Tumbles As US Stockpiles Jump" *Link removed due to Gamespot issues*

KC_Hokie

I'm not sure what further evidence you need to show that the futures market is easily influenced by supply.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] That article seems to confirm economists' statements that US production is not the primary driver of oil prices. It does attribute a recent 2.4% drop to higher stockpiles, but then goes on to discuss Iran fears lessening causing most the recent drop and continued geopolitical concerns (largely due to continued concern over Iran's supply possibly being interrupted) creating a price floor.

mattbbpl

I'm not sure what further evidence you need to show that the futures market is easily influenced by supply.

And economists who understand the futures market and OPEC's patterns will tell you that if the U.S. opened all federal land/water to drilling you effect both supply and the futures market. The Keystone pipeline also would have taken oil directly from Canada to refineries in the U.S. President Obama blocked it. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]It dropped 2.4% in a single day due to a jump in stockpiles. Oil will be cheaper in May mainly because of supply.

I'm not sure what further evidence you need to show that the futures market is easily influenced by supply.

KC_Hokie

As global commodity market in which we're a minor player, OUR supply's impact is minimal.

We are minor producers with minimal impact. Your article implicitly confirms that.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]And economists who understand the futures market and OPEC's patterns will tell you that if the U.S. opened all federal land/water to drilling you effect both supply and the futures market. The Keystone pipeline also would have taken oil directly from Canada to refineries in the U.S. President Obama blocked it. Hubadubalubahu

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"] Influenced by supply, yes. As a commodity market, that's never been in question.

As global commodity market in which we're a minor player, OUR supply's impact is minimal. mattbbpl

We are minor producers with minimal impact. Your article implicitly confirms that.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]And economists who understand the futures market and OPEC's patterns will tell you that if the U.S. opened all federal land/water to drilling you effect both supply and the futures market. The Keystone pipeline also would have taken oil directly from Canada to refineries in the U.S. President Obama blocked it. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"] What are you on about? According to the EIA, the United States has 21 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2000. The U.S. uses about 6.6 billion barrels per year. That is only enough oil to last the U.S. about three and a half years without importing oil from other countries. 84% of the reserves are concentrated in four states. Texas has 25%, both onshore, and offshore. Alaska has 24%, California has 21%, and Louisiana has 14% onshore, and offshore. Since 1990, U.S. oil reserves have dropped about 20%. New oil discoveries made in 1999 were made almost entirely in the Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska. (321 million barrels). All other discoveries were extensions of existing oil fields, or new reservoirs discovered in old fields. (404 million barrels). With few exceptions, 16,000 feet is the maximum depth at which oil is found. Below that depth, only gas exists, because of the temperature of the earth. The United States has large areas of oil shale deposits, which are sometimes misconstrued as being a readily available resource. (sound familiar?) However, oil shale deposits are not the same thing as conventional oil fields. Oilsands, which is another kind of oil deposit, are found in large quantities in Canada. It has been estimated that the oilsands contain 1.7 trillion barrels of oil, but this oil cannot be recovered by standard methods of well drilling, and has to be strip mined. After it is dug up, the oil is removed by a water flotation process. Then, the waste sand has to be safely disposed. The strip mining process now being used takes the energy equivalent of two barrels of oil to produce one barrel. In other words, the price to produce it is double the price for which it can be sold. Another problem with the oilsands, is that much of it is too deep to be reached by strip mining. Other methods of removing the deeper oil are being experimented with, but they are all very costly. Canada's oilsands will probably not be produced in large amounts until the world's supply of conventional oil is nearly depleted. Both are very costly ways of obtaining oil. I don't know why you believe we are sitting on vast amounts of oil but we're not. Our reserves should be just that, reserves. Reserved for a time when we can no longer import our oil. We are far from being independant when it comes to oil production.Hubadubalubahu

And it only took an unexpected increase of 9 million barrels Wednesday for futures to drop 2.4.% in a single day. So saying billions of barrels wouldn't do anything is just flat out wrong.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Increasing domestic supply will effect prices due to an increase in supply itself and due to the futures market. There are billions of barrels of oil in federal land/water that would be extremely profitable to extract. KC_Hokie

And it only took an unexpected increase of 9 million barrels Wednesday for futures to drop 2.4.% in a single day. So saying billions of barrels wouldn't do anything is just flat out wrong.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"] Are you being dense on purpose? Im beginning to feel trolled. Reading comp fail. Your right we do have billions of barrels in oil...that isnt sh*t. At the risk of redundency yet again, and please read this time, the United States has 21 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2000. The U.S. uses about 6.6 billion barrels per year. That is only enough oil to last the U.S. about three and a half years without importing oil from other countries. Billions of barrles isn't a thing when we are a quarter of the worlds oil consumers.Hubadubalubahu

And it only took an unexpected increase of 9 million barrels Wednesday for futures to drop 2.4.% in a single day. So saying billions of barrels wouldn't do anything is just flat out wrong.

Hahaha most misleading article to show. Do you even know how unprofitable shale deposits are?Hubadubalubahu

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]Hahaha most misleading article to show. Do you even know how unprofitable shale deposits are?KC_Hokie

Good Christ, KC Hokie has got the be the biggest goddamed moron posting regularly on this forum. Congrats KC, that's quite an impressive feat.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]Hahaha most misleading article to show. Do you even know how unprofitable shale deposits are?Hubadubalubahu

The only thing stopping extraction is the federal government.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]You have no idea what you're talking about. Oil shale land sells for $25,000 an acre. KC_Hokie

The only thing stopping extraction is the federal government.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"] Yup im the guy who has no idea what he's talking about. The cost of oil derived from oil shale has been significantly higher than conventional pumped oil.Hubadubalubahu

The only thing stopping extraction is the federal government.

Saying we have to import oil before we use our domestic supply is just idiotic. Who came up with that rule?

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]You have no idea what you're talking about. Oil shale land sells for $25,000 an acre. KC_Hokie

The only thing stopping extraction is the federal government.

Answer me this: say you're a big oil company. You have the choice to extract shale oil at $70 a barrel (although it can run as high as $90/barrel) and sell it for $100 a barrel. Or you can extract crude oil at $30 a barrel and sell it for $100 a barrel. Which route do you go?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"] Yup im the guy who has no idea what he's talking about. The cost of oil derived from oil shale has been significantly higher than conventional pumped oil.worlock77

The only thing stopping extraction is the federal government.

Answer me this: say you're a big oil company. You have the choice to extract shale oil at $70 a barrel (although it can run as high as $90/barrel) and sell it for $100 a barrel. Or you can extract crude oil at $30 a barrel and sell it for $100 a barrel. Which route do you go?

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Yea it's more expensive to extract. However, it's profitable at $70 a barrel. Oil is around $100 a barrel right now. That's a significant profit on each barrel.

The only thing stopping extraction is the federal government.

KC_Hokie

Saying we have to import oil before we use our domestic supply is just idiotic. Who came up with that rule?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"] It is useful not profitable, at least not in the current economy. It will be useful when we really need oil and the rest of the worlds conventional oil supplys are depleted. Hubadubalubahu

Saying we have to import oil before we use our domestic supply is just idiotic. Who came up with that rule?

And, again, the federal government is stopping them. Not the lack of potential profit.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Yea it's more expensive to extract. However, it's profitable at $70 a barrel. Oil is around $100 a barrel right now. That's a significant profit on each barrel.

The only thing stopping extraction is the federal government.

KC_Hokie

Answer me this: say you're a big oil company. You have the choice to extract shale oil at $70 a barrel (although it can run as high as $90/barrel) and sell it for $100 a barrel. Or you can extract crude oil at $30 a barrel and sell it for $100 a barrel. Which route do you go?

Considering the effort and expense involved? No, not really. A corporation's main concern is its bottom line. The goal is to maximize proft while minimizing costs. Why do you think that companies farm manufacturing out to third world sweatshops instead of hiring expensive American workers to do it? When given a choice a company is going to go with the cheaper, more profitable option. That's in the nature of capitalism.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Answer me this: say you're a big oil company. You have the choice to extract shale oil at $70 a barrel (although it can run as high as $90/barrel) and sell it for $100 a barrel. Or you can extract crude oil at $30 a barrel and sell it for $100 a barrel. Which route do you go?

worlock77

Considering the effort and expense involved? No, not really. A corporation's main concern is its bottom line. The goal is to maximize proft while minimizing costs. Why do you think that companies farm manufacturing out to third world sweatshops instead of hiring expensive American workers to do it? When given a choice a company is going to go with the cheaper, more profitable option. That's in the nature of capitalism.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Why assume it's one or the other? I would do both. Are you implying companies wouldn't go after shale oil if allowed? KC_Hokie

Considering the effort and expense involved? No, not really. A corporation's main concern is its bottom line. The goal is to maximize proft while minimizing costs. Why do you think that companies farm manufacturing out to third world sweatshops instead of hiring expensive American workers to do it? When given a choice a company is going to go with the cheaper, more profitable option. That's in the nature of capitalism.

No, they aren't all that interested. Profit margins aren't high enough to deal with the process and cost of extraction. If it were they would be doing so already. They've got enough friends in Washington to make it happen.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Considering the effort and expense involved? No, not really. A corporation's main concern is its bottom line. The goal is to maximize proft while minimizing costs. Why do you think that companies farm manufacturing out to third world sweatshops instead of hiring expensive American workers to do it? When given a choice a company is going to go with the cheaper, more profitable option. That's in the nature of capitalism.

worlock77

No, they aren't all that interested. Profit margins aren't high enough to deal with the process and cost of extraction. If it were they would be doing so already. They've got enough friends in Washington to make it happen.

I don't think Obama did a great job... but these guys running against him just do not strike me as being radically better. No reason to get rid of Obama.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Here's a newsflash: oil companies have a lot of money. They would jump at the chance to make $30 a barrel in a new operation. KC_Hokie

No, they aren't all that interested. Profit margins aren't high enough to deal with the process and cost of extraction. If it were they would be doing so already. They've got enough friends in Washington to make it happen.

Right, because the existence of oil shale has only become known during Obama's term.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="eboyishere"]Obama basically has the 2nd term, Ron Paul might have supporters...but half of them can't vote yet or don't vote period :lol: :lol: :lol:worlock77

The president doesn't have any control over the price of oil.

Of course not, nor does he hold a great deal of influence over the economy, but that is utterly irrelevant because people vote partially based upon the conditions of those two issues.

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Good read on why RP has the best solution than Obamney.

Unfortunately, most of you will ignore this...

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Good read on why RP has the best solution than Obamney.

Unfortunately, most of you will ignore this...

KamuiFei

[QUOTE="KamuiFei"]

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Good read on why RP has the best solution than Obamney.

Unfortunately, most of you will ignore this...

Person0

And its that type of mentality that's hurting this country. The one candidate that has a real solution to many of our problems, and people write him off as crazy. I think our current downward spiral of an economy is crazy. I think the removal of my rights are crazy. I think inflation is crazy...

P.S. It's obvious you didn't read the article. ;)

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="KamuiFei"]

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Good read on why RP has the best solution than Obamney.

Unfortunately, most of you will ignore this...

KamuiFei

And its that type of mentality that's hurting this country. The one candidate that has a real solution to many of our problems, and people write him off as crazy. I think our current downward spiral of an economy is crazy. I think the removal of my rights are crazy. I think inflation is crazy...

P.S. It's obvious you didn't read the article. ;)

*looks @ page*

LOL @ cost of a gallon of gas being a dime. I want to like the guy, but Jesus.

*looks @ page*

LOL @ cost of a gallon of gas being a dime. I want to like the guy, but Jesus.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="KamuiFei"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] Probably because he is a crazy old man that has no chances of winning.Person0

And its that type of mentality that's hurting this country. The one candidate that has a real solution to many of our problems, and people write him off as crazy. I think our current downward spiral of an economy is crazy. I think the removal of my rights are crazy. I think inflation is crazy...

P.S. It's obvious you didn't read the article. ;)

Regulations should be upheld within the free market and Constitutional law. It's the federal government's job to uphold the Constitution and fair regulations created from said markets and State governments, not bailout companies and give subsidies to monopolize the whole market. And fyi, the states can't have more power than the Constitution allows either. Our current federal government restricts individual state government's rights, let alone "do what ever they want". RP wants to give back the state's rights. Alternate energy programs being one of them.

Honestly, I dont fear for Israel's safety. I'm actually glad that Obama doesnt blindly support them. I have no problem with the nation of Israel existing or what have you, but I dont think we should condone their every action.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

*looks @ page*

LOL @ cost of a gallon of gas being a dime. I want to like the guy, but Jesus.

Person0

Silver is currently $31.70 an ounce. A dime pre-1964 was made of 40% silver... Not far-fetched...

Honestly, I dont fear for Israel's safety. I'm actually glad that Obama doesnt blindly support them. I have no problem with the nation of Israel existing or what have you, but I dont think we should condone their every action.

sonicare

Ditto.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="KamuiFei"]

And its that type of mentality that's hurting this country. The one candidate that has a real solution to many of our problems, and people write him off as crazy. I think our current downward spiral of an economy is crazy. I think the removal of my rights are crazy. I think inflation is crazy...

P.S. It's obvious you didn't read the article. ;)

KamuiFei

Regulations should be upheld within the free market and Constitutional law. It's the federal government's job to uphold the Constitution and fair regulations created from said markets and State governments, not bailout companies and give subsidies to monopolize the whole market. And fyi, the states can't have more power than the Constitution allows either. Our current federal government restricts individual state government's rights, let alone "do what ever they want". RP wants to give back the state's rights. Alternate energy programs being one of them.

[QUOTE="KamuiFei"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] Yeah...Too many EPA regulations....lets stop the clean air act from regulating CO2 and methane yay! Lets cut alternative energy tax incentives! terrible ideas etc... His ideas get rid of all regulations...remove federal government from almost everything.....allow states to do what ever they want. Hardly real solutions.Person0

Regulations should be upheld within the free market and Constitutional law. It's the federal government's job to uphold the Constitution and fair regulations created from said markets and State governments, not bailout companies and give subsidies to monopolize the whole market. And fyi, the states can't have more power than the Constitution allows either. Our current federal government restricts individual state government's rights, let alone "do what ever they want". RP wants to give back the state's rights. Alternate energy programs being one of them.

Therein lies the problem... The government gives too many subsidies to be cost feasible. When other States offer such programs, the Fed denies thems and continues to spend money we don't have (and honestly, they would rather spend it on Military occupation, thanks to the military industral complex). I'd rather have State governments offering ways of alternate energy at this point because its clear the Fed aren't capable of even running the country properly. Obama is making things worst by allowing this to happen. Typical of a tool of the status quo I guess.

And State Theocracies can't happen because like I said before, the Constitution doesn't allow it. You would know this if you read up on it.

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="KamuiFei"]

Regulations should be upheld within the free market and Constitutional law. It's the federal government's job to uphold the Constitution and fair regulations created from said markets and State governments, not bailout companies and give subsidies to monopolize the whole market. And fyi, the states can't have more power than the Constitution allows either. Our current federal government restricts individual state government's rights, let alone "do what ever they want". RP wants to give back the state's rights. Alternate energy programs being one of them.

KamuiFei

Therein lies the problem... The government gives too many subsidies to be cost feasible. When other States offer such programs, the Fed denies thems and continues to spend money we don't have (and honestly, they would rather spend it on Military occupation, thanks to the military industral complex). I'd rather have State governments offering ways of alternate energy at this point because its clear the Fed aren't capable of even running the country properly. Obama is making things worst by allowing this to happen. Typical of a tool of the status quo I guess.

And State Theocracies can't happen because like I said before, the Constitution doesn't allow it. You would know this if you read up on it.