President opens up offshore drilling?

[Chris]

Actually, demand rose steadily all the way up to $4.50/gallon back in '06 & '07.

It did. But at that time there were a series of significant supply disruptions. They were on the scale that the entire global supply line required constraint, all the way back to reducing extraction from the ground. Basically they had to shut off the pumps as there was no place top put it. And consumption dropped because it was four bucks plus. The oil industry had nothing to lose in running the prices up. The didn't have the supplies to satisfy the demand for $2 gas, so they cranked it until demand met available supply.

In reality, every oil company would be happy to sell one gallon a year and charge a couple hundred billion for it. And that leads to something scary- if they all truly got together and colluded, they could drive the price up to $20. The could shut refineries, mothball tankers and stop exploring- and still make more money. What's to stop them?

 

[Ted]

In reality, every oil company would be happy to sell one gallon a year and charge a couple hundred billion for it. And that leads to something scary- if they all truly got together and colluded, they could drive the price up to $20. The could shut refineries, mothball tankers and stop exploring- and still make more money. What's to stop them?

Peasants with pitchforks.

 

[BBB725]

In reality, every oil company would be happy to sell one gallon a year and charge a couple hundred billion for it. And that leads to something scary- if they all truly got together and colluded, they could drive the price up to $20. The could shut refineries, mothball tankers and stop exploring- and still make more money. What's to stop them?

Welcome to the steel industry:sifone:

 

[jayboat]

Dude, this isn't the porn section!!!!:biggrinjester:

Yep, I don't think his kind of drilling is their kind of drilling. :sifone:

Seems like a strategic political move. The same arguments against offshore drilling still hold true. There isn't enough oil there to justify it. It comes across as a distraction, but Obama has a knack for looking at the long game, so I guess we'll see.

 

[Tony]

Welcome to the steel industry:sifone:

Asphalt isnt far behind.:cuss:

 

[Chris]

Steel got downright stupid. For a while, your quote was only good until you hung up the phone. That is, if you could get it. If you weren't in the top half of their present book of business, you weren't getting called back, let alone quoted.

Standard stuff like plate and construction shapes may have been easier. But if you used stuff like thick-wall tube, forklift mast, seamless stainless tube and such, you sweated it every day.

 

[Tommy Gun]

Another apparent Obama flip-flop; but as far as reasoning goes, he opens up a little while closing down even more. Smoke and mirrors...he is NOT to be trusted.

 

[BBB725]

Steel got downright stupid. For a while, your quote was only good until you hung up the phone. That is, if you could get it. If you weren't in the top half of their present book of business, you weren't getting called back, let alone quoted.

Standard stuff like plate and construction shapes may have been easier. But if you used stuff like thick-wall tube, forklift mast, seamless stainless tube and such, you sweated it every day.

Plus the planned shut downs (for maintenance) of the melting mills they kept the shortage going alot longer than it should have

 

[LotoSteve]

Another apparent Obama flip-flop; but as far as reasoning goes, he opens up a little while closing down even more. Smoke and mirrors...he is NOT to be trusted.

That's it in a nutshell. At 51 I cannot think of another president that was as dishonest as this guy, including Nixon and Clinton.

 

[LAriverratt]

That's it in a nutshell. At 51 I cannot think of another president that was as dishonest as this guy, including Nixon and Clinton.

he makes those two look like amateurs!!! and that is sad as hell for all of us!!!!

 

[jayboat]

cut-and-paste alert

Along with most of the other wingers, Obama is flying over your heads.

A reader's email on Andrew Sullivan sums it up:

As I've noted it's pure long-term, strategic Obama, something the GOP will understand only when it's way too late. So far, they have played directly into the president's hands.

A reader concurs:

The question is: why agree to this before getting an agreement from the GOP on other things, like cap and trade? That's where you get it, Andrew, and others don't. This move, which Obama longed telegraphed, is about perception as a way to increase bargaining power with the public against the GOP's sure-fire opposition.

The lesson of health care is this: Obama knows that even if he goes to the table like Dems want, saying no to oil, no to nukes, and then compromises (what pundits want) to try and get what he wants (a cap and trade system), that he still won't get GOP support and will lose the public in the process of negotiating. it happened with health care. That's the GOPs ploy, make demands, claim the demands will get your overall support, and then walk away and talk about how ugly the process is. In private conversations GOP senators have admitted they liked the health bill but couldn't vote for it alone.

Obama is now going at it from a different angle.

Knowing he has no GOP support, he gives his conservative Dems cover by backing oil and nukes and coal and he paints the GOP in a corner, like he did after the HCR summit, as the party of No. By preemptively saying he'll drill baby drill and do nuclear power, the GOP looks obstructionist.

This is good for Dems politically on the campaign trail, and it actually increases the chances that Dems can move in unison on an energy bill by themselves. Then they'll face the prospect of getting that 60th vote on stronger grounds than had they mucked up the message with a long drawn out process, where Ben Nelson cuts deals, talks poorly about the bill etc. By preemptively saying yes to oil, yes to nukes, this cuts the process in half. It's a comprehensive bill designed by Dems that they can run on.

That's the theory anyway.

 

[Chris]

Yeah- the backing of nukes is definitely a free pass for O. He'll be dead from old age by the time the process to build new nuke plants AND the NIMBY opposition is all cleared. If he had the dough, the site and every approval he needed to break ground tomorrow, contributions to the power grid are a decade away.

 

[BUIZILLA]

In private conversations GOP senators have admitted they liked the health bill but couldn't vote for it alone.

hey, Mr Cut n Paste.... show us proof of this statement please.. wouldn't be surprising if you can't..

 

[Chris]

Why wouldn't the GOP support it? If you think about it, who would nationalized health care help the most? Major corporations. Who has the greatest amount of under-funded pension liabilities? Major corporations. Who has skyrocketing benefits costs that in most cases they're contactually obligated to? Major corporations. Who are the largest campaign donors to the GOP? Major corporations, their owners, board members and senior management.

Back when Clinton took a run at it, his strongest support (albeit very quietly) was from the major corporations. The single largest beneficiary would have been General Motors. At that point, factoring in their pension liabilities of which they didn't have the cash reserves to cover, they were insolvent.

 

[jayboat]

hey, Mr Cut n Paste.... show us proof of this statement please.. wouldn't be surprising if you can't..

Rather conceited to think that EVERY Republican is as inflexible in their thinking as you are, dontcha think??? :smash:

 

[Ted]

Along with most of the other wingers, Obama is flying over your heads.

A reader's email on Andrew Sullivan sums it up:

As I've noted it's pure long-term, strategic Obama, something the GOP will understand only when it's way too late. So far, they have played directly into the president's hands.

A reader concurs:

The question is: why agree to this before getting an agreement from the GOP on other things, like cap and trade? That's where you get it, Andrew, and others don't. This move, which Obama longed telegraphed, is about perception as a way to increase bargaining power with the public against the GOP's sure-fire opposition.

The lesson of health care is this: Obama knows that even if he goes to the table like Dems want, saying no to oil, no to nukes, and then compromises (what pundits want) to try and get what he wants (a cap and trade system), that he still won't get GOP support and will lose the public in the process of negotiating. it happened with health care. That's the GOPs ploy, make demands, claim the demands will get your overall support, and then walk away and talk about how ugly the process is. In private conversations GOP senators have admitted they liked the health bill but couldn't vote for it alone.

Obama is now going at it from a different angle.

Knowing he has no GOP support, he gives his conservative Dems cover by backing oil and nukes and coal and he paints the GOP in a corner, like he did after the HCR summit, as the party of No. By preemptively saying he'll drill baby drill and do nuclear power, the GOP looks obstructionist.

This is good for Dems politically on the campaign trail, and it actually increases the chances that Dems can move in unison on an energy bill by themselves. Then they'll face the prospect of getting that 60th vote on stronger grounds than had they mucked up the message with a long drawn out process, where Ben Nelson cuts deals, talks poorly about the bill etc. By preemptively saying yes to oil, yes to nukes, this cuts the process in half. It's a comprehensive bill designed by Dems that they can run on.

That's the theory anyway.

Jay and this enlightened poster to Sullivan's blog are exactly right. The President has snookered us all. By allowing the GOP and and all it's Tea Bagger followers to get caught up in all these silly fights over his place of birth, his dope smoking, his lack of experience, his ineptitude, health care, etc., we have missed the point all along. He is bent on reforming this country and helping the little man. This will be a new age of "trickle up" economics. If we can give free bennies to virtually everyone but prosperous white males we can bring them up to the level that the white males are falling down to. Eventually we will all be equal and happy. I finally understand and am throwing my full support behind it, YES WE CAN!!!

 

[BUIZILLA]

Rather conceited to think that EVERY Republican is as inflexible in their thinking as you are, dontcha think??? :smash:

how's come you NEVER offer proof of a rebuttal of mine? no facts, eh? awwwwwwwwww

for the tenth time, i'm not a registered Republican... so quit jumping to conclusions..

 

[LotoSteve]

Along with most of the other wingers, Obama is flying over your heads.

A reader's email on Andrew Sullivan sums it up:

As I've noted it's pure long-term, strategic Obama, something the GOP will understand only when it's way too late. So far, they have played directly into the president's hands.

A reader concurs:

The question is: why agree to this before getting an agreement from the GOP on other things, like cap and trade? That's where you get it, Andrew, and others don't. This move, which Obama longed telegraphed, is about perception as a way to increase bargaining power with the public against the GOP's sure-fire opposition.

The lesson of health care is this: Obama knows that even if he goes to the table like Dems want, saying no to oil, no to nukes, and then compromises (what pundits want) to try and get what he wants (a cap and trade system), that he still won't get GOP support and will lose the public in the process of negotiating. it happened with health care. That's the GOPs ploy, make demands, claim the demands will get your overall support, and then walk away and talk about how ugly the process is. In private conversations GOP senators have admitted they liked the health bill but couldn't vote for it alone.

Obama is now going at it from a different angle.

Knowing he has no GOP support, he gives his conservative Dems cover by backing oil and nukes and coal and he paints the GOP in a corner, like he did after the HCR summit, as the party of No. By preemptively saying he'll drill baby drill and do nuclear power, the GOP looks obstructionist.

This is good for Dems politically on the campaign trail, and it actually increases the chances that Dems can move in unison on an energy bill by themselves. Then they'll face the prospect of getting that 60th vote on stronger grounds than had they mucked up the message with a long drawn out process, where Ben Nelson cuts deals, talks poorly about the bill etc. By preemptively saying yes to oil, yes to nukes, this cuts the process in half. It's a comprehensive bill designed by Dems that they can run on.

That's the theory anyway.

More sneaky chit from the Liar in Chief. True or not, the dems will still get slaughtered in November and whatever social crap he gets passed in the mean time will be stopped, including Obamacare. He has done a wonderful job of dividing the country. He is such a leader. How many states have filed suit against his health care so far? Something like 18? He has done one thing that I agree with. Emboldened the people to stop big government, and vote out all the lefties that ignored the will of the people. The fallout from this will be remembered for a long time.

 

[LotoSteve]

From the Heritage Foundation

Can the Obama administration's desperate attempts to cover their true far left nature with centrist rhetoric and promises become any more transparent? Yesterday, the President announced "an expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration" in selected areas off the coasts of the United States. The President claims this announcement was made "in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs," but nobody believes him. Just take a quick look at today's newspaper reporting:



The Los Angeles Times: "President Obama ... unveiled a controversial offshore drilling plan Wednesday that was driven largely by the politics of his agenda on energy and climate change -- not by hopes of changing the nation's energy supply."


The Washington Post: "President Obama's decision ... reflects a high-stakes calculation by the White House: Splitting the difference on the most contentious energy issues could help secure a bipartisan climate deal this year."


Politico: "Obama’s decision is closely tied politically to the fate of the climate change bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Kerry (D-MA), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT)."


The New York Times: "The proposal is also intended to ... help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation."


Bloomberg: "President Barack Obama’s pledge to expand offshore oil and natural-gas drilling may help Democrats deliver legislation that regulates carbon dioxide emissions before any fuel is produced."



In fact, if anything, the policies announced by President Obama yesterday will actually decrease and delay future U.S. oil production. The President actually canceled four lease sales off the Alaska coast that were planned to begin producing oil within the next two years, delayed a planned lease off Virginia until at least 2012, and placed some areas off limits for at least seven years. Go back and look at President Obama's actual announcement again: he only promised new exploration off the Atlantic coast. There is absolutely no guarantee that any new drilling will ever occur. Secretary Ken Salazar's Interior Department still has full discretion to never allow a single drop of oil to be harvested from these waters. And that doesn't even begin to address the court challenges the enviro-left will employ to attack and delay the entire process.

So if developing new energy sources that can create private sector jobs for Americans and new revenues for financially strapped states and the federal government is not the Obama administration's real goal, then what is? Well, President Obama's Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who was at yesterday's announcement, has said, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." For reference purposes, when Secretary Chu said that, Europeans were paying $8 a gallon for gas at the pump.

Canceling current offshore oil leases and delaying future ones are not the only policy means the Obama administration is using to pursue the high energy price policy ends. The Obama administration has also declared war on energy production in the Mountain West, rescinding oil-shale development leases in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. His administration has completely failed to take on the real regulatory reforms necessary to allow a private sector nuclear industry to thrive. And just this week, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency began its regulation of carbon emissions through the Clean Air Act.

And let's not forget the grand daddy of them all: a cap and trade energy tax bill. But don't call it that. Secretary Salazar told CNBC yesterday, "I think the term 'cap and trade' is not in the lexicon anymore." Whatever you call it, placing an arbitrary penalty on carbon emissions would mean disaster for the American economy. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has found that cap and tax legislation would cost the average family of four almost $3,000 per year, cause 2.5 million net job losses by 2035, and produce a cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) loss of $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035.

So don't be fooled by President Barack Obama's energy rhetoric. High energy prices are not a side effect of climate legislation - they are the whole point. According to the latest Pew poll, 63% of Americans support allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters. Americans deserve an energy policy that reduces prices, creates private sector jobs, and reduces our national debt. Right now they have the opposite.

So he wants the price of fuel to go way up. My God this guy is scarey.

 

[Tommy Gun]

I agree with Jay's post...he(Obama) does have a long term plan...to socialize America, or more. The FOX opinion guy's have been all over it. Hannity called it before he was elected. Beck illisutrates the eerily accurate similarities in Obama's methods to other marxist regimes and dictators every day. We get it, that's why we are so vocal about trying to stop it.