With the national average of gas prices hitting $3.65 a gallon, nearing $6 in some parts of the country, and poised to head even higher, America's families are wondering when the bleeding at the pump will stop. But for Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu, those steep prices aren't even a concern. In fact, he says his goal is not to get the price of gasoline to go down.
Chu delivered those stunning remarks in testimony before Congress yesterday. When Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.) asked Chu whether it's his "overall goal to get our price" of gasoline lower, Chu said, "No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy."
As shocking as his remarks are, they shouldn't come as a surprise. Chu has a long record of advocating for higher gas prices. In 2008, he stated, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Last March, he reiterated his point in an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, noting that his focus is to ease the pain felt by his energy policies by forcing automakers to make more fuel-efficient automobiles. "What I'm doing since I became Secretary of Energy has been quite clear. What I have been doing is developing methods to take the pain out of high gas prices."
One of those methods is dumping taxpayer dollars into alternative energy projects like the Solyndra solar plant. Another is subsidizing the purchase of high-cost electric cars like the Chevy Volt to the tune of $7,500 per car (which the White House wants to increase to $10,000). In both cases, those methods aren't working. Solyndra went bankrupt because its product couldn't bear the weight of market pressures, and Chevy Volts aren't selling, even with taxpayer-funded rebates. What's the president's next plan? Harvesting "a bunch of algae" as a replacement for oil.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is seemingly doing everything it can to make paying for energy even more painful by refusing to open access to the country's oil and gas reserves and blocking new projects that would lead to the development of more energy in America. Case in point: the president's decision to say "no" to the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would have delivered hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil from Canada to Texas refineries, while bringing thousands of jobs along with it.
Sensing impending political fallout from the high cost of gas, President Obama last week spoke on the subject and attempted to deflect blame for the pain. He said that there is no quick fix to high gas prices and the nation cannot drill its way out of the problem, but as Heritage's Nicolas Loris writes, the president ignored reality and dished out a series of half-truths. Among them, the president claimed oil production is its highest in eight years, that increasing oil production takes too long, and that oil is not enough. Loris writes that while production is up on private lands, unrealized production on federal lands and offshore could have yielded even more output, increasing supply and driving down costs. If the president had said "yes" to Keystone, oil could have reach the market quickly. And as for the president's push for alternative energy, those sources simply cannot stand the test of the market.
There are steps the president and Congress can and should take today to bring down the cost of energy. Namely, end the de facto moratorium on drilling, open offshore areas that are off-limits to drilling, place a 270-day limit on environmental reviews for energy projects on federal lands, remove regulatory delays, and approve Keystone.
As Loris writes, "The market would respond if Congress and the Obama Administration allowed it to work." But Secretary Chu and the Obama Administration are evidently not interested in market-based reforms that bring down the cost of energy. Instead, they're bent on keeping energy costs high in order to placate the environmental left. And now Americans are paying the price.
sigh.... I don't know why I respond to these things because they're always ridiculous but I mean, seriously do you think Obama would have a chance at re-election with high gas prices? Don't you think that's his ultimate goal?
Geez Matt, now you're gonna cause Politically Right's head to explode. Now they have to come up with a counter argument/new conspiracy theory to explain why Obama would want higher gas prices to get re-elected.
It all starts sounding like Vizzini from Princess Bride after awhile.
In January 2008, Obama said that under his Cap and Trade plan "energy prices would necessarily skyrocket", so what would make us believe he wants lower gas prices for any other reason than re-election. If it was not for that, he would want them to go much higher. He just "would have preferred a gradual adjustment".
I read it and it is partially true, but could be summed up in one sentence that Obama doesn't understand or won't admit-supply and demand.
He chose the geopolitical environment without a plan other that higher gas prices and you and I will pay. Yes, the economy is picking up, but we are still 2% below last years consumption. He has closed off both Atlantic, Pacific, Alaska, and most internal federal lands and though he claims (true) that domestic oil production is high, it was started by Bush and taken credit for by Obama. He has done everything in his power to appease his liberal left wing environmental base. (ref. Dakotas and Nebraska on private lands where he has no control 3% unemployment and the oil flowing) Now the refineries. All true! They are Losing money and getting squeezed on margins to the point that a lot of oil companies are shutting them down or trying to sell. They can mostly only refine light sweet crude (122 per barrel) vs heavy crude at about $106 per barrel. New refineries that can handle heavy crude need to be built (permitting is throttled)
Now, to make some money, Valero energy VLO has 75% of their refining capacity capable of refining heavy crude and their margins have expanded after choking in the fourth quarter. They are up 43% year to date and have a lot more upside, so jump on the bandwagon now before it's too late.
I am long on VLO.
Let no man pull you low enough to hate him. -- Martin Luther King Jr.
First let me say that I'm not a Media Matters fan. I find them to tread in the smear campaign world and that's not my thing. Clever editing goes pretty far. And I didn't find this video on Media Matters website. It was linked on another site. But I'm including it because it fits here. And it's always funny to me to see people justify actions by their party and then cut down the other side for the very same actions (or inaction) just a few short years later.
So which is it, Politically Right? Does the President control gas prices or not? Apparently Fox News, circa 2008, says he doesn't. It puts you in quite a pickle, I bet.
Media matters is George Soros at his best. If you watch/listen to anything they put out, you are probably as liberal and delusional as it comes. if I want to watch good propaganda, there are better sources.
Bush took gas from $4.11-$1.77 in less than six months. he did it when everyone was saying gas would never be cheap again. Democrats still don't get it and they never will. When you listen to what Obama is saying, he really does want high gas prices for ideological reasons but he will deny it vehemently, all the while offering nothing but electric cars and burning algae.
Let no man pull you low enough to hate him. -- Martin Luther King Jr.
quote:[i]Originally posted by Matt_Steele[/i] [br]so you believe that presidents have control over gas prices then?
Yes! It is called supply and demand. Something Obama doesn't understand or thinks no one else does. The sad thing is, there are people (lots of them) that believe him.
Let no man pull you low enough to hate him. -- Martin Luther King Jr.
I'm just not convinced that any president really has that much control over global economic prices. Can he get the markets to lower their price while there's so much turmoil in the middle east? Even by allowing more domestic oil production wouldn't cause that much of a decrease (esp not in the near term)
quote:[i]Originally posted by blueblood[/i] [br]Media matters is George Soros at his best. If you watch/listen to anything they put out, you are probably as liberal and delusional as it comes. if I want to watch good propaganda, there are better sources.
Bush took gas from $4.11-$1.77 in less than six months. he did it when everyone was saying gas would never be cheap again. Democrats still don't get it and they never will. When you listen to what Obama is saying, he really does want high gas prices for ideological reasons but he will deny it vehemently, all the while offering nothing but electric cars and burning algae.
Wow, did you even read what I wrote? Did you even watch the video? You are VERY quick to judge and yet I thought you were the one always quoting bible verses. So take the splinter out of your eye for one sec and hear me out.
As I said, I take Media Matters with a grain of salt. HOWEVER, if you actually watched the video you would have seen that this was simply Fox News anchors and editorialists describing how they believe the President doesn't control the gas prices. So either you are wrong or they are wrong. And if you are saying they are wrong then I guess we good put them in the same "delusional" propaganda category as Soros, right?
quote:[i]Originally posted by blueblood[/i] [br]Media matters is George Soros at his best. If you watch/listen to anything they put out, you are probably as liberal and delusional as it comes. if I want to watch good propaganda, there are better sources.
Bush took gas from $4.11-$1.77 in less than six months. he did it when everyone was saying gas would never be cheap again. Democrats still don't get it and they never will. When you listen to what Obama is saying, he really does want high gas prices for ideological reasons but he will deny it vehemently, all the while offering nothing but electric cars and burning algae.
Btw, the other hole in your argument would be the fact that gas was even $4.11 while Bush was in office. Why was that? If he had control of the price, why on earth would he let it get to $4.11??? And why weren't you tarring and feathering him when it hit $4.11??
quote:[i]Originally posted by blueblood[/i] [br]Media matters is George Soros at his best. If you watch/listen to anything they put out, you are probably as liberal and delusional as it comes. if I want to watch good propaganda, there are better sources.
Bush took gas from $4.11-$1.77 in less than six months. he did it when everyone was saying gas would never be cheap again. Democrats still don't get it and they never will. When you listen to what Obama is saying, he really does want high gas prices for ideological reasons but he will deny it vehemently, all the while offering nothing but electric cars and burning algae.
Btw, the other hole in your argument would be the fact that gas was even $4.11 while Bush was in office. Why was that? If he had control of the price, why on earth would he let it get to $4.11??? And why weren't you tarring and feathering him when it hit $4.11??
He was tarred and feathered by both parties! You have been outed by the fact when Bush was in the oval office it was "oil man, halliburton, war, conspiracy, high gas all Bush's fault". now with the anointed one in office it is "he has absolutely no control over world oil prices". You can't have it both ways, yet you will because 90% of the news media has manifest destiny to re-elect Obama. The truth will slowly leek out, or it won't matter because even people on food stamps buy gas, and guess who will get credit. Pay at this window.
Let no man pull you low enough to hate him. -- Martin Luther King Jr.
quote:[i]Originally posted by blueblood[/i] [br]Media matters is George Soros at his best. If you watch/listen to anything they put out, you are probably as liberal and delusional as it comes. if I want to watch good propaganda, there are better sources.
Bush took gas from $4.11-$1.77 in less than six months. he did it when everyone was saying gas would never be cheap again. Democrats still don't get it and they never will. When you listen to what Obama is saying, he really does want high gas prices for ideological reasons but he will deny it vehemently, all the while offering nothing but electric cars and burning algae.
Btw, the other hole in your argument would be the fact that gas was even $4.11 while Bush was in office. Why was that? If he had control of the price, why on earth would he let it get to $4.11??? And why weren't you tarring and feathering him when it hit $4.11??
He was tarred and feathered by both parties! You have been outed by the fact when Bush was in the oval office it was "oil man, halliburton, war, conspiracy, high gas all Bush's fault". now with the anointed one in office it is "he has absolutely no control over world oil prices". You can't have it both ways, yet you will because 90% of the news media has manifest destiny to re-elect Obama. The truth will slowly leek out, or it won't matter because even people on food stamps buy gas, and guess who will get credit. Pay at this window.
I haven't been outed at all, sir. As I have stated before, I voted for Bush. But I am actually glad to hear you say that you were in favor of tarring and feathering Bush for letting gas get to $4.11 while in office. Since he had the control to stop it and all.
That is as close to an admission of guilt as one will get. Don't forget to put your sail up on the way to work, and there's definitely enough hot air in this speech to at least get you there. I recall Jimmy Carter saying almost the exact same things!
Oil is ‘the fuel of the past,’ says President Obama
"Here is the truth. If we are going to control our energy future, then we've got to have an all-of-the-above strategy," he said in his speech. "We've got to develop every source of American energy—not just oil and gas, but wind power and solar power, nuclear power, biofuels."
A top congressional Republican, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, hit Obama on his call to end subsidies for oil companies while directing government help to so-called green energy firms, some of which have political ties to the administration.
"When it comes to rising gas prices, the American people don't think it's particularly fair that at a time when they're struggling to fill up the tank, their own tax dollars are being used to subsidize failing solar companies of the president's choosing, not to mention the bonuses that executives at these companies keep getting," McConnell said.
And "if higher gas prices hurt the economy, then why in the world is the administration calling for higher taxes on energy manufacturers?" said the Kentucky lawmaker.
"We can place our bets on the fuel of the past, or we can place our bets on American know-how and American ingenuity and American workers like the ones here at Daimler. That's the choice we face. That's what's at stake right now," said the president.
Let no man pull you low enough to hate him. -- Martin Luther King Jr.
quote:[i]Originally posted by Matt_Steele[/i] [br]Haha I don't think he's saying that he wants gas taxes to be higher but he is making a pretty strong point.
Oil is a FINITE resource. Once it's gone, it's gone. So what do you propose we do about that?
OK. Oil is a finite resource, but the facts are we are not going to run out tomorrow or not for decades, and as we do, it will be gradual and the prices will increase based upon supply and demand. Obama is trying to force a technology before it's time and in a free market, that equals "fail" every time. ( see Solyendra and a dozen other bankrupt, government subsidized green pipe dreams.)
America was built, and depends upon cheap energy, unique to itself to some degree. The vastness is unequaled in most places where taking a trip from country to country is equivalent to going a couple states in any direction.
Nothing currently in existence produces even close to the same amount of energy as a gallon of gas for the price, even at $5.00 per gallon. All the technology in existence today doesn't come close to oil, and can only come close to competing if gas is $10 or more per gallon. You cannot artificially sustain high prices to subsidize these industries unless everyone in the world did it simultaneously. Global warming is merely the cover up to condition people to accept this new "tax" as much higher prices disguised as necessity. One volcanic eruption on the level of Tambora around 1815 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15448607
will not only reverse anything man may or may not have done, but will cause death in the billions from people freezing to death and starving in another ice age.
We have decades of oil, an estimated 550 years of known natural gas, and 500-1000 years of coal in the United States alone. Obama or no one else is going to change that nor change how we operate in our lifetime, or our children's, children's lifetime ( though bankruptcy and economic devastation possibilities are real and imminent)
Keep working on perfecting technologies of the future but wait until it is their time and for God's sake, quit lying to us about it all. We are not stupid and we are not going to pay for your idealistic subsidizing of a failed venture that is not even close to reality. Government Motors not only cannot sell the Volt as exhibited by the recent shut down at the factory, the government can't even pay you to take one giving $7500 if you will buy one!
And BTW. VLO is up another 2.2% today.
Let no man pull you low enough to hate him. -- Martin Luther King Jr.
quote:[i]Originally posted by Matt_Steele[/i] [br]Haha I don't think he's saying that he wants gas taxes to be higher but he is making a pretty strong point.
Oil is a FINITE resource. Once it's gone, it's gone. So what do you propose we do about that?
We have enough oil in the U.S. alone to last us a couple of hundred years. I'm confident that we can come up with good alternatives in 200 years. So in the meantime, let's use what we've got. This is where Obama's policies are really hurting us.
quote:[i]Originally posted by Matt_Steele[/i] [br] Oil is a FINITE resource. Once it's gone, it's gone. So what do you propose we do about that?
This idea is a failure of your public school education from left wing tards. Oil is constantly being produced by the earth, maybe not to the degree we are drilling but it still is not a finite product.
Senate rejects GOP measure to construct Keystone pipeline, 56-42 By Ben Geman and Josiah Ryan - 03/08/12 04:20 PM ET The Senate has rejected a GOP plan to approve construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline after President Obama made personal calls to Democrats urging them to oppose it.
The 56-42 vote staves off an election-year rebuke of Obama, but will give political ammunition to backers of TransCanada Corp.’s plan to build a pipeline connecting Alberta’s massive tar sands projects to Gulf Coast refineries.
Blame the dumbocrats when your paying $7/gallon this summer.
quote:[i]Originally posted by Matt_Steele[/i] [br] Oil is a FINITE resource. Once it's gone, it's gone. So what do you propose we do about that?
This idea is a failure of your public school education from left wing tards. Oil is constantly being produced by the earth, maybe not to the degree we are drilling but it still is not a finite product.
Oh yes, I'm sure bobpreston is the authority here and not those dumb old scientists who say that oil is finite. That would explain why preston is here commenting on a forum in Monroe, Ohio and not making the big bucks as a geologist studying the earth's mantle. Riiiiight.
From the SCIENTISTS contributing to the Discovery Channel: "Eventually, we will run out of oil. It takes at least 10 million years, specific geological processes and a mass extinction of dinosaurs and other ancient creatures to create crude oil -- making it the definition of a nonrenewable resource. But it's impossible to tell exactly when we will run out of oil, since we can't look into the Earth's mantle to see just how much is left.
The oil company BP said that we've got plenty of oil left, according to its Statistical Review of World Energy published in June 2008. In the report, the company said that the world has as many as 1,238 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves [source: BP]. This equals about 40 years of uninterrupted oil supply -- just from oil pumped from the ground and held in reserve alone. These data were compiled from reported reserves from nations around the globe and oil consortiums like OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries).
But BP's report invited a hail of criticism from oil industry observers, who waved off BP's data as unfounded. Specifically, the criticism comes because member countries of organizations like OPEC receive funding based on the amount of oil they hold in reserve. What's more, say critics, the figures reported by individual countries aren't audited by outside sources [source: U.S. Government Accountability Office]. In other words, member countries may have the opportunity and the motive to exaggerate the number of barrels of oil they have in reserve.
Pulling the last drop of oil on Earth from the ground may be a long way off by anyone's measure. There are a variety of oil sources that have been discovered and are not yet being exploited. There are also a number of undiscovered sources of oil that experts assume exist. A much more pressing concern is this: Will we continue to have enough oil?"
A study published in Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a “fossil fuel” derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.
The study also confirmed a major argument of Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold, who argued in his book “The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels” that micro-organisms found in oil might have come from the mantle of the earth where, absent photosynthesis, the micro-organisms feed on hydrocarbons arising from the earth’s mantle in the dark depths of the ocean floors.
You libtards just believe as your told even if it doesnt make sense. Oh thats right if it aint on the left leaning discovery channel. Yeah I am still waiting on that global warming they were pushing ten years ago.
vegas you are a typical libtard close minded fool that if your ideas are challenged then it must be wrong. Why dont you open your mind a little and think about all the biological decay that happens constantly on this planet. In fact in sounds absolutely ridiculous to think that all the oil in the ground was only a direct result of dinosaurs. Really that makes sense to you?
quote:[i]Originally posted by bobpreston[/i] [br]A study published in Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a “fossil fuel” derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.
The study also confirmed a major argument of Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold, who argued in his book “The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels” that micro-organisms found in oil might have come from the mantle of the earth where, absent photosynthesis, the micro-organisms feed on hydrocarbons arising from the earth’s mantle in the dark depths of the ocean floors.
You libtards just believe as your told even if it doesnt make sense. Oh thats right if it aint on the left leaning discovery channel. Yeah I am still waiting on that global warming they were pushing ten years ago.
I've noticed every source someone presents becomes a "left" source to you. Yet you failed to call the Foxnews piece I referenced a "left" source even though they agreed that the President does not control the gas prices. Interesting.
quote:[i]Originally posted by bobpreston[/i] [br]vegas you are a typical libtard close minded fool that if your ideas are challenged then it must be wrong. Why dont you open your mind a little and think about all the biological decay that happens constantly on this planet. In fact in sounds absolutely ridiculous to think that all the oil in the ground was only a direct result of dinosaurs. Really that makes sense to you?
Yes, it makes perfect sense. If it took "millions of years of decay" to form and we have only been using oil for hundreds (maybe thousands as some sources claim) then it makes perfect sense that we could be using it up faster than it is being produced. My 9 year old could understand that.
But your argument makes it sound as if decay of biological items stopped the day the dinosaurs all died. When the fact is decay is going on daily and if oil is only fossil "aka plant and animal" then its safe to assume that there is oil constantly being produced via decay. The machine never stops.
quote:[i]Originally posted by vegasmayor[/i] [br]And have you even read about the Keystone Pipeline? A quote from the congressional testimony:
"TransCanada refused to support a condition that the oil in Keystone XL would be used in the United States."
Well of course its a global market and they cant guarantee were that oil will end up. But sending it only to China will take it out of the open market. But as normal libtards hate oil and hate people working, its better if all are dependent on the government.
quote:[i]Originally posted by Matt_Steele[/i] [br]Haha I don't think he's saying that he wants gas taxes to be higher but he is making a pretty strong point.
Oil is a FINITE resource. Once it's gone, it's gone. So what do you propose we do about that?
We have enough oil in the U.S. alone to last us a couple of hundred years. I'm confident that we can come up with good alternatives in 200 years. So in the meantime, let's use what we've got. This is where Obama's policies are really hurting us.
There is an assumption that consumption levels remain the same in your argument. Which isn't true, we continue to use more and more oil. So this "predicted" 200 year supply wouldn't last us 200 years.
You also assume minimal environmental damage at getting it out. I'm not talking about saving the bunnies and the foxes but rather worrying about our drinking water, our food (both land and sea) production and our breathable air. Getting it from shale and sands isn't exactly the cleanest process.
Finally, I thought we were against procrastinating on big issues? Right, we want to solve the debt problem now so our kids don't have to worry about it. When it comes to a limited resource though, let's put it off for someone else down the line to worry about.
as for Bobby P, who I get excited about everytime he posts, you are right, oil is not necessarily a finite resource, yet the Earth does not produce it nearly as fast as we use it (and again, if consumption levels rise both in America and in the developing world), even you basically admitted that. So you would agree that we have reached (or will reach) levels that are unsustainable. Right?
Also, it should be noted that the scientists who believe in the Earth having an endless supply of oil is probably fewer than those who don't believe in evolution. Also, many of Gold's theories and arguments can't be reproduced in experiments.
I'm not saying that he's definitely wrong, I'm saying the probability of him being wrong is WAY higher than him being right.
quote:[i]Originally posted by Matt_Steele[/i] There is an assumption that consumption levels remain the same in your argument. Which isn't true, we continue to use more and more oil. So this "predicted" 200 year supply wouldn't last us 200 years.
I would assume that most of these studies factor increased demand into the model, but fine. Cut it in half. How about 100 years? Or even 75? I think we can get it done in that timeframe.
quote:[i]Originally posted by Matt_Steele[/i] You also assume minimal environmental damage at getting it out. I'm not talking about saving the bunnies and the foxes but rather worrying about our drinking water, our food (both land and sea) production and our breathable air. Getting it from shale and sands isn't exactly the cleanest process.
You're making assumptions as well. And significant advances have been made in shale extraction.
quote:[i]Originally posted by Matt_Steele[/i] Finally, I thought we were against procrastinating on big issues? Right, we want to solve the debt problem now so our kids don't have to worry about it. When it comes to a limited resource though, let's put it off for someone else down the line to worry about.
I don't see how advocating for more drilling is procrastinating on perfecting alternative energy sources. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
As the citizens of china begin to quietly chase the american dream they are going to want to start driving. I would imagine that would greatly change the need for oil in the near future.
quote:This idea is a failure of your public school education from left wing tards. Oil is constantly being produced by the earth, maybe not to the degree we are drilling but it still is not a finite product.
Preston always has his finger on the pulse of the latest scientific research and consensus.
Which is why he's such a firm believer of global warming.
quote:But your argument makes it sound as if decay of biological items stopped the day the dinosaurs all died. When the fact is decay is going on daily and if oil is only fossil "aka plant and animal" then its safe to assume that there is oil constantly being produced via decay. The machine never stops.
What's the rate of decay compared to the rate of consumption?
White House Wants to Keep Gas Prices High
Posted - 02/29/2012 : 11:49:45 AM
