Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

On A Rig And A Prayer

October 3, 2012 by  

On A Rig And A Prayer
PHOTOS.COM

Let us hope Mitt Romney is uncorking non-alcoholic champagne in 34 days. If Romney is victorious, the caps being blown won’t only be on bottles from Romney’s stock. Across the land, there will be celebrations as hundreds of rigs get set to drill and capture oil inside the United States and along the Nation’s coastlines. Included in the festivities are new jobs created by Keystone Pipeline.

The GOP Presidential candidate has gone so far as to promise North American energy independence in the next eight years. If this sounds like déjà vu, you are right. American Presidents have been raising their glasses to the promise of American energy independence since President Richard Nixon proposed it four decades ago.

1347540607874

Brian Beutler demonstrated this in the graph above published by TPM.com on Sept. 11. The numbers, taken from the Energy Information Administration, show petroleum imports as a percent of U.S. petroleum consumption. Headlined are the years that three Presidents promised American energy independence.

President Barack Obama also has plans to reduce America’s oil imports, but his solution is mostly meant to please his liberal constituency and is centered on greater investment in unproven, unreliable and uneconomical green energy.

Romney is more realistic than past Presidents because he is calling for North American energy independence, which would allow Canada — yes, with its gummy oil sands — to move American transport, heat America’s homes and malls, and power its factories. The moose and ducks in northern Alberta may not like the off-world landscape that the oil sands leave behind, but I have a feeling that North Americans will find it a lifesaver.

What has led to U.S. oil dependence on OPEC has been half a century of restrictive drilling inside the United States, plus a growing mountain of green legislation that threatens to block pipeline imports from Canada. America has become more involved in one crisis after another in the Islamic world — home to two-thirds of the world’s conventional oil reserves.

Romney stands head and shoulders over Obama when it comes to energy. Last week, Romney pushed for energy independence at a rally in Jefferson County, Colo.

Romney said: “We have kind of an ace in the hole that came along to us because someone learned how to drill into the earth, not just vertically but horizontally. I will double licenses and permits, and I’ll make sure we’ll drill in the outer continental shelf and drill in Alaska and bring in that pipeline from Canada.”

On Sept. 25, on the campaign trail in Ohio, an outspoken Romney condemned Obama’s plan to invest in green companies: “He spent $90 billion and sent them to companies in many cases that were owned by campaign contributors of his.”

Romney’s emphasis on the drill bit over the windmill is certainly right-minded, but that has not stopped a storm of criticism by wind-power advocates who oppose Romney because he wants to do away with the Federal tax credit extension for wind power.

While Romney is accused of saying what is needed to win, Obama is worse. The President has gone so far as to obstruct petroleum exploration.

“There is an entire new world of geology out there that’s awaiting us,” said Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources Inc., at a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee hearing last month.

According to Hamm, Federal regulations hinder development by delaying the permits needed. As a result, his Oklahoma City-based company avoids drilling on Federal lands. Hamm added that he wasn’t representing the campaign in his testimony.

Bloomberg recently reported that oil production climbed to almost 6.2 million barrels a day this year (from less than 5 million barrels in 2008), helping reduce imports to 42 percent of total consumption from more than 60 percent in 2005.

Through fracking, a process that injects a mixture of water, sand and chemicals thousands of feet below the surface, companies like Continental can access fossil fuels trapped in shale rock formations, whereas conventional techniques require the oil to flow to the well, according to Hamm.

Noble Causes

Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) rebutted that the Republicans’ energy plans are too reliant on fossil fuels which release gases that scientists have linked to climate change.

That should read “some scientists.” The key point is that even if there is global warming (and no one is certain that there is), it is manmade.

One person who wonders about all the outrage over global warming is Anthony Watts. A former meteorologist, Watts attended Purdue University. While he doesn’t claim to be a scientist, he certainly questions the science of global warming.

Watts was recently interviewed by PBS Newshour (not a conservative program). The first question: “What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?”

Watts’ answer: “They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society… There’s a term that was used to describe this. It’s called noble cause corruption. And actually I was a victim of that at one time, where you’re so fervent in your belief that you have to do something. You’re saving the planet, you’re making a difference, you’re making things better that you’re so focused on this goal of fixing it or changing it that you kind of forget to look along the path to make sure that you haven’t missed some things.”

What Of China And India?

Watts points out that global warming has become a business in its own right. If so, it is a business that obstructs U.S. energy advantages but has no impact on America’s new competitors: China and India.

In 2006, China became the largest national emitter of carbon dioxide. It was reported this past summer that the average Chinese person’s carbon footprint is now almost equal to the average European’s.

The Guardian reported: “Chinese CO2 emissions are now around 80% higher than those of America. This widening gap reflects a 9% increase in total emissions in China in 2011, driven mainly by rising coal use, compared with a 2% decline in the US.”

What Obama and the Democrats don’t understand is that cleaning up America’s carbon emissions will give nations like China and India an economic advantage at a time when the United States cannot afford it. This is something Romney and the people in charge of his energy policy understand, and it is something Obama and his loyalists are either willfully ignorant of or else understand all too well and simply don’t care.

Romney’s understanding about energy makes him a much better candidate to be the next President of the United States. He will put rigs back to work, and that is enough reason for me to pray for his victory.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

John Myers

is editor of Myers’ Energy and Gold Report. The son of C.V. Myers, the original publisher of Oilweek Magazine, John has worked with two of the world’s largest investment publishers, Phillips and Agora. He was the original editor for Outstanding Investments and has more than 20 years experience as an investment writer. John is a graduate of the University of Calgary. He has worked for Prudential Securities in Spokane, Wash., as a registered investment advisor. His office location in Calgary, Alberta, is just minutes away from the headquarters of some of the biggest players in today’s energy markets. This gives him personal access to everyone from oil CEOs to roughnecks, where he learns secrets from oil insiders he passes on to his subscribers. Plus, during his years in Spokane he cultivated a network of relationships with mining insiders in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “On A Rig And A Prayer”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    “John Myers,”

    NO OFFENSE – BUT, YOU “TURNED-ME-OFF,” BY SAYING Governor Mitt Romney WILL HOPEFULLY UNCORK A NON-ALCOHOLIC BOTTLE OF CHAMPAGNE. AS A SCOTCH-WHISKEY DRINKER, I APPRECIATE A “REAL” MAN – ONE WHO DRINKS ALCOHOL! WE ALREADY HAVE A “WHIMP” IN THE White House!

    I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO LIKES TO “BOOZE-IT-UP,” FROM TIME-TO-TIME!

    • DaveH

      You needn’t worry about that, Christopher. Most politicians have drinking problems. How else could they stand themselves?

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        I HEAR YA, “DaveH!”

      • http://personaliberty.com Travis

        Yeah just like the rest of us… ha ha

      • Kate8

        Good one, DaveH.

        My understanding is that America has hocked all of its natural resource lands to nations such as China, and we CAN’T touch them. Even if we did start to drill, who would be doing it, Americans or Chinese? Just who would get the jobs?

        Just like with the pipeline through the midwest… Those jobs would not go to American workers.

        Unless we kick out the crooks now running things, and tell the Chinese, Saudis and anyone else they’ve sold us out to that they need to recoup what they can from the cabals and their minions who made the deals (unbeknownst to the American people), we aren’t going to see ANYTHING happen to benefit Americans. They want us done, kaput.

        Romney is as full of lies and deceptive “campaign rhetoric” as Obama. I wouldn’t be holding my breath that he’d come through. Like Obama, he’s nobody. Another empty suit.

        • tony

          I think the Federal Reserve was why the Government hocked all the USA natural resources so they could con these nations to continue to take the dollar and allow it to remain the world trade currency , but i think it has about ran its course , and once this dollar rejection occurs our Depression hits

      • Kate8

        tony – Correct. The Federal Reserve IS part of the financial elite cabals.

      • DonR

        DaveH; On October 3, 2012 at 7:51 am, you posted a link to “The Roosevelt Myth”.

        I’ve thought for sometime that FDR was a bad President and this book confirms it. One thing in particular that I would like to point out to others here is this comment on page 87.
        Mr. Flynn it referring to the opposing position of the Republicans:

        “Their chief reliance was upon the charge that the President [FDR] had usurped the powers of Congress, attacked the integrity of the courts, invaded the constitutional prerogatives of the states, attempted to substitute regulated monopoly for free enterprise, forced through Congress unconstitutional laws, filled a vast array of bureaus with swarms of bureaucrats to harass the people and breed fear in commerce and industry, discouraged new enterprises and thus prolonged the depression, had used relief to corrupt and intimidate the voters and made appeals to class prejudice to inflame the masses and create dangerous divisions.”

        I agree with this assessment [of FDR] and I think it applies just as much today to Obama as it did then.

        Obama is using all these tactics to push his agenda and buy votes in order to stay in power!

    • KG

      That’s why people loved Clinton as well as Kennedy. They were real people.

      There was this one guy who was a war hero, vegetarian, and spurned sexual relations for the good of his country.

      Then there was this guy who was a womanizer, ate whatever he wanted, smoked like a broken stove, and was crippled.

      Now, who would you choose?

      • DaveH

        First of all, I want to thank you, KG, for once again revealing your lack of morality and respect for other people. But I am beginning to wonder if you are purposely trying to make Liberal Progressives look bad?
        To answer your question, I would choose the guy who butted out of my Personal Choices and who showed respect for other peoples’ bodies and property.
        Both of the people in your example were “real” people. They just chose different life-styles.
        However the latter person, by being a womanizer, was showing disrespect for his wife, and for the women who he was just using for his own personal pleasure. Hardly the kind of person I would admire. If he can’t show respect for females, how in the world could you expect him to show respect for any person? And if you’re talking about FDR, he didn’t. He lied and manipulated to get the US into WWII which cost millions of lives. He continued the ruin of our economy for 10 more years with more meddling Government policies. He set Government policies in place which are still existent today and still ruining our economy. And he created the UN which is very likely to result in the loss of US sovereignty over time unless we get wise and exit the organization.
        Something those people, who think FDR was a hero, should read:
        http://library.mises.org/books/John%20T%20Flynn/The%20Roosevelt%20Myth.pdf

      • Joe Hammond

        Dave H.,

        So you would have prefered to allow Hitler to either defeat the Soviet Union and gain all those resources for the most advanced scientific country in the world at that time (which was also in acton to change the genetic composition of the human species) or lose to the Soviet Union and have all of Europe with the exception of Great Britain under the control of communism (and remember, Von Braun and the other Nazi scientists would have been working for Stalin). Better that than to engage against the nazis? If you had your way there would be no Israel nor would there be a non-militarised Japan….nor would there be a Chinese slave empire to have the 1% send US jobs……Not a world that I would want to live in…..

      • DaveH

        Joe,
        You’ve been successfully Propagandized.
        You or I or anybody else cannot say what the outcome would have been had we not entered into WWI and WWII. But most likely if we had not entered WWI, the Germans (pre Hitler) would not have suffered the Draconian Versailles Treaty, and thus would not have been so resentful that they eventually elected a Hitler whose main campaign promise was to rebuild Germany militarily, contrary to the Versailles Treaty.
        As it was, we “liberated” countries from one tyrant (Hitler) just to deliver them to another tyrant (Stalin). What was up with that? John T. Flynn presents pretty good evidence that FDR had ambitions of being the World Leader via the UN (his creation), and was willing to throw those Eastern European countries under the bus to achieve his personal ambitions.
        I can’t convince you of your mistakes in a short comment, so I suggest that you read this book to learn some Reality to replace the Propaganda that has been instilled by our Masters:
        http://library.mises.org/books/John%20V%20Denson/A%20Century%20of%20War%20Lincoln,%20Wilson%20and%20Roosevelt.pdf

      • DaveH

        This is another book you should read, Joe, to further your education:
        http://library.mises.org/books/John%20T%20Flynn/The%20Roosevelt%20Myth.pdf

      • Nadzieja Batki

        No KG, they were not real people or real men to be exact.They were just two dogs in heat. Because they were “leaders”, they also had lots and lots of copies of themselves and heaped enablers and liars to themselves.

      • mark

        DaveH,

        The U.S. did not “liberate” countries from one dictator, Hitler, and then hand them over to another, Stalin. The Red Army did. The Soviet Army conquered Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, one third of Germany, (the Eastern part),and most of Austria. They then imposed their tyrranical system there. The Anglo-American armies liberated France, the Low Countries, Italy, Greece, Denmark, and two-thirds of Germany. They then helped restore or construct democratic, capitalist gov’ts there. Everyone with a basic knowledge of the military history of WWII knows this. You create the false impression that the U.S. army liberated all of Eastern Europe and then handed it over to the Soviets. When the Yalta Accords were finalized in the Crimea in February 1945, the Red Army already controlled all of Eastern Europe (that and their expulsion of the Germans from Russian territory cost them 27 million lives). The Western Allies were faced with a fait accompli in Eastern Europe. They had no bargaining power there. It was already Soviet occupied and dominated. And the Red Army was 40 miles from Berlin, not 350 miles away as the Anglo-American armies were. Military facts on the ground count in all diplomatic resolutions in all wars.

      • DaveH

        How can you say Russia liberated any country, mark? Unless your idea of “liberation” is the same as Stalin’s?
        It was entirely within the United States power to not hand over the East European countries to Stalin. We fought a costly war, supposedly to Liberate countries from Hitler, and then just let them be occupied by another equally evil dictator. To a logical person, that belies the claim that we fought that war to Liberate anybody.
        Did you read either of the books that I linked to? Of course you didn’t. You wouldn’t want to upset your delicate Propaganda Framework, now would you, mark?

      • Lindy

        I agree with Mark on the point that the Red Army “liberated” the countries of Eastern Europe and with the Red Army much, much closer to Berlin than the Allies, there was indeed a ‘fait accompli” in any negotiations regarding the soon to be Iron Curtain countries. However, DaveH is correct to point out that the word “liberate” means to “set free”. While the Red Army removed the occupying Nazis and “liberated” Eastern Europe from their German occupiers, it was hardly “liberation” in the truest sense of the word.

        Perhaps both Mark and DaveH would share in General Patton’s opinion “…the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to right the Russians, the sooner we do it the better.”

        I also agree with DaveH’s premise that Roosevelt did not have to acquiesce to Stalin’s desires. DaveH is absolutely correct when he states that America’s entry into World War I, combined with the vindictive and punitive the Treaty of Versailles inevitably led to the rise of Hitler, the Nazis and World War II.

        Thank you DaveH, for providing the links and introducing me to the books “The Roosevelt Myth” and “A Century of War”, in my quick review, I found these books to be well researched, objective ( refreshingly non-partisan) nor were they what could be labelled “revisionist”. These are types of books that history classes should be based on, as they clearly explain the underlying economic motives and political/diplomatic trickery involved in both conflicts. These books also show how the actions of Churchill and Roosevelt continue to haunt the world to this day and that the motivations for war, then as now, seem to be based on resources in general and petroleum in particular.

      • DaveH

        mark,
        At the very least read book 3, chapter 13 — The Final Betrayal — in “The Roosevelt Myth” (page 387). Preferably read the whole book to learn how deceptive and self-interested Roosevelt really was.

      • mark

        DaveH,

        You write: How can you say Russia liberated any country, mark? Unless your idea of “liberation” is the same as Stalin’s? I put the word “liberate” in scare quotes just as you did in your original note which means that I don’t believe they libertated anyone, the same reason you put the word in scare quotes. In fact if you read my note you will see that I explicitly said that the Red Army conquered rather than liberated Eastern Europe as they did. I read Mr. Flynn’s last chapters in The Roosevelt Myth and they just don’t hold up historically. Flynn puts way too much weight on promises made at the Yalta Conference. Treaties and diplomatic assurances unfortunately mean very little in the world of power politics which Mr. Flynn doesn’t seem to understand. Stalin had 6 million troops, 8 thousand tanks, 30 thousand artillery pieces, and 9 thousand aircraft in Eastern Europe in the spring of 1945. All the paper agreements from the Yalta Conference meant nothing to him compared to that force. The only way the United States could have gotten Stalin off that land was to go to war with him. The British would not have gone along, they were broke and exhausted, and the American people would not have supported this either as they still saw Russia as a U.S. ally at this point that had inflicted 75% of all the combat casualties on the German Army in World War II. No one wanted another massive war to liberate a bunch of Eastern European countries that few cared for and that Stalin claimed he needed to secure his own Western borders from future attacks. Many of these countries were by no means democratic or republican either before either the Germans or the Russians conquered them force. Dictators such as Antonesceau in Romania, Admiral Horthy in Hungary, General Pilsudski in Poland ruled these lands with an iron hand before -and in some cases – during World War II. So, they were never democratic countries in the first place – not that that means they deserved to be conquered by anyone.

        Also, the U.S. did not possess an atomic bomb that they knew was operational until July 1945. Truman tried to use this weapon to pressure Stalin but he would not give up Eastern Europe unless Washington was willing to go to war which no American leader was willing to do except for General Patton who possessed zero political power in either the Roosevelt or the Truman adminstrations. The Americans only had 2 atomic bombs in the late summer of 1945 both of which they sent to the Pacific to defeat Japan. Also in the summer of 1945, more than anything else Truman wanted the Soviets to live up to their promises to move massive amounts of troops east and attack the Japanese armies in China and Manchuria, which Stalin did. Going to war over the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe would have killed any U.S.-Soviet cooperation against Japan at a time when Washington was not sure if the A-Bomb would work. Flynn fails to address any of these key aspects of strategic reasoning in the Roosevelt Myth. But these were all the most cogent and determinative facts on the ground.

      • DaveH

        mark says — “I read Mr. Flynn’s last chapters in The Roosevelt Myth and they just don’t hold up historically”.
        So we have Flynn’s words for it, with lots of references, and we have mark’s words for it, with no references. Who should we trust?

      • DaveH

        And mark, you have gotten way off base from my original comment which was to dispute that we saved the world from Hitler-like tyranny by entering WWII. If you were correct and we didn’t have the resources to stop Stalin (I doubt that), then we also didn’t have the resources to become involved in the first place since we didn’t accomplish the stated goal of saving the world from tyranny. Neither you nor I have the knowledge to determine whether we could have beat Russia easily or not. Of course, there is no doubt in my mind that the real involvement had nothing to do with saving the world from tyranny and everything to do with increasing Politicians and their Crony Capitalists’ Power and Wealth at the rest of our expense.
        It is a fact that 50 million people were killed in WWII, and 70% of those were civilians, most of whom were killed in the bombing of cities by Great Britain and the United States. Without US involvement, Great Britain either would not have gotten involved or would have had to bow out quickly as they ran out of resources, thus saving tens of millions of lives. I’m betting that most of the victims would have preferred tyranny to death.

      • DaveH

        Here are a couple of books that give you a perspective on WWI and WWII that you won’t get from the Propaganda Schools:
        http://www.amazon.com/World-War-Story-Affects-Today/dp/0942617428/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y

      • DaveH
      • DaveH

        Here’s another interesting book by John T. Flynn, and it’s Free thanks to Mises Institute:
        http://library.mises.org/books/John%20T%20Flynn/As%20We%20Go%20Marching.pdf

    • Doc Sarvis

      President Obama is a REAL person and drinks beer. Ritt Momney, as a Mormon does not drink.

      • DaveH

        I support your right to put anything into your body that you choose.
        But isn’t it a bit odd that you would think the chosen lifestyle of Obama somehow makes him more “real” than Romney? Last I saw of those two, they both were living breathing “real” humans. And they both want to make other peoples’ personal choices.

      • DaveH

        Let’s vote for the Presidential Candidate who doesn’t want to use Big Government to meddle in other peoples’ affairs:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXab-nPucwA

      • Dan

        Doc Sarvis, Is your spelling that bad. Or does the name Mitt Romney properly spelled , Demand so much respect and stand for so much Principal that yon can’t stand to see it. Vote MITT ROMNEY for President and get these Liberal America Hateing Democrats !!! “OUT”

      • JTB

        If I had to deal with obama on a daily basis I’d drink more beers than you could count. If you think obama is a real person you are an idiot.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Because you say so, Doc Sarvis, we are to believe anything that comes out through your posts.
        You of course will twist to your advantage, as a typical Leftist, that Romney’s not drinking liquor will somehow put the liquor industry in peril. But we will have more decisions made with clear heads.
        Clinton’s and Kennedy’s immorality did not increase the lingerie industry nor increased the liquor industries profits. The pharmaceutical industries had to produce more STD meds and more birth control pills, etc., aand more meds for liver damage, etc..

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Doc Sarvis,”

        SINCE YOU SPELLED HIS FIRST NAME, “Ritt,” ARE YOU DRINKING, SIR?

      • http://gravatar.com/dalene44 Justin57

        I’m not sure which of the Barry Soetoro or Barack Obama is the “real” person who “drinks beer”. The Obama ‘person’ gave BP special environmental exemptions and fought in court on behalf of the Deepwater Horizon to fast track their drill in the Gulf. After the blowout this same administration shut down environmentally regulated US companies while giving Brazil 2 billion to drill off shore. We need a president who works With the US, not one who works against us. GM is now 70% outsourced and pays no taxes.

    • JC

      No offense Christopher…but I don’t mind a sober man (or woman) at the helm.
      In fact I prefer it. Drinking does not constitute a “real man.”

      • Dan

        Well said JC. A drunk man is about as smart as a crazed monkey with it’s brain slpped out. But I believe Obama’s proplem exstends to being a self exsorbed “POTT HEAD”. Or should I say “POTTY HEAD” HA HA HA.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “JC,”

        I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE. BUT, SINCE THE PRESIDENT IS ALSO COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO HAVE A “MANLY” REPUTATION. SOLDIERS DO NOT MIND TAKING ORDERS FROM A “MAN.”

        BUT, THEY DO MIND TAKING ORDERS FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS THE REPUTATION OF PLAYING “NAKED TWISTER” WITH, Rahm Emanuel.

    • Granpa David

      Real mature thinking Christopher. And women vote for the hair. and 40% vote for the free stuff. We are in real terouble if we don’t grow up.

      • jopa

        Grandpa David;I don’t know how you will take this however Romney thinks of you as being a 47 per center.One of those low life mooching non taxpaying Americans that won’t stand up or do anything for themselves and always looking for a handout off of his dime.That’s what he thinks of 99.9% of the people that post here but have blinders on and a deaf ear.Gee if he only thought of you as you think of him.

        • tony

          Jopa the only growth we have seen out of Obama is DEBT growth and NO supply -side expansion because his Environmental Marxists ordered him to have NO growth to save Earth from People so what the heck is so Great about that ???

      • Nadzieja Batki

        jopa, still yapping nonsense.

    • Eddie G.

      It’s obvious Chris that you’re anti Mormon as Romney is an LDS church member and alcohol is a no no. A drunk President can’t lead the country as well as a sober one can. Jimmy Carter as a devout Baptist didn’t allow booze neither. He was a lousy President but at least was sober. Jimmy’s brother Billy was the beer drinker and a family embarassment. So the conclusion is, if a POTUS wants to hoist one now and then or pop a top after a day’s work,use the product in moderation.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Eddie G.,”

        DO YOU DENY THAT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MORMONS ARE TREATED LIKE, “WEIRDOS?” – REMEMBER, Warren Jetts?

    • http://yahoo.com ohfwb

      Sounds like your one of obama’s lover boys, you don’t have to drink to be a man you drink and sound like a fool.

    • Karolyn

      No offense, Chris, but that was a pretty lame remark.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Karolyn,”

        MA’AM, DO PEOPLE REALLY WANT A PRESIDENT WHO DOES NOT DRINK? WHEN THE PRESIDENT GIVES HIS ANNUAL Super Bowl Sunday Address, DO YOU WANT HIM TO BE DRINKING GREEN TEA?

        AMERICAN CAPITALISM IS BASED ON “PARTY-TIME.” BUSINESSES MAKE THE MAJORITY OF THEIR REVENUE DURING TIMES OF CELEBRATION. A NON-DRINKING PRESIDENT IS AN ASSAULT ON AMERICAN COMMERCE.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Karolyn,”

        MA’AM – SORRY, I MISUNDERSTOOD WHICH COMMENT.

        IN REFERENCE TO MY “Rahm Emanuel- ‘JAB’,” WOULD YOU AGREE MOST Personal Libertarians WOULD SAY Governor Mitt Romney AND Gary Johnson DO NOT HAVE THEIR MANHOODS SEXUALLY QUESTIONED TO THE POINT OF BEING “VIRAL” ON THE INTERNET?

        THE KENYAN AND “Man’s Country” IS A “BIG DEAL” IN CONSERVATIVE “CIRCLES.”

    • Huapakechi

      It has escaped you that the current resident of the White House and his co-conspirators are drunk on power?

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Huapakechi,”

        I AGREE. I WAS ONLY TAKING A “LIGHT-HEARTED JAB” AT, “John Myers,” FOR HIS OPENING STATEMENT.

        I DID NOT KNOW MORMONS DO NOT DRINK. I HAVE ONLY HEARD MALE MORMONS LIKE HAVING TEN OR TWELVE WIVES. I KNOW THAT IS A “RED FLAG” FOR MANY AMERICANS.

    • Aberdeem

      You turned me off with your statement Dave……………a real man does not have to drink.

    • http://pweiters9.wordpress.com pweiters9

      10/7/12, Cheers, Horton. Romney will prevail. We don’t care if he (Mormon) drinks or not; you & I can down a few. How about that?

    • Sherry

      Drinking Wiskey has nothing to do with being a real man. Drill Mitt Drill

      • http://FACEBOOK FRED GARTEN

        WAKE UP AND SELL THE ROSES HE WILL STRIP YOU OF YOU MONEY TOO!!!!!!

  • dan

    BP is already sitting on an untapped deep well (ie: already drilled and ready to pump) that sits
    BENEATH what was one of the North Slopes highest producing wells on Gull Island. Reserves are estimated to be in excess of ALL KNOWN WORLD RESERVES COMBINED. Natural gas has been pumped back into the well at Gull Island for 20 years and would supply gas for electrical generation for the united States for the next 200 years.

    • Joe Hammond

      I take you people are aware that the US is shipping american oil and gas to Communist China from ports like Corpus Christi, Texas because they can get a better price………

      • Guest

        But, more people are working and earning money which they will spend in the USA
        And, even if the oil is sold to the highest bidder, so what? More profits for the company means more drilling and result more workers. If the company makes little profit there will be no incentive to expand and then hire will there?
        So, I say, let’s get real and fire up the mines and be really energy independent.

      • momo

        Joe Hammond says: “I take you people are aware that the US is shipping american oil and gas to Communist China from ports like Corpus Christi, Texas because they can get a better price………”

        That’s about the only thing we’re exporting to them, maybe it will help with our balance of trade.

      • http://none Charlie

        Joe Hammond,,,
        What’s new? every inch of the Alaska oil pipeline was made of Japanese steel ,,,would you like to take a guess at how much Alaska oil is shipped out ???
        America was sold out way back at FDR…. So what’s a DAA going to do about it???

  • Mike the American

    Lets just hope Iran develops the bomb before Romney gets elected. The last thing this country needs is to get involved in another war which Romney seems hell bent on doing if he gets in the white house.

    • George E

      Mike,

      It’s likely we’ll get caught up in a war with Iran regardless who is our President, especially if Iran develops a nuclear weapon. It’s really up to Iran as to when and how this plays out.

      • DaveH

        What colossal hypocrites we would be to attack Iran for possessing a nuclear weapon when:
        The US has the second highest number of nuclear weapons in the world, and ours probably will work.
        The US is the only country in the world to have actually used Nuclear Weapons against another country (including civilians).
        The meddling US has its troops in more countries around the world than any other meddling country.
        Which country is the most fearsome — Iran or the United States?

        • George E

          Dave,

          I don’t want to get into another military conflict either. But in this case, we’ve got a rogue country, Iran, that is no doubt developing nuclear weapons and has stated their intent to wipe Israel and the US off the map. They have demonstrated a missile with the capability of delivering a weapon as far away as Europe, and they have a well developed terrorist organization that may be able to penetrate our borders. Should we sit back and hope that their weapon won’t work when they deliver it to our shores? That’s going to be a difficult position to defend if they blow up a nuclear bomb in one of our cities. Won’t it?

      • DaveH

        And then there are these facts:
        In 2000 Iraq began selling its oil in euros.
        In 2006 Syria switched all of the state’s foreign currency transactions to euros from dollars.
        In 2009 Iran completely stopped conducting oil transactions in U.S. dollars.
        In 2011 Libyan Leader Ghadafi decided to to pursue a gold standard and reject dollars for oil payments.
        Why does the US Government involve our country in these countries’ affairs?
        Is it to protect our Freedom? Unlikely since building the number of people who hate us can hardly result in LESS future violence against our country.
        Is it to make the world “safe for democracy”?
        When has that worked? We can teach people to respect Democracy better by example than at the point of a gun. And besides, our wise Founders (and many of us now) knew that Democracy was two wolves and a sheep voting “What’s for Dinner?”. That’s why they established smaller more local Governments with strict protections for individual rights — a Republic.
        Or is it because Bankers and Crony Capitalists are feathering their nests at the rest of our expense?
        There’s no doubt in MY mind which of the 3 is the truth.
        Read this to get a better understanding of what’s going on in our country:
        http://mises.org/Books/historyofmoney.pdf

      • Joe Hammond

        If we go to war with Iran it will be to make sure Israel gets rid of another country that it hates. Israel may be in the first strike but it will not put boots on the ground since that will thin out their defenses and create casualties for the Jewish state. And to not put boots on the ground means that oil tankers cannot use the Straits of Hormuz which are loaded with Silkworm anti-ship missiles sold to Iran by Communist China. That stops the flow of oil from Iraq and Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait. In fact, it would allow Communist China to cut a deal with Iran and build a pipeline from Iran to China while we lose troops fighting 78 million Persians. But let us not forget Israel. We will give them anything they want even though we can no longer afford it because we are in Israel’s pocket (hell, we even allow them to spy on us like the Pollards did…by the way every time Nastyyahoo comes here he asks for the Pollards to be released to Israel). If Israel wants a war with Iran to stop Iran from getting nuclear power and weapons than let them use some of their 300-400 nuclear weapons they have stockpiled without allowing anyone from the IAEA to inspect which they have demanded from Iran.

        If we attack Iran then expect to have 5-8 dollar per gallon gas. We do not have the refinery capacity to use our reserves to counter the prices Communist China will be willing to pay…and which the oil barons will demand….so they will ship more oil to Communist China and give us the tab……..By the way, no Romney will be in the military forces even though he has 5 sons who could go…but won’t….like most of the sons of the wealthy…..

        • George E

          Joe,

          If Iran sends missiles with nuclear weapons to Israel and kill thousands of Israeli’s, it’s going to be difficult for the US not to come to Israel’s defense. If Iran sinks tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and shuts down the flow of oil out of the Middle East driving up oil prices to new highs, it’ll be an attack on oil consumers all over the world, not the least of which will be all of us in the US. Shall we sit back and let them get away with it? Again, it’ll be pretty difficult not to respond to such an action when we know very well we have the capability to open up the Strait and get the oil flowing again. I don’t know anyone who wants to go to war, but at the same time we don’t want to let rogue countries step on our rights either.

      • Dale left coast

        DaveH says “Which country is the most fearsome — Iran or the United States?”

        Well lets asses this statement . . . Iran is run by a radical mooslime despot who is eager to initiate a conflict and BELIEVES he will release the 12th imam from the well to set in motion the creation of the world wide califat . . . he has said so many times Dave . . . are you listening? Achmed Dinnerjacket does not value his life on this planet and is eager to get his 72 virgins . . . lol . . .
        The president of the USA . . . has to go to Congress to get approval for his actions, except for the Libyan campaign which the O neglected to do that. Most US Presidents have valued life on this planet . . . although I can’t speak for the present occupant or the WH.

      • DaveH

        Do you speak Persian, Dale?
        How do you know what they really are saying? You are simply buying into the Propaganda that has been spoon-fed to you.
        The US has been warring against Afghanistan for over 10 years and Iraq also. We even butted into Libya for no good reason (except to satisfy the Bankers who didn’t like the fact that Libya was going to start pricing their oil in Gold-Backed Dinars). What has Iran done that comes anywhere close to that?
        You have been duped by the Bankers, Dale:
        http://2012patriot.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/new-libyan-gold-dinar/

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        The only problem with your assessment, Dale, is that it cannot be verified; except of course, and only trough and by the main-stream-media, which is owned by evil-greedy-despots who are always found in bed with the military-industrial-complex!

      • TML

        Dale says, “…Iran is run by a radical mooslime despot who is eager to initiate a conflict…”

        “Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has welcomed recent comments by U.S. President Barack Obama emphasizing diplomacy — not military action — to resolve the standoff over the Iranian nuclear program.” – “This talk is good talk and shows an exit from illusion,” Khamenei said, http://www.rferl.org/content/iran_khamenei_hails_obama_remarks/24509196.html

        Seems like you’re wrong about that sentiment, Dale

  • erik

    I pray Obama to win. Ever since Mittens and co stole the election from the true conservative Ron Paul. My the GOP party of old racist white males crash and burn!

    • http://N/A Jana

      Or if “z” (short for zero) wins you and I will crash and burn. Heaven help us. Jana

    • Dan

      eric,? I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul’s policies. But you are a prime exsample of his “Poisoning” of peoples minds against Conservatives . Or you are just another Obamanite, trying to Lie your way into the conversation ?????????? which is it eric

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You are not a Ron Paul voter. None of Ron Paul’s idealogy or moral and worldviews have rubbed off on you.
      Go vote for O, you are his follower and have always been.

    • Dale left coast

      erik . . . RP is no conservative . . . but you are a certifiable LOON ! ! !

  • skippy

    Go Mitt Go!!! I hear ya baby!!!
    The oil & gas industry employs THousands ++++! Oh, and hey…all of them pay taxes and buy stuff……….job & economic problems solved. :)
    Next problem………….

    • eddie47d

      I live 1 mile from where Mitt spoke in “Jefferson County Colorado”. We don’t need him telling us how to run our energy needs . He’s a day late and a dollar short. We have plenty of drilling going on here in our state thank you Mr Romney.We have oil well and gas wells. We have huge solar operations and several wind farms. We are a diversified state where 17% of our energy needs come from alternatives.That will be 23% within 5 years. Those 15,000 new well heads (out of 30,000) went on line during the Obama Presidency. We also have regulations to keep those oil companies in check. Unlike some other states we value our drinking water and want those businesses to conduct themselves appropriately in not leaving undesirable messes. Romney’s politics of anything goes might not be welcomed here in our beautiful state.

      • DaveH

        If you want to throw your money away on Alternative Energy, Eddie, I respect that. But I don’t respect that you use Big Government to Force you choices on other unwilling people. You are part of the Problem, Eddie, not the Solution.

      • DaveH

        Alternative Energy, Not Cheap, Not Green:
        http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

      • Dan

        eddie, You can vote for obama it is your privaledage. But we are not buying your little story. It is old news obama has done everything he can do to cripple our energy production while wasting tax payers money on his Croneys. My bet is millions of those dollars found their way back to obama’s bank accoun, or campagne.

      • eddie47d

        Typical extreme Conservative response Dan. We can have the best of both worlds in energy production and Colorado is balancing our needs fairly well.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “We have huge solar operations and several wind farms. We are a diversified state where 17% of our energy needs come from alternatives.That will be 23% within 5 years.”

        These technologies have been around for what 40 or more years and they still cannot produce affordable energy without much government subsidies. That means your affordable wind and solar energy is being paid for by those Americans who are still working and paying taxes and the continuing huge deficits America is running. Hope you enjoy the free ride eddie.

      • Don

        That’s because most of you in Colorado are liberal idiots eddie

      • DaveH234

        Most all the fact checking has proven that no cronies were given an advantage. These are unfounded allegations with not much tread to them.
        Like most of the lies in the PAC Right Wing ads running still after the “truths” were proven to be lies.

        • tony

          I can’t stand Liberals because they want population controls and are willing to do anything to have it cast down all over the world !!!!

      • DaveH234

        Well, Don, The Liberal Idiots still are better people than the Conservative idiots. I mean fi your right they are all idiots, right.

      • DaveH234

        Buster, we still subsidized the oil companies many billions of dollars for many many years. These people are also sucking the teet of the taxpayer…to what end?

      • Opal the Gem

        Hey eddie, how big is the solar array on your house and how many wind generators are in your back yard?

      • DaveH

        Dave234 says — “Most all the fact checking has proven that no cronies were given an advantage. These are unfounded allegations with not much tread to them”.
        You are one of those, Dave234, whose word isn’t his bond, so how about providing some references for your claims?
        Here is just one example:
        http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/15/sarah-palin-general-electric-is-poster-child-of-crony-capitalism/

      • DaveH

        Dave234 says — “Buster, we still subsidized the oil companies many billions of dollars for many many years. These people are also sucking the teet of the taxpayer…to what end?”.
        Another Liberal Progressive who thinks that two wrongs make a right.

      • eddie47d

        We have solar farms in Colorado Opal the Dopal and how many I have is none of your business. You are nothing but a trouble making troll Opal and never say anything relevant. I have had solar panels on my house back in the early 80′s if you really give a damn. The community I live in now finally allows them so we’ll see. I knew you were a fool and now I know how big a one you really are!

      • TML

        eddie says, “We also have regulations to keep those oil companies in check. Unlike some other states we value our drinking water and want those businesses to conduct themselves appropriately in not leaving undesirable messes.”

        I think your emphasis in state responsibility, over federal, in such matters of local economy, is the most agreeable part of your comment.

      • George E

        Eddie,

        Who’s to say that there are enough wellheads if people want to drill more? What imperative do you or the government have to limit the number of well heads? What imperative does the government have to force people to pay for wind and solar projects if the electricity is going to be more expensive? Yes, there have been many new wells drilled while Obama has been President. However, very few have been drilled on public lands, and the EPA has done just about everything they know of to slow drilling on private lands. Fortunately for us, there has been enough interest by private investors to risk their capital in drilling that even Obama hasn’t been able to stop this activity. All the while environmentalists have been yelling that we need to stop drilling, producing, and using fossil fuels because they are fouling our environment, the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere in the US over the past few years has been less due to conversion of coal fired power plants to natural gas plants than that of European countries who have spent a small fortune in wind and solar power generation.

  • erik

    I pray Obama to win. Ever since Mittens and co stole the election from the true conservative Ron Paul. May the GOP party of old racist white males crash and burn!

  • Corkey

    More wishful thinking and “this time it will be different”. The election is really analogous to Shemp vs Curly.

    • momo

      Now that’s funny.

  • Doc Sarvis

    Oil extracted from U.S. territory is and will continue to be sold on the open market making the highest profit for the oil companies. This probably means more will go to China and the price will continue to rise as the easy oil is fast disappearing. I don’t hear Romney promising that oil we drill here will stay here, that would restrict profits to his buddies in the 1%.
    Public lands will contribute relatively little to any oil and gas production.

    • DaveH

      Doc,
      It really doesn’t matter if the oil is sold on the World Market or not, due to the fungibility of such commodity. The price of oil will adjust to the world price unless we put restrictions on the pricing. And the history of price fixing is one of failure. In fact any meddling in the marketplace by Government results in failure because no Central Agency can possibly decide prices more effectively than the Free Market with its millions of customers choosing voluntarily which products to buy to please themselves the most.
      Please read this and learn what’s really going on, not what the Crony Capitalists and their Crony Politicians want us to think is going on:
      http://library.mises.org/books/Kel%20Kelly/The%20Case%20for%20Legalizing%20Capitalism.pdf

  • Kebbyn

    It doesn’t matter how much oil we have. We need more refineries. Every time there is a whisper of wind, the speculators feel that oile prices should go up because they will need to close down a refinery.

    • eddie47d

      Mitt Romney should concentrate on dealing with those Speculators and other market manipulators. Solve the problem of how they control the pricing then he might get some respect. He can gloat about more drilling all he wants but that won’t change who controls the world wide markets. He also would have allowed the Keystone Pipeline to go through as is without concern for the environment. He want to make a big splash without considering the consequences then he has no concern for our future. Keystone will probably get built but should be done with careful impact statements and not just to get himself elected. Since the oil from the pipeline is already bought on those worldwide markets will he level with the American people on that? Will he be honest and tell them that gas prices will not go down if it is built? Will he be honest on the actual jobs numbers for the pipeline? Those numbers will be few (2-3 thousand) but will he tell you that. Will he tell you about all the chemicals that have to be mixed with the tar sands oil in order for that oil to flow within the pipeline? That the cost of taking those chemicals out once they hit Port Arthur or even Oklahoma with be exhorbant and pricing will rise not lowered? I doubt it!

      • Dale left coast

        you are living proof . . . you just can’t fix stoooopid ! ! !
        100′s of thousands of miles of pipelines in the US . . . minimal problems . . . since the US economy runs on oil and gas . . . take this away . . . NO Economy . . . although Obammy is doing a great job of this by himself.
        Eddie . . . how about the thousands of birds being killed by your useless windmills? Eagles, Condors, bats being chopped to pieces . . . where the enviro-nazis?

  • Lena Truster

    Vote!! Funny that so many people didn’t vote for Obama and he got elected!! We need to vote and accept the results…even if it is a bitter pill like the last four years!!
    I am tired of nearly $4 gallon gas and now that the reps say we will have $6 gallon for milk. Wonder what will be next with those Yahoos in Congress. Let’s turn all the Congress people out to pasture, stop their retirement and health guarantees and let them live like the rest of us in retirement.
    Newly elected Congress people can then figure out how they can save for retirement years and do the job they are elected to do….not immediately campaigning fore relection to do nothing!!

    • Don

      Lena. your the only one posting on here that makes sense !

  • Elected4Life

    Conservative here who once worked in the oilfield and although utilizing existing wells might be good, hmm after researching online articles and video documentaries/news segments, I’m a bit concerned about making a pin cushion out of our country via this hydraulic fracking process (with all it’s toxic chemicals and negligent company actions). It has been a curse for many American families already, contaminating wells, poisonous gas emissions, nerve racking high pitched noise from burns, lost livestock & wildlife and even loss of homesteads that have been in families for generations.

    One way to thwart the energy issue at home is to go to alternative means such as solar and wind by cutting down on your unneeded “wants” and get back to actual “needs”. Most people go about it wrong, calling a pro who shows up with a clipboard and dollar sign in his eyes with the sole goal of converting your current highly wasteful power hungry lifestyle over to alternative energy and of course gives you a quote for $30,000 with the assuring smile that it will pay for itself over x number of years especially with your utility company buying excess power from you.

    The secret is to recognize what is guzzling power in your home and either eliminate or replace with something more efficient and often times that’s NOT going to be found at your local home improvement store. You have to get off the beaten path where there’s a world of better/smarter choices.

    • DaveH
    • George E

      Elected,

      Do you know of anyone who actually had their well water contaminated from fracturing chemicals? I don’t, and all of the research I’ve done strongly suggests this hasn’t been a problem, and probably never will be a problem due to the extreme depths that this sort of fracturing takes place.

      • r b

        Elected, Do you know of anyone who actually had their well water contaminated from fracturing chemicals? I don’t, and all of the research I’ve done strongly suggests this hasn’t been a problem, and probably never will be a problem due to the extreme depths that this sort of fracturing takes place. <<

        we have several here. even worse, the company that was supposed to remove the chemicals dumped them into a creek that runs into the lake the city draws it's water from. we are awaiting test results that have been done by the state.

        • George E

          rb,

          That’s terrible, but that was not a problem with underground fracturing. The chemicals got into the lake by someone (apparently) intentionally pouring them into the lake. That could happen whether or not underground fracturing was happening or not. No doubt someone will be heavily penalized, and possibly go to jail for that stunt.

          • r b

            rb, That’s terrible, but that was not a problem with underground fracturing. The chemicals got into the lake by someone (apparently) intentionally pouring them into the lake. That could happen whether or not underground fracturing was happening or not. No doubt someone will be heavily penalized, and possibly go to jail for that stunt. <<

            we do have contaminated wells here. along with several holding ponds that have been cracked. putting someone in jail will not cure the immediate problem. i don't think enough got into the lake to present a major danger. but it is a problem that could occur again.

            have you seen the studies linking fracking with plate shifting. many are starting to think we are causing the earthquakes in fracking areas.

          • George E

            rb,

            The sources I have confidence in convince me that all the arguments against fracturing natural gas wells are mostly baseless. The environmentalist who hate fossil fuels will stop at nothing to try to discredit any technology which makes these fuels more available at lower costs. It goes against their long held belief that we’ve got to get off these fuels, regardless of the facts and economics. I live in Texas where we have thousands of oil and gas wells, not to mention thousands of miles of pipelines. The issues we’ve faced are minor in comparison to the benefits we have enjoyed from producing these products. I can’t believe other states couldn’t/shouldn’t do the same. There is abundant, cheap, clean burning natural gas reserves all over this country that can really help our economy. Let’s produce it and enjoy the benefits to our economies and lives.

          • r b

            rb, The sources I have confidence in convince me that all the arguments against fracturing natural gas wells are mostly baseless. <<

            the is a relative new technology. end results are still being assessed.

            there was a time when the best 'sources' believed the world was flat.

  • Flashy

    Ah yes…the typical cry of support from conservatives, the wealthy, and representatives of the elite energy power brokers calling for us to move backwards. Calling for further monies to be spent for continued reliance on an outmoded energy source which carries with it deterimental health effects when burned. Call for allocation of oil for fuel and energy when so many other vital and desirable uses are available 9and affect cost of those goods).

    Yep…typical cry for more drilling subsidies and access to lands when WE DON”T NEED IT. We don’t need to give anything to Big Oil. If anything, worst case, give them a few more leases, and cut the subsidies and tax breaks. Give those monies, or a large percentage of the savings, to non oil energy R&D and stat ups. And start to wean ourselves from the ‘big is good’ mindset of the public towards needing huge utility companies.

    Let China and India build a manufacturing base reliant upon fossil fuels. let China have to deal with the ME oil politics. I don’t know if y’all have noticed of late, but we are entering the 21st Century. What does it say about ‘vision’ when the wacked right continues to whine and wail about moving away from an outmoded, 100 year old energy source technology? The LEADERS of the international community in the latter part of this century will not be those who insist on keeping themselves in the past. They will be those who are moving forward advancing into scientific frontiers on all fronts…including energy.

    The question is…do we listen and give credence to the calls to remain in the past…or do we move forward and look to the future as our guiding principles?

    • momo

      Flashy says:
      ” Give those monies, or a large percentage of the savings, to non oil energy R&D and stat ups.”

      Like Solyndra? Brilliant!

      “What does it say about ‘vision’ when the wacked right continues to whine and wail about moving away from an outmoded, 100 year old energy source technology?”

      On what vision are we getting from the wacked left? Oh yeah, lets have the EPA close down all our coal plants with their onerous regulations. Even Jay Rockefeller (D), West Virginia, is asking questions about that. Or lets invest in wind farms…yeah right.

      • Flashy

        Momo…yes, like Solyndra. That was a huge mistake, but was it error? Even the Golden Child Mitt didn’t pick 100% winners. Solyndra execs conned a lot of people, not just the US government. But to now say we should not invest in our future because one company went bad…that is short sighted and…well… just plain stupid.

        You diss wind? Perhaps you should do some reading. In the PacNW..home to six college teams in the Top 25 AP rankings, Bonneville Power is facing a problem. They have hydro from the dams on the Columbia, and the wind farms are pushing out the watts…and they have too much power and haven’t the grid to be able to handle it. They can’t send all the excess down to California and have to juggle when to generate from the dams when the ind generated product slacks a bit. Their problem is growing as more and more power is being generated from the wind farms.

        Of late, OSU has partnered with another company and begun a wave generation facility in the ocean…15 megawatts in the first commercial test scale version.

        The State is contracting out to have solar panels placed at various places along the freeways to supply the lights and cut costs via self generation and there are studies being conducted by the universities (through R&D monies) about placing wired grids under various portions of the road which are susceptible to freezing and accidents, the aim is to see if heating those road areas will prevent freezing and cut accidents and road maintenance needed because of plows and chemmies.

        but then..to you it’s a waste and we should just toss more money to profitable il companies…is that correct?

      • momo

        I thought a mistake and an error were the same thing, but in your world up is down, black is white and Obama will rescue us from ourselves, right?
        It’s not only Solyndra, ever hear of Evergreen Solar and Spectra Watt just to name a few.
        Wind gerneration world wide supplies 2.5 percent of energy needs…wow sparky that’s so good it has the Germans rethinking their investment in wind. The point is hydrocarbons are going to be with us for awhile, whether you like it or not. And what does college footbal have to do with this? You been eating too much tree bark!

      • Flashy

        Momo..yep. Know of them both. I also know that there are others which have been struggling due to China dumping solar cells on the market. i believe the administration has taken action against the dumping below cost.

        China is investing in alternative energies, as is India. Now why should we decide to lag behind? We are in an economic tug of war with China. Fact is….they may have been the ones trying to break into the communications networks of the Pentagon and the Treasury last week.

        So…China must think it important to develop. We shouldn’t?

        • George E

          Flashy,

          China is also investing in a bunch of coal-fired power plants. Should we follow their lead in that area? If not, then why should we follow their lead in building solar power plants? Their central government planners aren’t all-knowing any more than ours are. When they make mistakes, they are really big ones.

      • momo

        Yeah, Germany thought it was a great idea too, not so much anymore.

        http://www.businessinsider.com/germanys-wind-power-chaos-2012-9

      • DaveH

        It’s so easy to spend other peoples’ money, isn’t it Momo?

    • DaveH

      Flashman says — “the typical cry of support from conservatives, the wealthy, and representatives of the elite energy power brokers calling for us to move backwards”.
      Oh sure, we should instead adopt the policies of Socialism that have resulted in Serfdom throughout history. The most primitive form of Government — Socialism. But we should make Flashman and his Handlers happy and listen to him — Damn the rest of us.

    • DaveH

      Flashman says — “Calling for further monies to be spent for continued reliance on an outmoded energy source which carries with it deterimental health effects when burned”.
      Further monies? When it is a fact that Alternative Energies are pricier (by far) for the energy produced?
      Detrimental health effects?
      What is more detrimental than starving to death, like millions of people around the world who have succumbed to the Socialists’ Siren Song?

    • DaveH

      For those people who just don’t know yet that Flashman has no credibility:
      http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

      • Flashy

        Dave….did you read the paper? Seriously….it had a catchy title and looked like it was on point, so you pasted it to up your image..right? At least it wasn’t another Mises link…

        So had we decided back in the early 90′s that a 386 was not suitable for everyday use, or that cell phones wer too bulky..and the ‘net and cell tower infrastructure was too much hassle…you’d have chucked it? because you do realize BOTH advanced as fast and as far as they did in the beginning due to government subsidies and R&D.

        remember when?

        https://www.google.com/search?q=old+cell+phones+1990&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Fdm&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=0VZsULifN-roiwLErYDQBA&ved=0CCwQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=605

        https://www.google.com/search?q=old+computers+1990&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Lem&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=FVdsUIG4NcTmiwLAtIHoCg&ved=0CDMQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=605

        And that is what you would have advocated back then…they were uneconomical, not of general use, so therefore we should have turned our back to them ….

        (Psst..next time, do try and read the articles which you link to)

      • DaveH

        Flashman says — “(Psst..next time, do try and read the articles which you link to)”.
        That’s Flashman code for “I don’t have an intelligent response so I’ll try disparaging him instead”.
        What does anything you said have to do with the fact that taxpayers are paying for your Liberal Progressive wet dreams whether they want to or not, and whether they are cost effective or not, Flashdunce? Of course they’re not cost effective. If they were, the citizens would buy them willingly without the Force of Big Government.

      • Flashy

        Got it DaveH..you didn’t read the article. Hokayyyy

        DaveH, you realize that this forum would likely not be here if government did not step up to the plate and subsidize the ‘net and its development? And toss your cell phone Sparky…’cause it likely would not be in your hand without government not subsidizing the cell tower network …

      • DaveH

        Au Contraire, Flashdunce.
        Without Government subsidizing the losers with the money from the winners, the winners would have been investing their own money instead of the losers being left to waste it on inefficient projects, so our current technology would have been far more advanced and cheaper than it is now.

    • independant thinker

      Flashy, how long have solar and wind energy been promoted in the US, 40, 50, 60 years?

      • Flashy

        IT In earnest as an offiacl government policy that has teeth? About 4 years …

        Before that? Any policy promoting alternative energies other than oil and coal had about as much teeth as a chicken.

      • independant thinker

        Since Flashy either doesn’t know or is off posting on some other site I will answer for him. Both solar and wind energy have been worked on and promoted since at least the 1960′s. You would think after that many years they would be practical but after all this time they are still not economicaly feasable without government subsidies.

        • RichE

          What isn’t practical without government subsidies?

      • Flashy

        IT…sorry. A bit of housekeeping needed to be attended to. Since the 60′s…and when were they promoted and R&D subsidized in earnest?

    • Dale left coast

      Flashey . . . there is NOTHING ON THE PLANET . . . that will replace oil tomorrow . . . FACT ! ! ! Unless of course you have Dilithium Crytals in your basement Flash.
      Oil is “Abiotic” . . . it is not fossil fuel . . . it is created in the core of the earth . . . anyone who thinks it is dinosaur juice is living in the dark ages.
      The US uses about 25% of global energy . . . the US has 25% of the world’s economy . . . you cannot give up one without giving up the other.
      Obammy’s vision . . . 350 Million on Food Stamps . . . would require little energy.

      • Flashy

        Dale..no one has said oil can be replaced tomorrow! Get it ?

        But to not build for an economy not being dependent upon oil for its energy needs is wise. Ya think a modern 21st century economy based on 100 year old plus energy technology/source is going to be as efficient, as independent from foreign influence, and as safe as one reliant and support with renewable non-oil energy?

        • George E

          Flashy,

          Your argument that “we shouldn’t build our 21st century economy on 100 year old technology” works for me, especially if you’re referring to transportation, like trains. On the other hand, I don’t think we should force anyone to use high cost, inefficient energies, like wind and solar, even though oil and gas have been around for many years. Right now natural gas is the fuel that does the best job of balancing the cost with cleaning the environment.

    • .50BMG

      It’s not a bad idea to move toward green energy- problem is that if we don’t use oil NOW there won’t be any economy to develop green energy with. If it takes $I00 to buy a gallon of milk we will have a lot more to worry about than green energy as the job creators will not spend and take their money elsewhere. I think we should go ahead with oil, coal and nuclear for now until we can get the economy rockin’- THEN we will have more resources to develop green stuff. I’m not claiming to be very informed on this, it’s just my take (before I get jumped on). Thanks for reading.

  • Joe Hammond

    Making the US energy independent is not solely on the shoulders of the drillers and oil companies. Why are we in love with SUV’s anyway? They get poor milage and I see them far too many times being driven on city roads with one person in them (and they are speaking or texting on the phone). Windmills are along the Texas coast now in places like Corpus Christi but why not the entire gulf coast? Las Vegas is prime for solar power and what about increasing insulation in homes and apartments? How about we move the dial up a degree or two in the summer and down a degree or two in the winter? What happened to us that we have become a nation of hedonists? Bad education for one thing and bad political choices like Obama and Romney. And it is the fault of the voter. We elect these sleaze merchants at a local level and then we continue to push them up the ladder until we have a congress of prostitudes to whoever has the most money…and we wonder why things are so bad…..Face it, as a people the US breeds shear stupidity which is why entertainment is such a large part of our hedonistic lifestyle….go porn!!!!

    • DaveH

      Joe says — “Why are we in love with SUV’s anyway?”.
      Why is that any of your business, Joe?

      Joe says — “Windmills are along the Texas coast now in places like Corpus Christi but why not the entire gulf coast?”.
      Sure, why shouldn’t we replace the garish oil rigs (the bane of Liberal Progressives’ existence) with garish Wind Generators that are less cost effective and just as garish?
      This looks like one of Edward Scissorhand’s nightmares:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ_bHVJfHrs

      Joe says — “what about increasing insulation in homes and apartments? How about we move the dial up a degree or two in the summer and down a degree or two in the winter? What happened to us that we have become a nation of hedonists?”.
      What happened to Free Choice, Joe, or is that just for people who don’t want babies in your Liberal Progressive mind of Force?

    • Dale left coast

      Joe . . . windmills look like krap . . . solar panels in Nevada? You would have to cover half the state with solar panels to power Vegas . . . who will dust them every other day?
      These technologies cost up to 12 times what convention energy does . . . so if your electric bill goes from $100 a month to $1200 a month . . . that will create economic activity and job growth in the state? Green energy is a JOKE . . . check out how this worked for Spain . . . they did this 10 years ago . . . lost 3 conventional jobs for every green job and are BANKRUPT TODAY ! ! !

      • Flashy

        Dale….most think oil rigs aren’t exactly adding to the landscape. As for cost…ahem …. the following is from my utility provider …

        “…customers can purchase wind energy for 100% of their electricity needs at a premium of 1.5¢/kWh. Power for the program is supplied by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) from the Condon, Klondike and Stateline wind projects located in Eastern Oregon. ” That works out to about $2.00 a month added to my bill…which is mostly from hydro power…MUCH cheaper to produce than coal or oil.

        My tab for the past month came in at $65.64 for electricity. 100% from wind and water. What was yours?

      • Dennis48e

        “Dale….most think oil rigs aren’t exactly adding to the landscape.”

        I am not aware of any standing oil rigs in any but the oldest oil fields. It has been many many years since the rigs were left standing after the well was drilled. Now all you have at the well site is the pump itself and that is miniscule compared to the huge mast and blades of the wind turbine generators.

      • DaveH

        That’s so lame, Flashdunce.
        First of all, the regular readers know you have no credibility, so your figures are questionable to begin with. Secondly, you have no idea how much taxpayer subsidy has gone into the building of those wind generators. Thirdly, talking about the portion of your bill that is from water power is a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
        But then, that’s what we’ve come to expect from the Administration Shill known as Flashman (and various other identities).

    • George E

      Joe,

      In a “free” society people ought to be allowed to buy any vehicle they want. There aren’t more wind mills than there are because the cost of generating electricity that way is more expensive than generating electricity using either coal or natural gas. Investors don’t want to “burn” money building more wind mills.

  • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

    I wish I could share in all this enthusiasm but I see Romney just as dangerous as Bush and Obama. He’ll use the office of president like a CEO and expect the nation to jump to his tune, no questions asked. Between Bush and Obama America’s being by executive orders and Romney will not On foreign policy, he’ll get us into war sooner than Obama did. He has an obligation to the Zionists to go to war against Iran, and that can take us to Armageddon. This country was founded by Christ and his followers, not the Joseph Smith’s, and now that we do not love and obey the Lord but Muslims and Mormons. We’ve turned our back on Him and, from I’m seeing, He’s not happy with America. God and Christ ran show and we’ll see Mohammed and Joseph Smith can do. The first thing that should be done is “In God We Trust” off our counterfeit paper. God hates hypocrits.

    • Dan

      Christ, told his deciples to leave the other teachers of him alone that his “NAME” was being “GLORIFIED” Muslims hate the teachings of Jesus Christ and they proclaim that GOD hath no “SON” That sir makes them Anti-Christ. You should not compare them as the same or even to resemble the same. Joseph Smith is a dead man. People who choose to Jesus Christ and proclaim his name I leave to their own Doctrine of choise.

  • tony

    We will Never get the Public to see the Truth about all the criminal fraud that is taking place by the Obama Administration , but I think if you make people think they are being Played for fools thats a game changer !!!!! We need to work on the mind of Obama with a tactical concept of Reverse Psycho Ops because thats what he and his administration is doing , if we do this it will Intimidate and create a unbalance to the effort by Obama to appear in control . For Obama Telling the Truth becomes a Psycho Ops Exercise to get reelected . Romney needs to tell people to look at the facts about the economy , and ask people if they see Real Tangible Durable Growth in their Pockets or just more Hope and Talk coming from President Obama and his Handlers who are ANTI Growth to begin with ???
    If President Obama and his handles feel its necessary to control the minds of the voters by controlling polling and at the same time stringing people along with some kind of Government assistance while telling us things are getting better , this policy is purely being based off the controlling of people minds to give a perception to people that his policies are working while we have seen ONLY DEBT as the growth factor , no expansion in industrial durable growth just DEBT , so Obamas only focus is controlling your Mind and we should be should be seriously analyzing this tactic and asking why ? This would explain why Obama has not been able to keep his domestic policy promises but now is trying to convince the voters that he needs more time . But if you consider the aspect that Environmentalists Love a NO Growth Domestic Policy this is why Obama is playing this game of Hope with no Substance , and Romney needs to Exploit this fact and call him out as a Capitalist Supply-Side Economic Fraud and the debt and attempt to Control People’s Minds about the Process of economic recovery as the ONLY form of Negative Economic Growth is Proof of this Claim !!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_(United_States)

  • Chris

    I have no problem drilling for oil “IF” it does not have a negative impact on people or wildlife. I DO have a BIG problem with drilling in water or near ANY BODY of water.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      But you don’t really care about the land or the animals or water. You are a parrot by nature and are repeating the environmentalist mantra.

      • Karolyn

        Said by another parrot of the other side who has the lowdown on who everybody is and what they REALLY think. Yes, I think Nadzieja is a clairvoyant!

    • John C

      SQUAWKKKKKKK …I parrot everything the liberals say…I do not have a mind …I just repeat everything I hear …no need to do any research on the subject…the liberals have done that ALL for me

    • John C

      Really Chris how do you get to the Mall I bet you drive a car and are a part of the problem. To solve this everyone should use bicycles it would be healthier for us…we would get exercise …and not pollute the enviorment, Cars will be for the politicians and the rich everyone else will have to wallk, use public transportation or ride a bike…also you will have to get a permit if you want to fly to any where…so you can pay the carbon tax to the rich so they can have their cars

      • Chris

        You who are attacking me are missing the point. I know there is pollution around, and hopefully, someone with brains will solve that in the future. What I am saying is that without the environment, we are nothing. I am not a “parrot”……I am not a follower……I see things for what they are and I’ve seen what could happen, as many of us have. I’m just saying this government needs to be more careful in where they allow oil drilling, and it needs to be where it will cause the least amount of damage to life on this planet.

        • George E

          Chris,

          You’re right except for one thing. The oil isn’t always in safe places to drill. We have to go where ever it is and get it there.

          • r b

            Chris, You’re right except for one thing. The oil isn’t always in safe places to drill. We have to go where ever it is and get it there.<<

            so we ruin the water to extract the oil. then what will you do without water. the next great war will be over water, not oil.

          • George E

            No. We need to develop safe methods of drilling in these sensitive places. For the most part, we’re already there, I think.

    • You are ignoring the collateral benefits of drilling in the US

      You are neglecting to consider the positive effects of being energy independent on the environment and political situation. It takes vast amounts of fuel to transport raw petroleum to the refineries in the US, that fuel could be saved, the danger of oil spills during the transportation would be eliminated. drilling and pumping here in the US would be done undercontrolled conditions as opposed to wildcat drilling in foreign nations. In addition If we are not buying oil and petroleum from OPEC then the radical islamists and mooooooslims (there is no such ani-mule as a moderate islamist) will not be able to finance the wars, terrorism and aggression they are perpetuating in throughout the world. We are not the only target of thier aggression, every nation in the world is a target of islam even fellow islamic nations there is a struggle going on to see who will be the head terrorist and ultimately the head of the islamic led world..

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      The price of oil, (black gold) is determining the value of the bankrupt dollar.

  • ImListening

    Obummer has used all of this to his best advantage. He’s been able to pay of his cronies with his stimulus to solar and wind companies that went belly up after receiving the huge payoffs. No one now knows where the money went. He’s been able to cripple our economy with his non-exploration of oil and no drilling policies. He’s kept millions from good paying jobs that would work related to drilling or building a pipeline. He’s stifled the natural gas possibilities. It’s all part of his Master Plan of making America a Third World Country, no longer a power to be dealt with. Perhaps, this will make him feel more like at home in Kenya.

    • John C

      Well in Novemebr let us all help Obama move to his chosen country he can solve their problems, or maybe we can make him Ambassador to Kenya…we just wont have any marines there at the embassy because he doesnt need them… just like the ambassador in Libya didnt need them

      • Flashy

        There is more to the Libyan situation and our Ambassador than what is being let out. There’s a reason he was there with only one bodyguard and two “unidentified” American consultants. I doubt we’ll have the real story for quite some time…but I suspect there was a espionage/information meeting scheduled or being set up.

        think about that … and I wouldn’t be so hasty about criticism after thinking it through.

      • Dale left coast

        Yea Flash . . . it was the anniversary of 9/11 . . . the State Dept was warned . . . Rice, Dillery and the O covered it up . . . came up with the lame video thing . . .
        It was a TERRORIST ATTACK . . . the result of O’bammy’s failed ME policies. Did you real the signs Flash? “We are all Bin Laden now” . . .
        Then he goes to the UN to apologize again to the mooslimes . . .
        Flash . . . your guy is the most dopy pres in the countries history . . . and has all but spent the US over the cliff.

  • jopa

    There is no shortage at the moment for gas and oil.The speculators are driving up the prices along with a choking of the oil supply by the slowdown of refinery capacity.There are refineries in Pa, N.J. and the Caribbean at this time sitting idle to keep up the price of crude.This is the real story.

    • DaveH

      How do those speculators drive up the prices, Jopa?

      • jopa

        Dave H:Artificially.

      • DaveH

        You can’t answer that, can you Jopa? Because you don’t have a clue about the mechanisms and effects of “speculators”.
        Read this and change that condition, Jopa:
        http://mises.org/daily/2819

    • Dale left coast

      They are sitting idle . . . maybe they have NO OIL . . .
      dopa . . . what about the 100′s of BILLIONS that go off-shore every year to buy Foreign Oil? Do you think if that money stated in the USA it might create a JOB or TWO?

      • jopa

        Dave H: Checked out your site on Austrian Economics.Austria, isn’t that where Hitler was born and formed all of his ideas and opinions?

    • momo

      Those refineries are siotting idle because they’re being readied to switch over to winter gasoline. In the spring they’ll sit idle to be readied for summer gasoline. As for speculators, try having a market without them.

    • George E

      Jopa,

      I believe the main reason the price of oil has gone up is the devaluation of the US dollar by printing money to service the federal government’s debt and deficit.

      • jopa

        rb; There is lower production and demand however the big oil companies are content with this situation and mega profits.

        • r b

          rb; There is lower production and demand however the big oil companies are content with this situation and mega profits.<<

          i agree. handing out more drilling permits or increasing land to be leased will not change that.

  • John C

    We all know that Obamas green energy initiative will never succeed because it is a scam and will only help his buddies in these industries, who will kick back money to Obama. We need research into hydrogen fuel and a goal to have it by the end of a decade. Natural gas should play a big part of the interim solution it is cleaner burning than gasoline and abundant enough for 200 years. Electric cars are a soultion but current battery technology is not up to the task more research into batteries and also alternatives on how to get the electricity to the car…maybe using hydrogen fuel cell technology…again Hydrogen fuel plays a big part. We had the space race why not the Energy race…we do not need OPEC to rule our lives and our country lets wean off this dependence and see if the Radical Arab states can eat thier oil.

  • Pete

    For every oil well we refuse to open or force to be shut the Islamic world will open numerous to supply our demand – In fact the green people fill their vehicles with Islamic oil and gas to drive across the country to demonstrate the American companies and prevent them from drilling for oil. The Islamic countries don’t give a hoot about pollution or global warming. So I would rather suggest that we drill our own oil responsibly and not use the oil from the Islamic countries – then we wouldn’t have stake in their oil and we wouldn’t need to worry about going over their to fight for it. Then we would be able to let them take care of their own fights, which they seem to enjoy. Blowing themselves up seems to be their favorite celebrations.

  • Alex

    Nice try, John Myers! More Black Death!

    The GOP has fought every sensible measure meant to reduce our use of petroleum, clean the air and water, and move away from gas-guzzlers and toward much more sensible and sustainable public transportation.

    We are the world’s oil pigs. Rather than use your tiny pea brains, you just think we can drill our way to glory—well, you are not only mistaken but you clearly care not one whit about
    your children or grandchildren (assuming you found a woman stupid enough to marry you….).

    As long as you can keep your latest Ford Excretion filled so that you can drive the arduous three blocks to the store, you could give a flip about the air, the water, or the coastlines.
    Too bad—You lose! November will see Mitt the Liar strap Paul Ayn Ryan to the top of his car and drive him to Canada…

    • Dale left coast

      “black death” ? That is patently INSANE ! ! !

      You of course . . . walk to work, ride a bike and don’t use airlines . . . right.
      What is the cleanest country on the planet Alex? Why its the USA . . .
      Your enviro-nazi loonacy is just nonsense . . . there is NOTHING on the planet that will replace oil tomorrow, next week or next year.
      Are you in favor of just shutting the country down and sitting in the dark to save the planet from Gorebull Warming?
      Good news Alex . . . the Polar ice caps are growing, the globe is cooling . . . but Alex, there is much pollution in China, Russia and India . . . why don’t you just go there and show them how to FIX IT ! ! !

  • Wade Laird

    This is old and in the way outdated thinking. It waaaaaaay past time this country declared outright war on big oil. We need to make strong moves toward an energy independent United states which will NEVER happen as long as we stay married to fossil fuels. The rest of the world is leaving us in the dust in this regard. Germany, Norway, Sweden, Brazil–the list goes on and on and on.

    • Dale left coast

      “The rest of the world is leaving us in the dust in this regard. Germany, Norway, Sweden, Brazil–the list goes on and on and on.”
      How so Wade?
      Brazil is drilling in a MILE OF WATER for what? You guessed it OIL . . . and Obammy gave them 2 Billion US Tax Dollars to help them out.
      Germany is closing down nuclear plants . . . I believe they are using coal and gas fired plants to pick up the slack . . . that’s going from ZERO pollution to pollution right ! ! !
      Norway and Sweden . . . are around 7 or 8 million each . . . lots of hydro dams and some nuclear.
      So . . . Wade . . . what’s your point? Just so much you don’t know . . . .

      • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

        Brazil, along with Russia, India, China and South Africa, (the BRICS) are backing away from the dollar as the world’s soverign currency. By doing that they can price their oil at whatever they want. The price of oil is determined by the value of the dollar.

    • George E

      Wade,

      Natural gas is the best energy source, now and in the foreseeable future, for the economy and environment.

  • RichE

    Drill-baby-drill is an empty promise.

    • George E

      Why? It’s working. Production of oil and gas are up (on private lands) due to new technology developments.

      • r b

        Drill-baby-drill is an empty promise.

        Why? It’s working. Production of oil and gas are up (on private lands) due to new technology developments. <<

        the price of oil and refined fuels are up as well. evidently all that has been accomplished is an increase in revenue for the oil industry.

        • George E

          rb,

          You may have noticed that the value of the USD has dropped substantially in recent years. This has driven the price of oil up proportionally. You can thank our huge federal government debt and deficits and the Fed’s willingness to finance that debt by printing excess US dollars for this devaluation. Government policy of restricting drilling and production hasn’t helped either. This simply sends a signal to the market that suggests US production of oil may be further cut over time. Futures buyers respond by bidding up the price of oil because they expect supply to fall with respect to demand.

          • r b

            rb, You may have noticed that the value of the USD has dropped substantially in recent years. This has driven the price of oil up proportionally. You can thank our huge federal government debt and deficits and the Fed’s willingness to finance that debt by printing excess US dollars for this devaluation. Government policy of restricting drilling and production hasn’t helped either. This simply sends a signal to the market that suggests
            US production of oil may be further cut over time. Futures buyers respond by bidding up the price of oil because they expect supply to fall with respect to demand. <<

            the out come of borrow and spend was predicted and predictable. that is not a revelation. the debate over tax and spend vs borrow and spend. many still support borrow and spend.

            the u.s. has convinced opec to increase production, on more than one occasion, to keep the price from increasing more than it has.

            all opec has to do is decrease production. and the price goes up. oil producers can produce less and increase profits.

            no one that supports increased drilling has been able to show how that increase would lower prices.

            futures buyers will notice that world oil production has been decreased and will pay more. which means that oil produced in the u.s. will still be sold at world market prices.

            we would have to form a coalition that was willing to produce oil in sufficient quantity to off set any actions by opec or other producers. that means we would have to produce more oil than the world demand. if you can do that, then you could lower the price. try selling that to the oil producers.

          • George E

            rb,

            If I understand your central argument correctly, it’s that oil companies benefit more by producing less because oil prices go up when they produce less. It’s true that oil prices do go up when production goes down relative to supply and oil companies benefit from that so long as they don’t have to cut “their” production. The key here is that if company #1 can get company #2 to reduce its production without company #1 having to cut its production, then company #1 will benefit. Obviously, company #2 won’t agree to that because it wants to produce all the oil it can to sell to the market so it will make as much money as it can. Companies are very unlikely to collaborate in this way because 1) it’s illegal to do so in this country, and 2) it just doesn’t work out well for all the collaborators. Further, the more producers there are in the world market, the less influence on the market any one company will have. That’s pretty much where we are today. If the market is being manipulated, it’s by countries not companies.

          • r b

            rb, If I understand your central argument correctly, it’s that oil companies benefit more by producing less because oil prices go up when they produce less. It’s true that oil prices do go up when production goes down relative to supply and oil companies benefit from that so long as they don’t have to cut “their” production. The key here is that if company #1 can get company #2 to reduce its production without company #1 having to cut its production, then company #1 will benefit. Obviously, company #2 won’t agree to that because it wants to produce all the oil it can to sell to the market so it will make as much money as it can. Companies are very unlikely to collaborate in this way because 1) it’s illegal to do so in this country, and 2) it just doesn’t work out well for all the collaborators. Further, the more producers there are in the world market, the less influence on the market any one company will have. That’s pretty much where we are today. If the market is being manipulated, it’s by countries not companies. <<

            it is manipulated by countries. i would have no problem convincing opec to lower production to increase oil prices. or to start selling their oil to other countries besides us.
            price reduction because of production means you have to be able to produce close to current world production.
            cutting production would actually increase profits. a higher price for the same cost per unit equates a higher profit for less production.
            if i can realise $150 per barrel for the same cost as $50 a barrel, i would reduce production.
            oil is controlled by a minimal number of producers. along with refiners who purchase crude.

          • George E

            rb,

            If companies made more money by not selling their products on the market, why would any company ever sell anything? Total sales revenue is the product of unit price (USD/barrel) times volume (# barrels) sold. Increasing the price by lowering the volume doesn’t increase sales revenue, nor total profit unless the product of these two numbers is greater than before the volume is reduced.

          • r b

            rb, If companies made more money by not selling their products on the market, why would any company ever sell anything? Total sales revenue is the product of unit price (USD/barrel) times volume (# barrels) sold. Increasing the price by lowering the volume doesn’t increase sales revenue, nor total profit unless the product of these two numbers is greater than before the volume is reduced. <<

            it is too late to play dumb. you have proven you grasp the concept. but for any that might still be reading these posts.

            if the cost to produce is $25 per barrel, market is 100/bl and by reducing my production i can move the market to 150. i obtain 50 per barrel in additional profits with out increasing my costs. in this particular case, i could effectively reduce my costs while increasing my profits. i have reduced my production by 40% and still obtain the same profits.

            which is exactly what the oil producers have been doing for years. they match their production to demand. manipulating price. this is the result of higher demand coupled with no competition.

            the real answer is lower demand &/or competition that is not profit driven. both can be accomplished.

          • George E

            rb,

            I guess one of the differences between your view and mine is that I believe the oil and gas markets are highly competitive, and not manipulated, at least not by the oil companies. I believe government does more harm to these markets than do the companies participating in them. These companies got large to reduce their costs, not to manipulate the market.

          • r b

            rb, I guess one of the differences between your view and mine is that I believe the oil and gas markets are highly competitive, and not manipulated, at least not by the oil companies. I believe government does more harm to these markets than do the companies participating in them. These companies got large to reduce their costs, not to
            manipulate the market. <<

            highly competitive? with whom? and why? this is a demand market. as long as the demand remains and continues to increase where is the reason for competition?

            you are working with a supply side economic view. this is not a supply side business.

            you can not show any viable reason why any oil company needs to be competitive. the demand for their product is increasing and there is no alternative being pushed into the market.

            if i produce a 100 barrels per day, there will always be a buyer. the only question is how much i can get for the oil.

          • RichE

            “Government policy of restricting drilling and production hasn’t helped either.” That’s a generalization I don’t like that obviously hasn’t affected their profit margin. Would you be specific please as to how this has hurt them and contributed to the price?

          • George E

            RichE,

            I assume your question is directed to me. I think you’re asking “how has the government’s policy of restricting oil production hurt oil companies and contributed to price increases?” Fundamentally, oil futures buyers have to predict the price of oil in the future when they decide how much they’re willing to pay for it today. When they see threats of reducing oil production, they assume the price will go up as demand outstrips supply. Therefore, they bid the price up today in anticipation of declining supplies in the future. Likewise, when buyers see governments taking steps to encourage drilling and production and reducing political tensions that might result in interruptions in the supply of oil, the price generally remains stable or moves lower. If governments restrict drilling, then they keep oil companies from finding and producing oil. That affects the volume of oil these companies can sell to the market and that affects their profits.

          • RichE

            George E: IMO your claim, “government policy contributed …”is still hollow. You’ve not give me a specific, just generalizations about speculators. I don’t disagree that speculators do affect price, but price increase are beneficial to energy producers therefore it would be to their advantage to obfuscate any and all government policy. Sarbanes–Oxley is a severe pain in the butt, but it didn’t double prices for all businesses. Please be specific as to which governmental policy, that was directed solely at an energy producer, that caused them to double the price.

          • George E

            RichE,

            As I’ve stated in other posts, I don’t think the oil companies are setting oil prices. That’s a function of the market. Specifically, which government regulations are causing the price at the pump to double, that’s another issue. I think the one that’s had the most effect on prices is the devaluation of the USD. At least that makes sense to me and this has been validated by the Saudis in past comments they’ve made. Also, as you know from your economics training, anytime the supply of a commodity is reduced relative to demand the price tends to move higher, and vice versa. I can think of several government regulations, especially those of the EPA, that have made it harder for drillers, producers, and distributors to get permits. This certainly constrains supply, if not outright reducing it.

      • RichE

        Why is it an empty promise? Because its been made since 1973 and still no independence.

      • George E

        Technology has finally caught up and it looks like the industry is on the cusp of a new revolution in production. It’s obvious that’s already happened with natural gas, but it’s also about to happen with oil. I think you’ll see old oil fields come back to life with new drilling and fracturing techniques, not to mention new fields that can now be economically developed. Many of our previous assumptions about “peak” oil are about to be turned upside down, and the US will again be an exporting nation.

        • RichE

          That should keep us happy… for awhile.

          • George E

            It certainly could be one of the key elements in the revival of the American economy. God knows we really need it and many more such examples if we’re going to climb out of the extremely deep hole we’re in.

          • RichE

            And a little fiscal responsibility.

          • George E

            Absolutely! How about a LOT of fiscal responsibility?

  • http://www.facebook.com/philip.pease Philip Pease

    The reason I will NOT vote for Romney is he thinks he knows more than scientists. Your statements about greenhouse gasses and global climate change are B.S.; and they do reflect pretty much the same views as Romney. His stupidity regarding science is astounding; and since I doubt he is really that stupid, I suspect his position is really because he is being paid big $ by the fossil fuel industry (who cares not what happens to civilization, but only cares about making big $).

    • Dale left coast

      Gorebull Warming . . . . WAS A LIE ! ! !
      They made it up Philip . . . it was about YOUR WALLET . . .
      CO2 never has nor never will warm up the planet . . . it is a benign, rare, odorless, colorless gas that enables plants to grow.
      Philip . . . if you EVER find the Science . . . the real provable Science that backs up the gorebull warming/climate nonsense . . . please post it for us . . . I have been asking for almost 20 years . . . still waiting ! ! !

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        “Global warming happens every year in the spring and continues through summer”
        ~ Gemma Freeman on endothermic processes

        Scientists first observed global warming in 1895.

        In 1920 they said it was global cooling.

        In 1935 they said there was global warming, but then in 1975 they said it
        was the verge of a new Ice Age but then it became global warming again.

        But that is all old news. Let’s stop talking about discredited work and move on to the real history.

        Of course, the main cause of global warming is the well-known poisonous gas carbon dioxide (molecular formula: C666O2). There is more of it in the air than there used to be, we know that combustion, smokestacks, and buttholes emit it, and we know that flasks containing pure carbon dioxide get pretty fricking hot. Ergo, a human-caused apocalypse.

        Human causation is irrefutably proven by the fact that all the other planets in our solar system are experiencing comparable climate changes.

      • George E

        Dale,

        I am not a believer in man-made global warming. However, the theory is based on sound science. That is heat from the sun penetrates our atmosphere at one wave length, and heats the earth. The earth then radiates this heat at another wave length back into the atmosphere, but this heat can’t penetrate the “greenhouse” gases in the upper atmosphere. The heat is then trapped around the earth and gets even hotter as time goes by and as the amount of greenhouse gases accumulate in greater volumes. While the theory is sound, many of the assumptions are not. As you state, there is no provable data to show that man-made global warming is an established fact at this time.

  • Cathartic

    Ditto. It’s painfully obvious to me that this whole man made global warming claim is really about
    global financial equalization. The global elite want a one world government & they don’t want a strong USA getting in their way. They need an excuse to usher in World Taxation, for oppression of countries that are too prosperous. Otherwise why ignore the carbon out put of China?

  • Jess

    DaveH,
    I have a question for you. Do you like ever go outside into the real world, or are you like a shut in that can’t get out? I’m just wondering because you seem to comment on everything here and it seems like you are intelligent and all but really have no life whatsoever.
    I’m just wondering. Sorry for getting personal.

    • JeffH

      Jess, what business is that of yours besides none of your business? That is a purly stupid question and one that only an envious liberal progressive might ask?

      • JON

        JeffH, does being a divisive prick come naturally or did you take a course and graduate first in your class?!?

      • JeffH

        JON, sorry I ruffled your progressive feathers…ROFLMAO!

        Devisive pr!ck? Hardley! I wouldn’t dare steal your thunder.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        That wasn’t a stupid question, JeffH. That was a vicious Ad-hominem delivered under the pretense of honest inquiry; and, as well, delivered to disguise or cover-up the fact that the one who delivered it is completely ignorant of the subject being discussed.

        Or, and in short; an ad hominem (Latin for “to the man”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.

    • DaveH

      Actually, Jess, I am quite happy and multi-talented. I have no physical or mental impediments that keep me from doing whatever I want to do (except old-age, lol).
      I have spent my life learning about matters financial and I’m trying to impart some of that knowledge to people, most of whom have been severely brainwashed by self-interested Government Leaders and their cohorts.
      I hope to reach at least a few people who sincerely desire to learn why we’re in the mess we’re in. It’s an uphill battle to be sure, because people are generally terrified to step outside their mental comfort zones and learn that things aren’t as they’ve been taught (by the Propagandists) most of their life.
      And I don’t even expect you to thank me, Jess.

  • jopa

    We sure don’t hear the oil companies complaining the way things are going for them.Don’t you start to think they don’t want it differant than it is today.Record profits from their oil revenues, bonus checks from the government for exploration, place a few million dollars worth of public information ads pretending to be a friend of yours and you all suck it up while they pick your pocket.

    • Dale left coast

      dopa . . . who makes the most money from a gallon of gas?
      Come on . . . you must know this one ! ! !
      Is it the Oil company? No . . . they make less than 3% . . . so, who is making the big bucks?
      Why the friggin government . . . the feds and state govts tax a gallon of gas up to 40% . . . even you can DO THE MATH . . .

      • jopa

        Dale left his brain somewhere; Your comments are about the most useless I have seen on this site.Federal tax on oil averages out for the fifty states to be 48.9 cents per gallon.Haven’t you seen the profits big oil has been posting lately?

      • DaveH

        No, Jopa, how about you post them to enlighten us?

      • DaveH

        Jopa has the gall to say — “Dale left his brain somewhere; Your comments are about the most useless I have seen on this site.Federal tax on oil averages out for the fifty states to be 48.9 cents per gallon”.
        Dale was talking about gasoline, dummy, not oil. And the Federal tax on gasoline is the same for all fifty states, dummy. It’s the state and local taxes that vary:
        http://www.gaspricewatch.com/web_gas_taxes.php

    • George E

      Jopa,

      Sounds like you hate oil and gas companies about like I dislike radical environmentalists for some of the same reasons, mainly trying to take our money. However, I’ve noticed that the environmentalists, along with their puppets in government, also want to control our lives as well.

  • JeffH

    I know this is off subject…but…

    Did anyone catch the “Idiot” Spitzer/Glenn Beck “The War Of The Words” debate on DISH last night? It was anything but a “debate”.

    Spitzer looked and sounded like a lawyer and a politician…firmly removed from reality. In his opening comments, Gov. Spitzer claimed that America was in good shape and that President Obama was steering the country in an improved direction.

    “I believe that we as a nation are stronger than ever,” Spitzer told the audience.

    If you get the Idea that Spitzer is a progressive you’re right.
    He admires bith FDR and Obama, constantly blamed Bush for everything wrong in this country and even believes Europe is modeling their economies to America’s economy.

    Wow! POLLY WANT A CRACKER? Spitzer will be getting a reward from Obama, you betcha’!

    Beck, on the other hand has evolved from a guy at the bottom of the barrel to the cream of the crop. Glenn Beck gets it! He’s done his homework well and has studied America’s history and our founder’s history…Beck gets it!

    For his closing remarks, Beck said that he simply was hoping that someone, either candidate, would speak the plain truth about what is going on in the world. He noted in particular that America’s leaders needed to acknowledge the true chaotic state of the Middle East and the failure of the Arab Spring.

    But rather than say a politician would be the one to lead America over the coming years, Beck said Americans needed to wake up and take responsibility for their own destinies.

    “Stand up for what you believe in, you might end up being wrong. I might end up being one of those most incorrect men ever. Whatever. I stand up for what I believe in.”

    “The engine of America is you,” he concluded.
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/watch-beck-face-off-with-elliot-spitzer-in-war-of-the-words-debate-that-was-nuts/

    • Alex

      No “might” about it: Glenn Beck is one the most incorrect men ever….

      • JeffH

        Alex, such substance…just what could be expected from an American hating racist progressive like yourself.

        As an FYI…Dish will be offering the new Glenn Beck network “the Blaze” as an add on. 15 years ago Beck was flat broke and broken man. Now he’s a member of the 1% and the creator and owner of his own network.

        Aren’t you just a bit envious that someone, thru personal hard work, can still become successful and have a positive effect on society…without being beholden to the government and their cronies?

        Can’t wait for your reply!

      • Dale left coast

        No Alex . . . I think it might be YOU ! ! !

      • eddie47d

        Poor Jeff thinks that a man who stretches the truth on every issue like Glenn Beck is a national hero. No wonder this country is screwed up. Jeff hasn’t figured out yet that if Glenn and Rush lies their rating go up and the sheeple follow.

      • JeffH

        Another show of ignorabce by the lie master himself, eddie. For three years+- you’ve been making these kind of stupid comments and for three years you’ve been laughed at, chastized, suspended from commenting, put on permanent moderation, ridiculed, proven wrong, proven to be a pathalogical liar and a slanderer. Any remotely normal person would take heed and learn something, anything all of that…but not you eddie, you just continue to show everyone here just how stupid you are.

        It’s true what they say, you can’t be fixed

    • momo

      As a reward Obama will pick up Spitzer’s prostitute tab.

      • JeffH

        momo, or maybe Spitzers “paid” girlfriend.

    • George E

      JeffH,

      Thanks for sharing. I missed the debate. Sounds like common sense, straight-talk from the heart won the day. Mark this one up for the good guys.

  • JON

    Mitt is Mormon. He does not drink alcohol. Barack, on the other hand, does drink. Let’s hope he pops open that winning bottle next month!!!

    • Dale left coast

      Jon . . . Mitt wears his jewellery and watch during Ramadam . . . . O’bammy does not . . . can we draw any conclusions from this?

      • JeffH

        Dale, ya think JON gets a tingle up his leg whenever O’man speaks…kinda like Chrisy Matthews?

    • jopa

      Obama can drink a beer with a pork chop.Romney cannot.

  • Wendell Fountain

    Debates or no debates, Romney is a capitalist and not a socialist like BHO. Governor Romney was not my first choice as the Republican nominee, but he got the nomination, and in the process has won me over, that is, he and his wife, ann, have won me over. I’m not a Morman and I’m definitely not a Muslim, but Romney has a proven track record of success in business and Obama has a record of total abject failure. A person would have to be naive, ignorant, or just plain stupid to vote for the fraud in the White House. Let’s all pray that God has not given up on us.

    • Dale left coast

      Wendell is payin attention . . . well said ! ! !

    • DaveH

      Romney is a NeoCon Progressive. He is definitely not a Capitalist. Crony Capitalists are not really Capitalists. Capitalists operate in the confines of Free Markets and voluntary contracts. We haven’t had anything close to that for over a hundred years.

  • JeffH

    A other FYI update from the Liberty Legal Foundation.

    On Monday the Supreme Court denied our(Liberty Legal Foundation) petition to review the Georgia Obama eligibility ruling. No opinion. No explanation. No indication whether or not Obama appointed judges are involved in making the decision.

    It was once “never doubted” that natural born citizens, and candidates for President, must have two citizen parents. Now our citizenry is so ignorant of our history and our Constitution that even judges don’t know their own law. When we explain the law and history in legal briefs, they refuse to enforce it. This latest decision by the Supreme Court is simply lawless.
    http://www.icontact-archive.com/FEgdUq2-3KhVnIWd7rSXvzZBa6kUwnvK?w=4

    • Kate8

      JeffH – Oh, they know, all right. They just have been bought off. Sold out. Got offered a deal they couldn’t refuse. Represent The Corporation. No one overrules the decisions of the Corporation.

      They will all be held to account in due time.

      • JeffH

        Kate8, it’s just disheartening to realize just how ignorant the masses have become in regards to the political and judicial corruption that has engulfed our government.

        What is “truth”

        The old man turned off the radio
        Said, where did all of the old songs go
        Kids sure play funny music these days
        They play it in the strangest ways

        Said, it looks to me like they’ve all gone wild
        It was peaceful back when I was a child
        Well, man, could it be that the girls and boys
        Are trying to be heard above your noise

        And the lonely voice of youth
        Cries what is truth

        A little boy of three sitting on the floor
        Looks up and says, daddy, what is war
        Son, that’s when people fight and die
        The little boy of three says, daddy, why

        Young man of seventeen in Sunday school
        Being taught the golden rule
        And by the time another year has gone around
        It may be his turn to lay his life down

        Can you blame the voice of youth
        For asking what is truth

        Young man sitting on the witness stand
        The man with the book says raise your hand
        Repeat after me, I solemnly swear
        The man looked down at his long hair

        And although the young man solemnly swore
        Nobody seems to hear anymore
        And it didn’t really matter
        If the truth was there
        It was the cut of his clothes
        And the length of his hair

        And the lonely voice of youth
        Cries what is truth

        The young girl dancing to the latest beat
        Has found new ways to move her feet
        The young man speaking in the city square
        Is trying to tell somebody that he cares

        Yeah, the ones that you’re calling wild
        Are going to be the leaders in a little while
        This old world’s waking to a new born day
        And I solemnly swear that it’ll be their way

        You better help that voice of youth
        Find what is truth
        And the lonely voice of youth
        Cries what is truth

        Johnny Cash

      • eddie47d

        From what I’ve read from Jeff’s previous comments he didn’t care about the Truth back then and certainly doesn’t now. Will the real Jeff please stand up!

      • JeffH

        eddie, you’ve made it known that you don’t know the difference.
        Thanks for confirming that!

    • DaveH

      The Supreme Court is a branch of the Federal Government. Can we say Conflict of Interest? Of course it is unlikely for the Supremes to ever rule against their own gang. Birds of a Feather stick together.
      The Supreme Court was never given the Power to be the Final Arbiters of Constitutionality (by the Constitution) for obvious reasons. They just took that in the early 1800s and the apathetic citizenry let them get away with it.

  • chuckb

    wendell fountain, my exact sentiments.
    only a 47 percenter could vote for barry, well, i guess you would have to include union, state and fed workers in the 47% the same difference. they leach off the taxpayers in one form or the other. (i don’t include honest disabled people or the people truly in need)
    gas has risen to $5.00 pg in southern calif. do you think bush could be behind this, maybe cheney, oh!, it’s the drought, just heard over the all bama corporation (abc)
    bet the msm will blame bush for sure.

  • Tazio2013

    By Robert S. Becker
    The Romney Debacle: A Comic Tour de Force

    It’s fitting that our wholly dysfunctional politics should endure this season’s high farce of a boob running atop one national party. But perhaps that’s grist for today’s mill and you can’t say Romney isn’t doing his best to mortify his campaign run. Oh, small blessings must be celebrated.

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Romney-Debacle-A-Comi-by-Robert-S-Becker-121003-53.html

    “Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate; has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed.”
    Charlie Chaplin – ‘The Great Dictator’

    “We lost our Paradise in a mad rush to victories in wars around the world and “security” in atomic and hydrogen bombs and in a paroxysm of modernity which swept away much of our ancient cultural wisdom and family and social foundations.” – Jack D. Douglas

    “The world says: “You have needs — satisfy them. You have as much right as the rich and the mighty. Don’t hesitate to satisfy your needs; indeed, expand your needs and demand more.” This is the worldly doctrine of today. And they believe that this is freedom. ”
    Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov


    He who is not contented with what he has, would not be contented with what he would like to have.”
    Socrates

  • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

    I don’t think the American people understand what’s going on with oil. This government cannot / will not change the oil price. First, there are three exchanges that determne the price of oil. The NYSE, the Texas exchange and the Norway exchange. The oil price is an average of the three exchanges. Because there is no American commodity to back the counterfeit dollars that the Federal Reserve’s printing, they have to find something to do that. They settled on Mid East oil, black gold, as the commodity to back the dollar. All transactions with oil in the Mid East must be traded in dollars. A commodity for paper. Buyers and sellers have no choice if they don’t want be put in Saddam Hussein and Gadhafi’s position. The dollar is the world’s soverign currency. The US Federal Reserve, beside American banks, controls everybody else’s banks. If America looses that position, America will collapse because of the situation it put ilself in. Iran is trying to start another oil exchange based on the EU. That’s one of the reasons for the attacks on Iran. Our oil must be priced the same as everybody else’s oil to keep the value of the dollar up. We went through gold, silver and the wealth of America, publc and private to back the dollars, FRNote’s, that they’re printing. That paper we carry is in reality just demand Notes held by the Federal Reserve against the wealth of America.

  • jtsgrandmom

    Before you start celebrating, check and see who owns the oil rights. It ain’t US companies. TAKE A LOOK. And then, pour the booze over the GOPs’ heads because they are the ones that have turned over our resources to foreign interests. MMMMMmmm, what do you supposed BP was doing in the Gulf in the first place? Romney/Bain, the whole bunch of neocons. TOSS THEM ALL, right on down the line. Vote Independent and clean the house … and the senate of the criminality and cronyism.

  • chuckb

    christian american, it has been reported on some sites that china is not using the u.s. dollar for oil,
    (pasted from indymedia)
    Sources inside the Mexican government refuse to confirm that the Mexico government has been in secret negotiations with China over possible crude oil sales to China without using the US dollar.
    These large gold purchases by the Mexican Central bank and the successful restriction of the US dollar from use inside Mexico (as already reported) along with a closer relationship with China and speculation of secret petroleum deals that do not include
    using the US dollar are sure to raise new concerns in global markets as this story continues to unfold. These strategic moves on the part of Mexico’s Government and Mexico’s Central bank are said to be protective measures to shield Mexico from what it sees as the imminent and unavoidable devaluation of the US dollar. (In layman’s terms the collapse of the US Dollar)

    Since the 2009 global economic crisis Mexico’s central bank has been quietly purchasing large quantities of gold. Mexico Central bank buys 100 tonnes of gold

  • BimBam

    We must remove the negro for his policy of being lazy and stealing from whites.

    Examine him carefully and you will see he his implementing his policies on these well-known characteristics:

    Negroes do not invent anything (name me anything)
    Negroes do not farm (ever see one on a tractor)
    Negroes never prosper any country (except in creating more ghettos)
    Negroes “jive” (lying) as a lifestyle (commonly accepted it is so prevalent)
    Negroes are the foremost racist in the world (85% voted for oBama)
    Negroes live of off whites (incapable of anything else)
    Negroes are lazy (why do you think the had to be slaves)
    Negroes are violent (disportionate in prison)

    Do we want another 4 years of this type of policy forced on U.S.?

    • uvuvuv

      peanut butter, george washington carver. one detail i noticed is that in any cultural event blacks are never in the audience. also they don’t give blood. and you can say to them, every building, every plane, every laptop, etc etc etc, you didn’t build that. and yes, the door knob he reaches for might have been made by some black guy in the schlage factory, but the company was built by whites and is owned by whites and is run by whites. even in africa this is true. every road, every hospital, every airport, every govt building.

      • gunner689AI

        Truer words were never spoken. A perfect example is that when the colonial powers pulled out of Africa all of sub-equatorial Africa went back to their “Darkest Africa” image of tribal warfare and universal savegry.

    • Karolyn

      I’d like to see where you would be if you came from the same place they did! Just like with anything else, you cannot simply paint everybody with the same broad brush. Most blacks I know are a lot better than you!

      • gunner689AI

        Thank you for reminding us that you are the queen of the whiggers. Do you have any openings down at the Old Steam and Creame massage parlor ?

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        WOW!, “gunner689Al,” THAT WAS NOT FAIR – AT ALL – TO “Karolyn.” I AM DEFINITELY COMING TO “Karolyn’s” DEFENSE IN REFERENCE TO THE AWFUL NAME-CALLING.

        NOW, OF COURSE, I AGREE WITH YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF, “blacks.” MALE “BANTER” WORKS BEST WHEN CAUCASIAN MALES “GO-OFF” ON NEGRO MALES.

      • BimBam

        Why do you liberals always make excuses for negroes? The reason why they come from a place like that is because of the above characteristics I mentioned and the proof is right here in America!

        They were freed, have the same access to American resources, law, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and they reverted right back to their national characteristics of failure, which they promptly blamed on whites.

        Do you know what a loser is?

    • gunner689AI

      Amen to that. PC is BS

    • r b

      charles richard drew
      george crum
      granville t woods

  • Pingback: United States Sitting On World’s Largest Untapped Oil Reserve! | Political Vel Craft

  • RichE

    The following URL points to an article about Breeder Reactors. It sounds like they’re the solution to the energy crisis. Would someone explain to me why they aren’t? Thanks

    http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste%20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm

    • uvuvuv

      i think they generate plutonium which makes spent uranium look like talcum powder in terms of safety.

    • r b

      factious fear is why we are not using these procedure.

    • George E

      RichE,

      I’m certainly not an expert on this technology, but I’d venture to guess that nuclear breeder reactor plants may become more attractive with time, but today may still be more expensive to produce electricity than alternate fuels, especially coal and natural gas. It sounds to me like almost all of the new power plants coming on line in the foreseeable future in this country will be natural gas powered. Also, there are the political issues associated with nuclear power plants that you don’t have with other types of power plants. In other words, the least offensive type of power plant to the general public may be natural gas when all things (cost, health & environment, aesthetics) are added up.

      • RichE

        George E,
        One doesn’t need to be an expert, just intuitive.
        Nuclear was touted as the, “be all end all” then disarmament and we didn’t need the boom grade waste. More lies, more redirection, more rhetoric. I’d like to put an end to this “drill baby drill” BS. Breeder reactors with forty year half lives seem to be the best way to go. I understand if they can get sea water extraction to work it would give us 5 billion years of fuel.

        • George E

          RichE,

          Nuclear power is a good source for electric power. The only problems I can see are 1) cost, and 2) political acceptance. Why do you want to put an end to new drilling? This is providing us with good sources of fuel at reasonably low costs, not to mention giving a much needed boost to our economy at a time when we really need it.

          • RichE

            Good point! How much electricity is produced by crude? How much crude can be replaced by electricity? Nuclear wind, solar, geo, etc. only produce electricity. We would need a way to store the electricity in a gas can before we can reduce crude consumption.

          • George E

            RichE,

            Very little electricity is produced with crude oil. If you want to reduce our use of crude oil, one of the quickest and most cost effective ways of doing this would be to convert our motor vehicles to natural gas, or better yet make them flex fuel so they can run on either gasoline/NG or diesel/NG. This technology is available today and can be done with not too much pain.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama First Debate Preview(Must Watch)!

    http://runronpaul.com/debates/mitt-romney-vs-barack-obama-first-debate-preview/

  • r b

    another promise that does not address the refining capacity. or rather the lack of it. american oil is great idea. but we lack the capacity to refine the daily needs of this country.
    even we were to increase that refining capacity, what is going to drive the price of that oil down. the producing country’s simply produce less. the demand will keep the price up. we will be paying the same price. or possibly more. unless you believe an american oil company will sell that oil for less than the going market price.
    we need to start using a variety of energy that we have the ability to control pricing.

  • chuckb

    r b, you are falling into the environmental green energy trap. there is nothing out there that will cure our energy needs in the immediate future other than crude. solar power is not producing the results needed to alter the energy shortage and that along with wind and batteries are failed attempts. these energy sources have been experimented with for a hundred years and still not feasible
    just the fact we open up the rigs in the gulf and elsewhere will bring the cost down immediately. ron paul is right we should vest our interest in this country not the world. we should not bail out banks or car companies. we should remove the illegal population and take that burden off the taxpayers. throw out obamacare, the largest tax increase in our history.

    • r b

      wind, natural gas and geo thermal are viable additions. you fail to explain how the price will decrease. how will you stop opec from reducing their production to match any increase in production?
      we have 40 million work visas’. that is 40 million american jobs being filled by non americans. under the 2002 bush/gop farm bill, those immigrants are able to receive food stamps. which is the bigger problem. illegals or legals?

      • chuckb

        r b, all we have to do is elinminate the drilling ban and opec will fall apart, so long as we let them hold us hostage they will sock it to us. not only them but the oil companies themselves.
        i believe we have more crude oil than any other country in the world. opening up the drilling would immediately effect the oil market, the ragheads would immediately lose control and prices would fall.
        the oil companies have used the commodities market to increase their profits and we can thank congress for this little gift.
        if we continue on this path we are on, the oil companies will drain the last penny from our pockets, this is not to say the speculation market is not also responsible. . these are greedy people something like george soros and they will enslave us.
        natural gas is the most plentiful and infinite energy supply we have, however, the oil companies are not going to allow prices that we would enjoy.even if we changed our cars overnight to nat gas,

    • r b

      chuck. your assumption that opec will fall apart is based on? opec controls far more oil, and more importantly, they have current production. even, if, we could manage to start producing oil in the range of current opec production, it would take years. and in order for our production to affect world prices we would have to offer our oil to the world market. do you think u.s. oil producers would offer u.s. oil for less than the market demand.
      if we are not able or willing to do all of the above, then we allow opec to continue to set world price thru production levels. and if we allow that, why would any u.s. producers sell their oil for less than market price.

      • chuckb

        r b, just the fact we are drilling for oil, will effect the market, we can survive without middle eastern oil. we have ample oil with mexico, canada and our own production.
        as long as we allow the oil companies to subject us to the middle east, our economy is and will be based on crude oil.
        when the arabs nationalized their oil fields i believe amco and shell retained a hidden control of production, we operate the fields they are the front man for the market. i could be wrong about this, however, i remember when all this happened and there was much conversation about the operation. we can only free this country and our economy by divorcing ourselves from the shiekhs and the market.. the banks finance speculation in the oil market,”goldman sachs” barrys buddies, we will be forced to slavery by the dependence on the oil companies. it’s time we open competition in the oil business.

        the congress did us in us when they allowed the oil companies to place the crude on the commodities market. we have to clean the slate.

        i disagree with your assessment of romney, we cannot afford another four years of this jackass in the white house, he is nothing but a mouth piece for the real problem, george soros, goldman sachs and company. remember soros is in big with brazil and their oil exploration and barry loaned brazil big bucks for their venture.
        we can survive easliy without the arabs, maybe the bankers might not like it.

        • r b

          chuck. you have yet to address how we will be able to set prices that are lower than the world market. world market prices are set by demand vs production. if the u.s. increases world production by 10%, then opec reduces their production by 10%. the price remains the same.
          if your position is you would rather keep that money paid for oil in the u.s. by increasing production, then you have to be able to guarantee that none of that new production is shipped out of the country.
          if we are going to do that, why not have state run production. like mexico.

      • George E

        rb,

        If countries increase the supply (production) of oil in aggregate and set an expectation that supply will continue to outpace demand, the price of oil will come down, assuming the value of the USD remains stable. It really doesn’t matter where the oil is produced or who buys it from whom because the oil market is one very large worldwide market and oil is just a commodity.

        • r b

          rb, If countries increase the supply (production) of oil in aggregate and set an expectation that supply will continue to outpace demand, the price of oil will come down, assuming the value of the USD remains stable. It really doesn’t matter where the oil is produced or who buys it from whom because the oil market is one very large worldwide market and oil is just a commodity.<<

          you are unable to show how you would stop other country's from decreasing their production to off set any new production. opec has regulated price thru production. if opec was to reduce their production more than any new production, they could easily drive the price up. as their would be more demand than production. oil producers would actually increase their profits by producing less.

          simply increasing u.s. production will not equate to a lower price. it would keep u.s. money from flowing out of the u.s. to purchase oil. which does not mean that the money would stay in the u.s. nor does it mean that the price would fall.

          • George E

            rb,

            You are correct in saying that simply increasing US production of oil wouldn’t automatically cause the price of oil to drop. The oil market is very, very large and a little bit complicated, especially made so by governmental influence. Just like in any free market, the more competitors you have, generally means, a freer and less manipulated market. The oil market would qualify as a truly free market if it weren’t for governments, and of course consortiums like OPEC, trying to control large quantities and thereby the price. If, for example, Iran shuts down, or threatens to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, then they have in effect controlled a large portion of the world’s oil supply, so they can unilaterally drive up the price for everyone if we, or someone, doesn’t find a way of preventing them from doing that. I believe Iran is also trying to control the flow of Middle Eastern oil by gaining political and religious control over the governments in the region, like what you see in current uprisings there. Hence, the strategic concern of the US and other major consumers of oil throughout the world. Aside from that, the more oil we produce in this country, the lower our trade deficit and stronger our currency will be. That’s a good thing for our economy, apart from the oil independence concern.

          • r b

            The oil market would qualify as a truly free market if it weren’t for governments, and of course consortiums like OPEC <<

            i agree. which is why i keep asking any supporter of increased drilling how that increased production will lower the cost of the oil.

            if the u.s. started a govt oil company and processed the oil produced, or subsidized oil production, you could affect the price of that oil and the price of refined fuels in the u.s. but not the world market price.

          • George E

            rb,

            I would really hate to see our government try to run an oil company. No doubt it would be more expensive to operate than other oil companies, service to customers would likely not be as good, and the taxpayer would have to subsidize it heavily to keep it in business. The government should never get into businesses where they are competing with private companies. Let the market work.

          • r b

            rb, I would really hate to see our government try to run an oil company. No doubt it would be more expensive to operate than other oil companies, service to customers would likely not be as good, and the taxpayer would have to subsidize it heavily to keep it in business. The government should never get into businesses where they are competing with private companies. Let the market work. <<

            make up your mind. what we have today is the market working. if you deregulate the market, as many advocate, the prices will simply go higher.
            govt run oil companies do work. they provide cheaper prices than we have now.
            they subsidize domestic sales thru revenues from exporting of surplus production.
            even mexico is able to do this.

          • George E

            rb,

            Keep in mind that politicians play with the numbers and facts to win elections. When governments get into businesses like this, it’s bad economics. This usually looks good to the consumer (voter), but eventually comes back to bite the taxpayer, or holders of the country’s currency through inflation, in the butt. Don’t believe politicians when they start “buying” your vote like this.

          • r b

            rb, Keep in mind that politicians play with the numbers and facts to win elections. When governments get into businesses like this, it’s bad economics. This usually looks good to the consumer (voter), but eventually comes back to bite the taxpayer, or holders of the country’s currency through inflation, in the butt. Don’t believe politicians when they start “buying” your vote like this. <<

            having worked in the ME, argentina and mexico, i see benefits and detrimental affects from govt run programs. i also see the potential.

  • Howard

    The mormon is in fact a F*cking Liar just like his muslim counterpart who is in office currently. To believe a single word that comes out his mouth is INSANE. You people that believe that he will be different as president are DELUSIONAL. MITT=BARACK. Both are puppets of the same master. The Truth is the Truth whether you choose to believe it or not.

    • r b

      i agree with howard. little bush, obama and mitt are all the same. and we will continue to see the same results

      • Howard

        The owners of the Federal Reserve have owned the White House sense 1913. They Killed the last president that tried to stand up to them in 1963.

      • Howard

        Technically I guess it was before 1913 because the Federal Reserve act was passed in 1913.

  • uvuvuv

    what people don’t realize is the cost of that can of peas all comes down to the cost of the fuels to produce it. peas come out of the ground all by themselves, so really there is no cost there except for planting and fertilizing them (aha, fuel) and harvesting them (aha, fuel) and transporting them to the canning companies and processing them (aha, fuel). the steel for the can required fuel, and even the paper label and the glue used for the label, and the ink for the eye catching photo. and then the transport to the various stores chimes in (aha, fuel). so let’s say you ride your bilke to the store to buy that can of peas. green, you say? well the peas are.

  • GiveMeLiberty

    After miles and miles of blogs and I didn’t see anyone who noticed the years quoted in the chart are off. Off by 10 years to be exact. I’m shocked actually since it’s a non-government source.

  • James Corbin

    If they all are crooks—–He got me once , shame on him but he won’t get me twice. If they all are all
    crooks I will take my chances with another crook.

  • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    AS A PARTICIPANT IN THIS THREAD, I MUST SAY REPUBLICANS HAVE DONE A POOR JOB OF TELLING THE PUBLIC ABOUT CONTEMPORARY MORMONISM.

    A FEW YEARS AGO, CONVICTED FELON, Warren Jetts WAS IN THE NEWS. Mr. Jetts’ BELIEFS ARE AN “OFF-SHOOT” OF MORMONISM. REPUBLICANS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THOSE REPUBLICANS AND “THE UNDECIDED” WHO ARE “LEERY” ABOUT VOTING FOR Governor Mitt Romney, BECAUSE HE IS MORMON. IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO ALLOW Mr. Jetts AND HIS REPUTATION TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH Governor Romney.

    MOST AMERICANS ARE SIMPLE CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS. WE KNOW NOTHING OF MORMONISM, OTHER THAN PEOPLE LIKE, Mr. Jetts.

  • chuckb

    christopherallen horton,

    having known many mormons and having studied the religion, i find the mormon people to be outstanding americans and very patriotic.
    if you read your history, you will find the reason for much of the controversy regarding mormonism dates back to the origin of the church. personally i don’t believe how the church originated, ( vision by joseph smith) (uncovered the book of life)
    i have an old history book 1863 and they cover the religion, they claim smith was thrown in jail for minor crimes and offenses, while in jail he met a man who had written what they call the book of mormon, this guy was a con man and planned on organizing a church, smith obtained the book and went on to doing what the con man planned on.
    the mormons were not accepted in the states because of their polygamy hence their settlemnet in the state of utah.

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      “chuckb,”

      YOU ARE CORRECT. I STUDIED Joseph Smith IN SCHOOL. Mr. Smith IS THE “IMAGE” MOST AMERICANS HAVE OF MORMONISM.

      IT DOES NOT MATTER IF CONTEMPORARY MORMONS ARE PATRIOTIC IF MOST PEOPLE ASSOCIATE POLYGAMY WITH THE FAITH. HOW DID Governor Romney BECOME THE NOMINEE WHEN MOST PEOPLE HAVE A SIMPLISTIC VIEW OF, “Jesus Christ?” YES – CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS HAVE THEIR ISSUES WITH EACH OTHER, BUT THE BASIS OF THOSE PROBLEMS DEAL WITH THE IMPORTANCE OF, “Mary,” AND A NEED FOR IDOLATRY.

      FOR A STRANGE PERSON LIKE, Joseph Smith, TO RE-DEFINE “Jesus Christ” IS “MIND-BOGGLING” FOR BELIEVERS; Governor Romney CAN NOT ESCAPE THIS CONFUSION.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002684651114 Barney Murrell

    You cannot have energy independence when for years U.S. corporations have been exporting refined petroleum products and gradually raising gas and diesel prices while the amount of oil imports remained relatively stable.

    The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that from 2005 through 2010 EXPORTS of gas, diesel fuel, and other petroleum products increased from 425,190 to 858,685 thousands of barrels per year. At the same time crude oil imports were decreasing from 3,695,971 to 3,362,856 million barrels per year, but gasoline prices increased from approximately $2.30 per gallon to $2.75, and now to $3.75, and possibly more, in 2011.
    “U.S. Exports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products”
    (http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttexus1&f=a)

    In addition to user demand, oil speculators – who will never receive a barrel of oil, but will receive barrels of money in Commodity Futures Trading on oil – are also responsible for price increases. Oil speculation is global, thus speculators who have no intention of taking delivery may be a bigger reason for rapidly rising world oil prices then user demand because speculators add an artificial demand, and it is rising faster then user demand.

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (FTC) regulates oil trading, and a recently released FTC report reviewed by McClatchy newspapers revealed that “Historically, financial speculators accounted for about 30 percent of oil trading in commodity markets, while producers and end users made up about 70 percent. Today it’s almost the reverse,”
    “Once Again, speculators behind sharply rising oil and gasoline prices”
    (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/21/139521/once-again-speculators-behind.html).

    On CNN recently, oil man T Boone Pickens claimed oil speculation had little to do with price increases. But what he didn’t say was how speculation has inflated demand to the point there is more speculation than user demand.

    Moreover, an 3/11/2011 article in The Telegraph UK − “How a broker spent $520M in a drunken stupor and moved the global oil price,” − reported that late one night a “Mr. Perkins had single-handedly moved the global price of oil to an eight-month high during a “drunken blackout”. Prices leapt by more than $1.50 a barrel in under half an hour at around 2am.”
    “How a broker spent $520M in a drunken stupor and moved the global oil price”
    (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7862246/How-a-broker-spent-520m-in-a-drunken-stupor-and-moved-the-global-oil-price.html

    Thus, Republicans play politics, speculators get rich, and the public gets taken

    • George E

      Barney,

      I know it’s tempting to blame someone for the rise in gasoline prices. It’s especially fun to blame those “crooked speculators” and “greedy big oil” companies for unfairly driving up prices at our expense. This just hasn’t been proven in either case, and you know there’s certainly been a lot of effort by investigators trying to make this case. Remember, there are speculators on both sides of every trade, moving prices up and down. It’s not like all the speculators get together and decide to bid prices up one day and down another. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be anyone to take the other side of the trade. In other words, even if speculators wanted to drive the price up or down, they couldn’t because there wouldn’t be anyone willing to sell if all the other speculators wanted to buy, and vice versa. As far as big oil is concerned, people usually think of Exxon Mobil, Conoco, etc. These are just two of many, many companies in the business of exploring, producing, refining, and distributing oil and oil products. This is a very competitive market, even though there are many very large companies in the business. They don’t set the prices anymore than anyone else. I think if you’ll look closely you’ll discover that countries are more likely to drive the price in one direction or the other than any other party. Certainly oil producing countries like Iran, can affect the price by taking aggressive actions that would either increase or decrease the production of oil in the world market. If they increase the production of oil, the price generally responds by coming down. If they decrease production, the price generally goes up. In broad terms, it really doesn’t matter which country takes these actions. For instance, if Iran cuts its production by 1 million barrels per day, but the US increases its production by 1 million barrels per day, the price should not move either way. Having said that, there is a more sinister way that the US can affect our price of oil and oil products, like gasoline. That’s by devaluing the US dollar. When the Federal Reserve buys US government debt they have to “print” more US money. The more money that is put into circulation, the lower the value of existing money becomes. The lower the value of the USD, the prices for most everything, including gasoline, moves higher. Also, there’s another way the government can drive up prices. That’s through regulation and taxes. When the government makes it harder or more expensive to explore, produce, refine, distribute these products, the cost will likely be passed on to consumers through higher prices. Obviously, when the government raises the tax on anything, including gasoline, the price will move higher to reflect these taxes. So, if you really want to find a villain for having to pay higher prices, look at the government, not crooked speculators or greedy oil companies.

      • r b

        The more money that is put into circulation, the lower the value of existing money becomes. <<

        that is incorrect. if we report that we print more without any viable reason, it may have an affect. whether we actually introduce more currency or not.
        demand for more currency due to population increase will not devalue the currency.
        introducing more currency with out ever reporting that increase will not devalue.

        the cost of business is always passed thru. to the customers and/or the employees. corporations and business' pay no tax. they simply administer the tax they collect from their customers. if that increase is determined to be detrimental to the customer, than they apply that cost to employees with lower compensation and/or fewer employees.

        • George E

          rb,

          I don’t understand your economics or possibly I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. At any rate, any time a government prints money (increases the money in circulation) without an offsetting increase in the value of the underlying asset, the value of the money will devalue. Our USD is valued by the size of the US economy. If the economy recedes and the amount of money in circulation stays the same, the value of the money will also decline proportionately. Likewise, if the GDP grows, but the amount of money in circulation grows even more, the value of the USD will also decline. The concept is not all that complicated.

          • r b

            i agree with most your example. but you are assuming that all values are known and reported. or at least honestly reported.

            the addition of unreported currency would not have any affect on the value of the currency.

            it is the reporting of additional currency that affects the value. if we did not report the additional currency, no one would know.

            a deflationary economy may increase the value of the currency. in today’s economy, i can use borrowed low interest currency to purchase distressed property’s. i get more for that dollar than i did in the past. yes. that is a rather simplistic example.

            this is all about manipulation. the govt can manipulate the value of the dollar. with nothing more than a report. or the lack of one.

          • George E

            rb,

            Yes, I guess I am assuming that the amount of currency in circulation is honestly reported. Do you have any evidence that it isn’t?

          • r b

            rb, Yes, I guess I am assuming that the amount of currency in circulation is honestly reported. Do you have any evidence that it isn’t? <<

            just as much evidence that the govt is honestly reporting it correctly. i do tend to be a bit cynical of our politicians.

    • r b

      Notes: Crude oil exports are restricted to: (1) crude oil derived from fields under the State waters of Alaska’s Cook Inlet; (2) Alaskan North Slope crude oil; (3) certain domestically produced crude oil destined for Canada; (4) shipments to U.S. territories; and (5) California crude oil to Pacific Rim countries. Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.

      • George E

        This is probably another example of too much government regulation and interference in private business. More than anything, this probably just adds additional and unnecessary cost to oil companies which invariably gets pushed down to the customer. Again, if you want to blame anyone for the high price of gasoline, blame the government.

        • r b

          Notes: Crude oil exports are restricted to: (1) crude oil derived from fields under the State waters of Alaska’s Cook Inlet; (2) Alaskan North Slope crude oil; (3) certain domestically produced crude oil destined for Canada; (4) shipments to U.S. territories; and (5) California crude oil to Pacific Rim countries. Totals may not equal sum [...]

          This is probably another example of too much government regulation and interference in private business. More than anything, this probably just adds additional and unnecessary cost to oil companies which invariably gets pushed down to the customer. Again, if you want to blame anyone for the high price of gasoline, blame the government.<<

          it is more profitable to sell (export) the crude oil produced in alaska than to ship it to domestic refiners.
          the refined fuels we ship to our territories. the reasons should be obvious.
          the insinuation by the op was that we were selling excess production. which is not the case.

          • George E

            rb,

            It doesn’t matter, in economic terms, whether our oil companies sell US produced oil to foreigners. That doesn’t change the price we pay at the pump at all. Producing all the oil we can here does matter, however, because it balances our current account and strengthens the USD, as well as creating thousands of good US jobs.

          • r b

            rb, It doesn’t matter, in economic terms, whether our oil companies sell US produced oil to foreigners. That doesn’t change the price we pay at the pump at all. Producing all the oil we can here does matter, however, because it balances our current account and strengthens the USD, as well as creating thousands of good US jobs. <<

            well, i do agree. as long as the jobs created are held by americans and as long as you understand that the price will not be decreased simply because of an increase in domestic production.

          • George E

            We agree on that.

  • chuckb

    r b, you asked last night how the price of oil could come down. that’s an easy answer, all we have to do is change the law and go back to out original regulation on forbidding the oil companies to place crude on the commodities market. we have become entangled in the worlds market and consequently we are hit by high gas prices, the oil companies use every excuse to drive the price up, a rebel gets shot in nigeria, hurricane in the gulf, refinery shuts down for maintenance, etc. we are at the point where the worlds market is running our economy, we could break up the oil cartel in the u.s. forbid them to place u.s. crude on the market this would allow competition and you would see the price of gas come down immediately.
    stop the feds from printing fiat money. this present administration is doing everything backwards, they have regulated our exploration almost to the point we have none.
    the oil business is the gorilla in the bedroom, they are ruling the world and economies.
    .

    • r b

      so you advocating nationalization. which may be the final answer.

      if oil companies can not place their oil in the world market. but they could use world market pricing. you would have to put pricing controls into place. then you would have to require minimum production from each oil producer to meet domestic demand.

      in all of this you have failed to address the incentive to produce. oil producers are not trying to increase their production to receive smaller profits. they do not strive to produce more and then receive less for that production.

      i agree that they are viable solutions. i disagree that you can force private company’s to accomplish those solutions.

    • George E

      chuckb,

      I agree with you that our government has really tried to stifle the oil and gas industries in this country, and that certainly hasn’t helped lower prices for those commodities. However, I don’t share your concern that it’s the oil companies themselves that are manipulating prices higher. There are thousands of oil producing companies in the world, so it would be difficult for any one of them to cause prices to rise permanently, although it’s not impossible for one or two of the largest companies to do this on a short term basis. The real culprits in this story are the governments who take control over drilling and production. They will do crazy things like curtail supplies, cause political insurrections, regulate, and tax these commodities for political gain. Consortiums also play a role, but they are really trying to balance supply and demand to achieve stable pricing. They understand now that artificially driving prices up beyond the levels supported by demand only cause demand destruction down the road, and that’s not good for business. While the oil companies do benefit from higher prices, so long as they don’t have to reduce their deliveries, they don’t set prices to do this. Those are set by the market (composite of all buyers and sellers) and governments. The market generally acts rationally, but governments under central planning or dictatorial control don’t. That’s where the real problem is.

      • chuckb

        george e, this happened in 2004

        The United States has allowed multiple large, vertically integrated oil companies to merge over
        the last five years, placing control of the market in too few hands. The result:
        uncompetitive
        domestic gasoline markets. Large oil companies can more easily control domestic gasoline prices
        by exploiting their ever-greater market share, keeping prices artificially high long enough to rake
        in easy profits but not so long that consumers reduce their dependence on oil (after all, if prices
        went up too high for too long, then we’d seek alternatives to oil).
        The largest five oil companies operating in the United States (ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco,
        ConocoPhillips, BP and Royal Dutch Shell) now control:
        · 14.2% of global oil production (nearly as much as the entire Middle East members of the
        OPEC cartel).
        · 48% of the domestic oil production (which is significant given the fact that the U.S. is the
        3rd largest oil producer in the world).
        · 50.3% of domestic refinery capacity.
        · 61.8% of the retail gasoline market.
        · These same five companies also control 21.3% of domestic natural gas production.
        It is therefore little wonder why these top companies enjoyed after-tax profits of $60 billion in
        2003 alone.
        These figures are in stark contrast to just a decade ago, when the top five oil companies

        this administration is using high prices to push their green energy policy and force people
        into alternative fuels, batteries, wind and solar. none of these are feasible and has this country on the verge of collapsing the economy. there are forces driving the markets that we don’t see, people like geroge soros a big hedge fund manager and investor in brazillian oil.

        • George E

          chuckb,

          I’d agree with you that the 5 largest oil companies are too big “IF” they worked in collusion to set prices, etc, but they don’t. They compete against each other for the available business. They have gotten large, very large, even massive over time, but that’s just a characteristic of commodity markets. Companies can’t raise prices to improve margins, so they reduce their costs by merging and using their size to leverage costs down. You’ll notice that while they do rake in a lot of cash, their margins are very low, especially compared to other large companies, like Apple for instance. If you have evidence that these companies are unfairly controlling the market, then we’d have a reason to get concerned and possibly take action to break them apart. Until then, I continue to say it’s not the oil companies that are behind your misery. It’s the government.

          • r b

            chuckb, I’d agree with you that the 5 largest oil companies are too big “IF” they worked in collusion to set prices, etc, but they don’t. They compete against each other for the available business. <<

            you continue to labor under the notion that oil is being sold to a decreasing customer base. it is exactly the opposite.

          • George E

            Sorry. You lost me with that remark. Why do you think I’m laboring under the notion that the customer base for oil is decreasing over time?

          • r b

            chuckb, I’d agree with you that the 5 largest oil companies are too big “IF” they worked in collusion to set prices, etc, but they don’t. They compete against each other for the available business. << you continue to labor under the notion that oil is being sold to a decreasing customer base. it is [...]

            Sorry. You lost me with that remark. Why do you think I'm laboring under the notion that the customer base for oil is decreasing over time? <<

            you continue to state that the oil company's have a need to compete over a customer base. the customer base increases daily. there are very few alternatives. you, the consumer, have no options.

            oil is sold to the highest bidder. oil production does have or need a sales dept.

            so where is the need to compete? you have to show a reason that an oil producer would have a surplus that they could not sell at market price. that is the only reason a producer would ever decrease their price.

  • chuckb

    r b, how do you figure we would be nationalizing the oil industry, quite the contrary, we would put competition where we have a monopoly. that’s what we have always had until congress allowed the major oil companies to merge and place their crude on the world market.
    you say where’s the incentive? well, where’s the incentive in anything we produce in this country, free markets always excel and what we have now is not free. it doesn’t make much sense to hold the people hostage at the gas pump just for the oil companies to make larger profits.

    • r b

      Large oil companies can more easily control domestic gasoline prices
      by exploiting their ever-greater market share, keeping prices artificially high long enough to rake
      in easy profits but not so long that consumers reduce their dependence on oil (after all, if prices
      went up too high for too long, then we’d seek alternatives to oil). <<

      i would add that the price consumers will pay without demanding an alternative is increased with every cycle.

  • chuckb

    r b, maybe what i have said is put in the wrong context. opec doesn’t control the price of crude the furures market and manipulation by the oil companies, such as contrived shortages, questionable fires at the refinery and so on. opec can manipulate the flow of oil and i believe this is in conjunction with big oil.
    you say there’s competition in the oil business, please advice me on that one. the competition is in the market and traders drive the prices.
    i believe if our government was honest they would refuse to allow big oil from putting u.s. oil on the worlds market. that’s the way it used to be and the oil companies still made profits, however, not as obscene as currently. (skulldrggery in the congress)

    (pasted from about.com)

    Question: How Are Oil Prices Determined?

    Answer: Commodity traders are responsible for oil prices by bidding on oil futures contracts. These contracts are basically agreements to buy or sell oil at a specific date in the future for an agreed-upon price. These futures contracts are executed on the floor of a commodity exchange by traders who are registered with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. Commodities have been traded for more than 100 years, and have been regulated by the CFTC since the 1920s.

    Commodities traders fall into two categories. Most representatives of companies who actually use oil. They buy oil for delivery at a future date at the fixed price. That way, they know the price of the oil, can plan for it financially, and therefore reduce (or hedge) the risk to their corporations. Traders in the second category are actual speculators. Their only motive is to make money from changes in the price of oil.
    .(does any of this remind you of how mr. soros makes his money)

    anyway you look at it pres. soetoro does not want gas prices to go down. he is relying on forcing the public into his green energy policy which is an abstract failure. look at the cost of food, gas is reaching $5.00 pg in los angeles (caused by the drought) that’s a new one.

    • r b

      the problem with the stock market, the monopoly money market, is going to be difficult to over come.

      i do agree that speculation has been a factor. but the real problem is in the nature of the business.

      currently we do not foster a market that would induce competition. adding more oil production does not change that.

      adding a new source of energy would.

  • chuckb

    r b, i agree with your assertion we need an alternative fuel, natural gas would be the best at this time, however, the monopoly (oil comp.) controls the flow of gas, they control the size of the pipeline, this in order to keep a high demand.

    we do not have anything at this time except crude and natural gas, from the well to the market place these people are controlling our economy. plastics are made from crude and this is something we use in almost every product manufactured. when the crude is placed on the market we are in the center of the floor bidding against every industrial country in the world, consequently we are subject to these high prices. i say keep the oil companies out of the futures market, allow open drilling in this country and force the oil giants to supply our needs before they place oil on the market, the competition alone would keep standard oil in line. if you go back and read the countries history at the turn of the century standard oil ruled the world for oil production and when business slowed up they created a shortage to drive prices up,

    we have an infinite supply of natural gas, the oil companies have the monopoly, we could change cars overnight to this fuel. you can bet on one thing the oil companies and politicians are not going to have any part of this.

    • r b

      r b, i agree with your assertion we need an alternative fuel, natural gas would be the best at this time, however, the monopoly (oil comp.) controls the flow of gas, they control the size of the pipeline, this in order to keep a high demand. we do not have anything at this time except crude and natural gas, from the well to the market place these people are controlling our economy. plastics are made from crude and this is something we use in almost every product manufactured. when the crude is placed on the market we are in the center of the floor bidding against every industrial country in the world, consequently we are subject to these high prices. i say keep the oil companies out of the futures market, allow open drilling in this country and force the oil giants to supply our needs before they place oil on the market, the competition alone would keep standard oil in line. if you go back and read the countries history at the turn of the century standard oil ruled the world for oil production and when business slowed up they created a shortage to drive prices up, we have an infinite supply of natural gas, the oil companies have the monopoly, we could change cars overnight to this fuel. you can bet on one thing the oil companies and politicians are not going to have any part of this. <<

      so are we going to have a free market. or not. personally, i would opt for govt production. even if it required subsidization at the start.

      we have a lot of federal land that we know has oil and gas. so we drill. that employes folks. we will need to build natural gas refueling stations and govt operated gas stations. that employs even more.

      we could restrict exports of oil and gas. put tariffs on imported petroleum products. we can produce our own. then the domestic producers have competition.

      and all of that would put pressure on the pricing of international producers.

      a similar solution would stop the loss of jobs to foreign country's, and, if we stopped giving away american jobs to cheap labor immigrants, we could turn this economy around.

      the solutions are rather simple. getting anyone on board to apply them is a bit more difficult.

      • George E

        You guys have some good ideas. Certainly stimulating our natural gas industry by encouraging motor vehicle conversion to NG will dramatically reduce our usage of crude oil/gasoline (and, by the way, clean the atmosphere). This would create many new jobs and reduce our balance of payments which would help strengthen the value of the USD (reduce inflation). Opening federal lands to drilling would bring more revenue to the federal government which would help reduce the deficit, and maybe the debt. This would also bring more oil to market, and that would tend to reduce the price of crude oil. However, restricting exports of oil and gas would discourage private investment in these industries because it would keep domestic prices artificially low until supply/demand eventually found a new balance bringing domestic prices back up to world prices. Putting tariffs on imported oil and gas products simply works to raise the price for consumers, and relaxing competition on domestic producers. Domestically produced oil and gas would immediately be priced at the same level of the imported oil and gas. Any attempt by the government to control prices would not be successful because that would just cause domestic production to fall.

        • r b

          You guys have some good ideas. Certainly stimulating our natural gas industry by encouraging motor vehicle conversion to NG will dramatically reduce our usage of crude oil/gasoline (and, by the way, clean the atmosphere). This would create many new jobs and reduce our balance of payments which would help strengthen the value of the USD (reduce inflation). Opening federal lands to drilling would bring more revenue to the federal government which would help reduce the deficit, and maybe the debt. This would also bring more oil to market, and that would tend to reduce the price of crude oil. However, restricting exports of oil and gas would discourage private investment in these industries because it would keep domestic prices artificially low until supply/demand eventually found a new balance bringing domestic prices back up to world prices. Putting tariffs on imported oil and gas products simply works to raise the price for consumers, and relaxing competition on domestic producers. Domestically produced oil and gas would immediately be priced at the same level of the imported oil and gas. Any attempt by the government to control prices would not be successful because that would just cause domestic production to fall.<<

          i agree. i am curious why so many people believe that 'drill baby drill' is the answer to high prices. why support domestic production increases if the production is not kept in the u.s.?

          the only viable solution is alternative energy sources. will require a combination of several different sources. including the use of petroleum.

          • George E

            rb,

            Increasing crude production relative to demand will bring down prices, so “drill baby drill” is one answer, but maybe not the only one. Alternative fuels are good, so long as they are economical without continual government subsidies. Converting our oil market from a world market to a domestic market would be very tough, and I expect more costly for consumers in the long run. I’m not against “all” government regulation of this business, but I thing we need to be very careful not to “over” regulate which unnecessarily creates higher costs, lower production, less competition, etc.

          • r b

            rb, Increasing crude production relative to demand will bring down prices, so “drill baby drill” is one answer,<<

            i keep waiting for anyone to show how they will stop opec from decreasing their production to off set any u.s. increase in production. demand continues to increase. if we are not careful, opec will decrease production below demand in response to our increased drilling. which will increase prices even more.

            so how are you going to stop that.

            you do know we currently subsidize the oil and gas company's.

          • George E

            We shouldn’t “make” OPEC increase or sustain their production levels. That would be interference in their internal affairs. Our best hope is that they will want to generate more cash by producing and selling their oil rather than reducing production to keep prices high. You may note that over the past 30 years OPEC has had a hard time getting their members to comply with their agreed-to production goals. Invariably some of their members produce more oil than they had agreed, and that makes it difficult for OPEC to actually control the price of oil on the world market. In addition, OPEC has no control over the other oil producers, like the USA and Russia who, as you know, are giants in the industry on their own. Alternatives are great so long as they are economical on their own, and we should encourage development of these fuels, but don’t get in a rut of continually subsidizing them to make them “appear” to be economical. We can stop most of the tax breaks for oil and gas companies if we want. The price of oil, at least, is high enough to sustain this industry’s growth and reasonable investment going forward. I would add, however, that if we do that, we should seriously reduce government regulations that work to constrain these businesses. I advocate “stimulating” deployment of natural gas into motor vehicles. However, I do not advocate government “subsidies” to do this. I believe we should give this industry a “tax and regulatory holiday” for a few years to stimulate private investment in the infrastructure necessary to get this transition off the ground. After which time, these “benefits” should be lifted to put this industry in balance with other US industries.

          • r b

            We shouldn’t “make” OPEC increase or sustain their production levels. That would be interference in their internal affairs. Our best hope is that they will want to generate more cash by producing and selling their oil rather than reducing production to keep prices high. You may note that over the past 30 years OPEC has had a hard time getting their members to comply with their agreed-to production goals <<

            not quite true. the last 3 times opec raised production, it was at our request, and was a hard sell to opec. a lot has changed in 30 years. i would have no problem selling a decrease in production to increase profits to any large producer.

            they can generate more profits and more cash by producing less.

            I advocate “stimulating” deployment of natural gas into motor vehicles. However, I do not advocate government “subsidies” to do this. I believe we should give this industry a “tax and regulatory holiday” for a few years to stimulate private investment in the infrastructure necessary to get this transition off the ground.<<

            a tax break is a subsidy. and we still provide subsides to the oil and gas industry.

            you want the free market to accomplish this change to a different energy. but that oil market does not see any benefit from doing that.

            a hope and prayer is not working.

            if i could show you a higher profit, a higher revenue flow, a decrease in your production, and a decrease in your costs, you would follow that plan.

            none of the 'increase the drilling supporters' can show how the increase would actually decrease prices. they can not show that it would keep prices static.

            so far, neither have you.

            the best part of using american resources is that it creates jobs and keeps that money here. instead of flowing out.

            i think you can sell that plan. i would support that plan with some restrictions on producers. but the notion that simply increasing domestic production would reduce prices or demand is going to create even more problems when it does not happen.

            the most viable solution is to lower demand. and that requires a different energy source. even if that new energy source only eliminates 25% of the current demand. a renewable energy source is an even better solution.

            we are a long ways from eliminating dependance on petroleum. but we can and should be doing all that we can to lower our need for it.

          • George E

            rb,

            At some point we may have to tranisition from petroleum to other sources of energy, but when will “some point” occur? Why are we pressuring ourselves to reduce our usage of petroleum products today when the “real” need may not happen for many years to come? Why can’t we leave this transition up to the market? As petroleum products become more scarce, their prices will rise, and that should drive us to use other “alternative” fuels. Why do we need government bureaucrats to make this decision for us when they certainly have demonstrated they don’t have the answers either, and the taxpayer always gets stuck with the bill they run up? You can classify tax breaks as subsidies if you want, but there is a significant difference in my opinion. Tax breaks only “reduce” the tax burden these companies would normally have to pay. In other words, the government is letting these companies keep more of “their” money to reinvest in their businesses as they see fit. Subsidies are grants, uncolladeralized loans, or hand-outs the government gives companies from the federal treasury paid-in by other taxpayers, and as you know, much of this is never re-paid to the government.

          • r b

            rb, At some point we may have to tranisition from petroleum to other sources of energy, but when will “some point” occur? Why are we pressuring ourselves to reduce our usage of petroleum products today when the “real” need may not happen for many years to come? Why can’t we leave this transition up to the market? As petroleum products become more scarce, their prices will rise, and that should drive us to use other “alternative” fuels. Why do we need government bureaucrats to make this decision for us when they certainly have demonstrated they don’t have the answers either, and the taxpayer always gets stuck with the bill they run up? You can classify tax breaks as subsidies if you want, but there is a significant difference in my opinion. Tax breaks only “reduce” the tax burden these companies would normally have to pay. In other words, the government is letting these companies keep more of “their” money to reinvest in their businesses as they see fit. Subsidies are grants, uncolladeralized loans, or hand-outs the government gives companies from the federal treasury paid-in by other taxpayers, and as you know, much of this is never re-paid to the government. <<

            what price will force that transition? how long can the average american pay for the increasing costs of petroleum? will you wait until it creates a more detrimental impact before seeking a new energy?

            when the govt allows one company or person to pay less in taxes than i wind up paying more to recover that loss of revenue. especially if the govt has to borrow money to fund the loss.

            which brings us back to the fact that drilling or increasing production is not going to make any difference in the pricing and the rising costs of petroleum dependency.

            you might ask the folks in california what their thoughts on the price of gas are? and if they would embrace a cheaper alternative.

            i am not against increasing domestic production. with some restrictions on where that production is sold. but i also advocate using different energy sources when feasibly possible. increasing production of oil while lowering the demand.

            we create jobs and gain energy security.

            but that is not what the drill baby drill folks are selling.

          • George E

            rb,

            People will make the transition from petroleum based fuels to alternative fuels when the alternative fuels are less expensive than petroleum based fuels. I don’t know what that price is, but it will likely be different for everyone. You can see that some of this transition has already taken place, but not in the kind of volume I think you would like to see. People will “endure” the high cost of petroleum based fuels as long as it is their best (least expensive) option.

            Regarding equality in taxes, I recommend we just replace our current complicated tax code with a single flat tax rate for everyone to pay, and drop all deductions. Would that be more fair for you?

            Increasing drilling may not bring the price down, but it certainly won’t drive it up either. It will bring many new jobs to this economy which we really need, and will bring a lot of new revenue to the federal government that should help reduce budget deficits.

            Regarding the pain consumers in California are experiencing because of the high gasoline price, they can blame themselves for that. The main reason their gasoline costs more than anywhere else in the US is the amount of taxes they add to the price of gasoline.

            Regarding lowering demand for petroleum, we need to be careful. If demand can be lowered through economically viable means, then great. Otherwise, lowering demand will also lead to lowering economic growth, and that’s certainly not good. By economically viable I certainly don’t mean by government subsidies because that is faux economics.

          • r b

            Regarding equality in taxes, I recommend we just replace our current complicated tax code with a single flat tax rate for everyone to pay, and drop all deductions.<<

            i would love to see a flat tax and no deductions.

            Increasing drilling may not bring the price down, but it certainly won’t drive it up either. It will bring many new jobs to this economy which we really need, and will bring a lot of new revenue to the federal government that should help reduce budget deficits. <<

            i concur. tho the price may rise with out some caps and restrictions. i would accept that short term possible increase as a trade off for the jobs and revenue. especially for the jobs.

            The main reason their gasoline costs more than anywhere else in the US is the amount of taxes they add to the price of gasoline. <<

            a combination of taxes and additives. natural gas would be a great improvement for california.

            By economically viable I certainly don’t mean by government subsidies because that is faux economics. <<

            yet we continue to subsidize our current gas and oil production. if we can do it for them then we can do it for other forms of energy as well. considering that oil and gas is firmly established, why don't we take their subsidies and use it to develop new energy.

            if we simply transitioned rail and public vehicles to natural gas, we would be ahead.

          • George E

            rb,

            We’re almost in complete agreement. Regarding subsidies to alternative energy companies, I wouldn’t have any problem giving them a tax and regulation holiday to give private investors an incentive to invest in these businesses. I wouldn’t go beyond that, however, because that would most likely deplete our federal treasury for projects likely to fail. After all, if private investors aren’t willing to risk their money in these companies, they probably aren’t going to be good investments. So, let’s not waste taxpayer money on projects likely to fail. Research is another matter. I almost don’t care how much we spend on R&D for alternative energies. Those projects aren’t expected to make money like commercial companies are, and may create technologies that private industries can pick up and make profitable products from.

          • r b

            we may be in agreement on most of this. best of luck selling the tax plan, i don’t see that happening.
            i have doubts as too how much many new drilling and or productions company’s will be created. i think it will be the same old ones.
            i also have concerns about immigrant labor being imported to fill new jobs created by this.

            if everyone quit arguing over the petty issues, perhaps this could be implemented.

          • George E

            Yep. It’s doable if both sides are willing to compromise.

          • r b

            Yep. It’s doable if both sides are willing to compromise. <<

            maybe. but it is going to require honesty as to the expectations and the reasons for the project. that will be the real problem.

  • brazzos

    The Keystone Pipeline is not being built for energy independence. The oil companies are planning to sell it to other countries, to make a profit. Then Romney’s trickle down plans, will be the 1%’ers Throwing bones tio the 99%’ers.

    • Thinking About

      The Keystone is to be built in order to bring Canadian crude to the gulf coast of Texas to the Koch Brother industries and then to the world market and will be priced as world oil products. It was never designed to aid in USA independence on world oil prices but designed to fill up the pockets of the Koch brothers to then buy more politicans. There are lots of acreage leased and tested in the USA and the oil companies are not drilling very much on these lands. They would rather get cheaper oil off of our national parks lands. It is time to stop the whining about oil companies not being able to suck off others and stand on their own feet for a while. Don’t believe they can only drill on federal lands, that is just crap.

      • George E

        Thinking,

        Keystone will help keep our refineries filled to capacity so they are productive. It also reduces the cost of transportation of getting the oil from Canada to the US. Both of these measures help keep the cost of making gasoline less than it would otherwise be. It also means jobs for people working on the pipeline. Nothing about this project is negative for the US or Canada.

        Oil companies invest in drilling projects that have the best probability of producing commercial quantities of petroleum products. They don’t drill any and everywhere. They always have more land leased than they actually drill on. Leases are options to drill, not a guarantee that they will.

        Since you object to the way the Koch’s donate their money to political groups, I’d guess you feel the same with regard to George Soros. Correct? They both do the same thing, except that one donates to right-wing ideological groups and causes while the other donates to left-wing ideological groups and causes.

  • JON

    THIS WEBSITE IS SUCH A WASTE OF TIME!!!!!

    • George E

      Why do you think this website is a waste of your time, and how do you think it should change so that it’s not a waste of your time to participate on it?

      • r b

        Why do you think this website is a waste of your time, and how do you think it should change so that it’s not a waste of your time to participate on it? <<

        why would anyone waste their time to post on a site that they consider a worthless waste of their time? yes. that is rhetorical sarcasm.

  • chuckb

    as long as we place our crude on the world commodities market, this will leave us at prey to the oil companies, why should we allow these oil companies to produce crude on this continent and then subject the people to speculators of the world.. this is exactly what they want. the big five use opec as a tool for their profit margins.they have a new crisis on hand for every price rise.
    the answer is pass legislation to break up the merger of the oil cartel, allow a free market to any company that wants to venture in drilling and exploration. we have enough reserves in this country to last over two hundred years and if they don’t have a reliable alternative by then, so what.
    look at gas prices in california almost to $5.00pg how long do you think we can keep the economy going with that. these people are speculating on the market have only one thing on their mind, profit.
    not only the regulation barry has given the oil industry we are at the mercy of large banks, goldman sachs, hedge funds, george soros driving the prices. so i say it is time to take our oil out of the hands of this greed and congress can do it, however, barry and reid would never allow it to happen.

    • r b

      look at gas prices in california almost to $5.00pg how long do you think we can keep the economy going with that. these people are speculating on the market have only one thing on their mind, profit. not only the regulation barry has given the oil industry we are at the mercy of large banks, goldman sachs, hedge funds, george soros driving the prices. so i say it is time to take our oil out of the hands of this greed and congress can do it, however, barry and reid would never allow it to happen.<<

      obama and the democrats would change this faster than the gop.
      socializing or heavy regulation of oil and gas will never be accepted by the republicans.
      a national oil &/or natural gas company/distribution might get approved by the democrats.

      • George E

        rb,

        Having the government run an oil company is something the Democrats and Hugo Chavez might do, but you’re right, Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians will not.

        • r b

          rb, Having the government run an oil company is something the Democrats and Hugo Chavez might do, but you’re right, Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians will not.<<

          when the libertarians, conservatives and republicans start paying $5 a gallon or more as an average, some of them will support it.
          you are not aware that much of the world oil production is state run?

          • George E

            rb,

            When prices go up radically, it hurts people a lot. Some of the more uninformed will get desperate and be willing to try anything. I voted for Ross Perot in such a time, but I’ll never make that mistake again.

            Yes, I know that much of the world production of crude oil is by government controlled companies. There’s a lot of state-run companies in the world, but I don’t see that as a reason for us to make the same mistake. Private industry always out produces state-run industry. The only way a state-run industry can appear to compete with private industry is if the state subsidizes the costs of their companies and controls the price to consumers so it is kept artificially low. This buys votes, but it doesn’t keep real costs down. Someone has to pay the bill. It ought to be the consumer, not the taxpayer.

          • r b

            Private industry always out produces state-run industry. The only way a state-run industry can appear to compete with private industry is if the state subsidizes the costs of their companies and controls the price to consumers so it is kept artificially low. <<

            that depends on how it is structured. while many countries subsidize their pricing, they more than off set that with profits from exporting the surplus. obviously if we took the profits out of the pricing, the price would be lower.

          • George E

            rb,

            The government already makes a lot of money from taxing the oil and gas industry without having the operating costs or taking the risk of losing money like the companies do. If the government wanted to lower your price per gallon of gasoline, they could simply drop the taxes. It’s pretty obvious to me that this government isn’t interested in lowering the price of gasoline because they want us to convert our cars to electric power that’s produced with wind and solar. Of course, that just isn’t realistic right now.

          • r b

            rb, The government already makes a lot of money from taxing the oil and gas industry without having the operating costs or taking the risk of losing money like the companies do. If the government wanted to lower your price per gallon of gasoline, they could simply drop the taxes. It’s pretty obvious to me that this government isn’t interested in lowering the price of gasoline because they want us to convert our cars to electric power that’s produced with wind and solar. Of course, that just isn’t realistic right now. <<

            lowering tax revenue is part of what got us in this mess. corporations do not pay taxes. they simply administer the taxes they collect from the consumer.

            converting to natural gas produced by the state would be a better option.

          • George E

            rb,

            We definitely do need to raise tax revenue AND drastically reduce spending to get the federal budget in balance. The best way to raise tax revenue is to grow the economy and broaden the tax base. That way everyone benefits and we don’t have to raise tax rates too high. The economy will grow fastest when the government keeps tax rates low while providing the necessary infrastructure and civil/political/fiscal/monetary/regulatory stability and certainty.

            I definitely think natural gas is one key solution to many of our problems, but I don’t want the government to compete with private companies. I’d rather see them control it like a utility if they feel the need (to screw it up), but I think it would be a bigger mistake for the government to try to operate a company like this.

        • r b

          just curious. if state run oil and gas was able to produce $1 a gallon gas in competition with private run at $4 a gallon gas, where do you think those republicans and conservatives would choose to fill up? who do you think they would vote for in the future?

          • George E

            rb,

            Yeah, but that’s a really big “IF”. Nothing in history tells us a state run “anything” can out-produce private industry. If you took all the profit “and taxes” out of gasoline today, you wouldn’t get down to $1 per gallon of gasoline. When state-run industries become more productive than private industries, then you’ll see a lot of people convert to socialism. Until then, you can only dream of such a day……………because it won’t happen.

          • r b

            rb, Yeah, but that’s a really big “IF”. Nothing in history tells us a state run “anything” can out-produce private industry. If you took all the profit “and taxes” out of gasoline today, you wouldn’t get down to $1 per gallon of gasoline. When state-run industries become more productive than private industries, then you’ll see a lot of people convert to socialism. Until then, you can only dream of such a day……………because it won’t happen. <<

            we are a socialist country and always have been. we are expanding our socialism.
            you do know sa is rather productive and profitable.

          • George E

            rb,

            Unfortunately, the US is more socialist today than it ought to be. Hopefully, we’ll be able to correct that in coming years.

          • r b

            rb, Unfortunately, the US is more socialist today than it ought to be. Hopefully, we’ll be able to correct that in coming years. <<

            i see a decrease in socialist benefits to individuals and an increase in benefits to corporations and foreign country's.

          • George E

            rb,

            How about we quit trying to solve every problem through some government program, and quit giving taxpayer money to companies that can’t make it on their own? We’re letting our politicians buy votes and influence with our money.

          • r b

            rb, How about we quit trying to solve every problem through some government program, and quit giving taxpayer money to companies that can’t make it on their own? <<

            we could start with gas and oil company's.

          • George E

            OK, let’s start with oil and gas companies, then immediately extend it to all of the other companies, including those wind and solar companies we’ve been “investing” in. At the same time we take away all subsidies, tax deductions and tax credits, let’s institute a flat tax rate with no surcharges or other add-on’s.

          • r b

            OK, let’s start with oil and gas companies, then immediately extend it to all of the other companies, including those wind and solar companies we’ve been “investing” in. At the same time we take away all subsidies, tax deductions and tax credits, let’s institute a flat tax rate with no surcharges or other add-on’s.<<

            i would add, eliminate foreign aid and end the two wars. bring home all of the troops. in all 57 country's. end the drug interdiction programs.

            a good start.

          • George E

            rb,

            I’m not ready to agree to all those other add-on’s, but I will say that all these programs should be looked at with the understanding if we don’t get really good strategic reasons for spending our money and lives on these programs, then they should be pared back or cut out altogether.

    • ChuckS

      Do you work to help your boss, or are you greedy and just work for the money?

      I think high taxes and probably regulations in CA are the likely causes. I think there are high prices in CA in general with high taxes and regulations being a big cause.

      The more regulations yo put on oil companies – or any companies – the higher the prices. Except that if you put on price controls, there will be shortages instead.

      • r b

        Do you work to help your boss, or are you greedy and just work for the money? <<

        seriously??? i make all i can because i make all i can for the boss. i would tell any oil company what they already know. never produce more than the demand. that makes money!!!

  • chuckb

    r b, where do you get socializing? before congress allowed the oil companies to put crude on the world market we had competition in the market and prices were very good.

    i don’t want government interfering in this, all congress has to do is return to a free market and break up the cartel.

    • r b

      r b, where do you get socializing? before congress allowed the oil companies to put crude on the world market we had competition in the market and prices were very good. i don’t want government interfering in this, all congress has to do is return to a free market and break up the cartel. <<

      lol. a free market is what we have. allowing oil company's to sell to the highest bidder. you want to end that. which would not stop the u.s. company's from demanding current world market price.
      we are a long way from producing our daily use. if we were able to produce that it could affect pricing. but it will not happen. private company's are not going to over produce and drive the price they receive down. lower profits would decrease investment.
      forcing a cap on pricing, demanding a minimum production and restricting where that product can be sold is not capitalism or a free market.
      what would you call it?

      • George E

        rb,

        You seem convinced that private companies have no incentive to lower prices because it reduces their profits. If the oil industry was a monopoly, then I’d have to agree with you, but it’s not a monopoly. There are many companies producing and selling crude oil into the market. If one holds back production, the others will try to fill the gap, so the company holding back production is the one that gets hurt. So long as they can make a profit, they have an incentive to produce and sell product.

        • r b

          rb, You seem convinced that private companies have no incentive to lower prices because it reduces their profits. If the oil industry was a monopoly, then I’d have to agree with you, but it’s not a monopoly. There are many companies producing and selling crude oil into the market. If one holds back production, the others will try to fill the gap, so the company holding back production is the one that gets hurt. So long as they can make a profit, they have an incentive to produce and sell product. <<

          you can not show why a company would willingly reduce their price. it is a demand business with no alternative. no one is going to fill a gap in production. if higher production for less revenue was the goal, then we would have more oil being produced. no one continually runs at 100% production.
          you seem convinced that any unit profit is acceptable or that the oil company's are too dumb to realise the situation.

          • George E

            rb,

            Sorry if I’ve misled you. I agree that companies almost always sell their product at the highest price they can get. I also don’t think oil companies management is anything but very smart. Companies will always try to sell all of their production at the highest market price. However, when production exceeds demand, the price will drop, but they will still sell their production so long as their costs are below the price they can get. If production continues to exceed demand, companies will usually reduce production to prevent building inventories, but not so much to keep prices high, although that does tend to happen. Few companies have the market power to affect global market prices on their own. Some companies/countries outside the US have on occasion conspired to try to control global pricing by controlling production, but that hasn’t been all that effective in recent years. There are too many producers now that don’t participate in these consortiums. As you know, it’s illegal for US companies to try to control the market in this way.

          • r b

            rb, Sorry if I’ve misled you. I agree that companies almost always sell their product at the highest price they can get. I also don’t think oil companies management is anything but very smart. Companies will always try to sell all of their production at the highest market price. However, when production exceeds demand, the price will drop, but they will still sell their production so long as their costs are below the price they can get. If production continues to exceed demand, companies will usually reduce production to prevent building inventories, but not so much to keep prices high, although that does tend to happen. <<

            happens all the time. you are having trouble understanding the basic principle. all i have to do to keep the current price or raise the current price is reduce production. you labor under the notion that oil is a competitive product seeking a customer.

          • George E

            rb,

            The oil market is a global market with many suppliers and many customers. If one supplier reduces production thinking he can raise his price, another supplier will jump in and sell product to fill the demand. The oil industry is not a monopoly where one supplier can call the shots like you seem to think.

          • r b

            rb, The oil market is a global market with many suppliers and many customers. If one supplier reduces production thinking he can raise his price, another supplier will jump in and sell product to fill the demand. The oil industry is not a monopoly where one supplier can call the shots like you seem to think.<<

            the oil market is a monopoly. 1 or 2 large suppliers can and have controlled pricing. if the rigs in the gulf shut down for weather the pricing reflects that.

            since you realise that producers are not working at max production, then you should be asking why not. if you think they are working at max, then how would they jump in and sell more?

          • George E

            rb,

            Producers rarely operate at 100% capacity. They produce to average demand. While producers try to maintain fairly steady production rates, demand can swing much more. These swings can affect the price. Producers do store some oil in tank farms and sell from those. They do this to allow for the swings in demand. However, the capacity of these tanks is limited because it adds cost for the producer to maintain too much inventory. When aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply (inventories), then the price will rise, and vice versa. On another level, futures buyers speculate as to the price of oil at future dates, using inventory levels and demand levels, among other things, to guess the price on the future date. Sometimes this causes the price to differ from current supply/demand levels. Hopefully, this will explain how the price of oil can vary without being caused by market manipulation by monopolistic suppliers.

          • r b

            rb, Producers rarely operate at 100% capacity. They produce to average demand. While producers try to maintain fairly steady production rates, demand can swing much more. These swings can affect the price. Producers do store some oil in tank farms and sell from those. They do this to allow for the swings in demand. However, the capacity of these tanks is limited because it adds cost for the producer to maintain too much inventory. When aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply (inventories), then the price will rise, and vice versa. On another level, futures buyers speculate as to the price of oil at future dates, using inventory levels and demand levels, among other things, to guess the price on the future date. Sometimes this causes the price to differ from current supply/demand levels. Hopefully, this will explain how the price of oil can vary without being caused by market manipulation by monopolistic suppliers. <<

            Producers rarely operate at 100% capacity. yet the answer for some is to increase the number of wells. which will not produce at 100%. the answer is not the number of holes we punch, it is the capacity which we operate at.

            They produce to average demand. that is correct. they do not produce to create a surplus. a surplus would lead to lower prices.

            drill baby drill falls apart when you understand that oil producers are not going to produce a surplus, regardless of how many wells they own.

            another factor is the cost to produce. oil producers will use the lowest cost per barrel production. while that may seem to be the best policy, it keeps production levels lower and profits are increased.

            what the oil producers are asking for, is the right to drill for the cheapest oil they can produce and the right to tie up available more expensive production so it can not be used at this time.

            saudi arabia claims they are now at a 97% production rate. a lot of debate over that number. however, a drop of just a few points in their production would make a huge difference in pricing. even if we had the capacity to fulfill our domestic daily consumption, how would you keep the u.s. production from asking the same price that the sa reduction would create on the world market?

            you still believe that oil is not monopolized and is working under a competitive business model.

            if you look at what production could be vs what it is, you will eventually grasp that the oil companies are only going to meet the demand. and nothing extra. when they want a little extra profit, they simply reduce production for a short time.

            they play a very delicate pricing game. how much can the economy with stand and not collapse.

          • George E

            rb,

            It seems you are determined to believe the oil industry is a monopoly, and thus prices are manipulated by big oil companies or OPEC. I think the facts substantially refute that theory. So, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. It does seem to me that the arguments you use to support your theory could be used against any industry, like high tech for instance. I’d argue that Microsoft or Google have enjoyed more of a monopoly in their respective spaces than Exxon Mobil has in the oil industry, yet few are proposing government-run computer operating systems and/or internet search companies to keep these companys’ prices low. Capitalism isn’t perfect, so we should work to make it better by making sure monopolies don’t exist whenever possible, and government regulation and interference is held to a minimum.

          • r b

            I’d argue that Microsoft or Google have enjoyed more of a monopoly in their respective spaces than Exxon Mobil has in the oil industry, <<

            you can not validate that statement or the analogy. no one has to have a computer, internet, software or any specific browser.

            google could close tomorrow and they would not be missed. microsoft can be easily replaced with a variety of operating systems. both of those industry have actual competition for a shrinking customer base.

            if microsoft reduced their production of software, in an attempt to drive up pricing, several viable options are available.

            while life is much easier and more efficient, thanks to the technology, a large portion of the population does not partake in that technology.

            yet that very population that does not use the computer technology, relies on petroleum products daily.

            if the oil industry reduces production, for any reason, there is no other option.

            if you had to work 50 hours to make a set amount, 25 hours to make twice that amount or 100 hours to make less than the original amount….. which would you choose. we all know the answer. no one is going to work tomorrow and saying i want to work twice as many hours and i will do it for less than you pay me now.

            no business is going to accept a business model that says if you sell twice as much product as last quarter you will receive even less profit than last quarter. the more of your product you produce the less you make on your product.

            that business model is used by many company's due to a limited customer base and competition.

            in order to compare any product to oil, you would have to have a lack of competition and a daily demand for the product.

            there is a reason we regulate water, electricity, etc.

            this is all about demand for a required product. very few products or services enjoy the demand and monopoly that petroleum does.

            none of the large producers are anywhere close to max production. most of them rotate wells and field. meaning many wells are not in production at all.

            we know oil is not producing as much as they could. none of the oil company's have guaranteed that they would increase their production totals simply because we let the drill more or lease more.

            oil company's want more permits, then we need regulations that mandate production levels and stop any exportation of petroleum. till that happens, drilling more holes is meaningless.

          • George E

            Obviously, you and I just have very different views of the oil and gas industries. Have a nice evening.

          • r b

            Obviously, you and I just have very different views of the oil and gas industries. Have a nice evening.<<

            i have worked in the industry, with the industry and around the industry. in several country's.

            you can get upset with your inability to validate your economic model, but it will not change the industry and their economic model.

            if i came to you and asked for you to invest in my new oil venture, and told you if we produced a lot of oil we would get less return on our money than if we produced less oil, you suggest that we would produce more and lower our roi.

            i think you are smarter than that.

          • George E

            rb,

            I have also worked in and around the industry, and lived in oil and gas producing states and associated with many people in the industry for many years as well. It is rare for any one company to affect the world price of crude oil, little lone any one single project, so if you told me we would drive down the crude oil price with a project, I definitely wouldn’t invest in your project. That would show how little you understood the market, or that there was already too much supply in the market. Price is established more by aggregate global supply and aggregate global demand. No one would get in the business if they thought their production would drive down the price of the product. That would be foolish. These companies find all of the oil they can (reserves), but produce and sell only what the market will buy. That’s the main reason why they don’t produce at 100% of capacity.

          • r b

            Price is established more by aggregate global supply and aggregate global demand. No one would get in the business if they thought their production would drive down the price of the product. That would be foolish. These companies find all of the oil they can (reserves), but produce and sell only what the market will buy. That’s the main reason why they don’t produce at 100% of capacity. <<

            so you do understand that simply drilling more wells, opening more land for lease or granting more permits, is not going to have any real affect on price. the end result is that the oil companies will simply have more inventory that they are not going to sell.

            they can set their own price.

            they only way additional drilling is beneficial to price, is if we regulate the production, which would be very difficult, or change the competition.

          • George E

            rb,

            I acknowledge that additional drilling “may not” lower the price of gasoline at the pump. There are a number of factors that affect the price of gasoline at the pump. However, less drilling and less production will most likely lead to higher prices at the pump because supply will not keep up with demand. One primary way of lowering gasoline prices, although not always on a one-for-one basis, is to increase the supply of crude oil on the market relative to demand. You can’t increase supply without increasing drilling, production capacity, and reserves. The more companies producing and selling crude oil on the market, the more likely that they will over produce and drive prices down. Companies generally don’t like drilling wells and not have them producing. That’s how they get their ROI. Regulating prices and/or government-controlled “competitors” is NOT the way to get gasoline prices down. Those practices lead to false economics and higher costs which will be paid by someone, somewhere, at sometime. Generally, this is the taxpayer. When this happens, consumers will use more gasoline than they could otherwise afford, and the taxpayer subsidizes the excess usage. This is not good for the environment or the economy.

          • r b

            The more companies producing and selling crude oil on the market, the more likely that they will over produce and drive prices down. Companies generally don’t like drilling wells and not have them producing. That’s how they get their ROI. <<

            with today's technology, no one is going to be over producing. you must not be aware of all the wells that sit idle. we have several new wells in this area that are not producing. they are trying to punch as many as they can before the fracking moratorium goes in. they are not going to run them at present because the price is down.
            i get an roi from profit per unit. if my roi decreases when i sell too much, then i reduce sales.
            i agree there is a over price line that would create a problem. that line is constantly being tested. how much can be charged before it has a detrimental affect.
            i have yet to hear any of the big oil companies guarantee that they would actually drill more wells or increase their over all production rates if they were allowed more permits.

            it would take a lot of small, lone wolf, companies to make any noticeable increase in production.

            and if they were able to affect production rates, you have failed to show how you would stop any of the big companies from lowering their production to off set that.

            when you consider the amount of oil the large company's and country's produce daily, a small decrease in their production would not adversely affect their net revenue, but it would have a impact on price.

            big oil is a long term investment. i would have no problem with drilling 6 wells, running production from 3 and letting 3 set. demand is increasing and there is no move to a viable alternative. those 3 idle wells are increasing in value every year. the 3 in production make a good profit. if i run all 6 i may push the price, and my return, down.

            if i can figure that out, i am certain that big oil is way ahead of me.

  • ChuckS

    Supposedly, the US had peak oil in the 1970s. Maybe what that really meant was the environmental extremists stopping so much oil production that the total decreased.

    Take it with a grain of salt, but I saw an infomercial about a sonic process that breaks heavy crude down into light crude. Very few refineries can handle heavy crude. This reduces the cost of refining a barrel of heavy crude by $17, which may double or triple our useable oil, to 7 trillion barrels. Hopefully it works.

  • chuckb

    we do not have a free market for oil producing in this country. barry has banned drilling and some operating wells in the gulf,9remember the federal courts declared the bans illegal and he as much as told them to go to hell) he refuses to lift the bans in alaska. now don’t tell me the democrats are going to allow more drilling, better you ask barry, i think not. they had the congress and senate from 2006-2010 also the white house, better you check out the environmental regulations they slipped in on you, now close to election they are talking about curtailing the futures market for crude, that has to be the laugh of the century. we have traders, hedgefund operators (george soros) speculators all driving pricces with every excuse they can come up with regardless of how ridiculous,
    the los angeles times is blaming the drought.

    • r b

      we do not have a free market for oil producing in this country. barry has banned drilling and some operating wells in the gulf,9remember the federal courts declared the bans illegal and he as much as told them to go to hell) he refuses to lift the bans in alaska. now don’t tell me the democrats are going to allow more drilling, better you ask barry, i think not. they had the congress and senate from 2006-2010 also the white house, better you check out the environmental regulations they slipped in on you, now close to election they are talking about curtailing the futures market for crude, that has to be the laugh of the century. we have traders, hedgefund operators (george soros) speculators all driving pricces with every excuse they can come up with regardless of how ridiculous, the los angeles times is blaming the drought.<<

      a free market does not mean zero restrictions, rules, policy, regulations, etc. nor does it mean the govt has to give permission to drill on public lands. the oil company's hold numerous leases that have not been explored. there are numerous wells that are not being produced at this time.

      i agree with some of your ideas. but i would require current wells to be producing at a maximum level before i would grant any more permits to that company.

  • Chris

    I think Obama is not allowing drilling in Alaska because of those who do not want to see that pristine environment destroyed…….AND because oil companies do not know how to clean up oil spills in water in such a harsh environment. Look at the last major rig disaster……not only did you have oil in the water harming the environment and killing wildlife, but lord knows “what” the effects the dispersants produce. I am not against drilling for oil, but I am vehemently opposed to drilling in or near ANY water………at least on land such leaks would just go back into the ground and probably much easier to clean up……….this is COMMON SENSE……….but the bozos in DC can’t see how precious our waters are, and you know the oil companies could care less………it’s all about the almighty dollar! They better stop worrying about space exploration and START worrying about THIS PLANET.

    • George E

      Chris,

      There’s another possible reason that Obama is constraining oil and gas drilling and exploration. It could be that he’s getting a lot of money for his political campaign from environmental groups, and they don’t want oil and gas drilling. They want the US to stop using fossil fuels altogether and convert all motor vehicles over to electric power, and coal fired power plants to wind and solar, which are economically and feasibly impractical today. If drilling was as bad as the media leads us to believe, then why would the people in oil and gas producing states continue to embrace it? Certainly, the BP oil spill was terrible. Unfortunately, we seem to get one of these disasters every 30-40 years. Obviously, we do need to do everything practically possible to prevent these from reoccurring. I think that’s exactly what is happening because oil companies learn from these disasters and make changes in their operations to prevent them. If there was ever a place that we should allow drilling it would be in Alaska’s ANWR. This is one of the most remote places on earth with potentially huge reserves. No damage is expected to the environment there, but if any did occur, almost no one would notice because of where it is. We should also encourage greater use of natural gas as a motor vehicle fuel. It is cheap, abundant, and clean. This is a practical solution to dramatically reduce our use of crude oil. Unfortunately, environmentalist don’t like this idea either.

  • Chris

    If drilling was as bad as the media leads us to believe, then why would the people in oil and gas producing states continue to embrace it? Ha ha………..the same reason as everything else……..jobs/money.

    Disasters every 30-40 years? (not to mention tanker leaks). The more rigs out there, the more likelihood of disasters. Whatever the “whys” are, they should NOT be in our waters. What there SHOULD be is finding ways to power cars……….I wonder what ever happened with the “fuel cell” idea…….I know there are fuel cell plants out there. And I wonder why nothing was ever done with this:

    http://www.knowthelies.com/node/6312

    • George E

      Chris,

      Surely you don’t think people in oil and gas producing states are so stupid or greedy that they would intentionally and critically soil their air and water to have jobs. They are doing what rational people all over the world do. They are making critical decisions relative to their need for money and jobs with those of their quality of life. Tough as it is, we have to understand that life is a balancing act and we must seek the best balance that allows us to live as best we can. The people in oil and gas producing states see first-hand the good and bad from the oil and gas industry, and chose to live with it rather than without it. That ought to say something to those who don’t live near these industries or rely on them for your livelihood. Maybe they aren’t as bad as you’re being led to believe from the sensational reports you’re getting.

      I love hydrogen as a fuel source as well. I’ve been an advocate for many, many years. However, it just isn’t cost effective yet to replace oil and gas. Your best bet right now to further clean the air while using an economical fuel to replace crude oil and coal is natural gas. We have plenty of this fuel, it’s cheap, and clean burning. All of the other alternative fuel sources are too expensive and/or otherwise impractical right now.

      • r b

        Chris, Surely you don’t think people in oil and gas producing states are so stupid or greedy that they would intentionally and critically soil their air and water to have jobs.<<

        ever been to mexico and seen where we dumped all of that hazardous waste?

  • jopa

    I sure don’t know where Romney is going to refine all of this oil that will be gushing from everywhere.I know of three refineries that are either closed down or running at a minimal capacity due to sluggish demand for petroleum products.Big oil is just totally content with their mega profits, high prices and they sure would be reluctant to flood the market with cheap crude.It is market manipulation that keeps these folks strong and they are doing a good job at it and making the middle class suffer the most by putting out a larger share of their income for the big oil greed.Romney would love to continue the billions of dollars worth of tax breaks for these folks also, while you lose your deductions for charity,home mortgage interest, medical or deductible losses that would benefit the middle income taxpayer.

    • r b

      .I know of three refineries that are either closed down or running at a minimal capacity due to sluggish demand for petroleum products. <<

      tis not a low demand. it is a lower production that results in higher prices.

  • Chris

    Keep the rigs OUT of and AWAY from water!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • George E

      Since the surface of the earth is about 70% water, not to mention all of the water underground, it’s going to be tough finding places to drill where there is no water. Maybe it would be better instead if we just find acceptable ways of drilling in and around water.

  • Jim Smith

    If you believe any politician is going to lead us to energy independence I have a bridge for sale. The largest export for the US right now is refined gasoline. That’s right folks, gasoline is the USA’s largest export.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1

    Instead of lowering gas prices here in the US by increasing supplies it is sold to other countries. There is not a prayer that the US will ever be energy independent when we keep shipping our fossil fuels overseas. The purpose of the pipeline to Texas is to ship oil to the refineries there so it can be shipped overseas.

    Oh, and don’t forget about the 47 refineries shut down during the 90s. The arguments about building new refineries don’t hold water. The refineries were shut down to control the supplies and thus control the cost at the pump.

    http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Group_Internal_memos_show_oil_companies_limited_refineries_to_drive_up__0907.html

    Do a little research and get away from arguing about political sides. Both parties have sold us down the river!! I think we need a little more ‘intellectual honesty’ when it comes to reporting some of these stories!

    • George E

      Jim,

      If you don’t let oil companies sell their products wherever they can get the best prices, they will not invest heavily in the development of these products. That’s just a simple rule of economics for any business and industry. We can’t make them explore, drill, produce, refine, and distribute these products and then tell them they can only sell them in the US market. They won’t invest in domestic production just to drive down the price at the pump. It just doesn’t work that way. On the other hand, if we encourage them to develop our resources, they will invest and bring products to market in volumes which will help keep prices from rising, and the US economy will benefit by selling these products to other countries. We need to increase our exports relative to our imports.

      • Jim Smith

        George: I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you say, I also agree oil companies should be encouraged to ‘develop our resources’…. my point is that the message of ‘drill baby drill’ or the political persuasion of who is the president implies that by allowing more drilling and deregulation here in the US that we can drill our way to being independent of foreign oil. While somewhat truthful, this is far from the real story and is misleading. What we have today here in the US (imho) is the result of less competition and more consolidation of the oil companies. Less competition simply means higher prices. Add to that being joined at the hip with globalization and it’s easy to see that there is not much hope in seeing lower gas prices at the pump. Every time I hear or read these claims by politicians (and blindly supported by their followers) I shake my head.

        The oil companies are in charge of oil production, refining and pricing. One only needs to look at the daily fuel price fluctuations and the consistent pricing between competing companies to realize there is more here at work than supply & demand and capitalism.

        Just my 2 cents worth……

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.