Obama responsible for bringing $5 per gallon gasoline

Drilling or not drilling on Public lands is statistically insignificant.

Conservation can be significant. Alternative energy innovation can be significant. Higher oil prices do spur conservation, domestic drilling and American jobs.

Drill baby Drill is a losing long term strategy though because the resource is finite and we are only delaying the inevitable; f**cking over our grand children, again.

oh, Jeremy Lins's on TV, gotta go.

 

Nebraska's Republican governor originally was against it but changed his mind...as did most of Nebraska ... but Obama has decided to strangle non-Opec oil as well as the well-paying jobs the pipeline and related industries would bring. For someone who claims jobs are Job One, I smell hypocrisy.

 

how dude, so you agree on the pipeline but you continue your non facts.

what the heck are you talking about?

 

When there is the slimmest hint of a new technology or source arising to produce a 100 year supply of oil, call me.

 

No, that's the stench of putrification of tissue, which unfortunately is what happens in the cranium of those reading this thread.

 

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/02/20/u-s-oil-gusher-blows-out-projections/

The United States’ rapidly declining crude oil supply has made a stunning about-face, shredding federal oil projections and putting energy independence in sight of some analyst forecasts.

After declining to levels not seen since the 1940s, U.S. crude production began rising again in 2009. Drilling rigs have rushed into the nation’s oil fields, suggesting a surge in domestic crude is on the horizon.

The number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quad*rupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world.

“It’s staggering,” said Marshall Adkins, who directs energy research for the financial services firm Raymond James. “If we continue growing anywhere near that pace and keep squeezing demand out of the system, that puts you in a world where we are not importing oil in 10 years.”

There are doubts that energy independence is that close. But many say the booming shale oil fields in Texas and North Dakota and the growth of deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico will allow the nation to cut its reliance on oil imports significantly over the next couple of decades.

Last month, the U.S. Energy Information Administration upgraded its forecast of crude production in 2025 to 6.4 million barrels per day – 1 million barrels more than were pumped in 2010.

Previously, the EIA had projected the U.S. would peak at 6 million barrels in 2022.

“The growth that we’ve seen in shale, that’s one of the biggest changes that’s contributing to our outlook,” said Dana Van-Wagener, a research analyst for the agency. “It’s evolving so quickly. We weren’t anticipating enough growth.”

Crude prices stable

By the EIA’s forecast, the United States will challenge Saudi Arabia as the world’s top oil producer when crude and other forms of liquid petroleum are included. But the U.S. is also the world’s top oil consumer, demanding nearly 20 million barrels a day. So even with an oil boom, the nation still falls far short of its energy demands.

The technology that fueled the national shale gas rush is moving into oil fields. The pairing of fossil fuel production techniques called horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing allowed companies to access previously hard-to-reach natural gas trapped in dense shale rock.

The rush has unleashed a flood of natural gas onto the U.S. market, causing price to dive and making some gas wells uneconomical. Companies have started to close natural gas wells and pull rigs out of gas fields.

Meanwhile, crude oil prices have remained high, with the domestic benchmark West Texas Intermediate price rising 93 cents to $103.24 on Friday.

Pumping crude out of shale rock is more expensive and difficult than getting at natural gas, said Eric Potter, program director for energy research at the University of Texas at Austin’s Bureau of Economic Geology.

Oil molecules are larger and harder to squeeze through the cracks created by hydraulic fracturing. But the high price of crude makes it worthwhile for many companies.

“With natural gas prices being as low as they are, your company could go out of business if you don’t manage this carefully,” Potter said. “People are moving quickly to get into these oil plays. It’s a matter of their existence.”

The Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas, the Permian Basin in West Texas, and the Bakken Shale in North Dakota have been hubs of the domestic crude boom. They now make up about 40 percent of the nation’s land-based oil production, noted Adkins, the Raymond James analyst. He projects that proportion will grow to two-thirds by 2015.

Fields underestimated

Adkins says the Energy Information Administration is vastly underestimating the rapid growth of those oil fields. He believes that crude oil production in the United States will reach 9.1 million barrels by 2015, some 45 percent more than the EIA’s forecast.

The reason for the varying projections about the nation’s crude potential is uncertainty about how much oil is underground and whether technological advances will make it reachable.

That also causes debate about future crude oil prices.

Adkins, for example, says the rising production will help reverse the surging price of oil, pushing it down to $90 per barrel next year.

Forecast: $4.09/gallon

Others, however, believe oil prices will continue to rise despite the growing supply coming out of U.S. oil fields. Domestic crude prices are closely tied to the world market.

That makes domestic prices susceptible to the global Brent crude benchmark price, which is on the rise due to foreign conflicts and rapidly growing energy demands in developing countries.

The EIA projects the average world oil price will reach about $145 per barrel in 2035, in current dollars, compared to the 2011 average of $93 per barrel. Meanwhile, the agency forecasts gasoline in America will rise to $4.09 per gallon.

“As far as drilling and production, it’s going to be really good and robust,” said Michelle Michot Foss, chief energy economist for the University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology. “But consumers will be upset because gasoline prices will continue to be high.”

 

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/02/17/5-gas-is-a-bold-prediction-that-surely-be-wrong/

If you Google $5 gas, you are bound to find millions of articles predicting historic gas prices this summer, but a gasoline analyst says you shouldn’t believe those predictions.

Tom Kloza, chief analyst with Oil Price Information Service, noticed the numerous $5 gasoline predictions in the media recently, but he said $5 gasoline prices aren’t likely to take a hold nationwide. He said the experts predicting $5 gas aren’t any more accurate than famous predictor Nostradamus in the 16th century.

“Many of the stories quote ‘experts’ who give the skinny or the scoop on why this will be the year that Americans need Lincoln’s picture on the legal tender necessary to purchase a gallon of unleaded fuel,” Kloza wrote in an email. “Let me make myself perfectly clear. This is nonsense.”

So what are the chances of $5 gas this summer?

“The chances of nationwide gasoline averages approaching $5 gal are about as good as having the Spice Girls perform a tribute to Demi Moore at the Oscars,” Kloza wrote.

Former Shell executive John Hofmeister has been beating the $5-per-gallon drum for more than a year. Hofmeister said gas prices are likely to rise because of rising tensions with Iran, refineries closing in the northeast and ongoing fallout from the Gulf of Mexico moratorium.

Hofmeister said the current administration policies have also caused gas prices to rise, and those policies are unlikely to change in time to ward off $5 gas.

Kloza provided a chart showing the gas prices since 2000, and he said it shows while $5 is unlikely.

Year Valentine’s Day Price July 4th Price

2000 $1.36 gal $1.65 gal

2001 $1.49 gal $1.49 gal

2002 $1.21 gal $1.40 gal

2003 $1.64 gal $1.49 gal

2004 $1.64 gal $1.89 gal

2005 $1.89 gal $2.27 gal

2006 $2.29 gal $2.93 gal

2007 $2.23 gal $2.95 gal

2008 $2.98 gal $4.10 gal

2009 $1.97 gal $2.62 gal

2010 $2.62 gal $2.74 gal

2011 $3.13 gal $3.57 gal

2012 $3.51 gal ???

The chart shows that a bubbling and re-bubbling of gas prices, similar to those seen in the housing market in the late 20th century and early 21st century, Kloza wrote.

The chart also shows that record-high gasoline prices in 2008 rose 34 percent between Valentine’s Day and the July 4th weekend. Kloza added:


The Giants also won the Super Bowl in that year, and perhaps that will be the talisman that trumps macroeconomics, consumer fatigue, demand destruction, and healthy global supply of gasoline. If Giant’s Super Bowl victories are a harbinger and a similar spike is in store, the arithmetic adds up to an average gasoline price of $4.70 gal on July 4, 2012.

So you shouldn’t worry too much about $5 gas or believe everything you read on the internet, Kloza writes.

He said gas prices are likely to settle between $3.75 and $4.25 per gallon at the peak in May before falling in later half of 2012.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, Max also pwned you.

 

I wasn't trying to pwn anyone...my junior high son says pwn quite a bit, though.

Obama is President. We're having real conversations about being a net EXPORTER of energy. That's remarkable.

Also, count me as one who is highly skeptical that gas is going to $5/gallon.

 

US demand appears to be down across the board on crude oil and gasoline in this country:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTTIMUS2&f=W


http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=m


http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WGFUPUS2&f=W


The Bakken, Eagle Ford, Haynesville and other shales are producing oils known as tight oil: lease condensates and natural gas liquids (refined natural gases). There is not a whole lot of crude oil production, unfortunately.

 

Finite is still finite, oil is a worldwide commodity and for every barrel we find in the US, foreign users will take delivery of the barrel from the foreign suppliers we used to use. Worldwide consumption growth still surpasses worldwide discovery rates.

Bakken and Green River (and offshore in Brazil) will only delay the need for renewable resources not preclude them. Delay in reducing dependence on fossil fuels is still bad long term policy. Pollution reduction alone should be reason enough.

It's just a matter of the time scale you ascribe importance to; I got mine or our children's children.

 

I didn't notice them.

Besides, I answered your question already. First, it should be noted that I was a Huntsman supporter. But I'm currently supporting Romney more or less simply because he's not crazy. Paul's insane, for reasons which I have gone over a plethora of times - Jesus Christ could run for President tomorrow, and I would still vote against him if he spouted End the Fed. Santorum's barely better - I view him as Huckabee without the charm, and I really really hated Huckabee back in 2008. I'm actually closer to Gingrich's proposed policies than Romney's, but Gingrich has the wrong personality to be a president, and I don't believe for a minute he can pull half of what he proclaims off. Besides, given that the RWNJ hate Romney anyways, I'm confident that he will definitely pull towards the middle once he gets the nomination.

In a sense, I'm not voting for Romney persay, though I'm confident he has the experience necessary to be a good president. I voted for him as a "F U" to the crazies who have taken over this party, whether it's the Tea Party or the crazy libertarian/anarcho-capitalists. I'll openly admit that I seriously despise the Tea Party, which is something I don't have at all with Democrats, and I've also stated several times that I don't like populism in any form, whether left or right. Romney winning will be a sign that the rank and file of the GOP will repudiate the theocrats and the fanatical libertarians, which is something which has become very important these past days.

 

It's only 10:00AM, I'm not too high.

But this does illustrate the difference between the conservative and liberal mind set. One is self-interested and short term oriented and one is big picture, long term oriented.

 

Can't argue the point, so you make the same tired posts. Your not even making this fun anymore.

 

if you say so.

yes you did, but it is a very weak answer. you said you were voting for romney b/c he is "not crazy". its got nothing to do w/ his policies or positions. and in 2008 you said you supported ron paul b/c you thought he was "honest". as i said, your support of candidates seems very superficial.

again, you are making it about ron paul (a candidate who you admit you supported in 2008). notice that you cant name one single policy position of romneys that you support. i guess you dont want to do that b/c then you would be forced to defend them, huh? its just easier to go around railing against ron paul.

and to me what is "crazy" and "insane" is supporting a candidate like romney, especially when you cant name any of his positions that you support.

i support ron paul, in part, as an "F U" to the republican-democrat establishment. but thats only part of it. i actually support paul on a number of his policies. you, on the other hand, are basing your entire support of romney on the fact that its not paul (a candidate you supported in the last election). why dont you just support obama...he isnt paul either.

and i must point out again what a massive flip-flopper you are - the candidate who you supported and represented as a delegate in the last election cycle is now "crazy" and "insane". you realize how unusual it is to go from one extreme to the other in such a short time, right? i guess in 2016 you will be a hardcore democrat and will be calling romney "crazy" and "insane".

 

Intentional or not, that is what happened.