Pres. Obama Discusses Oil Market Manipulation - Page 2

saltwn · #11 (**permalink**) 04-18-2012, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel Dog

You don't have to watch the video to know he says that. He says it all the time. The problem with it is the reason there's more drilling right now is new leases were opened up, and began under Bush.

At the same time these new wells are opening up though, regulations are stopping new drilling from opening up after those leases. This is true for coal, and natural gas, as well.

The law of supply and demand where prices dip when there's a greater supply doesn't really kick in until there's a general policy to access the massive reserves of all three sources - oil, natural gas, and coal. Conversion from oil to the other two is also possible, and gets easier with new technologies. This is another reason research and development is important to add to the mix. What Obama is suggesting is only a small piece to the puzzle, and nothing new. Every time there's been a rise in price of oil we hear such talk.

A thing they rarely bring up is the price of oil goes up when people like Obama's crew manipulate the dollar to make it worth less.

This would never get through the Republican blocked house and their main tactic now is don't allow debate and let the media (which can lie without consequences) make your arguments for you to the public.

saltwn · #12 (**permalink**) 04-18-2012, 01:57 PM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

More government meddling in the free market almost always results in harm to consumers.

Wrong. See Teddy Roosevelt.

Quote:

This will too. There is no evidence oil futures trading drives prices higher but there is ample evidence it can drive down prices.

down?
This is supposed to be a commodity. How can companies price gouge? That is insane and a terrorist tactic.

Quote:

Would you please explain why this isn't a political attack.

Like every thing that comes out of Romney's mouth isn't? What has he laid on the table except drill baby drill?
What part of we own 2% of world oil and use 20 don't you understand?

Infidel Dog · #13 (**permalink**) 04-18-2012, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

This would never get through the Republican blocked house and their main tactic now is don't allow debate and let the media (which can lie without consequences) make your arguments for you to the public.

Things like coal to liquid, or financially expedient oil to natural gas conversion would have nothing to do with the House, Republican or Democrat, unless you're thinking subsidization. Free market principles, and no further impediment of regulations puts those and others in a spot where they either find investors, or they don't. In the case of natural gas at least, there shouldn't be a problem. Just let em frack.

Infidel Dog · #14 (**permalink**) 04-18-2012, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

What part of we own 2% of world oil and use 20 don't you understand?

The part where it's bullsh*t.

Quote:

The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” columnist Glenn Kessler dismissed Obama’s figures as a “non sequitur,” noting that proven reserves “have a very strict definition, in part because reserves are considered actual assets owned by companies. The oil must have been discovered, confirmed and economically recoverable, with at least 90 percent certainty. The level of reserves, in fact, may vary depending on the price of oil, since a higher price may suddenly make some finds economically viable.”

John Merline of Investor’s Business Daily also pointed out the “myth of scarce oil” on March 14. He noted that the United States had 60 times more oil than Obama claimed saying: “When you look at the whole picture, it turns out that there are vast supplies of oil in the U.S., according to various government reports.”

He continued, “All told, the U.S. has access to 400 billion barrels of crude that could be recovered using existing drilling technologies, according to a 2006 Energy Department report.” (“Proven” reserves of oil in the U.S. total 22 billion barrels.) Merline also cited a Rand Corp. study that estimated there are about 800 billion barrels of additional recoverable oil in shale just in Wyoming and nearby states.

Obama Misleads on Oil Reserves, Networks Defend Him, Fail to Fact Check | NewsBusters.org

saltwn · #15 (**permalink**) 04-18-2012, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel Dog

Things like coal to liquid, or financially expedient oil to natural gas conversion would have nothing to do with the House, Republican or Democrat, unless you're thinking subsidization. Free market principles, and no further impediment of regulations puts those and others in a spot where they either find investors, or they don't. In the case of natural gas at least, there shouldn't be a problem. Just let em frack.

When we hook natural gas to the grid it will require congressional input. And yes natural gas suppliers are licking their chops. What lobbyists might be keeping that subject from coming to the table?

saltwn · #16 (**permalink**) 04-18-2012, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel Dog

The part where it's bullsh*t.

Obama Misleads on Oil Reserves, Networks Defend Him, Fail to Fact Check | NewsBusters.org

In that case you would factor in the Russians Arabs and Chinese and Latins unrecovered shale and get the same ratio.

Infidel Dog · #17 (**permalink**) 04-18-2012, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

When we hook natural gas to the grid it will require congressional input.

Link please, but even if that turns out to have some fact behind it, why would you think Republicans would be against it?

You do know you can use natural gas energy for pretty much anything you can use oil energy for, right? It isn't just the grid.

Quote:

And yes natural gas suppliers are licking their chops. What lobbyists might be keeping that subject from coming to the table?

Presently the ones who seem to be having the greatest effect is the environmental lobby. Among other things they're against fracking.

Oh wait, Libetarians and others don't want to give Natural Gas suppliers more tax breaks. Is that what you mean?

I think I know what you may be talking about, but you may be a little mixed up. Yes T. Bone wants tax breaks on natural gas, and yes the Kochs seem to be against it, but they're both Republicans. Also...now that I think you may be zeroing in on the T. Bone thing, I think I know what you may talking about concerning the grid. Are you still back on T. Bone's old failed, plan to litter Texas with windmills so he could backup power, and supply them with his natural gas?

saltwn · #18 (**permalink**) 04-18-2012, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel Dog

Link please, but even if that turns out to have some fact behind it, why would you think Republicans would be against it?

You do know you can use natural gas energy for pretty much anything you can use oil energy for, right? It isn't just the grid.

Presently it's the environmental lobby. Among other things they're against fracking.

Oh wait, Libetarians and others don't want to give Natural Gas suppliers more tax breaks. Is that what you mean?

I think I know what you may be talking about, but you may be a little mixed up. Yes T. Bone wants tax breaks on natural gas, and yes the Kochs seem to be against it, but they're both Republicans. Also...now that I think you may be zeroing in on the T. Bone thing, I think I know what you may talking about concerning the grid. Are you still back on T. Bone's old failed, plan to litter Texas with windmills so he could backup power, and supply them with his natural gas?

You should vote Democrat if you are for hooking natural gas to the grid.

Infidel Dog · #19 (**permalink**) 04-18-2012, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

You should vote Democrat if you are for hooking natural gas to the grid.

Don't have that link yet, hey?

But yeah, I did know Pelosi and others have investments in natural gas. I'd still like to see this link to where Democrats are saying go Fracking. Go natural gas wherever you find it. Why don't they just give their EPA a kick in the ass then?

There's more to this than a remark from a Democrat saying "We like Natural Gas".

I can find you an equal number of Republicans saying "We like it too, only moreso". Click on the Sarah Palin link above for example.

If Republicans are what's stopping a major push to natural gas show me evidence. Libertarians like the Kochs being against more tax breaks for it is not what I'm talking about. Wanna see some links to Democrat holding procedures through unnecessary regulations?

AZRWinger · #20 (**permalink**) 04-18-2012, 08:05 PM

[quote=saltwn;425923]

Quote:

Wrong. See Teddy Roosevelt.

down?
This is supposed to be a commodity. How can companies price gouge? That is insane and a terrorist tactic.

Like every thing that comes out of Romney's mouth isn't? What has he laid on the table except drill baby drill?
What part of we own 2% of world oil and use 20 don't you understand?

Teddy Roosevelt! You are kidding right? Before Carnige Steel rose to dominate the market steel sold for $54 per ton. At the time TR's trust busters "saved" us from monopolist price gouging steel prices had "increased" to $11.54 per ton. Prices increased
after the trust busters meddling. Of course oil showed a similar price pattern, significant decline thanks to the evil monopolists followed by price increases after Federal meddling. In fact consumers ended up paying more thanks to TR's trust busting.

Short sellers can drive commodity prices down just like stocks. Short sales indicate investors prediction the price of the commodity will decline.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode