Obama Admits He Didn't Want Low Gas Prices

[Pogo]

Clearly Obama has had NOTHING to do with the private oil production. No one has ever claimed that. So he can have little direct executive action.
What HE CAN do is increase oil production on federal lands. WHICH HE HASN"T!
The fact is that Obama has physically signed 40% less oil leases on Federal lands.
This in turn has REDUCED oil production on federal lands
In 2010, 36 percent of our nation’s oil production took place on federal lands.
Due to Obama Administration policies, by 2013, only 23 percent of our nation’s oil production took place on federal lands
According to a new report from the Congressional Research Service, since 2009 oil production on federal lands is down by 6 percent and natural gas production on federal lands is down 28 percent.

This is particularly striking because since 2009 overall oil production on non-federal land is up by 61 percent and natural gas production on non-federal land is up by 33 percent.
Oil and Gas Production on Federal Lands Still a Disappointment - IER
AND WHY is oil and gas production DOWN on federal lands???
Besides taking an enormously long time to process permits, the number of leases on federal lands is down dramatically under the Obama Administration as the chart below shows.
The average number of onshore leases that the Bureau of Land Management issued during the Obama Administration is more than 50 percent less than the average number issued by the Clinton Administration and over a third less than those issued by the Bush Administration.
In fiscal year 2013, 2,278 fewer leases were issued compared to fiscal year 2006 (1,468 leases in FY 2013 compared to 3,746 in FY 2006).
View attachment 32642
SO while Obama can't do anything about increasing or decreasing oil/gas production on non-federal lands..
I'm going to shout now!!!
HE HAS SIGNED 50% LESS then Clinton did and 33% less then BUSH DID!
Obama could have signed the SAME amount as Bush and kept Federal oil/gas production steady but INSTEAD he's reduced the oil and gas production on FEDERAL Lands by 13%!!!!

These are the facts!
REFUTE THEM !!! PLEASE PROVE Differently or shut the f...k UP!

So what? Doesn't make a damn bit of difference in the international oil market where it all trades.

Let's say you could suddenly turn on a spigot -- federal lands or wherever -- that brings a gazillion barrels of a-bubblin' crude à la Jed Clampett. Let's say you could also get an oil company interested in exploiting that, even though it would work against what they exist for, which is profit. And let's say the extra equipment to go after it actually existed. And let's say the extra refining capacity to handle it also actually existed. It takes a lot of imagination but let's just conjure it up for argument. So you bring all this new supply of a gazillion barrels a month to a market that didn't have that much yesterday. OPEC looks over to see what you're doing, writes down "1 gazillion", cuts their own production by the same amount, and goes to lunch. One offsets the other. Net change: zero.

By the way --- look at your own chart there: Reagan to Bush... Bush to Clinton... Clinton to Bush II... Bush II to O'bama... see a trend? How do you take that and pretend it's something new?

So your observation is the international oil market affects the price right?
If as you suggested a spigot turned on all the Federal land oil leases.. YOU don't think that extra supply would influence the "international market" to
say "wow... USA now has increased OIL supply by xx% that means there is MORE OIL for sale. We've got to lower our prices to sell that oil we have
already paid for!"

2nd you are making a very fallacious (in case you don't know the word means "wrong".."false") premise oil company interest favors lower supply.
Again here for you and for obviously very ignorant people like you is WHAT makes up the cost of a gallon of gas...

1. Crude Oil: 67%.The cost of crude oil as a share of the retail price varies over time and among regions of the country. Refiners paid an average of about $104.00 per barrel of crude oil, or about $2.47 per gallon.
2. Refining Costs and Profits: 14%
3. Distribution, Marketing, and Retail Costs and Profits: 8%
4. Taxes: 12%. Federal excise taxes were 18.4 cents per gallon and state excise taxes averaged 23.52 cents per gallon.

Last updated: July 24, 2014 What do I pay for in a gallon of regular gasoline - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

So... IF a gasoline supplier can buy OIL for LESS then $104 a barrel or $2.47 per gallon the supplier makes MORE MONEY!!!
See that's the way the "free" market works!
Here let me make it simpler for YOU!
If a gallon of gas you buy at your gas station sells for $3.70 of which 67% is cost of crude or $2.48 is crude cost
BUT if the oil because of the gigantic spigot you discussed increases supply cause cost of crude to drop 25%...
That would mean your cost at the station will drop at least 25% or $2.77...
So YES contrary to your limited knowledge... INCREASING SUPPLY of anything generally LOWERS the costs of ANYTHING!

That's usually the case if you're selling widgets. Unfortunately for your point oil doesn't work that way. Your cheaper supply is nullified by the accompanying cheaper retail income. As long as there's competition -- ZippoGas down the street drops its price -- you can't avoid that. Gas prices are volatile, no pun intended; you buy a car or a phone or a pound of spaghetti, the price will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. Gas prices are all over the map; it's more complex than simple supply/demand because of all the middlemen and speculation.

Further, you didn't even address the point that drilling and refining technology is already maxed out to capacity and they don't have the nuts and bolts to address new stuff anyway. And they already sit on some 68 million acres of leased land that's unexploited -- that they're paying for -- and you want them to go deeper into pocket?

Further still, you didn't address the OPEC factor. That's why it's a cartel; to compensate when some upstart gets the idea they're gonna flood the market. As long as OPEC has the supply it does and there are customers in the world, with or without us, they have that kind of power. Therein lies the dependency.

(More on the OPEC factor here)

Is there something about oil that comes from federal lands that makes it work better?

And again, back to your graph --- what's O'bama doing that Bush II, Clinton and Bush I didn't do?

 

[EconChick]

We're not talking widgets, Pogo

 

[Pogo]

We're not talking widgets, Pogo

Exactly.

Tell that to asswipe-boy.

 

[EconChick]

His comment was correct, P.

 

[healthmyths]

Clearly Obama has had NOTHING to do with the private oil production. No one has ever claimed that. So he can have little direct executive action.
What HE CAN do is increase oil production on federal lands. WHICH HE HASN"T!
The fact is that Obama has physically signed 40% less oil leases on Federal lands.
This in turn has REDUCED oil production on federal lands
In 2010, 36 percent of our nation’s oil production took place on federal lands.
Due to Obama Administration policies, by 2013, only 23 percent of our nation’s oil production took place on federal lands
According to a new report from the Congressional Research Service, since 2009 oil production on federal lands is down by 6 percent and natural gas production on federal lands is down 28 percent.

This is particularly striking because since 2009 overall oil production on non-federal land is up by 61 percent and natural gas production on non-federal land is up by 33 percent.
Oil and Gas Production on Federal Lands Still a Disappointment - IER
AND WHY is oil and gas production DOWN on federal lands???
Besides taking an enormously long time to process permits, the number of leases on federal lands is down dramatically under the Obama Administration as the chart below shows.
The average number of onshore leases that the Bureau of Land Management issued during the Obama Administration is more than 50 percent less than the average number issued by the Clinton Administration and over a third less than those issued by the Bush Administration.
In fiscal year 2013, 2,278 fewer leases were issued compared to fiscal year 2006 (1,468 leases in FY 2013 compared to 3,746 in FY 2006).
View attachment 32642
SO while Obama can't do anything about increasing or decreasing oil/gas production on non-federal lands..
I'm going to shout now!!!
HE HAS SIGNED 50% LESS then Clinton did and 33% less then BUSH DID!
Obama could have signed the SAME amount as Bush and kept Federal oil/gas production steady but INSTEAD he's reduced the oil and gas production on FEDERAL Lands by 13%!!!!

These are the facts!
REFUTE THEM !!! PLEASE PROVE Differently or shut the f...k UP!

So what? Doesn't make a damn bit of difference in the international oil market where it all trades.

Let's say you could suddenly turn on a spigot -- federal lands or wherever -- that brings a gazillion barrels of a-bubblin' crude à la Jed Clampett. Let's say you could also get an oil company interested in exploiting that, even though it would work against what they exist for, which is profit. And let's say the extra equipment to go after it actually existed. And let's say the extra refining capacity to handle it also actually existed. It takes a lot of imagination but let's just conjure it up for argument. So you bring all this new supply of a gazillion barrels a month to a market that didn't have that much yesterday. OPEC looks over to see what you're doing, writes down "1 gazillion", cuts their own production by the same amount, and goes to lunch. One offsets the other. Net change: zero.

By the way --- look at your own chart there: Reagan to Bush... Bush to Clinton... Clinton to Bush II... Bush II to O'bama... see a trend? How do you take that and pretend it's something new?

So your observation is the international oil market affects the price right?
If as you suggested a spigot turned on all the Federal land oil leases.. YOU don't think that extra supply would influence the "international market" to
say "wow... USA now has increased OIL supply by xx% that means there is MORE OIL for sale. We've got to lower our prices to sell that oil we have
already paid for!"

2nd you are making a very fallacious (in case you don't know the word means "wrong".."false") premise oil company interest favors lower supply.
Again here for you and for obviously very ignorant people like you is WHAT makes up the cost of a gallon of gas...

1. Crude Oil: 67%.The cost of crude oil as a share of the retail price varies over time and among regions of the country. Refiners paid an average of about $104.00 per barrel of crude oil, or about $2.47 per gallon.
2. Refining Costs and Profits: 14%
3. Distribution, Marketing, and Retail Costs and Profits: 8%
4. Taxes: 12%. Federal excise taxes were 18.4 cents per gallon and state excise taxes averaged 23.52 cents per gallon.

Last updated: July 24, 2014 What do I pay for in a gallon of regular gasoline - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

So... IF a gasoline supplier can buy OIL for LESS then $104 a barrel or $2.47 per gallon the supplier makes MORE MONEY!!!
See that's the way the "free" market works!
Here let me make it simpler for YOU!
If a gallon of gas you buy at your gas station sells for $3.70 of which 67% is cost of crude or $2.48 is crude cost
BUT if the oil because of the gigantic spigot you discussed increases supply cause cost of crude to drop 25%...
That would mean your cost at the station will drop at least 25% or $2.77...
So YES contrary to your limited knowledge... INCREASING SUPPLY of anything generally LOWERS the costs of ANYTHING!

That's usually the case if you're selling widgets. Unfortunately for your point oil doesn't work that way. Your cheaper supply is nullified by the accompanying cheaper retail income. As long as there's competition -- ZippoGas down the street drops its price -- you can't avoid that. Gas prices are volatile, no pun intended; you buy a car or a phone or a pound of spaghetti, the price will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. Gas prices are all over the map; it's more complex than simple supply/demand because of all the middlemen and speculation.

Further, you didn't even address the point that drilling and refining technology is already maxed out to capacity and they don't have the nuts and bolts to address new stuff anyway. And they already sit on some 68 million acres of leased land that's unexploited -- that they're paying for -- and you want them to go deeper into pocket?

Further still, you didn't address the OPEC factor. That's why it's a cartel; to compensate when some upstart gets the idea they're gonna flood the market. As long as OPEC has the supply it does and there are customers in the world, with or without us, they have that kind of power. Therein lies the dependency.

(More on the OPEC factor here)

Is there something about oil that comes from federal lands that makes it work better?

And again, back to your graph --- what's O'bama doing that Bush II, Clinton and Bush I didn't do?

YOU are so old fashioned, elitist cliched ignoramus!

Prove to me that when price of barrel of OIL goes down the price of gas doesn't go down??? When did that happen?
FACTS!!! Where are YOURs by the way?? Pure speculation on your part ok??

On the contrary.... EVERY TIME the supply of oil INCREASES the price of barrel of OIL DECREASES!!
The benchmark U.S. oil futures contract dropped to $88.18 a barrel, a 17-month low, before settling up 0.3% at $91.01 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Traders said the recovery followed an industry report showing an unexpected drop in supplies in Cushing, Okla., the delivery point for crude traded on the Nymex. Brent, the international benchmark, was on track to end at its lowest price in over two years.

Futures have been tumbling for months on concerns that ample oil output, especially from the U.S., is overwhelming demand for petroleum products. Forecasters have consistently cut their outlooks for oil demand this year and next. Meanwhile, U.S. production has exceeded expectations and Libya shocked the market with a resurgence in output in recent months.
Nymex gasoline futures dropped 1.7% to $2.4091 a gallon, the lowest price since January 2011, on expectations of lower demand after the busy summer-driving season. U.S. drivers are already enjoying average retail prices of $3.33 a gallon, according to AAA, a four-year low for this time of year.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/brent-crude-falls-sharply-1412245970

OPEC...
USA is becoming the #1 supplier of oil surpassing OPEC OK???
AGAIN not from me but EXPERTS which obviously YOU are NOT ONE!!!

As production booms, North America is importing less oil, creating stiff competition for the Asian and European markets and forcing producers like Saudi Arabia to lower prices.

“These barrels need to find a home,” said Nicolas Robin, fund manager at Threadneedle Investments in London, which manages £92.8 billion ($149.8 billion).

Mr. Robin said he expects prices to stay weak for four to six weeks, as U.S. refineries undergo seasonal maintenance and buy less crude.
He has wagered that U.S. prices will fall more than Brent by the end of the year and plans to add to this position.

NOW for your stupid last point.....
"Is there something about oil that comes from federal lands that makes it work better?"

YOU don't read very well and when you do you don't understand what you read!

My point is Obama did NOTHING to improve NON-FEDERAL oil production and WE ALL AGREE!
BUT Obama as the other presidents did to a greater degree then Obama CAN encourage or discourage the sale of Federal oil leases.
I really am sorry to have to treat you like a little kid BUT READ CAREFULLY!!!
By NOT signing more Federal leases as his predecessors did and yes Bush signed less then Clinton,etc.... NOT the issue!
The ISSUE is Obama COULD increase oil production on Federal lands by signing more LEASES NOT LESS!!!

OH your point about "some 68 million acres of leased land that's unexploited"
AGAIN FACTS
Obama (June 24): The oil companies already own drilling rights to 68 million acres of federal lands, onshore and offshore, that they haven’t touched. 68 million acres that have the potential to nearly double America’s total oil production.

FACTS
That’s because these leased lands that don’t contain productive drilling operations likely are not lying idle as Obama implies.
There are a lot of steps and procedures involved in setting up a productive oil well on leased land, both onshore and off.
The Bureau of Land Management’s Web site lists the regulatory hurdles that need to be cleared as part of the larger five-step life cycle of a well.
The path to setting up an offshore drilling operation is even longer, as shown in a large flow chart developed by the MMS.
And there is a lot of activity occurring on leased lands that does not qualify as "production." For 2006, the BLM reported that there were 77,257 productive holes onshore in the U.S. Beyond that, there were 6,738 applications for drilling permits, 4,708 holes in which companies had begun drilling and 3,693 where drilling had ended among onshore lands. That’s a total of more than 15,000 holes that were being proposed, started or finished that do not count as "productive" holes.
Unused Offshore Potential

STRANGE but YOU don't supply ONE SOURCE for your totally wrong comments...
AND I supply links that totally refute your childish and obviously uninformed opinions!

 

[EconChick]

Well said AGAIN, H!