President Obama to call for one-third cut to oil imports

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2004
70,230
10,864
2,040
with gas inching up to $4.00 a gallon, this IS the sermon he is going to give us. that sure will make my pocketbook feel much better.

SNIP:
By Steven Mufson, Wednesday, March 30, 6:00 AM
President Obama on Wednesday will call for a one-third cut in oil imports by 2020, part of a plan he says will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign petroleum.



President Obama to call for one-third cut to oil imports
Five myths about gas prices
Crude declines in New York amid signs of rising U.S. supplies

With rising gasoline prices at home and political turmoil throughout the Middle East, Obama will seek in a speech at Georgetown University to rally Americans — and bickering lawmakers — behind a program that draws about half of that import cut from energy savings and about half from greater energy production, according to Obama aides who briefed reporters Tuesday.

Many facets of his program will be familiar. The president will propose wider use of natural gas, including incentives to use it to fuel fleet vehicles such as city buses. He will back greater production of biofuels and will vow to establish at least four commercial-scale refineries producing cellulosic ethanol or advanced biofuels within the next two years. He also will pledge to establish higher fuel-efficiency standards for heavy trucks, just as he did for passenger vehicles early in his administration.

Obama will also urge oil companies to make greater use of the federal leases both onshore and offshore to prop up domestic oil output. The oil industry and GOP lawmakers have been loudly complaining about delays in the permitting of offshore drilling in recent months. But an irked administration, which had pledged tougher scrutiny of drilling applications after last year’s massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill, fired back Tuesday with an Interior Department report that revived earlier debates about whether oil companies were exploiting the leases they already have.

Obama has made energy a priority since taking office, with the increase in automobile fuel efficiency marking perhaps his greatest impact. As part of the economic stimulus package adopted in 2009, he also won about $70 billion in grants and loan guarantees to promote energy efficiency, advanced batteries for cars and renewable energy. He has said that in addition to energy benefits those monies will create what he calls “green jobs.” But he poured a large amount of effort into winning passage of a cap-and-trade climate bill, which failed.
Obama faces a plethora of obstacles in the push for less reliance on foreign oil. One is the appetite of the U.S. economy. The federal Energy Information Administration forecasts that the United States will import a net of 9.7 million barrels a day of crude oil and refined petroleum products in 2011 and 10 million barrels a day in 2012. Net imports accounted for 49 percent of all U.S. liquid fuel consumption in 2010, down from 57 percent in 2009 primarily because of the drop in consumption during the recession.

Yet members of Congress are divided about the best ways to cut imports, with lawmakers often uniting across party lines depending on what region they represent. An expansion of offshore drilling, for example, garners substantial support among gulf coast lawmakers, but opposition from representatives from states such as California, Florida and New Jersey.

With Obama’s push for more electric cars, there is also disagreement about the best way to make sure electric utilities can meet demands. With Japan’s nuclear crisis still in progress, it is a sensitive time to promote nuclear energy.

read the rest and LOTS of comments..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin.../03/29/AFFy3O1B_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage
 
Last edited:
When the U.S. economy hits a double-dip recession later this year or beginning early next year, our consumption will drop again. Don't see 10 million barrels a day use in 2012, like the OP article states.
 
It seems to me I've been hearing this theme for decades now and imports keep rising. We tried this converting corn to fuel and what did we get? Record grain prices.
 
His proposed budget still contains anywhere from $40-$90 billion in taxes on the domestic petroleum industry, which will surely result in lower production and lost jobs. Shirley.

So which is it, Bam Man? You can't have your cake and edict too.
 
I don't think he understands the law of supply and demand.

Oil is not a product whose equilibrium is dictated by it's supply and it's demand-but mainly by it's demand alone.

The demand of oil never goes down. People need oil to drive, mass-transportation, shipping supplies, plastic, other equipment (lawn mowers for example). The demand of oil is the highest commodity in demand-even more than food (because food is shipped to stores using oil, and oil plays a large part in food production).

Since the demand for oil is so high-the oil companies can set the equilibrium price basically wherever they like (as long as it's a gradual shift).

3 of the top 5 corporations with the highest revenues in the world are oil companies:

Global 500 2010: Global 500 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

2 of the top 5 corporations with the highest profits in the world are oil companies:

Global 500 2010: Global 500 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

The supply of oil isn't hurting the oil companies. It's one of the few commodites


If you can't figure out that oil isn't a normal product, or normal commodity, and that it's not dictated by both it's supply and demand in the same way other products/commodities are-then you know next to nothing about economics.

Do you really think that the people think that the current equilibrium price is acceptable? Of course not. It's completely skewed towards the oil companies. This at the very least should be the first big clue.
 
And to think there are still people in this nation who think Obama is NOT purposely trying to harm this country.

Get this fucking communist out of office.
 
That nice and all, but has he provided any sort of encouragement for the production of domestic oil?

hopefully this will cause some speculators to drop the price of oil for a little bit, but eventually they will realize he isnt serious and the price will start going up again.
 
I don't think he understands the law of supply and demand.

Oil is not a product whose equilibrium is dictated by it's supply and it's demand-but mainly by it's demand alone.

The demand of oil never goes down. People need oil to drive, mass-transportation, shipping supplies, plastic, other equipment (lawn mowers for example). The demand of oil is the highest commodity in demand-even more than food (because food is shipped to stores using oil, and oil plays a large part in food production).

Since the demand for oil is so high-the oil companies can set the equilibrium price basically wherever they like (as long as it's a gradual shift).

3 of the top 5 corporations with the highest revenues in the world are oil companies:

Global 500 2010: Global 500 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

2 of the top 5 corporations with the highest profits in the world are oil companies:

Global 500 2010: Global 500 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

The supply of oil isn't hurting the oil companies. It's one of the few commodites


If you can't figure out that oil isn't a normal product, or normal commodity, and that it's not dictated by both it's supply and demand in the same way other products/commodities are-then you know next to nothing about economics.

Do you really think that the people think that the current equilibrium price is acceptable? Of course not. It's completely skewed towards the oil companies. This at the very least should be the first big clue.

Please explain why, just a few years ago, oil prices went from over $140 to around $30 in a matter of months.

Was that $30 also a "skewed" price?
 
I don't think he understands the law of supply and demand.

Oil is not a product whose equilibrium is dictated by it's supply and it's demand-but mainly by it's demand alone.

The demand of oil never goes down. People need oil to drive, mass-transportation, shipping supplies, plastic, other equipment (lawn mowers for example). The demand of oil is the highest commodity in demand-even more than food (because food is shipped to stores using oil, and oil plays a large part in food production).

Since the demand for oil is so high-the oil companies can set the equilibrium price basically wherever they like (as long as it's a gradual shift).

3 of the top 5 corporations with the highest revenues in the world are oil companies:

Global 500 2010: Global 500 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

2 of the top 5 corporations with the highest profits in the world are oil companies:

Global 500 2010: Global 500 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

The supply of oil isn't hurting the oil companies. It's one of the few commodites


If you can't figure out that oil isn't a normal product, or normal commodity, and that it's not dictated by both it's supply and demand in the same way other products/commodities are-then you know next to nothing about economics.

Do you really think that the people think that the current equilibrium price is acceptable? Of course not. It's completely skewed towards the oil companies. This at the very least should be the first big clue.

Please explain why, just a few years ago, oil prices went from over $140 to around $30 in a matter of months.

Was that $30 also a "skewed" price?

You're dealing with a mental midget in James.
Oil is a commodity like corn or anything else. Price is supply and demand driven. Like anything else. When prices go up libs cry about collusion and "gouging." When prices go down you don't hear a peep.

I have heard almost every president since Nixon talk about "energy independence" for the U.S. IT is nonsense.
 
3 of the top 5 corporations with the highest revenues in the world are oil companies:

Global 500 2010: Global 500 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

2 of the top 5 corporations with the highest profits in the world are oil companies:

Global 500 2010: Global 500 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

The supply of oil isn't hurting the oil companies. It's one of the few commodites

It's one of the few commodities.... what?

And tell us more of the other "top 5" corporations with the highest revenues/profits.
Is Obama also singling them out for punitive taxation?

Is the public also callling for a "Windfall Profits Tax" on those corporations?

I know a little better than "next to nothing" about economics. I deal with energy economics on a daily basis.
 
Last edited:
3 of the top 5 corporations with the highest revenues in the world are oil companies:

Global 500 2010: Global 500 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

2 of the top 5 corporations with the highest profits in the world are oil companies:

Global 500 2010: Global 500 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

The supply of oil isn't hurting the oil companies. It's one of the few commodites

It's one of the few commodities.... what?

And tell us more of the other "top 5" corporations with the highest revenues/profits.
Is Obama also singling them out for punitive taxation?

Is the public also callling for a "Windfall Profits Tax" on those corporations?

I know a little better than "next to nothing" about economics. I deal with energy economics on a daily basis.

Revenues are NOT the same as profits. The top five for each would be different. I assumed you'd know this basic principle if you deal with economics on a daily basis.

Oil is not a product whose equilibrium is dictated by it's supply and it's demand-but mainly by it's demand alone.

The demand of oil never goes down. People need oil to drive, mass-transportation, shipping supplies, plastic, other equipment (lawn mowers for example). The demand of oil is the highest commodity in demand-even more than food (because food is shipped to stores using oil, and oil plays a large part in food production).

Since the demand for oil is so high-the oil companies can set the equilibrium price basically wherever they like (as long as it's a gradual shift).

3 of the top 5 corporations with the highest revenues in the world are oil companies:

Global 500 2010: Global 500 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

2 of the top 5 corporations with the highest profits in the world are oil companies:

Global 500 2010: Global 500 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

The supply of oil isn't hurting the oil companies. It's one of the few commodites


If you can't figure out that oil isn't a normal product, or normal commodity, and that it's not dictated by both it's supply and demand in the same way other products/commodities are-then you know next to nothing about economics.

Do you really think that the people think that the current equilibrium price is acceptable? Of course not. It's completely skewed towards the oil companies. This at the very least should be the first big clue.

Please explain why, just a few years ago, oil prices went from over $140 to around $30 in a matter of months.

Was that $30 also a "skewed" price?

You're dealing with a mental midget in James.
Oil is a commodity like corn or anything else. Price is supply and demand driven. Like anything else. When prices go up libs cry about collusion and "gouging." When prices go down you don't hear a peep.

I have heard almost every president since Nixon talk about "energy independence" for the U.S. IT is nonsense.

You don't even know what a commodity is do you? Corn is NOT a commodity in the same way oil is. A commodity is something that's traded internationally. How much of our corn do we import compared to oil? You can't compare the prices of both-as one is effected by the rest of the world much more than the other.

I suggest you look up the definition of a commodity, as opposed to a product, and do it before calling anyone a "mental midget".

Oh and as for those blasting me: I'm not voting for Obama. Nice try. I'm just saying people who don't even know what a commodity is, or the difference between revenue and profits, or can't even dispute my points with any intelligent discussions (no personal attacks aren't intelligent discussions-they dilute your point).

edit: Come at me with ideas, and they should make sense.

It's sad to see people claiming they know so much about economics-yet don't know basic terms you learn in macro, or micro 101 within the first 2-3 weeks.
 
Last edited:
Lastly I said the equilibrium price is currently skewed towards the oil companies. An equilibrium price is when the supplier and market meet at a price level they both feel is acceptable.

So here's an easy example for any "mental midget" who can't see that. I'll use the previously mentioned corn. I'll use nice and easy numbers.

-There's 100 people who want corn, and another 100 people who want oil.

-There are 5 companies that supply corn, and 10 that support oil.

-Both prices (or the equilibrium), are currently too high, and the public isn't happy with them.


The corn companies can now:

1. lower the price to add more incentives for the market to purchase their corn over the 4 other companies

2. raise the quality of their corn, which costs more money-thus they have to charge more money, or bite a bullet on profits (not revenues)

3. keep the prices the same-which many of the 100 people will simply buy peas, string beans, or some other vegetable-and not eat corn.

The oil companies can now:

1. same as #1 for corn

2. same as #2 for corn

3. keep the prices the same-which many of the 100 people will....still have to purchase oil in order to get to work, school, buy plastic, buy almost every product from almost any store (as those products needs to be shipped-which uses up oil).
 
3 of the top 5 corporations with the highest revenues in the world are oil companies:

Global 500 2010: Global 500 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

2 of the top 5 corporations with the highest profits in the world are oil companies:

Global 500 2010: Global 500 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

The supply of oil isn't hurting the oil companies. It's one of the few commodites

It's one of the few commodities.... what?

And tell us more of the other "top 5" corporations with the highest revenues/profits.
Is Obama also singling them out for punitive taxation?

Is the public also callling for a "Windfall Profits Tax" on those corporations?

I know a little better than "next to nothing" about economics. I deal with energy economics on a daily basis.

Revenues are NOT the same as profits. The top five for each would be different. I assumed you'd know this basic principle if you deal with economics on a daily basis.

Please explain why, just a few years ago, oil prices went from over $140 to around $30 in a matter of months.

Was that $30 also a "skewed" price?

You're dealing with a mental midget in James.
Oil is a commodity like corn or anything else. Price is supply and demand driven. Like anything else. When prices go up libs cry about collusion and "gouging." When prices go down you don't hear a peep.

I have heard almost every president since Nixon talk about "energy independence" for the U.S. IT is nonsense.

You don't even know what a commodity is do you? Corn is NOT a commodity in the same way oil is. A commodity is something that's traded internationally. How much of our corn do we import compared to oil? You can't compare the prices of both-as one is effected by the rest of the world much more than the other.

I suggest you look up the definition of a commodity, as opposed to a product, and do it before calling anyone a "mental midget".

Oh and as for those blasting me: I'm not voting for Obama. Nice try. I'm just saying people who don't even know what a commodity is, or the difference between revenue and profits, or can't even dispute my points with any intelligent discussions (no personal attacks aren't intelligent discussions-they dilute your point).

edit: Come at me with ideas, and they should make sense.

It's sad to see people claiming they know so much about economics-yet don't know basic terms you learn in macro, or micro 101 within the first 2-3 weeks.

Don't ask me another question until you answer mine. And be sure they make sense.
 
Lastly I said the equilibrium price is currently skewed towards the oil companies. An equilibrium price is when the supplier and market meet at a price level they both feel is acceptable.

So here's an easy example for any "mental midget" who can't see that. I'll use the previously mentioned corn. I'll use nice and easy numbers.

-There's 100 people who want corn, and another 100 people who want oil.

-There are 5 companies that supply corn, and 10 that support oil.

-Both prices (or the equilibrium), are currently too high, and the public isn't happy with them.


The corn companies can now:

1. lower the price to add more incentives for the market to purchase their corn over the 4 other companies

2. raise the quality of their corn, which costs more money-thus they have to charge more money, or bite a bullet on profits (not revenues)

3. keep the prices the same-which many of the 100 people will simply buy peas, string beans, or some other vegetable-and not eat corn.

The oil companies can now:

1. same as #1 for corn

2. same as #2 for corn

3. keep the prices the same-which many of the 100 people will....still have to purchase oil in order to get to work, school, buy plastic, buy almost every product from almost any store (as those products needs to be shipped-which uses up oil).

Kid, you're fucked up. Not worth my time.
 
It's one of the few commodities.... what?

And tell us more of the other "top 5" corporations with the highest revenues/profits.
Is Obama also singling them out for punitive taxation?

Is the public also callling for a "Windfall Profits Tax" on those corporations?

I know a little better than "next to nothing" about economics. I deal with energy economics on a daily basis.

Revenues are NOT the same as profits. The top five for each would be different. I assumed you'd know this basic principle if you deal with economics on a daily basis.

You're dealing with a mental midget in James.
Oil is a commodity like corn or anything else. Price is supply and demand driven. Like anything else. When prices go up libs cry about collusion and "gouging." When prices go down you don't hear a peep.

I have heard almost every president since Nixon talk about "energy independence" for the U.S. IT is nonsense.

You don't even know what a commodity is do you? Corn is NOT a commodity in the same way oil is. A commodity is something that's traded internationally. How much of our corn do we import compared to oil? You can't compare the prices of both-as one is effected by the rest of the world much more than the other.

I suggest you look up the definition of a commodity, as opposed to a product, and do it before calling anyone a "mental midget".

Oh and as for those blasting me: I'm not voting for Obama. Nice try. I'm just saying people who don't even know what a commodity is, or the difference between revenue and profits, or can't even dispute my points with any intelligent discussions (no personal attacks aren't intelligent discussions-they dilute your point).

edit: Come at me with ideas, and they should make sense.

It's sad to see people claiming they know so much about economics-yet don't know basic terms you learn in macro, or micro 101 within the first 2-3 weeks.

Don't ask me another question until you answer mine. And be sure they make sense.

First of all I'd like to see a link to your statistics. I don't have the statistics you're referencing-so I obviously can't say what I think about them as of yet.

But: Do you think that either the supply, or demand of oil changed THAT dramatically in a few months? To effect the price to drop to 21% of it's price-then to change again to go shoot back up?

A drop on a normal supply/demand product would mean either the supply increased dramatically, or the demand diminished dramatically. Sure oil supplies and demands change (the demand rarely if ever goes down though), but not dramatically enough to cause the product to become almost 1/5 of it's value in a few months.

Then oil's prices have gone back up significantly. What other product's price does this? None are coming to my head.
 

Forum List

Back
Top