[NEWARKCATHOLICFAN]

The Republicans have told the American people that we need to drill for more oil, build refineries and build pipelines all in the name of energy independence. Yet as CNBC pointed out in December of 2011, the United States is EXPORTING more refined fuel, gasoline, than it imports for the first time in 50 years.

[NEWARKCATHOLICFAN]

http://www.politicususa.com/en/gop-gasoline-export

[nky]

Capitalism and the open market isn't it great?

FYI
http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/sho...p?t=126087

[Hoot Gibson]

The Republicans have told the American people that we need to drill for more oil, build refineries and build pipelines all in the name of energy independence. Yet as CNBC pointed out in December of 2011, the United States is EXPORTING more refined fuel, gasoline, than it imports for the first time in 50 years.

Oil reserves and refined gasoline are two separate issues. We have a surplus of gasoline because our economy is in the toilet, so demand is down. About 70 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline is the cost of the crude oil consumed during the refining process. If our refineries produce a surplus of gasoline during slow economic times, would you rather they not export the surplus and lay off workers, or keep pumping gasoline to the highest bidder?

[vundy33]

Only reason this is news is because those who have a problem with it and think it's anything new can't see the bigger picture that Hoot just described...

[Hoot Gibson]

Only reason this is news is because those who have a problem with it and think it's anything new can't see the bigger picture that Hoot just described...

I also think that this story is making headlines to confuse the ignorant into believing that the US government does not need to allow new exploratory drilling to increase our proven oil reserves.

[TheRealThing]

^When Obama took office gasoline cost 1.83 a gallon, now it's 3.50 a gallon. That's a 90% increase. As I recall, one of the most effective lies the liberal left dreamed up and used to denigrate George W during his administration was in saying he was in bed with the oil companies. The story went that this collaboration between George W and big oil, resulted in the price of gas being held artificially high. The allegation went on to impune the Rich Republicans for illegally helping their Rich buddies in the Texas oil business to make underserved windfall profits from the defenseless American public. BTW, in case you're wondering gas prices when W came to office were 1.30 a gallon. That's an increase of 50 cents in eight years. I've seen gas go up more than 50 cents in one day since Obama came to power.

Now, not only is the White House standing in the way of much needed oil exploration, they officially blocked the Canadian Pipeline indefinitely. Thusly denying the citizens of this country fuel for the present and the future. And 130,000 jobs we desperately need. Without question, policies such as these have been the catalyst for the spike in gasoline prices. I hope I'm wrong, but, I would almost bet if Iran does try to close the Stait of Hormuz, we will back down. All these things together will curb EVERYBODY'S travel habits save for the rich. Prices for everything we use from groceries to toothpaste will go up proportionately. Where is the outrage?

The real devil in the details of course is the not so secretive, liberal green agenda operatives. The present administration has been busy putting in Czars in charge of vital positions of contol. They have their hands in the EPA and ALL agencies that regulate the utility and fuel industries, for that matter. Surely people can look past politics long enough to see the world closing in around us. This hasn't much to do with politics anyway IMO. It's about control. America is being fundamentally transformed, just as promised. A good line from a movie I once saw says this, "some things change and some things don't." One thing that does not is the law of supply and demand. The less gas we have the higher it will go, conversely, the more gas we have the lower it will go. Want to be CONTROLLED? Vote the dems back in and you will be.

[TheRealVille]

^When Obama took office gasoline cost 1.83 a gallon, now it's 3.50 a gallon. That's a 90% increase. As I recall, one of the most effective lies the liberal left dreamed up and used to denigrate George W during his administration was in saying he was in bed with the oil companies. The story went that this collaboration between George W and big oil, resulted in the price of gas being held artificially high. The allegation went on to impune the Rich Republicans for illegally helping their Rich buddies in the Texas oil business to make underserved windfall profits from the defenseless American public. BTW, in case you're wondering gas prices when W came to office were 1.30 a gallon. That's an increase of 50 cents in eight years. I've seen gas go up more than 50 cents in one day since Obama came to power.

Now, not only is the White House standing in the way of much needed oil exploration, they officially blocked the Canadian Pipeline indefinitely. Thusly denying the citizens of this country fuel for the present and the future. And 130,000 jobs we desperately need. Without question, policies such as these have been the catalyst for the spike in gasoline prices. I hope I'm wrong, but, I would almost bet if Iran does try to close the Stait of Hormuz, we will back down. All these things together will curb EVERYBODY'S travel habits save for the rich. Prices for everything we use from groceries to toothpaste will go up proportionately. Where is the outrage?

The real devil in the details of course is the not so secretive, liberal green agenda operatives. The present administration has been busy putting in Czars in charge of vital positions of contol. They have their hands in the EPA and ALL agencies that regulate the utility and fuel industries, for that matter. Surely people can look past politics long enough to see the world closing in around us. This hasn't much to do with politics anyway IMO. It's about control. America is being fundamentally transformed, just as promised. A good line from a movie I once saw says this, "some things change and some things don't." One thing that does not is the law of supply and demand. The less gas we have the higher it will go, conversely, the more gas we have the lower it will go. Want to be CONTROLLED? Vote the dems back in and you will be.

When Bush took office it was 1.30-45, then went to well over 3.00 before settling back down for the Winter of the election. I paid 4.59 for diesel in Michigan while Bush was in office. Why aren't you telling about the 3.00+ gas prices during Bush's term? Usual half-truths from the right.


The numbers are 20,000(Canada's figures,) or 4500 by other surveys. That's during construction, then the jobs will be gone. BTW, since when is the right concerned about union jobs, because that is who will run that line? Pipeliners Local 798 out of Tulsa, OK run all major lines in the US. There are no permanent jobs in this pipeline. Look at the map(http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/sho...tcount=22) in the other thread, and tell me why they can't tie onto their existing(2010) pipeline somewhere in Kansas or Missouri, then head south. Why do they have to run a brand new line across that waterway, only to tie into the existing one on the other side of the water?

We have surplus gas right now.

[TheRealVille]

As the Feb. 21 deadline approaches for the Obama administration's decision on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, the project's supporters have launched a new advertising campaign touting its job benefits. A full-page ad placed in the New York Times this week by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged the president not to say "no" to "20,000 jobs." But that number isn't as straightforward as it seems.

Twenty thousand jobs is the number used by TransCanada, the Alberta-based company that wants to build the pipeline. In a recent news release, TransCanada said the Keystone XL would create 13,000 direct construction jobs and 7,000 manufacturing jobs.

Opponents of the pipeline say TransCanada has inflated the number of construction jobs by ignoring two facts: That most of the jobs would be temporary, and that there's a big difference between hiring people for varying periods of time and creating jobs.

Reports from two other sources—the U.S. State Department and Cornell University—say that no more than 6,000 jobs would be created by the pipeline, which would funnel up to 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the tar sands mines of Alberta, Canada to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Much of the confusion centers around different definitions of what counts as a job.

To most people, the word "job" implies a year-round, full-time position occupied by a single person. But Jaclyn Houser, a spokeswoman for the Laborers' International Union of North America, said construction jobs are usually temporary by nature, lasting anywhere from two weeks to several years.

Laborers' International is one of several unions that have reached agreements with TransCanada to provide workers for construction of the Keystone XL.

The United Association (U.A.), a union of plumbers, welders and pipe fitters, has also come to an agreement with TransCanada. Tom Gross, the U.A.'s director of pipelines, told InsideClimate News that most of the construction would take place between April and December.

"As with any construction work, they ramp up during a 8 to 9 month work season and are laid off anywhere from 1 to 6 months in a year," said U.A. Special Representative David Barnett.

Gross said pipeline workers often work long hours to complete their projects. "It would be common for a worker to work 2,400 hours or more in [nine months]." That's the equivalent of working 48 hours a week for 50 weeks.

Barnett said some of the members might work both years, thus reducing the total number of people hired for the project.

100% of the construction workers will be union. The bold is me, except I don't go out west to work. Like I said, I'm all for the pipeline, just not through that waterway. I'm sure TransCanada could do away with that part, and tie in closer to Kansas, then go south.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/201201...nt-cornell

[RunItUpTheGut]

Cap it.

99 Cents a gallon forever and no higher.

wouldnt that be great....

[Hoot Gibson]

99 cents a gallon would be great but the government cannot fix prices like you and others have suggested. Why would any company sell gas below cost and how could they do it without quickly going out of business? Price controls create shortages, long lines, poor quality, and black markets.

[TheRealVille]

99 cents a gallon would be great but the government cannot fix prices like you and others have suggested. Why would any company sell gas below cost and how could they do it without quickly going out of business? Price controls create shortages, long lines, poor quality, and black markets.

Right.

[nky]

99 cents a gallon would be great but the government cannot fix prices like you and others have suggested. Why would any company sell gas below cost and how could they do it without quickly going out of business? Price controls create shortages, long lines, poor quality, and black markets.

plus since gasoline is a globally traded commodity why would the oil companies just sell the bulk of it abroad?

[RunItUpTheGut]

99 cents a gallon would be great but the government cannot fix prices like you and others have suggested. Why would any company sell gas below cost and how could they do it without quickly going out of business? Price controls create shortages, long lines, poor quality, and black markets.

Tax moneys pays the rest....

only for working American Citizens.

As ive said before, make welfare and food stamp receipients pay 10 dollars a gallon for gas and theyll set there ass at the house.

[TheRealThing]

When Bush took office it was 1.30-45, then went to well over 3.00 before settling back down for the Winter of the election. I paid 4.59 for diesel in Michigan while Bush was in office. Why aren't you telling about the 3.00+ gas prices during Bush's term? Usual half-truths from the right.


The numbers are 20,000(Canada's figures,) or 4500 by other surveys. That's during construction, then the jobs will be gone. BTW, since when is the right concerned about union jobs, because that is who will run that line? Pipeliners Local 798 out of Tulsa, OK run all major lines in the US. There are no permanent jobs in this pipeline. Look at the map(http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/sho...tcount=22) in the other thread, and tell me why they can't tie onto their existing(2010) pipeline somewhere in Kansas or Missouri, then head south. Why do they have to run a brand new line across that waterway, only to tie into the existing one on the other side of the water?

We have surplus gas right now.

Agreed, and you just blew a lot of it. If we have a surplus of gasoline right now why is it so high? There isn't one misrepresented fact that I am aware of in my post. For the record, I am union and have been since 1966. Their are always conflicting job numbers on matters like this, where liberals oppose it due to environmental arguments. The EPA has already regulated the coal, oil and gas industry ad nauseum. Saying that, there may well be some way to make the pipeline route more practical. The problem is that instead of helping get the pipeline, the government is stalling or in this case stopping it from happening. Isn't that what they keep saying? The federal government can help make life better? If it is a question of the route let's fix it and get going.

Environmentalists have been pushing the panic button for years and fuel prices have risen unneccessarily high because of their speculated concerns. You got to admit, from concerns about the snail darter to imagined environmental disasters, as depicted by the recent rash of movies coming out of Hollywood, are dubious threats. Technology, engineering advances, construction practices, and oversight are tops in the world right here in the United States. Nobody does it better. For instance, in the case of hydraulic frakking used to release trapped natural gas from subterranean rock structures. These structures are more than a mile below the water table. When drilling a well, particular attention must be paid to how the steel casing is set and cement the casing in place. When this is done properly, the actual process of hydraulic fracturing does not pose a threat to groundwater supplies because it typically takes place more than a mile below groundwater supplies. A recent DOE panel recognized this in its report.

By all means let's be careful but, we should keep moving. The following is a quote by Rober Rapier---"Like many of you, I have been following the debate over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would bring crude from the oil sands of Canada to refineries in the U.S. I am on mailing lists covering both sides of the issue, and based on some of the e-mails I get it seems that many people don’t realize that we already have pipelines crisscrossing the U.S. I get the impression that some people feel that it would be unprecedented to lay an oil pipeline across the country. But below is a map showing the location of the major oil and gas pipelines in the U.S" It's worth the time to take a look at a map of the Ogallala Aquifer which shows existing pipeline crossings in the region in question.

LINK---http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011/10/18/newsflash-pipelines-are-everywhere/

Like most people when I thought about a pipeline crossing Nebraska, I envisioned one pipeline crossing the state on virgin and undisturbed prairie land. The truth is there are hundreds of lines already crossing the Ogallala Aquifer. For some reason pasting the link is proving hard to do, if I can get it to post I will do it later.

[TheRealThing]

Here we go. Obviously this guy is by no means conservative in his views.


http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011...verywhere/

[TheRealVille]

Agreed, and you just blew a lot of it. If we have a surplus of gasoline right now why is it so high? There isn't one misrepresented fact that I am aware of in my post. For the record, I am union and have been since 1966. Their are always conflicting job numbers on matters like this, where liberals oppose it due to environmental arguments. The EPA has already regulated the coal, oil and gas industry ad nauseum. Saying that, there may well be some way to make the pipeline route more practical. The problem is that instead of helping get the pipeline, the government is stalling or in this case stopping it from happening. Isn't that what they keep saying? The federal government can help make life better? If it is a question of the route let's fix it and get going.

Environmentalists have been pushing the panic button for years and fuel prices have risen unneccessarily high because of their speculated concerns. You got to admit, from concerns about the snail darter to imagined environmental disasters, as depicted by the recent rash of movies coming out of Hollywood, are dubious threats. Technology, engineering advances, construction practices, and oversight are tops in the world right here in the United States. Nobody does it better. For instance, in the case of hydraulic frakking used to release trapped natural gas from subterranean rock structures. These structures are more than a mile below the water table. When drilling a well, particular attention must be paid to how the steel casing is set and cement the casing in place. When this is done properly, the actual process of hydraulic fracturing does not pose a threat to groundwater supplies because it typically takes place more than a mile below groundwater supplies. A recent DOE panel recognized this in its report.

By all means let's be careful but, we should keep moving. The following is a quote by Rober Rapier---"Like many of you, I have been following the debate over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would bring crude from the oil sands of Canada to refineries in the U.S. I am on mailing lists covering both sides of the issue, and based on some of the e-mails I get it seems that many people don’t realize that we already have pipelines crisscrossing the U.S. I get the impression that some people feel that it would be unprecedented to lay an oil pipeline across the country. But below is a map showing the location of the major oil and gas pipelines in the U.S" It's worth the time to take a look at a map of the Ogallala Aquifer which shows existing pipeline crossings in the region in question.

LINK---http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011/10/18/newsflash-pipelines-are-everywhere/

Like most people when I thought about a pipeline crossing Nebraska, I envisioned one pipeline crossing the state on virgin and undisturbed prairie land. The truth is there are hundreds of lines already crossing the Ogallala Aquifer. For some reason pasting the link is proving hard to do, if I can get it to post I will do it later.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45826765/ The thread was started showing this link about gas exports of the US. Yes there is, the 130,000 job number on the pipeline. Not to mention the half truths you told about gas prices over the last 12 years.

[TheRealThing]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45826765/ The thread was started showing this link about gas exports of the US. Yes there is, the 130,000 job number on the pipeline. Not to mention the half truths you told about gas prices over the last 12 years.

I heard over and over again the charge being made during the Bush Administration. "Bush is in bed with big oil" The fact that it SPIKED, once in eight years, can't be compared to three plus years of 3.50 a gallon prices of your hero's administration. Or the fact that he is trying to kill the pipeline. How does an oil company's willingness to make a profit by exporting gas make a political point for (bolded) you? You said you had no problem with the pipeline if it didn't go across (your words) "that waterway." I gave you the link for a map published by a liberal source showing HUNDREDS of pipelines going across "that waterway," Additionally, 95% of the whole state of Nebraska rests over the Ogallala Aquifer, matter of fact, if Nebraska lost the land not over the aquifer, they'd never miss it! What is the difference in your mind regarding this particular pipeline crossing the state of Neb vs the existing pipelines?

One minute you're saying we're about to run out of fossil fuels and we have to develope renewable energy sources, which, don't exist yet by the way, the next, you're arguing the point that we are awash in the stuff, which is it? If the pipeline doesn't go to Texas it is headed for China the way I hear it. Even you can't be in favor of that outcome. Advocating for the closure of viable electrical generating stations, high gas prices, blocking the Canadian pipeline, strangling coal mining/clean air regulations and oil drilling moratoriums in the gulf and Alaska, just cannot be reconciled with sound logic or the good of America IMO I guess that's why it's a democratic position

[Wildcatk23]

^When Obama took office gasoline cost 1.83 a gallon, now it's 3.50 a gallon. That's a 90% increase. As I recall, one of the most effective lies the liberal left dreamed up and used to denigrate George W during his administration was in saying he was in bed with the oil companies. The story went that this collaboration between George W and big oil, resulted in the price of gas being held artificially high. The allegation went on to impune the Rich Republicans for illegally helping their Rich buddies in the Texas oil business to make underserved windfall profits from the defenseless American public. BTW, in case you're wondering gas prices when W came to office were 1.30 a gallon. That's an increase of 50 cents in eight years. I've seen gas go up more than 50 cents in one day since Obama came to power.

Now, not only is the White House standing in the way of much needed oil exploration, they officially blocked the Canadian Pipeline indefinitely. Thusly denying the citizens of this country fuel for the present and the future. And 130,000 jobs we desperately need. Without question, policies such as these have been the catalyst for the spike in gasoline prices. I hope I'm wrong, but, I would almost bet if Iran does try to close the Stait of Hormuz, we will back down. All these things together will curb EVERYBODY'S travel habits save for the rich. Prices for everything we use from groceries to toothpaste will go up proportionately. Where is the outrage?

The real devil in the details of course is the not so secretive, liberal green agenda operatives. The present administration has been busy putting in Czars in charge of vital positions of contol. They have their hands in the EPA and ALL agencies that regulate the utility and fuel industries, for that matter. Surely people can look past politics long enough to see the world closing in around us. This hasn't much to do with politics anyway IMO. It's about control. America is being fundamentally transformed, just as promised. A good line from a movie I once saw says this, "some things change and some things don't." One thing that does not is the law of supply and demand. The less gas we have the higher it will go, conversely, the more gas we have the lower it will go. Want to be CONTROLLED? Vote the dems back in and you will be.

God have mercy. Your a bloody idiot. IT was a $1.80 maybe the last little bit of his presidency. What was it when he took office? And how high did it reach? Give us a break with your far right lies.

[TheRealVille]

I heard over and over again the charge being made during the Bush Administration. "Bush is in bed with big oil" The fact that it SPIKED, once in eight years, can't be compared to three plus years of 3.50 a gallon prices of your hero's administration. Or the fact that he is trying to kill the pipeline. How does an oil company's willingness to make a profit by exporting gas make a political point for (bolded) you? You said you had no problem with the pipeline if it didn't go across (your words) "that waterway." I gave you the link for a map published by a liberal source showing HUNDREDS of pipelines going across "that waterway," Additionally, 95% of the whole state of Nebraska rests over the Ogallala Aquifer, matter of fact, if Nebraska lost the land not over the aquifer, they'd never miss it! What is the difference in your mind regarding this particular pipeline crossing the state of Neb vs the existing pipelines?

One minute you're saying we're about to run out of fossil fuels and we have to develope renewable energy sources, which, don't exist yet by the way, the next, you're arguing the point that we are awash in the stuff, which is it? If the pipeline doesn't go to Texas it is headed for China the way I hear it. Even you can't be in favor of that outcome. Advocating for the closure of viable electrical generating stations, high gas prices, blocking the Canadian pipeline, strangling coal mining/clean air regulations and oil drilling moratoriums in the gulf and Alaska, just cannot be reconciled with sound logic or the good of America IMO I guess that's why it's a democratic position

I'll just say that Wildcat is right, and leave it at that.

[nky]

January 2001- $1.52 (Source: Runzheimer International)
[Image: http://www.ihatethemedia.com/wp-content/...849158.jpg]

[nky]

First 4 years Of President Bush gas prices average

2001
1.43 (1.55-adjusted for inflation based on 2005 $)
2002
1.34 (1.44-adjusted for inflation based on 2005 $)
2003
1.56 (1.63-adjusted for inflation based on 2005 $)
2004
1.85 (1.89-adjusted for inflation based on 2005 $)
Source: Energy Information Administration

[nky]

In 1981 that $1.35 would be the equivalent of $3.31 in inflation adjusted terms for 2011 dollars.
Compare that to the price increase from 1998 where the average price was $1.02 and by July 2008 it had increased to $4.02 and you have a 294% increase in 10 years even greater than the 1981 spike.
Amazingly the average inflation adjusted gasoline prices for the following peak years were; 1918 was $3.69, 1938 was $3.16, 2008 was $3.23, and for 2011 so far it is $3.51. All very close when adjusted for inflation.
Interestingly, the average price of a gallon of gas from 1918 to the present is $2.45 in 2011 inflation adjusted dollars. So it is safe to say that anytime during that period that the price of gas was above $2.45 in inflation adjusted terms it was expensive and whenever it was below that price it was cheap. So obviously when it reached $4.00 a gallon in July 2008 it was expensive. And with the average for 2011 at $3.51 we are once again expensive.
If we look at the average annual Inflation adjusted gasoline prices for each of the following years (1958, 1968, 1978, 1988, 1998, and 2008 )we see several of the "8" years below the average.
Inflation Adjusted Gasoline Prices
Year Price
1958 $2.32
1968 $2.18
1978 $2.22
1988 $1.81
1998 $1.39
2008 $3.34
2011 $3.51
So if the long term average price is $2.45 then in 1988 gas was very cheap and in 1978 it was only slightly below average but in 1981 (at an inflation adjusted $3.24) and in 2008 it was extremely expensive on a historical basis.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/infla...lation.asp

[Wildcatk23]

January 2001- $1.52 (Source: Runzheimer International)
[Image: http://www.ihatethemedia.com/wp-content/...849158.jpg]

Ok your graph shows that BUSH completely fucked the economy and gas prices sky rocketed under his watch. Just because they went down for a month or 2 near the end of his presidency to try and lure votes for McCain doesnt mean anything.

[nky]

OK your graph shows that BUSH completely fucked the economy and gas prices sky rocketed under his watch. Just because they went down for a month or 2 near the end of his presidency to try and lure votes for McCain doesn't mean anything.

Personally I would blame the democratically controlled Congress from January 2007-2010 but that's just me:biggrin:

[Wildcatk23]

Personally I would blame the democratically controlled Congress from January 2007-2010 but that's just me:biggrin:

Right the gradual increase before that was the Democratically controlled ?

[TheRealVille]

Personally I would blame the democratically controlled Congress from January 2007-2010 but that's just me:biggrin:

That's the republican way, blame congress if the President is republican and congress democrat, blame the President if he is democrat, and congress is republican.

[nky]

Or if The Senate is controlled by the Democrats and the President is a Democrat blame them

[nky]

You've found our secret:eyeroll:

[Wildcatk23]

That's the republican way, blame congress if the President is republican and congress democrat, blame the President if he is democrat, and congress is republican.

Bush completely destroyed the economy. Anyway you look at it.