Posted on 04/29/2008 10:50:27 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
U.S. President George W. Bush said on Tuesday there was no "magic wand" to bring down record-high fuel prices but would consider a proposal to suspend federal gasoline taxes this summer -- an idea that has divided the 2008 presidential candidates... Bush again prodded Congress to open an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling and allow construction of more nuclear and coal plants... "I've repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems, yet time after time Congress chose to block them." Crude oil prices have surged more than five-fold since 2002... Oil prices are up nearly 25 percent since the start of 2008, logging a record near $119.93 a barrel on Monday, and gasoline prices are above the key $4 a gallon mark in some U.S. cities like San Francisco... Presumed Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton have both endorsed suspending an 18.4 cent per gallon federal gasoline tax this summer, but fellow Democratic hopeful Barack Obama has argued that it would make little difference.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
G’night all.
Sadly enough that doesn’t resound to people, they want a president to bring oil prices back to under 30 dollars a barrel and have gas at 1.45 a gallon.
I really feel bad for the poor guy, no matter what he does he catches flak from both sides of the fence.
prisoner6
We’d have $30 a barrel oil if we’d just exterminate the vermin who control Arabia. But that might make us look a little harsh. Particularly when we told China (and any Euro-country that complained) that they’d be paying $60 a barrel.
/bingo
Couldn’t he issue an executive order that would open up drilling immediately in ANWR? It might well get vetoed by Congress, but it would put them on record in an election year as being against lower oil prices.
Today, for the first time in several years, W said something worth listening to. Too bad it’s too little too late. Had he put as much political capital into this as he did Shamnesty, we might have accomplished somehting. Thanks, W, for your anemic leadership. Damn fine leader you are.
No, unfortunately. Also, Congress doesn’t have veto power, the President does. But the President has to obey the law, and Congress prohibited ANWR oil; each attempt to lift that prohibition has failed, so we’re stuck with it until we make the a-holes look so bad for not lifting the prohibition that they have to run to meet us.
I think this is what GWB has in mind. He’s putting this RIGHT on the front burner (as it were, mixin’ metaphors is one of my specialties), and is turning Congress’ failure into an election issue. Hitlery already has said that she wants to “tax profits” of the oil companies in order to make dropping the federal gasoline excise “revenue neutral”, but she won’t support drilling the ANWR.
He didn’t use any political capital on the amnesty bill, because he knew it wouldn’t pass, and knew he’d undermine leftist criticism, as well as undermine public support for any such future bill as it came under scrutiny.
In all fairness, it's kinda hard not to mention oil company profits when it's a key component of one of the candidate's proposals in the matter. And I do recall gas (briefly) dropping to around $1.15/gal around the spring of 2002.
That said, I don't expect any president to be able to curb gas prices much anymore. It appears OPEC has embarked on a serious strategy aimed at dominating the world economy, and without viable independence from foreign oil no bandaid plan is going to have much of a long term effect.
Personally I think OPEC is not going to succeed, at least not to the extent they are hoping for. What they are going to do is enable free markets to expedite the development of alternative power sources by doing what social engineering couldn't do. They are inadvertently making it fiscally viable for private enterprises to begin developing a practical alternative to fossil fuels.
It's gonna hurt for a while, but in the long run we will finally attain freedom from our addiction to OPEC. And that makes me feel just a bit better when I fill up my tank.
No rational person could even possibly argue that the production of energy is NOT necessary to national security. You take it from there.
That GWB has NOT done so to date speaks enormous volumes about either his competence or his agenda. Or both.
I think that if America decides that cheap gas prices are in its best interest...and I believe that it is...that we can use the oil under government ( people ) owned land to any extent we wish to lower the prices.
We could set the price at 50 bucks a barrel, for instance, and the rest of the world would have to follow. They would actually start going much lower in a panic that their fossil fuel will soon be worthless considering all of the alternative fuel research that is trying to make it archaic.
He could always prop up the dollar, since its the dollar’s fall that is causing a good bit of the rise in oil. Perhaps he could reduce deficit spending...
Perhaps if Bush actually had a strong dollar policy....the dollar move since the 20$ish barrel prices must account for a notable portion of the increase in fuel prices over the last few years.
It must be tough governing an increasingly sheepish and irrational populace.
No problem, soon enough we will be so much in debt to the ME and China that they’ll own us. Then they can come here and drill anywhere they please.
“Bush says no magic wand to lower fuel prices.”
Nor any desire to do so.
And of course Schumer came right out against what the President said.
“Perhaps he could reduce deficit spending...”
Nah, that’s the way to be unpopular. Bush saw things the other way. Launch the largest giveaway program in 30 years, and a major war, and cut taxes. Surprise, our national debt goes from $6 trillion to $10 trillion. It’s all done on the credit card. It’s Bush’s policy to leave all problems he has created alone so that the next president can deal with them.
And once again the average American suffers from the incompetence, greed, and deceit.
One good thing may come from all of this and that is Americans may shift their focus on materialism and learn to put something back and quit borrowing so heavily for personal consumption.
That GWB has NOT done so to date speaks enormous volumes about either his competence or his agenda. Or both.
Agreed. And to think people were ready to add him to Mt. Rushmore.
What we have here is a failure to lead. The anointed ones in D.C. are so short sighted. Ray Charles could’ve seen this coming.
Bush needs to convene congress, declare an emergency and authorize construction of new refineries in every state. Then he needs to authorize construction of nuclear power plants across the land. Drilling in known areas such as ANWR should begin today. The name Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge needs to change to something more accurate like Frozen Tundra Relatively Small Area Vital to National Security. Think of the effect it would have on jobs and the economy.
He needs to hammer home the fact that we got into this mess because the democrats have refused to allow us to become energy independent. Cheney should take the lead in this role but, he and all the others in the cabinet are AWOL.
He needs to explain, everyday, that our economy is struggling because so much of our money is being sucked out of this country through the gas pump.
We get: America needs to “get off oil”, and “there is no magic wand”. How carter-esque of him.
“No problem, soon enough we will be so much in debt to the ME and China that they’ll own us. Then they can come here and drill anywhere they please.”
And yet this is the least discussed issue on this forum.
It’s like the matador teasing the bull with the cape deal. We (the bulls) are disscusing so many other issues (issues being the cape) that we simply miss the biggest issue of our lives. We should be going after the little sissy in shinny pants (the matador) who represents all the traitors in our government.
Politicians know all to well how to dangle the cape and and keep us running in circles.
With all due respect, Mr. President yes.
There is a magic wand. COMPETITION.
If all new cars sold in America (both foreign and domestically produced) were mandated to be true “flex fuel”, the competition would drive oil prices down immediately.
Leave it to manufacturers, to decide the “flex”. Ethanol. Methanol. Plug-in Hybrid. Bio-diesel. But there has to be an option, or you don’t sell the car.
The time for waffling is over. Time to act, Sir.
Well said.
With growing oil demand from China (see link below) the only solution to our oil price problems is to produce more domestic oil. There is only one thing standing in the way of that...Congress.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/29/content_8075648.htm
No, drilling for more oil is not the “only” solution.
It needs to be part of the solution, certainly. But we need competition.
We need to have other choices.
We need flex fuel. We need plug-in hybrids. We need consumers to have an alternative, so when gas gets to whatever price each consumer thinks is too much - they can select something else.
We need for Congress, and President Bush, to mandate all new autos sold in America, effective say - 2010 - to include some form of a “flex fuel” option.
Every single one.
Gas and oil prices will PLUMMET.
Just might clean up Detroit’s lazy game, too.
The folks running OPEC know that it would take close to 50 years for the US to transition to any other source of energy, so I have a feeling they will prevail.
Additionally, oil demand in developing nations is skyrocketting. They are currently building energy infrastructures that are based on oil and will have a useful life of 50-60 years. There is no downside for OPEC in the global oil market.
It needs to be part of the solution, certainly. But we need competition.
We need to have other choices.
We need flex fuel. We need plug-in hybrids. We need consumers to have an alternative, so when gas gets to whatever price each consumer thinks is too much - they can select something else.
Gasoline represents less than 50% of the oil that the world consumes. Diesel fuel, heating oil, asphalt, petrochemicals and other fractions represent more than 50%. The world simply can't transition everything that we get from oil to alternatives quickly enough. And by the way, the developing world is using more oil with each passing day. The world is simply going to have to find a way to produce more oil.
Thats because they were not a new topic to anybody except those in the oil patch that were grateful for those prices after them dropping sometimes to the $10~12 in 1998~1999.
Cushing, OK Crude Oil Future Contract from 1983
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rclc1d.htm
| Year | Nominal | 2007 $'s |
| 1990 | $23.19 | $37.17 |
| 1991 | $20.20 | $31.15 |
| 1992 | $19.25 | $28.81 |
| 1993 | $16.75 | $24.36 |
| 1994 | $15.66 | $22.19 |
| 1995 | $16.75 | $23.09 |
| 1996 | $20.46 | $27.38 |
| 1997 | $18.64 | $24.40 |
| 1998 | $11.91 | $15.35 |
| 1999 | $16.56 | $20.83 |
| 2000 | $27.39 | $33.39 |
| 2001 | $23.00 | $27.29 |
| 2002 | $22.81 | $26.61 |
| 2003 | $27.69 | $31.62 |
| 2004 | $37.66 | $41.84 |
| 2005 | $50.04 | $53.77 |
| 2006 | $58.30 | $60.73 |
| 2007 | $64.20 | $64.92 |
/bingo
Currencies fluctuate. There have been scaremongers claiming that OPEC is going to stop pricing crude in dollars, but in fact started pricing it in Euros a while back, while on paper the price is still in dollars.
In the case of the dollar, OPEC has pushed up the prices of everything in industrialized/industrializing societies by raising the price of crude; one could argue that the market has driven the price up, but OPEC has kept production increases much lower than demand increases.
Sheik Yamani, the Saudi oil minister for many years (Sheik is an honor rec’d in consequence of his service to the Kingdom) stated in later years that the embargo that followed the 1973 war was a big mistake because it led to a massive expansion of proven reserves worldwide and outside of OPEC control. More obviously, anything that the sheiks wanted from outside the country suddenly cost much more than previously.
The current king (I think it was) just condemned the use of ethanol, claiming that it was causing world starvation — the fact is, it does no such thing, but the steadily rising price of crude (more than tenfold since the Clinton administration) does indeed lead to and has led to that very precipice. The prospect of alt-fuels finally catching on is another consequence of the OPEC-induced oil price spiral. Despite the 1970s experiences, it’s clear that the anti-capitalist fascists running OPEC haven’t learned anything.
Reducing the deficit would result from increasing US employment and reducing money sent overseas for energy. Another way to reduce the deficit is to raise taxes, which is what Hillary and Obama plan to do.
People (especially around here) seem to forget the deficit increases under President Reagan, and how that juiced the economy, the stock market, and ultimately helped destroy the USSR.
From your link:
Prices are based on historical free market (stripper) prices of Illinois Crude as presented by IOGA .
If you look at a small regional market, you can find many differences from global averages or benchmark prices like WTI at Cushing.
For example:
The monthly average price for Alaskan North Slope oil on the West Coast was below $6/barrel Dec 98 and Jan 99.
Alaska North Slope Wellhead Acquisition Price by First Purchasers
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/f005071__3m.htm
A couple California crude streams fell below $8/barrel in 98 and 99 as well.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/f005006133m.htm
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/f005006143m.htm
Some Mexican Crude dropped below $7
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/imx2810008m.htm
It is strange though that the article didn’t mention that the crude price has blown past a tenfold increase since the Clinton administration.
Picking an unusual low point as the comparison point for today’s pricing would be intentionally misleading.
So I figure somewhere the Lame Stream Media has already done it.
O'Bama has much to learn. Still, he is learning quickly.
It needs to be part of the solution, certainly. But we need competition.
We need to have other choices.
We need flex fuel. We need plug-in hybrids.
We need for Congress, and President Bush, to mandate all new autos sold in America, effective say - 2010 - to include some form of a “flex fuel” option.
Every single one.
Gas and oil prices will PLUMMET.
Just might clean up Detroit’s lazy game, too.
Are you dreaming??? We have an energy infrastructure that has taken 80 years to build. We aren't going to create new alternatives to replace that energy infrastructrure quickly...it will take 50 years to bring alternatives online. Meanwhile the population of the country is growing at a rate of 1% per year. We need to bring online more oil production or else we won't have the oil to build you precious flex-fuel infrastructure.
:’)
He was for it before he was against it.
I’m mystified that an immediate 5 per cent cut in retail gasoline prices is seen as insignificant to the Kenyan Moslem candidate. Gasoline prices are likely to be around $3 at some point before the election, making that cut even larger. And of course, in the case of taxes (particularly excise taxes), less is more. :’)
[’Civ sprays the fire extinguisher on post #41] :’) The infrastructure rebuilding not be cheap, and that is indeed something that is often given the hand-wave or brush-off by some, particularly the hydrogen advocates. The more “standards” are out there, the less “standard” they become, making gov’t regs and mandates much better when a new infrastructure is needed, particularly if it is needed rapidly.
During the mid-70s a lot of ideas surfaced, such as electric vehicles which are “refueled” in minutes by changing out the electrolyte (I’m not too sure anyone thought that one through), leaving the expended electrolyte behind for recharging at the filling station. That would have required a standard electrolyte, not to mention full-service fillups by trained professionals, as well as more electrical generating capacity.
The supposed emerging hydrogen economy will obviously require massive expenditures to build an infrastructure, and it’s also obvious that A) fillups will be a bit tricky, and the more automation the better, B) more electrical generating capacity will be needed, with the hydrogen being generated (off peak?) at the filling stations themselves, C) construction of said infrastructure ahead of large-scale production of the vehicles (else nowhere to fuel up other than off-peak home electrolysis systems), and D) support for the existing hydrocarbon fuel infrastructure parallel to the new hydrogen infrastructure buildout will continue to cost something.
Detroit’s “lazy game” has already been “cleaned up” by Asian econobox makers during the 1973-74 embargo, European automakers (some of which were gov’t owned or subsidized), and of course the eschewing of US-made autos by various folks (generally the example given is the left coast).
Hybrids have been overhyped (figures, since those were pushed by Clinton). They came off their high horse when the gov’t (under Bush II) started listing the fuel economy figures more in accord with reality.
Flex-fuel makes the most sense among things available right now, because the infrastructure is already in place to handle it. 90 years ago, the Ford Model T was a flex fuel vehicle — my late father used to tell of running ‘em on a mixture of kerosene and water. :’)
Recharging electric vehicles while working (IOW, the employer shells out bucks during the on-peak load) is foolishness from the standpoint of the whole society. Electric vehicles may improve (although not much more), but will remain one (possibly decent) choice for commuters.
Other stuff that could come, such as Ray Gorte’s solid-oxide fuel cell, which runs on sulfur-free gasoline, and improvements in conventional fuel economy (adiabatic engines, further decline in vehicle weights, etc) could by themselves eliminate petroleum imports within 20 years; if coupled with more domestic production (ANWR, along with fuels processed from solid sources, and from gas hydrates, as well as so-called renewable sources such as biomass), and getting rid of the ridiculous number of the EPA’s fuel formulations, that time period could probably be halved.
Hydrogen-burning fuel cells for vehicles will require some kind of fuel source, and (in the case of hydrogen production through electrolysis) purified water and increased electricity generation. Storing gaseous hydrogen is also what is euphemistically termed an engineering challenge.
Obviously there’s a lot of effort going into the discovery of ambient temperature superconductors, which would (by replacing the national grid) obviate the need for up to 70 per cent of current US generating capacity — probably just in time to have the electric companies give away $10,000-off coupons for electric cars. ;’)
Hydrogen cars hold expensive surprises
The Globe and Mail | Friday, Jul. 18, 2003 | STEPHEN STRAUSS
Posted on 07/18/2003 11:15:37 PM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/948930/posts
O’Bama is yet young and learning rapidly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.