Say, do you remember when we didn't need Keystone XL because we were awash in crude oil?

Director Blue ^ | 8/17/2012 | Doug Ross

[Qbert]

Keystone XL? What's that?

News out this afternoon is that Obama is looking into opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a means to relieve pressure at the gas pump.  Someone at the White House woke up and realized that the welcome springtime fall in gasoline prices has reversed course and retraced its steps, as shown [below].  I can tell you that out here on the Left Coast, the price of premium gasoline has reached $4.99 a gallon at my nearest station, but then California deserves it.  (The recent refinery fire at Richmond, which will reduce capacity for a few weeks, clearly doesn’t help.)

But this isn’t the only chart that should be giving night sweats to Team Obama right now.  We and others have pointed repeatedly to the infamous “Stimulus” chart, to which we add today’s news...

...that the unemployment rate rose in 44 of the 50 states last month.

Why is the United States the only country on Earth that restricts access to its own vast reserves of energy?

I'll give you a hint: it starts with the letter D and ends with the letters e-m-o-c-r-a-t-s. Which is why these kooks need to be voted out in November. At every level of government, including -- but not limited to -- dog-catcher.

Headline hat tip: Power Line commenter Mike Tanis.

[Smokin' Joe]

D’ emo-crats are the problem, alright. Vote the b@stards out! (and any ‘pubbie who sides with them (RINO) should go, too!)

[antceecee]

You got that right!

[Recon Dad]

Amen Joe!

[Carriage Hill]

It much too late for that to fix anything. We’ve been 100% infiltrated at every gov’t - local, state, federal - level by greens/commies/enviro-wackos etc, and their agendas are what drives the elected pols. Not the other way around. It’s going to take a *major purge* at all levels, and we’re not prepared for that. Yet.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a band aid. In terms of immediate substance, the XL pipeline couldn't provide any additional supplies of oil immediately, even if a FReeper was president right now. But then, the Democrats in Congress prevented “W" Bush from allowing drilling in ANWR on the grounds that it would take ten years for it to help reduce oil prices.

Well, guess what! That was ten years ago! And what do we have now to show for not having drilled in ANWR back then? A Democrat politician in the White House who’s talking about using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the tactical political purpose of buying votes in November.

Of course, what happened ten years ago is old news, and you can’t expect a newspaper to mention it now! I mean, it’s not like it’s the 40th Anniversary of Watergate or anything . . . </sarcasm>

Speaking of which, the 40th anniversary of Watergate break-in was in June!! Was I napping, or did Wire Service Journalism actually ignore it??? Obviously they were too busy not covering the Issa hearings on Eric Holder and Fast and Furious to get all worked up about an Attorney General who stonewalled an investigation forty years ago . . .

[thackney]

we were awash in crude oil

Could you point me to one example of when/where that claim was made?

Few people spend more time watching energy news than I do. I never saw that claim except in places like blogs from people who didn't understand the difference between exporting refined products and excess crude oil, a vast difference.

[Qbert]

"Could you point me to one example of when/where that claim was made?...I never saw that claim except in places like blogs from people who didn't understand the difference between exporting refined products and excess crude oil, a vast difference.

The blogger was referring to Obozo's nonsensical claims.

We supposedly didn't need Keystone XL because we had so much crude we didn't know what to do with ourselves... and now a few months later, the president is contemplating tapping the emergency reserves.

[thackney]

We supposedly didn't need Keystone XL because we had so much crude we didn't know what to do with ourselves.

I never saw that claim. I suspect the blogger just made it up.

[Qbert]

You supposedly are an expert on oil, etc.... and yet you never heard Obama making his many, specious, debunked claims about domestic energy production? C’mon, now...

“Fact Checking President Obama’s Claims About Domestic Energy Production”:

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/01/20/fact-checking-president-obamas-claims-about-domestic-energy-production/

[thackney]

The supposed claim was “we were awash in crude oil”.

The link does not show that claim.

It does falsely report he claimed “The U.S. has become a net energy exporter.” But it links to his web site that states:

“The U.S. has become a net exporter of fuels for the first time since 1949.”

Those are not the same. They are both being deceptive.

I am not in anyway an Obama supporter. But we don't have to make up lies about what he has said. His actual words are damaging enough and distorting his claims diminishes us. We need to be a source of actually information, not just more lies.

[Qbert]

A generalized statement that somebody (not me, btw) wrote for a blog headline does not equate to an intentional “lie”.

And back to the main point: Do you support Keystone XL? Forest for the trees...

[thackney]

A generalized statement that somebody (not me, btw) wrote for a blog headline does not equate to an intentional “lie”.

Please understand, I in no way attribute it to you.

I disagree about changing another's words to make it mean a different statement is not a lie. But that is okay, we can disagree with that and still agree Obama is a destructive leader and must be removed from office.

[thackney]

And back to the main point: Do you support Keystone XL?

Absolutely. Expanding our sources for crude oil and even bitumen is essential for the US economy.

[count-your-change]

See chron.com “U.S. awash in oil, but global demand drives prices”
Eric Nalde, Houston Chronicle Copyright 2012 Houston Chronicle. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By Eric Nalder
Published 11:51 p.m., Friday, April 27, 2012

[thackney]

Thank you for that.

Another deceptive title. The article spent most of its words about the result of refinery shutdowns in Washington State that lead to lower intake of oil to that area and lack of place put the oil for that duration.

While they were true that the total volume of stocks were at record highs, they ignored the fact that our demand had increased in that time frame to actually lower the days of supply kept on hand.

They also ignored the fact that much of that oil stocks is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and therefore commercial stocks were not at record high levels.

U.S. Ending Stocks of Crude Oil
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRSTUS1&f=M

U.S. Ending Stocks excluding SPR of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTESTUS1&f=M

Weekly U.S. Days of Supply of Crude Oil excluding SPR
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W_EPC0_VSD_NUS_DAYS&f=W

You are correct, there was a reporter using those words about 4 months after the Keystone XL pipeline was rejected.

Did you find any claims to match the original poster’s claim related to the Keystone XL pipeline?

[count-your-change]

“Did you find any claims to match the original poster’s claim related to the Keystone XL pipeline?”

No, most arguments seem to come from the enviro crowd.

[thackney]

No, most arguments seem to come from the enviro crowd.

- - - - - - -

As I find as well. I did not find anything related to the Keystone XL pipeline expansion related to not needing the oil due to an abundance of supply.

Cheers!