Ernie :
Considering that Time magazine is in the tank for Obama what else would  
they have said ?
I do not buy the Republican argument up and down the line, some things have 
 been beyond
White House control ; he cannot be  blamed for the  whole schmeer. OTOH, I 
cannot
buy the rationalizations of the administration, either.
 
In short, there was a lot more that he could have done but did not do. 
 
If you live in Wyoming or Montana you are paying about $  3. 50 per gallon.
Here in Oregon it is about $ 4 . 10.  In Illinois and  California ( the 
most expensive
in the Lower 48 ) it is about $ 4.25. 
 
Why the difference ? Supply.  The states with the lowest gas prices  have 
the most access
to Canadian oil.  And Canadian supply, for the foreseeable future, is  
huge. Simple economics,
top heavy supply and prices come down. Not enough demand to buy up all that 
 oil
and businesses, to compete for market share , lower prices to attract  
customers.
 
Keystone would add to the supply nationally and, therefore, would  lower 
prices.
To repeat something said before, but I guess which went unread,  approval 
of Keystone
would have an immediate impact on the futures market. As soon as it was  
signed, but
especially as soon as  contracts for construction were let,  gas  prices 
would start
to come down, and it has little to do with China or India, nations that get 
 almost
all their oil from the Mid East.
 
Yes, oil is fungible, but a vast supply just across the border in  
democratic and stable
Canada and you get really major reassurance, which would increase  
confidence,
and allow long range  plans that are not possible generally now.
 
No way for me to forecast what would happen to the price of a gallon of  gas
once Keystone is approved,  but if it didn't decrease by 50 cents in  the 
course
of a couple of months I'd be amazed.
 
For a $ 100,000 earner, that basically is a "so what?" number. 
For a $    25,000 earner it could mean a decrease in the  energy budget
from 10% to 8 % and real-world savings that matter.
 
For school districts with fleets of buses to run, for farmers with tractors 
and other equipment to run it also would be substantial, for truckers
the savings would matter , too, which would be reflected in the
price of everything you buy in stores.
 
No idea why the concept of the importance of the futures market
is so difficult to grasp.  That is the price of everything you buy  that
is made of some commodity, which is close to 90% of everything,
not counting services.
 
Billy
 
==============================================
 
 
 
3/26/2012 10:31:39 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]  
writes:

I  think this article supports both Billy and my viewpoint.  I agree that  
Obama has been generally inept on communicating around gas prices (like ib  
most issues :-), but it remains to be seen whether the Keystone pipeline 
veto  will remain a salient issue...


--  Ernie P.




_http://www.
time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2109474,00.html?xid=newsletter-weekly_ 
(http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2109474,00.html?xid=newsletter-weekly)
 



 
Viewpoint: Gas Prices and the Great GOP Lie
To hear the Republican presidential candidates tell it, President Obama is  
doing all he can — shy of changing the price signs at your local Mobil 
station  — to raise the cost of gasoline. Last week Mitt Romney told Fox News 
that  Obama "has done everything in his power to make it harder for us to get 
oil  and natural gas in this country, driving up the price of those 
commodities in  the case of gasoline." Rick Santorum last month warned that gas 
— 
now at $3.84  a gallon on average — would hit $5 a gallon under Obama, and 
that the  President "has done everything possible to shut down energy 
production." Newt  Gingrich — he of the promised $2.50-a-gallon gas — has 
called on 
Obama to fire  Energy Secretary Steven Chu over comments he made years ago 
about the need for  American gas prices to be higher. "If he doesn't," 
Gingrich said, "then the  American people will know the President is still 
committed to his radical  ideology, which wants to artificially raise the cost 
of 
energy." 
I'm not positive, but I suspect that for Obama — like most Presidents — 
any  ideology, radical or otherwise, takes a backseat come campaign season to 
the  primary objective: getting re-elected. And no President who wants to 
remain  President is going to be happy with gas prices that are scraping $4 a 
gallon,  which is why over the past couple of weeks just about the only 
thing Obama  seems to want to talk about is energy prices — and everything his 
government  is doing to reduce them. Hence the unusual spectacle of seeing a 
Democratic  President — and one who came into office on fire for clean 
energy — boasting  that domestic oil production had risen for three straight 
years under his  Administration. "When gas prices go up, it hurts everybody," 
Obama said in a  speech last month. "High gas prices are like a tax straight 
out of your  paycheck." 
_(MORE: Consumers Are Upset About High Gas Prices — but Not  Enough to Stop 
Shopping)_ 
(http://moneyland.time.com/2012/03/16/consumers-are-upset-about-high-gas-prices-but-not-enough-to-stop-shopping/)
  
It's that same de facto tax that explains why politicians rush to blame  
each other when gas starts getting expensive. But is Obama really "fully  
responsible for what the American public is paying for gasoline," as the  
Republican Senator John Barrasso said last week? 
The short answer is no — and pretty much so is the long answer. First  
things first: the price of gasoline is overwhelmingly dictated by the global  
price of crude oil. It's true that local conditions in individual countries  
can make a difference. Some East Coast refineries have shut down operations,  
for example, because they are locked into long-term sales contracts with  
distributors, making it impossible for them to pass on the higher price  
they're paying for oil, and thus cutting into their profit margins. This has  
further raised the price of gasoline, especially in big cities like Boston and 
 Washington. (If you think you've got it bad, it costs $4.14 a gallon to 
fill  up where I work in midtown Manhattan.) That's a problem that comes from 
the  oil industry and needs to be resolved by the oil industry, not the 
President,  and it's likely a temporary one anyway as refiners adjust to higher 
prices and  reroute gasoline from the Gulf Coast. 
No, gas is expensive because oil is expensive — and oil is expensive for  
reasons that the U.S. did not cause and can't unilaterally fix. American oil  
consumption is actually down from its peak of 20.8 million barrels a day in 
 2005 to a little under 19 million barrels a day last year. A lot of that 
is  the lingering economic malaise, which depresses business and consumption 
and  therefore driving; unemployed people, in other words, don't commute. 
Americans  drove just under 8.1 billion miles in 2010, less than the 8.26 
billion we  drove in 2006.  
_(MORE: 5 Ways to Score Cheaper Gas)_ 
(http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/23/5-ways-to-score-cheaper-gas/slide/smart-spending-at-the-pump/#smart-spending
-at-the-pump)  
Obama certainly doesn't want to take responsibility for the recession, but  
he may well want to claim some credit for another factor behind declining 
oil  demand: more efficient vehicles. Ten years ago, cars and trucks averaged 
24.7  m.p.g. By 2011, that figure rose to 29.6 m.p.g. — and new deals 
brokered by  the Obama Administration with the automakers to raise 
fuel-efficiency  standards to as high as 55 m.p.g. by 2025 could take an even 
bigger bite 
out  of demand while also giving American drivers more resilience against 
high gas  prices. After all, doubling the fuel efficiency of your vehicle is 
equivalent  to cutting the price of gas in half. 
That would be smart to do because it's quite possible that — barring  
another major global economic slowdown — oil will remain relatively expensive  
for the foreseeable future. Right now much of the recent price spike is due to 
 tensions with Iran, a major oil producer. War with Iran is a real 
possibility,  albeit an uncertain one, and if the missiles were to fly, we 
could 
easily see  a price spike of $50 a barrel or more. So traders and major oil 
consumers are  stockpiling crude now as a hedge against that very situation, 
which in turn  drives the price up now by artificially inflating demand. I 
can't see how  that's an incumbent President's fault. What's more, it's the 
Republicans  themselves who are leaning on Obama to take a harder line against 
Iran, a move  that would likely only raise the possibility of war and the 
attendant crude  catastrophe. 
Over the long term, however, the real driver of high oil prices is rapidly  
increasing demand from the developing world, especially India and China.  
Global oil consumption is expected to increase by 800,000 barrels a day to  
89.9 million barrels a day by 2012 — and Asia is consuming 700,000 barrels  
worth of that increase. As Chinese and Indian consumers start buying and  
driving cars in large numbers, their share of global crude demand will only  
increase, and the oil industry will be hard-pressed to keep up. That means  
high prices could become the norm as long as we remain dependent on oil for  
the vast share of transportation fuels. "The era of cheap oil is over," says  
Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the International Energy Agency. 
_(MORE: Stumped at the Pump)_ 
(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2108588,00.html?pcd=pw-sci)  
The final — and perhaps phoniest — knock on the President from the  
conservative wing is that he has thrown up huge roadblocks to domestic oil  
development. "It's very clear that this President does not want carbon-based  
energy flowing through the country," Romney told Fox recently, in a fairly  
typical example of the common refrain. 
But if that really is the case, Obama is doing a poor job of executing that 
 secret policy. Domestic oil production has steadily increased from about 
5.18  million barrels a day in 2005 to more than 5.5 million barrels a day 
last  year. That's largely thanks to a major increase in unconventional shale 
oil  produced in Texas and North Dakota, which now produces more oil than 
the  entire OPEC nation of Ecuador. There are more oil rigs now working in the 
U.S.  than the rest of the world combined. Oil companies seem to be doing 
just fine  — ExxonMobil made $9.4 billion in the past quarter. Critics note 
that much of  the unconventional oil boom is happening on state or private 
land, and  therefore is mostly outside the purview of the federal government, 
but it's  hard to see how that is Obama's fault either. The U.S. is in the 
middle of an  oil-and-natural-gas energy boom, even with a clean 
energy-loving Democrat in  the White House. 
Could Obama be doing more to improve domestic oil production? Sure.  
Stopping the Keystone XL pipeline, however temporarily, reduces the amount of  
oil 
that can be brought in from a friendly neighbor, though the pipeline would  
have little impact on gas prices in the short term. Oil production from  
federal offshore waters has fallen under Obama, but you do remember a little  
thing called the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? (The oil industry would prefer 
 you didn't.) The temporary moratorium on deepwater drilling and new safety 
 rules slowed the pace of oil production in the Gulf, but it's hard to 
argue in  the wake of the biggest oil spill in American history that they were  
unnecessary. Obama could speed the leasing of federal land to oil and gas  
companies, though the industry is already sitting on 7,000 approved onshore  
drilling permits that have been unused, along with millions of acres under  
lease in the Gulf that haven't been explored yet. If they want to drill, 
they  should drill. 
Here's the reality: even if the President opened up every coastline and  
every available square mile of the country to drilling — which the American  
public would almost certainly never allow — U.S. oil production would still  
just be a small part in the overall bucket of global oil demand. And we 
would  still pay that expensive global price. No President has much control 
over 
gas  prices, Democrat or Republican. That was true under Richard Nixon in 
1974, and  true under Jimmy Carter in 1979; it was true under George W. Bush 
in 2005, and  it's true under Obama now. The best we can do is to work to 
become more energy  efficient, while supporting responsible domestic oil 
development along with  alternatives. The President has a three-legged energy 
stool: increasing  production, expanding renewables and raising efficiency. His 
Republican  opponents are just falling down. 
_MORE: Oil: Should President Obama Tap the Strategic Petroleum  Reserve?_ 
(http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/03/16/oil-should-president-obama-tap-th
e-strategic-petroleum-reserve/)  
_MORE: Even with $4 Gas, Few Drivers Choose Electric Cars — or  Even 
Hybrids_ 
(http://moneyland.time.com/2012/03/14/even-with-4-gas-few-drivers-choose-electric-cars-or-even-hybrids/)
  




-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community  
<[email protected]>
Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ 
(http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) 
Radical  Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ 
(http://radicalcentrism.org/) 



-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to