Bush tells lies about gas prices, as usual <rant>

[jeffdrafttech]

Originally Posted by spooky

President Bush: One of the main reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping up with growing demand.

Barbara Shook: The U.S. market is well supplied. Do you see anybody waiting in line at the filling station?



President Bush: Another reason for the high gas prices is the lack of refining capacity. It's been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery.

Barbara Shook: We're expanding refining capacity in this country. We have probably more than half a million barrels of new refining capacity per day under construction right now and I wouldn't be surprised to see another 100,000 barrels per day of new capacity announced in the next six months to a year.



im not sure why you listed that as something backing up your argument when it backed what the president said 100%. i question your ability to see through obvious spin...

The obvious spin is coming from the white house.

First, why would Shook wish to mislead or "spin" in this circumstance? She represents an oil industry publication.

Second, if supply isn't meeting demand, where are the gas lines?

Third, the President is giving the impression that he could solve the problem, if only he could lease ANWR and make it easier to build refineries. This asshole is bought and paid for, and he doesn't have to worry about reelection. ANWR is unproven and oil companies really don't give two shits about it. They are trying to establish the practice of using every inch of public land for oil exploration as business as usual. ANWR is at the forefront for activists because it is a unique, completely wild area. Even using a small section of it requires lots of infrastructure like roads that will permanently disturb the wildlife refuge. Holding up ANWR as a solution to prices a lie straight from the president's lips. Drilling in ANWR isn't the solution to the problem, and he knows it.

Building and expanding refineries is not illegal, it's just not easy. Laws written early in the Clinton administration made it difficult because refineries are required to maintain strict environmental standards. Where I live, several small refineries closed when this law passed in the mid 90s, and the positive impact on surrounding communities was obvious. Antiquated poorly maintained refineries were contaminating water, air and were general blights on the communities where they existed. Back then, prices were so low, it was not profitable to upgrade the antiquated facilities. That is not the case today. We are currently expanding our more than adequate refining capacity. The US is already the world's largest oil refiner. Oil refineries are built near where supply is needed, and they are more than keeping up with demand. This is another lie straight from the president's lips.

If tomorrow congress made it super-easy to build cheaper refineries, and opened up ANWR, the impact would be almost nothing. The president is misleading the public with lies, in order to assist the oil industry in his speech.

The democrats were just as bad with their response. Their solution was to use the strategic petrol reserve, and remove the retail tax, paid for with a windfall tax on the industry. This tax would simply be built into wholesale prices and result in the consumer paying the tax anyhow. Using the SPR would just make us more vulnerable to a true shortage and have almost no effect on prices.

We don't have enough domestic oil resources to meet demand. We are importing more than 60% of our oil needs. The solution is to reduce consumption. This president has fought the idea of reducing consumption every second he has been in office. He is against fuel economy standards. The consequence of this is that the marketplace has taken over and prices have risen. Also, the weak dollar is a consequence of his economic policy and debt spending, and is a big factor in gas prices.

This president has prevented removing tax breaks and other corporate welfare for the oil industry. These tax breaks were put in place in an era when OPEC flooded the marketplace with so much oil that it was not profitable to produce domestically. Now that the market has made it profitable to produce oil at home, these breaks need to go. There also needs to be real reform of how the marketplace is priced. Prices are being fixed and the industry needs price regulation. Right now, the oil industry is writing energy and anti-trust policy. Oil companies are gouging the public and getting away with it by buying the republican party. This is absurd.

Lastly, I personally think some price correction in oil markets was needed. At $30/bbl, prices did not reflect the true cost of the product. I have a couple close friends who supply the refining industry, and they have told me the magic number for swimming in cash is about $45/bbl. Everything past that mark is just more cash. If you compare this number to current prices, margins could be cut in half and oil companies would still be very very profitable. A true competitive marketplace would reflect this if price fixing wasn't taking place.

From what I have read, the true cost of oil based on supply/demand and the weak dollar is closer to $80/bbl today. Current prices of $120 are a result of speculators creating artificial demand. Quoting the story in my original post

about $9 billion was invested in oil futures back in 2000. Well, that's now up to $250 billion and even the head of Exxon Mobil blames wild speculation for all this

The only way to burst the bubble created by a flood of foolish investors is to wait for demand to shrink, just like the dot-coms of the late 90s and real estate in the mid 00s. This is going to eventually happen, but real leadership could help it along. The president should use his bully pulpit to encourage conservation and calm the frenzy around this crisis, rather than use it as propaganda to lift up big oil companies.

[spooky]

Originally Posted by Lord of the Cock Rings

It would never happen because there's no support for it anywhere. The GOP is still against corporate welfare, right? That's what this is: redistribution from the bottom to the top.

boo, you caught my trap!

[beefmon]

Originally Posted by jeffdrafttech

The obvious spin is coming from the white house.

First, why would Shook wish to mislead or "spin" in this circumstance? She represents an oil industry publication.

Blah blah blah

jeffdrafttech, let me take a few guesses..

1. You went to public school.
2. You hold or are working on some type of liberal arts degree.

Am I close?

[jeffdrafttech]

Originally Posted by spooky

heres a thought

what if we upped the prices of gas in america a dollar at the pump, took 100% of that dollar, and used it to cut the prices of diesel, making the bottom line for transportation costs for goods go down.

wouldnt that lower costs overall for lower income families, sure, they pay more at the pump, but groceries and clothes and everything else they use becomes cheaper, and since its a larger portion of lower income earners budget, they benefit more.

obviously, this assumes a brokered deal with companies involved that ensures they contractually pass the savings directly on to the consumer, and you have to assume there wouldnt be corruption, which there always is, no matter your party affiliation.

this would never happen, of course, because the democrats would find an old lady somewhere who would suffer, because she drives, but maybe she has her meals covered at work or something, thus republicans are evil. but just for a minute, i wonder what would happen?

I would be in favor of discussion on this.

BTW, I work for a large distribution/trucking company. No doubt, it is affecting wholesale prices of our products. We just need to be careful not to make it absurdly cheap to move freight. The higher prices have produced a lot of good innovation. The efficiency of deliveries is a lot better today than it was five years ago when fuel was almost free. We have reasonable minimum orders. We are more efficient on routing. We do a lot of labor in a warehouse that used to take place outside of an idling truck, which also allows routes to make more stops before returning to the warehouse.

I'm in favor of oil prices reflecting true costs. $1.50/gallon subsidized fuel just encourages wastefulness.

My problem with the whole situation is the fact that prices are $40/bbl higher than they reasonably should be. The president is showing his true colors by ignoring it.

Also, the point of my original post: he is intentionally and blatantly misleading to the american people.

[jeffdrafttech]

Originally Posted by beefmon

jeffdrafttech, let me take a few guesses..

1. You went to public school.
2. You hold or are working on some type of liberal arts degree.

Am I close?

So, your strategy is to attack me rather than dispute my points?

[beefmon]

Originally Posted by jeffdrafttech

So, your strategy is to attack me rather than dispute my points?

You must know your audience to be an effective communicator.

I'll take that as a yes, though.

[spooky]

Originally Posted by jeffdrafttech

The obvious spin is coming from the white house.

First, why would Shook wish to mislead or "spin" in this circumstance? She represents an oil industry publication.

she did, i dont know? maybe the people in the interview cherry picked things and spun what she said. the spin is blatant, though.

Originally Posted by jeffdrafttech

Second, if supply isn't meeting demand, where are the gas lines?

global supply for oil, or american supply for refined gas? because theres india and china, please dont forget. also, with as many stations in the US as we have, and the computerized distribution, formulas, etc, why would there be lines? unless one station in town was only able to get gas, which would only be under an antiquated system of distribution, we wouldnt see lines. thats a silly idea, and not an argument that demand isnt increasing, when theres ZERO doubt about it. its absurd to make the argument. maybe if you think the world doesnt extend beyond our borders, but it does, and China needing oil directly affects our gas prices.

Originally Posted by jeffdrafttech

Third, the President is giving the impression that he could solve the problem, if only he could lease ANWR and make it easier to build refineries. This asshole is bought and paid for, and he doesn't have to worry about reelection. ANWR is unproven and oil companies really don't give two shits about it. They are trying to establish the practice of using every inch of public land for oil exploration as business as usual. ANWR is at the forefront for activists because it is a unique, completely wild area. Even using a small section of it requires lots of infrastructure like roads that will permanently disturb the wildlife refuge. Holding up ANWR as a solution to prices a lie straight from the president's lips. Drilling in ANWR isn't the solution to the problem, and he knows it.

nuclear is. and we should be drilling in ANWR, off the coast of florida, anywhere we can. but like the problems we have with building new refineries, its doubly worse for nuclear power and drilling.

Originally Posted by jeffdrafttech

Building and expanding refineries is not illegal, it's just not easy. Laws written early in the Clinton administration made it difficult because refineries are required to maintain strict environmental standards. Where I live, several small refineries closed when this law passed in the mid 90s, and the positive impact on surrounding communities was obvious. Antiquated poorly maintained refineries were contaminating water, air and were general blights on the communities where they existed. Back then, prices were so low, it was not profitable to upgrade the antiquated facilities. That is not the case today. We are currently expanding our more than adequate refining capacity. The US is already the world's largest oil refiner. Oil refineries are built near where supply is needed, and they are more than keeping up with demand. This is another lie straight from the president's lips.

youre with me for the most part, but if they are keeping with demand, then theres no need for us to expand them. you are right, its not easy, and i am glad you recognize that the oil business hasnt yet bought and paid for the US government. its still not profitable enough to cover the risk plus government obstacles. too many restrictions mean its just not profitable right now. maybe if demand goes up, prices would climb, who knows...but we arent screaming yet.

[quote=jeffdrafttech;389239] If tomorrow congress made it super-easy to build cheaper refineries, and opened up ANWR, the impact would be almost nothing. The president is misleading the public with lies, in order to assist the oil industry in his speech.

right, and if we unleashed the entire oil reserve, it also wouldnt make much of a difference. india and china. just sayin.

Originally Posted by jeffdrafttech

The democrats were just as bad with their response. Their solution was to use the strategic petrol reserve, and remove the retail tax, paid for with a windfall tax on the industry. This tax would simply be built into wholesale prices and result in the consumer paying the tax anyhow. Using the SPR would just make us more vulnerable to a true shortage and have almost no effect on prices.

agreed.

im still doing research, so i will return to this topic, i gotta work right now, ugh. thanks for making me think/research, i miss threads like this...

[dublin]

How much oil is in ANWR? When removed from the ground, will it be consumed only in the US or sold on the global market? Are the refineries currently operating at maximal capacity to justify building new capacity?

[Wit]

So Beefmon, you disagree with the scientific community who believe it's highly likely that humans have an affect on climate change? Why would almost all of them support such a conspiracy? Why? The whole scientific community would risking discrediting their entire profession and livelihoods. They're not 100% sure, and I'm no climatologist and given the complexities of the study I figure I better not assume I know the answer. Also, you ignored my question as to what harm comes from creating a more sustainable energy society/policy even if it isn't man made?

Malcolm, would you care to elaborate on your last point about Lincoln and civil liberties? What alternatives to war were there? Have you studied the situations leading to the war? How exactly were we to deal with slavery? You honestly think something other than a war would solve it when every nation in the new world gained emancipation through violence (excluding those territories held by Great Britain)? South Carolina was ready for outright rebellion and war in the 1820s.

Why such distrust for scholars or college educations? Do you have one? Sure we're taught pathetic history in High School but I've heard extremely critical histories and viewpoints of the US since going to school.

[beefmon]

Originally Posted by Wit

So Beefmon, you disagree with the scientific community who believe it's highly likely that humans have an affect on climate change? Why would almost all of them support such a conspiracy? Why? The whole scientific community would risking discrediting their entire profession and livelihoods. They're not 100% sure, and I'm no climatologist and given the complexities of the study I figure I better not assume I know the answer. Also, you ignored my question as to what harm comes from creating a more sustainable energy society/policy even if it isn't man made?

Why such distrust for scholars or college educations? Do you have one? Sure we're taught pathetic history in High School but I've heard extremely critical histories and viewpoints of the US since going to school.

Conspiracy? Maybe
A con job? You bet.
A way to fleece money from idiots? Carbon Credits come to mind.

Don't just listen to what is on the news and on NPR.
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Gl...9597233&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confus...pd_sim_b_img_6

http://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Cons...597233&sr=8-12

Yes, I went to college and even 2 additional years to become a RT. I also learned that there are a lot of professors in the world of academia (outside of the sciences) are there because they do not have the skills or aptitude to compete in the corporate world.