Hows that $4 a gallon feel

stumbler · Mar 12, 2012

RandyKnight said: ↑

All taxes eventually filter down to the end user....the consumer...

that tax you suggest would only make prices higher at the pump.
Click to expand...

And actually you make a pretty good point here when the real problem are the speculators. That's where I think we could get some controls.

The other possibility though would be to tap the strategic reserve and/or get OPEC to increase production.

Those are all very short term solutions though because oil is running out world wide while consumption is increasing so the price is only going to keep going up.

stumbler · Mar 12, 2012

Now I don't know if the Obama Administration can actually convince the public they are actually doing a lot to combat higher gas and oil prices but in my view at least they make an excellent case.

Energy Report: Obama Goes On Offense About Gas Prices, Reliance On Foreign Oil

WASHINGTON -- At a time when Congressional Republicans are scrambling to find ways to blame him for rising gas prices, President Barack Obama on Monday plans to spotlight the progress his administration has made in saving people money at the pump and reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil.

The White House unveiled a new report early Monday that boasts of several successes by the administration in making America more energy independent over the past three years.

"During the last year alone, we established new incentives to increase safe and responsible domestic oil and gas production; proposed the toughest fuel economy standards for cars and trucks in history; provided millions of Americans with efficient and affordable transportation choices; launched new programs to improve energy efficiency in our homes, buildings, public transit, aviation and roadway systems; and took unprecedented steps to make the United States a leader in the clean energy race," reads the cover letter to the report, titled "A Secure Energy Future: A Progress Report."

The letter is signed by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, among other Cabinet officials.

The report calls attention to Obama's first-ever fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles, announced in August 2011, and highlights how they will save truck operators $50 billion in fuel costs over the life of the vehicles. Along with that, the report says Obama's July 2011 requirement that passenger vehicles achieve 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 puts consumers on track to save more than $8,000 in lower fuel costs.

A White House official on Sunday emphasized that Obama is also well on his way to achieving his goal of reducing U.S. oil imports by a third by 2025. The administration has already cut net imports by 10 percent, or a million barrels a day, the report says, thanks to "booming U.S. oil and gas production, more efficient cars and trucks and a world-class refining sector that last year was a net exporter for the first time in sixty years."

Other notable stats in the report include the administration doubling U.S. renewable energy generation from wind, solar and geothermal sources; the Energy Department funding more than 120 projects focused on energy breakthroughs; and the Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban Development completing energy upgrades in more than 1 million homes, which translates to more than $400 in savings on each family's heating and cooling bills.

The president's effort to tout his energy policy comes as Republicans are trying to come up with ways, even if they're not true, to blame Obama for rising gas prices. His move also comes as a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows growing disapproval of Obama's handling of the economy, something people are tying to rising gas prices. The poll found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say they disapprove of the way the president is responding to increasing gas costs.

Obama isn't wasting any time selling his energy successes to the media. He plans to spend Monday morning giving interviews to local TV anchors from Los Angeles, Denver, Austin, Des Moines, Orlando, Cincinnati, Las Vegas and Pittsburgh to tout the accomplishments outlined in the new report.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/obama-goes-on-offense-on-energy-gas-prices_n_1338257.html

CS natureboy · Mar 12, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

Now I don't know if the Obama Administration can actually convince the public they are actually doing a lot to combat higher gas and oil prices but in my view at least they make an excellent case.

Energy Report: Obama Goes On Offense About Gas Prices, Reliance On Foreign Oil

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/obama-goes-on-offense-on-energy-gas-prices_n_1338257.html
Click to expand...

Poll: Obama’s rating drops as gas prices soar
Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:9PM GMT

President Barack Obama's approval rating has plunged below 50 percent and he would be beaten by Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney if November's U.S. election were held today, a poll showed Monday.

The survey, by ABC News and The Washington Post, indicated that only 46 percent of Americans now approved of the way Obama is handling his job and 50 percent disapproved as he took a hit from rising gas prices.

The polls also found 59 percent of Americans had given Obama negative ratings on the economy, and 65 percent disapproved of his handling of the gas price situation.

The situation was a reversal from early February when 50 percent approved of the president's performance and 46 percent disapproved. If the presidential election were held today, the poll found that Romney would beat Obama 49 percent to 47 percent. AFP

HIGHLIGHTS

According to the survey, the drop in Obama’s ratings was attributed to soaring gas prices threatening to crimp America's slow recovery from a recession. ABC

The American Automobile Association (AAA) predicts gasoline prices across the United States could average $4.25 a gallon by May, up from over $3.60 today. Between 1998 and 2004, prices ranged from $1 to $2 a gallon. Washington Post

Given that 76 percent of Americans drive themselves to work, and a trip to the store can often mean a long drive to the mall, higher gas prices are a critical issue -- especially in a presidential election year. Newser

http://presstv.com/usdetail/231305.html

ckfree · Mar 12, 2012

that's it

i'm buying a bicycle

RandyKnight · Mar 12, 2012

ckfree said: ↑

that's it

i'm buying a bicycle
Click to expand...

One of my companies is working on a prototype electric bicycle....

stumbler · Mar 12, 2012

The price of oil fell again today.

http://www.oil-price.net/

RandyKnight · Mar 12, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

The price of oil fell again today.

http://www.oil-price.net/
Click to expand...

When Bart Chilton CFTC commissioner game out with the statement about putting a limit on units that could trade...it was a shot across the bow...

He gave some the chance to back out of positions to see what would come next.

stumbler · Mar 12, 2012

RandyKnight said: ↑

When Bart Chilton CFTC commissioner game out with the statement about putting a limit on units that could trade...it was a shot across the bow...

He gave some the chance to back out of positions to see what would come next.
Click to expand...

And I swear its just things like this that are keeping prices from setting new records. With the actual reduction in supplies from Iran and a very real chance of war between Israel and Iran I'm shocked we have not passed the $140 barrel record.

RandyKnight · Mar 12, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

And I swear its just things like this that are keeping prices from setting new records. With the actual reduction in supplies from Iran and a very real chance of war between Israel and Iran I'm shocked we have not passed the $140 barrel record.
Click to expand...

Big traders and hedge funds use the news to cover the manipulation they use with pushing prices. All we have is the news but nothing has really changed like say...Hurricane Katrina that shut down the gulf....

The Gulf spill and well blow out took us to a level that was real but the traders were so heavy into gold they did not move to that market so oil stayed fair during that time.

These guys jump from commoditie to commoditie but they just swarm on oil and now have started fucking with Gasoline.

stumbler · Mar 12, 2012

RandyKnight said: ↑

Big traders and hedge funds use the news to cover the manipulation they use with pushing prices. All we have is the news but nothing has really changed like say...Hurricane Katrina that shut down the gulf....

The Gulf spill and well blow out took us to a level that was real but the traders were so heavy into gold they did not move to that market so oil stayed fair during that time.

These guys jump from commoditie to commoditie but they just swarm on oil and now have started fucking with Gasoline.
Click to expand...

Good analysis.

And that's where I think the Obama Administration is doing a good job. They are creating their own daily news keeping the speculators guessing and nervous which has a dampening effect. But I just don't know how long they can hold them off with rhetoric alone.

Also there is no doubt and I don't deny that how President Obama handles this will probably be the greatest test of his leadership and could potentially hurt him politically. So it will be very interesting to see how he handles it. But so far at least I've been impressed.

Tony Clifton · Mar 12, 2012

I don't believe that even one person here is concerned with the price of gasoline in the United States.

From what I understand, the people that are members of XNXX don't ever leave their place of residence.

They order everything they need on the internet and get a discount when using Amazon dot com.

I just received a $20 gift credit from Amazon for being a good customer and ordered a Pizza to celebrate.

Kimiko · Mar 12, 2012

CS natureboy said: ↑

Poll: Obama’s rating drops as gas prices soar
Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:9PM GMT

President Barack Obama's approval rating has plunged below 50 percent and he would be beaten by Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney if November's U.S. election were held today, a poll showed Monday.

The survey, by ABC News and The Washington Post, indicated that only 46 percent of Americans now approved of the way Obama is handling his job and 50 percent disapproved as he took a hit from rising gas prices.

The polls also found 59 percent of Americans had given Obama negative ratings on the economy, and 65 percent disapproved of his handling of the gas price situation.

The situation was a reversal from early February when 50 percent approved of the president's performance and 46 percent disapproved. If the presidential election were held today, the poll found that Romney would beat Obama 49 percent to 47 percent. AFP

HIGHLIGHTS

According to the survey, the drop in Obama’s ratings was attributed to soaring gas prices threatening to crimp America's slow recovery from a recession. ABC

The American Automobile Association (AAA) predicts gasoline prices across the United States could average $4.25 a gallon by May, up from over $3.60 today. Between 1998 and 2004, prices ranged from $1 to $2 a gallon. Washington Post

Given that 76 percent of Americans drive themselves to work, and a trip to the store can often mean a long drive to the mall, higher gas prices are a critical issue -- especially in a presidential election year. Newser

http://presstv.com/usdetail/231305.html
Click to expand...

Don't get your nut just yet, Natureboy.

CS natureboy · Mar 12, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

The price of oil fell again today.

http://www.oil-price.net/
Click to expand...

Yet gas prices continue to rise......

stumbler · Mar 12, 2012

Kimiko said: ↑

Don't get your nut just yet, Natureboy.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm pretty sure he's a premature ejaculater.

stumbler · Mar 12, 2012

Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal and Koch-Fueled Cato Agree: “It’s Not Obama’s Fault That Crude Oil Prices Have Increased”

Wall Street Journal: “U.S. gasoline prices, like prices throughout the advanced economies, are determined by global market forces. It is hard to see how Mr. Obama’s policies can be blamed.”
Cato Institute: “Is President Obama responsible for spiraling price of gasoline? Republicans say yes, but the facts say no.”

How obvious is it that oil prices, set on a world market, are all but impervious to government policies? So obvious that even Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ and the Koch-fueled Cato Institute feel compelled to make the case.
The WSJ was responding to Newt Gingrich’s claim, “The price of gasoline when Barack Obama became president was $1.89. All of this gigantic increase came from his policies.” In its debunking of “Gingrich’s Gaseous Argument,” The Journal offers an especially telling statistic:

Mr. Gingrich ignores the basic fact about U.S. gas prices: They are largely fixed by the price of crude oil, which is determined by global supply and demand.
When Mr. Obama was inaugurated, demand was weak due to the recession. But now it’s stronger, and thus the price is higher.
What’s more, producing a lot of oil doesn’t lower the price of gasoline in your country. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Germans over the past three years have paid an average of $2.64 a gallon (excluding taxes), while Americans paid $2.69, even though the U.S. produced 5.4 million barrels of oil per day while Germany produced just 28,000.

Duh?
In an essay that appeared in U.S. News & World Report earlier this month, “It’s Not Obama’s Fault That Crude Oil Prices Have Increased,” Cato scholars lay out their case:

Why have gasoline prices increased since the start of the year? The simplest explanation is that the price of crude oil has increased. Specifically, the spot price for Brent (North Sea) crude has increased $16 a barrel since January. Given that there are 42 gallons to a barrel, that works out to a 38 cent increase in the price of a gallon of oil. Spot prices for gasoline trade in New York have increased about 41 cents per gallon over the same time frame. So there you go.
Why is the price of North Sea oil relevant to the price of gasoline in the United States? Well, we import gasoline refined in Europe from North Sea crude. Even though these imports constitute less than 10 percent of U.S. gasoline consumption, they are necessary to satisfy domestic demand and their price sets the market price for all gasoline regardless of whether other cheaper crude sources are used to refine most of our gasoline.
Why is the price of North Sea crude rising? One possibility is that supply is down. North Sea (British) production has been decreasing for some time. During the first quarter of 2007, it was 1.7 million barrels a day, or mbd. By the end of 2011, it was down to 1.1 mbd. Norwegian crude oil production has likewise decreased from 2.7 mbd in the first quarter of 2007 to 2.1 mbd at the end of 2011. And global demand is bidding up the price of crude oil from the North Sea and elsewhere.
Ironically, during the same time period, U.S. crude oil production has marched upward for the first time since 1971. Since the start of 2007, U.S. production has increased by 2.1 mbd. Sure, more domestic oil creates the possibility of fewer refined imports tied to the price of Brent crude, but given that the price of Brent sets the price for crude generally, the result would be more profit for domestic crude producers rather than significantly lower gasoline prices for Americans (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
So despite the popular perception of President Obama as anti-oil, domestic oil production is increasing for the first time since the Johnson administration…. Unfortunately, presidents get blamed for world market changes that occur during their time in office … but generally, they do not cause them.

The Cato Institute, originally the Charles Koch Foundation, is in the process of being officially taken back by the Kochs, who I expect may take issue with Cato’s rare broken-clock sensibility on issues like this one.
Still, let’s enjoy the rare agreement between CATO, the WSJ, and the Center for American Progress:

“More Drilling Won’t Lower Gas Prices“: Soaring Domestic Production Has Failed to Ease Pain at the Pump

Click to expand...

stumbler · Mar 12, 2012

Well you learn something new everyday. I did not know there was a huge difference between crude oil and the oil extracted from tar sands. But here's a story on a pipeline spill in Michigan they've been trying to clean up for two years and have never encountered the kinds of problems and pollution tar sands oil presents.

Two Years On, Tar Sands Spill Casts Long Shadow

This week, as Senate Democrats narrowly defeated a renewed—and some say misguided—call to rush construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, residents and officials at the site of the country's largest-ever tar sands oil spill are still reeling nearly two years after the fact. A look at the fallout from that incident in Michigan reveals that a spill of diluted bitumen, the kind from Alberta's tar sands that Keystone would carry, is a far nastier beast than your typical spill of conventional crude. It also shows that cleaning it up can be just as damaging to the environment as the spill itself.

A story this week in the Canadian online magazine The Tyee outlines how, 20 months after a pipe carrying tar sands "dil-bit" burst on the Kalamazoo River near Marshall, residents and local Environmental Protection Agency officials are still struggling to clean up the river. It was the first-ever major spill of this type of heavy oil, and it blindsided EPA cleanup crews: recovering the 1.2 million gallons of oil that have been cleaned up so far has cost the pipe's owner, Enbridge Energy Partners, roughly $725 million—10 times as much, per liter, as the average spill of conventional crude. Ralph Dollhopf, who led the EPA's response to the incident, told local media that the agency had to "write the book" on dealing with a cleanup of tar sands bitumen.

The underlying issue, Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Anthony Swift told me, is that US and Canadian officials don't know just how different dil-bit is from conventional crude. With US imports of tar sands bitumen projected to shoot up to 1.5 million barrels per day by 2019 (up from 100,000 barrels in all of 2000), Swift said there remains a serious deficit in US and Canadian officials' understanding of how to manage potential spills. "The pipeline safety issue is just one of many areas where tar sands production hasn't been fully evaluated," he said. That didn't deter Alberta Premier Alison M. Redford from telling reporters she was "very optimistic" that the Keystone pipeline, which would likely be an economic windfall for her province, would be approved by the Obama administration should the president win reelection.

When conventional crude is spilled into water, it floats on the surface, making the cleanup process a relatively simple matter of skimming and scooping (you might recall images of this from the Deepwater Horizon spill). But bitumen is thick and heavy, and has to be diluted with a noxious chemical cocktail so it can flow in the pipe. When spilled, the dilutant evaporates into the nearby atmosphere; Marshall residents reported nausea, migraines, and burning in the eyes and throat. Meanwhile, the bitumen separates from the dilutant and sinks to the bottom.

"If you're a clam or a turtle, that's no good," Michigan State ecology professor Steve Hamilton said. Hamilton works at a field station near the spill site. He's concerned that the cleanup, which involves "agitating" the riverbed (at least 200 acres of which were contaminated) to bring oil globules to the surface for collection, could be just as damaging as the toxic nature of the bitumen itself. "We want to make sure the cure is not worse than the disease," he said. Now, the cleanup crew is trying to decide whether they've reached a point of diminishing returns: some oil may be left behind for the sake of no longer disturbing the area.

Still, the local ecosystem was lucky, Hamilton said, because the actual spill took place in a nearby marsh, which weeded out some of the worst contamination before the oil reached the river proper. Had the spill happened in a more open body of water—such as the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska, through which the Keystone pipeline was originally destined to pass—things could have been much worse. "We've got to make the pipeline system more safe," Hamilton said. The Kalamazoo spill "clearly shows the need for tight regulation of this industry."

Representatives from Enbridge, the burst pipe's owner, did not return calls for comment, but said in a statement on their website: "Enbridge has always been safety and environmentally conscious and this incident has provided learnings in many different areas of our company, including pipeline inspections and preventive maintenance, public awareness, and communications with emergency responders and the community."

Back in December, Congress called on pipeline regulatory agencies to examine whether new regulations will be needed for pipes carrying diluted bitumen, Swift said, but the future of dil-bit pipelines remains as cloudy as the shaken-up bottom of the Kalamazoo River. "Kalamazoo really points to the danger of moving forward with these projects without understanding the risks," he said. "The last thing you want is to find out you have a problem after the disaster has happened."
Click to expand...

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/03/fallout-kalamazoo-tar-sands-spill-keystone

Kimiko · Mar 12, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

Oh I'm pretty sure he's a premature ejaculater.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure he even gets that far.

Kimiko · Mar 12, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal and Koch-Fueled Cato Agree: “It’s Not Obama’s Fault That Crude Oil Prices Have Increased”

Wall Street Journal: “U.S. gasoline prices, like prices throughout the advanced economies, are determined by global market forces. It is hard to see how Mr. Obama’s policies can be blamed.”
Cato Institute: “Is President Obama responsible for spiraling price of gasoline? Republicans say yes, but the facts say no.”

How obvious is it that oil prices, set on a world market, are all but impervious to government policies? So obvious that even Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ and the Koch-fueled Cato Institute feel compelled to make the case.
The WSJ was responding to Newt Gingrich’s claim, “The price of gasoline when Barack Obama became president was $1.89. All of this gigantic increase came from his policies.” In its debunking of “Gingrich’s Gaseous Argument,” The Journal offers an especially telling statistic:
Mr. Gingrich ignores the basic fact about U.S. gas prices: They are largely fixed by the price of crude oil, which is determined by global supply and demand.
When Mr. Obama was inaugurated, demand was weak due to the recession. But now it’s stronger, and thus the price is higher.
What’s more, producing a lot of oil doesn’t lower the price of gasoline in your country. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Germans over the past three years have paid an average of $2.64 a gallon (excluding taxes), while Americans paid $2.69, even though the U.S. produced 5.4 million barrels of oil per day while Germany produced just 28,000.

Duh?
In an essay that appeared in U.S. News & World Report earlier this month, “It’s Not Obama’s Fault That Crude Oil Prices Have Increased,” Cato scholars lay out their case:

Why have gasoline prices increased since the start of the year? The simplest explanation is that the price of crude oil has increased. Specifically, the spot price for Brent (North Sea) crude has increased $16 a barrel since January. Given that there are 42 gallons to a barrel, that works out to a 38 cent increase in the price of a gallon of oil. Spot prices for gasoline trade in New York have increased about 41 cents per gallon over the same time frame. So there you go.
Why is the price of North Sea oil relevant to the price of gasoline in the United States? Well, we import gasoline refined in Europe from North Sea crude. Even though these imports constitute less than 10 percent of U.S. gasoline consumption, they are necessary to satisfy domestic demand and their price sets the market price for all gasoline regardless of whether other cheaper crude sources are used to refine most of our gasoline.
Why is the price of North Sea crude rising? One possibility is that supply is down. North Sea (British) production has been decreasing for some time. During the first quarter of 2007, it was 1.7 million barrels a day, or mbd. By the end of 2011, it was down to 1.1 mbd. Norwegian crude oil production has likewise decreased from 2.7 mbd in the first quarter of 2007 to 2.1 mbd at the end of 2011. And global demand is bidding up the price of crude oil from the North Sea and elsewhere.
Ironically, during the same time period, U.S. crude oil production has marched upward for the first time since 1971. Since the start of 2007, U.S. production has increased by 2.1 mbd. Sure, more domestic oil creates the possibility of fewer refined imports tied to the price of Brent crude, but given that the price of Brent sets the price for crude generally, the result would be more profit for domestic crude producers rather than significantly lower gasoline prices for Americans (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
So despite the popular perception of President Obama as anti-oil, domestic oil production is increasing for the first time since the Johnson administration…. Unfortunately, presidents get blamed for world market changes that occur during their time in office … but generally, they do not cause them.

The Cato Institute, originally the Charles Koch Foundation, is in the process of being officially taken back by the Kochs, who I expect may take issue with Cato’s rare broken-clock sensibility on issues like this one.
Still, let’s enjoy the rare agreement between CATO, the WSJ, and the Center for American Progress:
“More Drilling Won’t Lower Gas Prices“: Soaring Domestic Production Has Failed to Ease Pain at the Pump

Click to expand...

The irony is that if Gingrich got his way, demand for gasoline would go up, and so would U.S. importation of crude oil.

Gingrich knows perfectly well that he's selling snake-oil. There isn't an economist on Earth that doesn't know he's full of it. But he doesn't care.
Click to expand...

ace's n 8's · Mar 12, 2012

Kimiko said: ↑

Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal and Koch-Fueled Cato Agree: “It’s Not Obama’s Fault That Crude Oil Prices Have Increased”

The irony is that if Gingrich got his way, demand for gasoline would go up, and so would U.S. importation of crude oil.

Gingrich knows perfectly well that he's selling snake-oil. There isn't an economist on Earth that doesn't know he's full of it. But he doesn't care.
Click to expand...

Why,, why cant crude get back down to reasonable prices,, other than the dollar being almost worthless. That fucking Nixon.

ace's n 8's · Mar 12, 2012

RandyKnight said: ↑

All taxes eventually filter down to the end user....the consumer...

that tax you suggest would only make prices higher at the pump.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.........

Log in or Sign up

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

ckfree Porn Surfer

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

Tony Clifton Porn Surfer Suspended!

Kimiko Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Kimiko Porn Star

Kimiko Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

Hows that $4 a gallon feel

Log in or Sign up

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

ckfree Porn Surfer

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

Tony Clifton Porn Surfer Suspended!

Kimiko Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Kimiko Porn Star

Kimiko Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

Useful Searches