This is what will do in Obama. No matter who's running against him if inflation stays its present course people are going to think every time they go to the pump and grocer.

The massive number of unemployed (no matter what the BLS says) has seen their buying power evaporate quickly in the last 36 months. This will only intensify through this year sealing Obama's fate as a one term president.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/under-obama-price-gas-has-jumped-83-percent-ground-beef-24-percent-bacon-22-percent


<

I'll take "Things You Should Consume Less of" for $1000, mcsmack

You can thank the independent Fed and their QE programs for tankin the dollar.

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

baconnnnnn....nom nom nom...gimmee my BACON, bitches!

Warhawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can thank the independent Fed and their QE
> programs for tankin the dollar.


"independent Fed" Whatever you say hawk

What about watermelon?

If gas keeps going up, Obama's pipeline decision certainly won't help him,,,,

CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.

CNSNews.com relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore. Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today. Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's fast, easy and secure.


LOL!

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The massive number of unemployed (no matter what
> the BLS says) has seen their buying power
> evaporate quickly in the last 36 months.

36 mos. ago we were at the depths of the 'great recession'.
Prices DEFLATED .4% in 2009. Inflation was lower last year
than in 2005, 2006, or 2008 under Bush. Lay off the kool-aid,
Smacky.

Buh bye Obama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The massive number of unemployed (no matter
> what
> > the BLS says) has seen their buying power
> > evaporate quickly in the last 36 months.
>
> 36 mos. ago we were at the depths of the 'great
> recession'.
> Prices DEFLATED .4% in 2009. Inflation was lower
> last year
> than in 2005, 2006, or 2008 under Bush. Lay off
> the kool-aid,
> Smacky.


Your tell is showing itself again. How many registered names are you up to now?

stop putting dead things in your body, ground beef and bacon are poison to your body.

telling tells Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Your tell is showing itself again. How many
> registered names are you up to now?


At least 7 for sure, probably many more in reality

Still a hell of lot better than in the Bush Recession years when banks were collapsing and dropping like flys. People wondering if their bank would go under next.

Congress at the urgent request of President George W. Bush passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program or "TARP", funded at $700 billion.

My 401K is up 156% under Obama. DOW is back to pre bush fuck over days...

DOWBITCHes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My 401K is up 156% under Obama. DOW is back to
> pre bush fuck over days...


Damn, thats awesome. You have a real good cushion if you become unemployed in our new utopian economy where dog farts smell like roses.

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

Wasn't bush the president in '07.

Can't take all your facts from an Amphibean, at least google your stats before you post McFat.

Bacon and meat inflation is a direct result o increased energy prices. So was the housing bubble.

I'll never forgive Dick and Bush for killing the V8. It's a shock those two would orchestrate an oil price spike when they had so much money to gain.

Keep bending over for your political masters.

I'm going to make you my bitch McSmack. Ill be on every one of your stupid post, you saw what happened to WingNutts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2012 07:26PM by Atom.

My stocks are up 87% since Obama took office.

CSNNEws....the Right News...Right now....(for Rightists).

Impeccable sourcing there, Smackster. Did RV turn you on to them?

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

Housing prices and gas prices doubled under Bush. What's your point?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Bush isn't running for reelection.

All the republican pawns bow to the same jerkoffs.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like
> NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government
> like PBS.
>
> CNSNews.com relies on individuals like you to help
> us report the news the liberal media distort and
> ignore. Please make a tax-deductible gift to
> CNSNews.com today. Your continued support will
> ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE
> TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's fast, easy
> and secure.
>
>
> LOL!


LOL indeed. PBS NPR funded by private citizens through taxes....This bullhorn for right wing agenda funded by private citizens contributions...Irony.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Housing prices and gas prices doubled under Bush.
> What's your point?


GSE's were responsible for the housing bubble.

And on fuel prices I'm not sure where you are getting your info. Even with 9/11 hitting it just doesn't hold water.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2012 09:09PM by mcsmack.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And on fuel prices I'm not sure where you are
> getting your info. Even with 9/11 hitting it just
> doesn't hold water.

It's cute how your little graph omits 2003 - 2008, a
period during which gas prices more than doubled, from
$2.00/gal. on 1/1/03, to $4.27/gal. on 7/7/08. All
under Bush's watch. Hell, if he hadn't driven the
economy off a cliff, gas prices likely would have
topped $5.00/gal. by President Obama's inauguration.
Attachments:

Truth Sayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And on fuel prices I'm not sure where you are
> > getting your info. Even with 9/11 hitting it
> just
> > doesn't hold water.
>
> It's cute how your little graph omits 2003 - 2008,
> a
> period during which gas prices more than doubled,
> from
> $2.00/gal. on 1/1/03, to $4.27/gal. on 7/7/08.
> All
> under Bush's watch. Hell, if he hadn't driven
> the
> economy off a cliff, gas prices likely would have
> topped $5.00/gal. by President Obama's
> inauguration.


Cute little graph? Whatever.

When Bush first took office on January 20, 2001, gasoline prices averaged $1.51 a gallon. At the beginning of his second term in 2005, gasoline prices averaged $1.90. When Bush left office, gasoline prices averaged $1.90. about a week before Obama was inaugurated.

Granted the GSE induced recession dropped the price substantially but the facts are the facts.


Source: The United States Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPM0_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At the beginning of his second term in 2005, gasoline
> prices averaged $1.90.

On July 7, 2008, gasoline prices averaged $4.27, an
increase of 125% from the beginning of Bush's 2nd term.

> When Bush left office, gasoline prices averaged $1.90.

The average price of gasoline plummeted at the end of his
2nd term because Bush drove the economy off a cliff. Proud
of that are you, Smacky?

i like bacon

Truth Sayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > At the beginning of his second term in 2005,
> gasoline
> > prices averaged $1.90.
>
> On July 7, 2008, gasoline prices averaged $4.27,
> an
> increase of 125% from the beginning of Bush's 2nd
> term.
>
> > When Bush left office, gasoline prices averaged
> $1.90.
>
> The average price of gasoline plummeted at the end
> of his
> 2nd term because Bush drove the economy off a
> cliff. Proud
> of that are you, Smacky?

You bet Truth Slayer! And it has doubled in three years because Obama has "brought us back from the brink". Right?

Does mcsmack get paid to do this?

 

friskydingo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does mcsmack get paid to do this?






He collects an unemployment check while grinding his teeth at tax supported welfare.

I can respect mcsmack and his opinions and all the work he puts into making his case,,,

That Heritage foundation troll that follows every thread spewing party rhetoric and offering the same arguement over and over and over is probably on someones payroll,,,,

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You bet Truth Slayer! And it has doubled in three
> years because Obama has "brought us back from the
> brink". Right?

Yes, Smacky, as the economy has recovered, demand
for petrol has rebounded & prices have returned to
pre-"great recession" levels. The average price
of gasoline more than doubled in three years under
Bush, too, before he tanked our economy.

I understand that this "price of gas" nonsense is
today's GOP-tard talking point, but you douches
live in a glass house when it comes to Bush & gas
prices.

So what McSmack is suggesting is that he is outraged that the free market isn't being interfered with by the government. Correct?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what McSmack is suggesting is that he is
> outraged that the free market isn't being
> interfered with by the government. Correct?

No. You actually completely and utterly missed the point. Repeat after me: Pipe-fucking-line. Thank you.

Logic Fail, dude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So what McSmack is suggesting is that he is
> > outraged that the free market isn't being
> > interfered with by the government. Correct?
>
> No. You actually completely and utterly missed the
> point. Repeat after me: Pipe-fucking-line. Thank
> you.


So you are saying the EPA influences economic growth? WHAT???

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Obama could have:

1) prevented dozens of oil rigs moving out of the Gulf of Mexico

Jan 27 (Reuters) – Some of the 30-plus deepwater rigs that were in the Gulf of Mexico have moved to other markets, first because of a U.S. halt called last May after BP Plc’s (BP.L: Quote) well blowout, and then because of the lack of permits once the moratorium was lifted.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/28/oil-rigs-and-jobs-already-moving-out-of-gulf/

2) Approved the Keystone XL pipeline construction

3) Not fleece Exxonmobile of one of largest Oil Field Discoveries in the Gulf

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903596904576514762275032794.html

Note that the administration lets 30 rigs leave the Gulf, yet claims in the Exxon dispute it wants to resell the Julia lease because the Dept. of Interior wants to make sure the field gets developed so it can collect royalties. Ok.....if the oil rigs that would be used by other oil companies are leaving the area then who do they plan on selling the rights to?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2012 10:42AM by Hay Zeus.

400 people own 50% of the US wealth.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Logic Fail, dude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So what McSmack is suggesting is that he is
> > > outraged that the free market isn't being
> > > interfered with by the government. Correct?
> >
> > No. You actually completely and utterly missed
> the
> > point. Repeat after me: Pipe-fucking-line.
> Thank
> > you.
>
>
> So you are saying the EPA influences economic
> growth? WHAT???

Yes, a negative influence. What do you want? Even the Washington Post came out against the admin's decision.

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can respect mcsmack and his opinions and all the
> work he puts into making his case,,,
>
> That Heritage foundation troll that follows every
> thread spewing party rhetoric and offering the
> same arguement over and over and over is probably
> on someones payroll,,,,

You have strayed off your talking points hate.

It's Rush Limbaugh first then Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and The Wall Street Journal then The Heritage Foundation. Jesus man! Am I going to have to start doing your brainless liberal put down job for you?

Next thing I know you'll be citing the fact that I've sourced over 100 news and think tank organizations backing up my posts on this forum alone.

So for your own good, keep it simple.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2012 09:25AM by mcsmack.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wasn't bush the president in '07.
>
> Can't take all your facts from an Amphibean, at
> least google your stats before you post McFat.
>
> Bacon and meat inflation is a direct result o
> increased energy prices. So was the housing
> bubble.
>
> I'll never forgive Dick and Bush for killing the
> V8. It's a shock those two would orchestrate an
> oil price spike when they had so much money to
> gain.
>
> Keep bending over for your political masters.
>
> I'm going to make you my bitch McSmack. Ill be on
> every one of your stupid post, you saw what
> happened to WingNutts.



a) govt spending on non-market essential hurts a market economy

b) tax cuts = market growth

c) rich people create jobs, not poor people with access to credit and free healthcare

d) there is no such thing as free healthcare, but innovations and institutions can make it cheaper

e) obama can either be believed or disbelieved, but liberals cannot have it both ways

Fucking inflation! This is the type of shit that happens when companies figure they can gouge more money from consumers. And bacon, BACON for christ sake!

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama could have:
>
> 1) prevented dozens of oil rigs moving out of the
> Gulf of Mexico
>
> Jan 27 (Reuters) – Some of the 30-plus deepwater
> rigs that were in the Gulf of Mexico have moved to
> other markets, first because of a U.S. halt called
> last May after BP Plc’s (BP.L: Quote) well
> blowout, and then because of the lack of permits
> once the moratorium was lifted.
>
> http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/28/oil-rigs-and
> -jobs-already-moving-out-of-gulf/
>
> 2) Approved the Keystone XL pipeline construction
>
> 3) Not fleece Exxonmobile of one of largest Oil
> Field Discoveries in the Gulf
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240531119035
> 96904576514762275032794.html
>
> Note that the administration lets 30 rigs leave
> the Gulf, yet claims in the Exxon dispute it wants
> to resell the Julia lease because the Dept. of
> Interior wants to make sure the field gets
> developed so it can collect royalties. Ok.....if
> the pild rigs that would be used by other oil
> companies are leaving the area then who do they
> plan on selling the rights to?


Straight up facts Zues. All valid and correct observations.

All the points you present are reasons for higher fuel costs over the last three years.

A few very important factors are the Fed quantitative actions resulting in some intentional inflation pressure. QE2 along with an explosion in deficit spending effect fuel costs.

Also the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) (Ethanol Mandates)

This has escalated the cost of corn which as you know in turn puts inflationary pressure on all sorts of corn based food staples.

edit: The formulation mandate increases refining costs.

The most laughable explanation for recently rising fuel costs is our rebounding economy. No one I know in the industry attributes rising costs to that.

And this is important
The fact that the rest of the world, especially the Eurozone is teetering on the brink of total economic collapse has strengthened the dollar. As bad a shape as our economy is in it still doesn't look quite as bad as the rest of the world so the dollar is gaining on other currencies. Not because of any substantial economic rebound here or abroad. Quite the opposite. It's because of economic weakness everywhere.

Because of this we should be seeing an easing in oil/fuel costs but we're not.

The only thing this says is the United States of America is still the last great hope for the rest of the world no matter how dim things are looking now.

The president said in his speech last night that we need an all fronts effort to boost our affordable energy supplies. As usual his actions don't square with his rhetoric. He has been a huge obstacle to meaningful energy source development every since he came to office.

For instance as director of the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, Steven Chu, Obama’s secretary at the Department of Energy, said in an interview that gas taxes should slowly be increased over the next 15 years in order to force people to turn to alternative energy sources.

“Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe,” said Chu. (Somewhere around $10.00 per gallon.)



Anyway to say high fuel costs are a result of a recovering economy not only is wrong it shows embarrassing ignorance of the facts.

To date Obama's energy policy has been to hinder oil and natural gas development, despite his rhetoric, while plowing billions into archaic technologies such as batteries, electric cars, solar and windmill companies.

As Tom Borelli of the Free Enterprise Project recently said, “President Obama has no credibility when it comes to energy policy and development of our domestic natural resources. Obama’s record shows his administration is openly hostile toward our use of coal, oil and natural gas. Both President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu are delivering on their promises to increase the price of energy.”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2012 10:40AM by mcsmack.

Is someone who is really concerened with energy costs rising make statements like this?



Democrats claim they stand up for the working poor. But this shit flys in the face of that.

Think about the typical blue collar semi rural American who lives in Western PA or WV the Ohio Valley, Louisiana or wherever. they might be making 35K a year, have 2-3 kids, living in a modular home.

If you ever drive out there these people are already doing the best they can to eek out a living, they grow food on what land they have, chop wood for fire in the winter, buy used car after used car, shop at walmart for clothes.

They often drive 30min or more for work. People like that are already squeezed to brink. So when gas prices keep ticking up with no relief in sight they simply cannot absorb the increasing cost. It destroys the lives of the very people he claims to be standing up for.

Here is the asshole president telling them they should buy more fuel efficient cars and under his energy plan prices will necessarily go up. Doing everything he can to retard oil and fossil fuel production.

Your response is "Well it happened under bush"....Well..your an asshole too because that does not justify it under Obama.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2012 11:08AM by Hay Zeus.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jan 27, 2011 (Reuters) – Some of the 30-plus deepwater
> rigs that were in the Gulf of Mexico have moved to
> other markets, first because of a U.S. halt called
> last May after BP Plc’s (BP.L: Quote) well
> blowout, and then because of the lack of permits
> once the moratorium was lifted.

Today in the Gulf of Mexico there are 70 oil rigs under contract
(producing oil) versus 61 one year ago. The current fleet utilization
rate of Gulf oild rigs is 59.3% versus 46.6 one year ago. The fact is
there are more rigs producing more oil in the Gulf than there were a
year ago.

> 2) Approved the Keystone XL pipeline construction

We all know the truth about this: TransCanada's application was incomplete
and that is why it was rejected. The Obama administration's invitation for
TansCanada to re-apply is further evidence of that.

> 3) Not fleece Exxonmobile of one of largest Oil
> Field Discoveries in the Gulf

Who's fleecing whom her? From the article: "...the Obama administration
has made an issue of unused leases, which deprive the Treasury of valuable
taxes." "The final decision hinged on whether Exxon had a concrete "commitment"
to produce the oil in December 2008, when its lease expired. The director of the
Office of Hearings and Appeals at the Interior Department ruled that it didn't."
Sounds to me like Exxon was trying to rip US off.

Truth Sayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Today in the Gulf of Mexico there are 70 oil rigs
> under contract
> (producing oil) versus 61 one year ago. The
> current fleet utilization
> rate of Gulf oild rigs is 59.3% versus 46.6 one
> year ago. The fact is
> there are more rigs producing more oil in the Gulf
> than there were a
> year ago.

If you're going to refute my assertion at least source your facts otherwise I'm going to assume they're BS

> > 2) Approved the Keystone XL pipeline
> construction
>
> We all know the truth about this: TransCanada's
> application was incomplete
> and that is why it was rejected. The Obama
> administration's invitation for
> TansCanada to re-apply is further evidence of
> that.

If thats not the biggest load of govermental bureaucratic bullshit i have ever heard i don't what is.

Without even seeing it, that application probably makes IRS tax code look like childs play. Big governments have a convenient habit of making everything so complicated so that its to cherry pick a reason to deny the application.

> > 3) Not fleece Exxonmobile of one of largest Oil
> > Field Discoveries in the Gulf
>
> Who's fleecing whom her? From the article:
> "...the Obama administration
> has made an issue of unused leases, which deprive
> the Treasury of valuable
> taxes." "The final decision hinged on whether
> Exxon had a concrete "commitment"
> to produce the oil in December 2008, when its
> lease expired. The director of the
> Office of Hearings and Appeals at the Interior
> Department ruled that it didn't."
> Sounds to me like Exxon was trying to rip US off.

Again thats some pencil pushing asses opinion of what constitutes a "commitment". Do you really believe that Exxonmobile spend hundred of millions of dollars exploring the Gulf of Mexico, discovers one of the largest reserves in the gulfs history and does NOT want drill????



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2012 11:35AM by Hay Zeus.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're going to refute my assertion at least
> source your facts otherwise I'm going to assume
> they're BS

The IHS Petrodata Weekly Rig Count

> Without even seeing it, that application probably
> makes IRS tax code look like childs play. Big
> governments have a convenient habit of making
> everything so complicated so that its to cherry
> pick a reason to deny the application.

Don't let those pesky facts getting in the way of your bias. Way to go, Sport!

> Again thats some pencil pushing asses opinion of
> what constitutes a "commitment".

As opposed to yours? Sorry, the pencil pusher wins.

> Do you really believe that Exxonmobile spend hundred of millions
> of dollars exploring the Gulf of Mexico, discovers
> one of the largest reserves in the gulfs history
> and does NOT want drill????

True to form, you didn't even read the article YOU linked to.
Go read the article and you'll learn the answer.

Truth Sayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Today in the Gulf of Mexico there are 70 oil rigs
> under contract
> (producing oil) versus 61 one year ago. The
> current fleet utilization
> rate of Gulf oild rigs is 59.3% versus 46.6 one
> year ago. The fact is
> there are more rigs producing more oil in the Gulf
> than there were a
> year ago.

Deepwater Horizon occured in 2010, which is the event the Obama Adminstration is using to politik. Your stats are Comparing Jan 2012 to Jan 2011 ONLY. So from that data we don't know how many oil rigs were drilling in Jan 2010 to get a full picuture of the exodus i am asserting.

ALSO per your source states that the TOTAL Rig in Drilling Fleet in Jan 2011 were 131, in Jan 2012 there are 118. So there are fewer Rigs to produce oil in the Gulf.

That information also omits which countries are represented in that drilling fleet.

http://www.ihs.com/products/oil-gas-information/drilling-data/weekly-rig-count.aspx


> > Do you really believe that Exxonmobile spend
> hundred of millions
> > of dollars exploring the Gulf of Mexico,
> discovers
> > one of the largest reserves in the gulfs
> history
> > and does NOT want drill????
>
> True to form, you didn't even read the article YOU
> linked to.
> Go read the article and you'll learn the answer.

The answer is the Government denied Exxon the extension for a vague reason "No specific plan" without much explination.

Lying by omission does equal telling the truth.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truth Sayer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Today in the Gulf of Mexico there are 70 oil
> rigs
> > under contract
> > (producing oil) versus 61 one year ago. The
> > current fleet utilization
> > rate of Gulf oild rigs is 59.3% versus 46.6 one
>
> > year ago. The fact is
> > there are more rigs producing more oil in the
> Gulf
> > than there were a
> > year ago.
>
> Deepwater Horizon occured in 2010, which is the
> event the Obama Adminstration is using to politik.
> Your stats are Comparing Jan 2012 to Jan 2011
> ONLY. So from that data we don't know how many oil
> rigs were drilling in Jan 2010 to get a full
> picuture of the exodus i am asserting.
>
> ALSO per your source states that the TOTAL Rig in
> Drilling Fleet in Jan 2011 were 131, in Jan 2012
> there are 118. So there are fewer Rigs to produce
> oil in the Gulf.
>
> That information also omits which countries are
> represented in that drilling fleet.
>
> http://www.ihs.com/products/oil-gas-information/dr
> illing-data/weekly-rig-count.aspx
>
>
> > > Do you really believe that Exxonmobile spend
> > hundred of millions
> > > of dollars exploring the Gulf of Mexico,
> > discovers
> > > one of the largest reserves in the gulfs
> > history
> > > and does NOT want drill????
> >
> > True to form, you didn't even read the article
> YOU
> > linked to.
> > Go read the article and you'll learn the
> answer.
>
> The answer is the Government denied Exxon the
> extension for a vague reason "No specific plan"
> without much explination.
>
> Lying by omission does equal telling the truth.


Posting here as a conservative is kind of like an MLB home run derby. They lob out these slow hanging pitches and you just load up and smack it straight away centre field.

Whats funny is, what these pawns don't realize is that if they actually get their way the US turns into North Korea or the old Soviet Union is that they will probably be the first ones to get a bullet in the back of the head in the "great purge" that typically follow tyranical takeovers.


well....maybe the second group, the first being the Occupy idiots.

400 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 400 people own 50% of the US wealth.


And you arent entitled to a dime of their money

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your stats are Comparing Jan 2012 to Jan 2011
> ONLY.

The Reuters article YOU LINKED TO was from Jan 27,
2011, which is why my response covered the past 12
months.

> ALSO per your source states that the TOTAL Rig in
> Drilling Fleet in Jan 2011 were 131, in Jan 2012
> there are 118. So there are fewer Rigs to produce
> oil in the Gulf.

There are more rigs in Jan. 2011, but FEWER OF THEM
WERE PRODUCING OIL. The IHS Petrodata Weekly Rig
Count clearly states that today in the Gulf of Mexico
there are 70 oil rigs under contract (producing oil)
versus 61 one year ago. The current fleet utilization
rate of Gulf oild rigs is 59.3% versus 46.6 one year
ago. The fact is there are more rigs producing more
oil in the Gulf than there were a year ago.

> That information also omits which countries are
> represented in that drilling fleet.

The US doesn’t “own” all of the oil in the Gulf. The market
for oil is global. Prices are set by supply & demand. How
does the nationality of the rig matter?


> The answer is the Government denied Exxon the
> extension for a vague reason "No specific plan"
> without much explination.
>
> Lying by omission does equal telling the truth.

Who's lying? Here's how this oil lease thing works:
Exxon buys the lease (let's say for 10 years) from the
government. The government expects Exxon to produce
oil from the lease, which generates more revenue for
the government. In this case, Exxon did not produce
oil, did not even have a specific plan to produce oil,
yet it wanted to renew the lease when it expired. The
government, wisely, said; "No. You had your chance,
Exxon, but you didn't use the lease. Now, we (the
government) are going to sell the lease to another
company that will produce oil from the lease.

It's a valuable lesson for Exxon & all other oil

This thread is in regards to the Obama administration

I'm not going to speculate on why some rigs are or are not drilling. Ther are probably various reason, such as moving to other area, updating equipment, inspections, contract negotiations...i dunno its not my industry

The FACT is there are FEWER Rigs producing MORE oil in Jan 2012 then in 2011.

What we do know is the Gross Potential Drilling Capacity is down from a year ago, maybe even more from two years ago. Since this thread is about Obama and his admistration the bench mark starts when we took over in 2009.

Nationality matters is because don't want the Chinese or Venezuala hanging around off our coasts finding ways to poach oil right within international borders

If you read the article you would understand that Exxon was acting in a business as usal manner but the adminstration changed the game on them because of the Deepwater horizon events.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The FACT is there are FEWER Rigs producing MORE
> oil in Jan 2012 then in 2011.

Producing more oil is a GOOD THING.

> What we do know is the Gross Potential Drilling
> Capacity is down from a year ago, maybe even more
> from two years ago.

Actually, we don't know that because we don't know the make-up of the current fleet of rigs v. 2011 (size, capacity, etc.).

> Nationality matters is because don't want the
> Chinese or Venezuala hanging around off our coasts
> finding ways to poach oil right within
> international borders

If they're 200+ miles out, there is not a thing we can do about it legally.

> If you read the article you would understand that
> Exxon was acting in a business as usal manner but
> the adminstration changed the game on them because
> of the Deepwater horizon events.

And to teach a lesson to Exxon and all other oil cos. in the Gulf: Shit, or get off the pot.