Free Markets, Free People

The unintentional irony of Obama’s new plan to address high gas prices

For 25 years Democrats have been telling us that drilling for more oil isn’t the answer to high gas prices because it would take “3 to 10 years” to see the beneficial effects of increased drilling.  And, consequently, they’ve done everything in their power to prevent more drilling for oil and gas.

Now, in an election year, with gas prices spiking, they’re getting a little panicky.  Unfortunately for them, they have no answer to the problem.  When President Obama continues to claim there’s no “silver bullet” for the problem, its because he and others have effectively stood in the way of increased drilling that would have indeed increased our domestic supply of oil for all these years.

As Kate B Hicks reports, the desperate President has a new plan.  But, irony of ironies, you’ll have to wait 13 years to reap the benefits:

In his weekly radio and online address Saturday, Obama said Detroit automakers are on track to build cars that average nearly 55 miles per gallon by 2025, doubling current mileage standards.

"That means folks will be able to fill up every two weeks instead of every week, saving the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump over time," he said. "That’s a big deal, especially as families are yet again feeling the pinch from rising gas prices."

Not only will you have to wait 13 years, but you’ll have to shell out thousands of dollars for a new car.  And oh by the way, that new car will cost thousands more than a new car now because of the added cost of complying with those new CAFE standards.

Seriously?  Is this the best you have, Mr. President?

You should have stuck with touting the benefits of pond scum.


Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

69 Responses to The unintentional irony of Obama’s new plan to address high gas prices

  • Truck, Mr. President. Those are those big things, like that bus you bop around in. They carry stuff. Pretty much EVERYTHING you use. So, when fuel for those costs more, your stuff will cost more. And they are bumping the engineering limits of technology. You aren’t going to get moon ponies to pull them, like pastel Clydesdales. Flucking idiot.

  • “Operating rigs reflect this growth. The number of oil rigs drilling in the country has grown by 242 percent since the start of 2008, Baker Hughes data shows.”

    • McQ – “When President Obama continues to claim there’s no “silver bullet” for the problem, its because he and others have effectively stood in the way of increased drilling that would have indeed increased our domestic supply of oil for all these years.”

      This is one huge stinking pile of bullsh!t.
      Domestic oil production has increased under Obama. And for McQ – because Obama simply has a (D) next to his name – it translates as “stood in the way” of oil drilling.

      It’s like you guys live in a bubble, I swear.

      Obama is the “drill baby drill” president you hoped for.

      • @PogueMahone Take a minute…after a beery breath…and catalog all the Obamic policy that resulted in that production you ascribe to him, Poque.

      • @PogueMahone Bullsquat, Pogue. Provably wrong (as demonstrated right here at QandO):

        … Obama has doubled the bureaucratic delays on drilling permits, which ultimately adds to the price of gas at the pump. As Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, noted last week, the increased production Obama cites is happening mainly on nonfederal lands and under permits issued before he became president. As with so much that Obama says, his claims sound good, but he is playing fast and loose with the facts in order to steal credit he doesn’t deserve and avoid blame that ought to be his.

        Funny watching you get sucked into the maw of Obama’s lies.

        As I said previously, yes production is up, but not because of Obama or the federal government under his watch. And that’s just a fact.

        • @McQandO
          Only in partisan hackery does “dramatic increase in drilling” and “record high oil production” and “U.S. more energy independent” translate into “Obama stands in the way of oil drilling.”

        • @PogueMahone – Only if you have no ability to conceive “higher oil production”, the “U.S. even MORE energy independent” and “an EVEN more dramatic increase in drilling” had Obama not stood in the way. But that would be hackery, wouldn’t it? We certainly couldn’t have more of each if he had, right? And heavens forbid that some politician get a little desperate and try to lay claim to something he had nothing to do with. They never do that, do they Pogue?

          Speaking of hacks.

        • @McQandO It is amazing the Pogue doesn’t get this. Or perhaps he does, and he’s just an Obama lacky after all.

        • @Don S We’re the hacks because we dig in and find his statements to be false and give proof. Apparently we’re supposed to swallow his statements whole because, you know, he’s been the gold standard in honesty and all.

      • @PogueMahone It’s statements like this that relieve my incredulity that there are still people capable of composing a grammatically correct sentence, yet who would still vote for that schmendrick.

        • @Mr Evilwrench

          It’s statements like this that sadly reaffirms that there are still people who live in an us vs. them world; that if someone disagrees with person X, then they MUST have voted for person Y.

          I didn’t vote for Obama, Mr. Evilwrench. Hell, I don’t even like the guy. But bullsh!t is bullsh!t and it stinks all the same.

        • @PogueMahone And none more expert on the last as Poque Mahone. Where’s your listing of Obamic PRO-ENERGY policy, fool?

        • @PogueMahone If bullshit is bullshit my friend, you’d be screaming at the flow coming from the White House claims. I suppose we COULD have given him credit for parting the Red Sea too, but it was just a little before his time and even he’s not that bold.

      • @PogueMahone It increased despite Obama, due to permits issued prior to Obama.

    • @PogueMahone Dude! you’re buying the Obama stock? Man have I got some stuff you’ll want to buy now before the price goes through the roof!

    • @PogueMahone Pogue, you need to trust Obama about as much as you were willing to trust George W. Bush. If you believe that Clinton left us with a massive surplus, and Bush pissed it way, you should wonder how Obama can promise you TODAY that the guy who takes office from him 4 years from now is gong to go along with anything he did from 2008 to 2016 (assuming the next Pres can dismantle it by hook or crook, like, uh, executive mandates, for example…..)

  • Anyone who understands energy and economics knows that oil prices are set on international markets, and that even if the US opened all land to drilling there isn’t enough oil here to have much an impact at all on gas prices. Blaming Obama for high gas prices is a lie, claiming more drilling can be a solution is also a lie. The only solution is to use less oil and to augment it with more alternatives — and that takes time. That’s the truth, even if it isn’t politically convenient.

    • @scotterb Oh. That sure explains why gas prices are WAY down. So far down, that drilling activity in the US is now targeted to oil. But you may be right, inadvertently, Erp. The rise in fuel prices may indicate the collapse of the dollar as much as anything else. Hu—zah….

      • Rags, I actually think this could indeed indicate a weakening of the dollar. That’s an interesting proposition. As for gas prices, I’m talking about the gas we put in our cars, not natural gas. Natural gas is a bright spot, as domestic production may radically increase in coming years.

        • @scotterb Yes, I understood you to mean “gasoline”. You could have said “motor fuels”, too, if you knew WTF you were doing. Gas production…and pricing…shows what a stupid statement you made in your original stupid statement…er…post. Supply/demand….Econ. 101.

        • @Ragspierre I hate to agree with erb, but he’s got a point, despite less then perfect semantics.

          Increasing production here 10% increases global production 1 or 2%. And if I was a major middle eastern oil producer, I would gladly pump less than let the price of oil collapse. 90% of my former production at $100 barrel gets me a heck of lot more money thant 100% of my former production at $50 barrel. Even more in actual profit.

        • @jpm100 Please support your multiple assumptions, jpm.

        • @Ragspierre, companies work to maximized profits whenever possible. Q.E.D.

        • @jpm100 Yeah. Duh. But I see you’re having trouble, so we’ll leave it at that…

        • @Ragspierre I’m sorry, but I’m not the one whose sum total argument is to complain about semantics and cry ‘prove it’. My response was more than you deserved. How about at least making some kind of point to refute erb’s claim.

        • @jpm100 I think the point about increased domestic production is that in an emergency (like war) we have a secure domestic source. Markets at that point become pretty domestic. Being able to supply ourselves is critical and that’s the point. During peace, who cares where the market takes it?

        • @jpm100 Goo ness, jpm… How’s this… Show how a 10% increase is all we can expect from domestic drilling. Next, show how this is only 1% of total demand. Next, show how a domestic increase in production would NOT lower domestic pricing (given that transport cost are APPRECIABLY lower if it is producting in…say…FLUCKING Texas, South Dakota, Pennsylvannia, etc.

          If you want to be embarrass at Erp levels, I can oblige.

        • @jpm100 And asking you to support your ASSSSSS umptions is not “crying” prove it.. Moron.

        • @scotterb Sure, until they conclusively demonstrate that Natural Gas fracking is causing global warming, or destruction of our precious bodily fluids, or the destruction of snail darter habitats. Till then, it’s all good. I think it’s time for your fearless leader to put a surtax on Natural Gas to ‘help’ the economy.

        • @McQandO, I’m for more domestic production because it helps jobs and the trade situation. But I am not holding my breath that we’ll even dent the price of gas.

        • @Ragspierre,

          10% was an example, the point was that on the global marketplace, a big domestic increase is diluted significantly.

          And oil is globally priced, otherwise production fears in Iran wouldn’t drive the price of oil here up $0.50. Or someone is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

          Which is it? Oil is globally priced and the production fears in Iran are causing a legitimate price increase, or oil is locally priced and the price hikes are gouging?

          As for the price of transportation, the oil industry here got by on $1 a gallon for a long time. At $4 a gallon, are you trying to tell me transportation costs are suddenly a big portion of that.

        • @jpm100 Prices are reflective of MANY factors, including anxiety over future supply.

          A BIG portion of the oil price being in transport? No, but since oil is required for transport, the price of oil would increase transport costs for oil, as with every other thing you and I use.

        • @jpm100 I’m with you, as long as it goes into the big world oil tank and is sold from there, all we’re doing is making the guys who drive the price up ‘feel better’ by replacing that 10% loss from Iran by having the ability to increase US capacity by 10% the next morning. We’re ruled by people who decide the fate of economies base on whether or not they are hung over from last night, or whether or not they had sex before the market opened. The days of methodical decision making based on fact in investing are long gone, it’s all based on a 24 hour clock ruled by how the market “feels” today. And lately they don’t ‘feel’ good about oil.

        • @looker You long for a “never-was”, looker. Human nature does not change.

        • @Ragspierre But but…I remember what they told us in college 🙂 I got my lesson in reality the way a lot of people do, the hard way by having some cash tied up in a stock that turned express elevator and the difference between the previous day and the bad day was 24 hours and how the market ‘felt’ about the stock. Admittedly they had done the stupid, and screwed with Wall Street but in essence it was the same company as the previous day as far as assets, employees, contracts, etc, only now Wall Street was peeved at them for not making the promised numbers. Heh, might I point out, I think they were a division of GM at the time. In retrospect that splains a lot really.

        • @jpm100 When George W. Bush announced ending the offshore moratorium, the price of oil dropped like a rock. Markets reacted before the first well was drilled. Why wouldn’t they do the same now?

        • @McQandO Ezzz-ACTLY

        • @McQandO Are you mad! We have to tap into the strategic reserve and pass laws to prevent profit – THOSE things we can do now, things that will work? Maybe, May-be, later.

        • @McQandO, you mean the same summer the economy froze and banks started dropping? And did it keep the price down?

        • @looker, do you actually believe oil is 3 times more expensive to pull out of the ground than it was 10 years ago?

    • By the way, that also means those on the left who criticize oil companies for price increases are wrong — there is demagoguery on both sides.

    • @scotterb That’s assuming you believe obama when he says the US has less than 2% of the world’s oil reserves. The problem with that statement is that it is true only when you consider the caviots included – which include all reserves from accessible lands and sources that are legally available under current law and restrictions. Once you take all of the current administration’s restrictions away, the US has more oil reserves than the entire middle east! And that does not include reserves from shale oil!!! So, when you say “even if the US opened all land to drilling there isn’t enough oil here to have much an impact at all on gas prices” – that is a lie!

  • Is Kowboy Ken still in contempt of court? Just wondering…

  • Oil, and hence gasoline, prices rise and fall cyclically, and have done so since the 1920s at least. High demand is not the most important factor; we had very low prices in the 1990s on very high demand; production is more important. Domestic production should and could be roaring now, and there is a lot of oil to produce. Our reserves are considerable. When that kind of production happens it will *not* spur foreign producers to produce less, but rather more. The Saudis, for instance, like to see a certain income from their oil and will pump more as prices fall to generate equal revenue. They will also pump more to curtail our domestic production where that production comes at the expense of high extraction costs. The Saudis have low extractions costs which is how they’ve continued to influence the market. It costs them very little to get a barrel of oil out of the ground. Our newer fields are more likely to require enhanced extraction and the extraction costs per barrel are higher, such that if prices fall too low they become less profitable or not profitable at all.

    Obama’s idea for more efficient vehicles will never result in the conservation of oil. Where there is more efficiency there is generally greater use. His real plan is to make fossil fuels perpetually more expensive, though, and he loves this up-cycle. He’s helping keep it up with his efforts to curtail production in the gulf and his nixing of the XL pipeline. The sheer waste of money on the solar technologies would have been better unspent, to bring deficits down and stop the false narratives about energy and to decrease the need to print money.

  • Have you not noticed, ALL of his plans for salvation occur long after he’s out of office. His economic plans, his energy plans, his health plans, hell, even his tax plans.

    About the only plan he has that seems to occur NOW is plans to spend money and add regulations. Those we don’t seem to need to wait for.

    More of that french wine Quelle Surprise.

  • The problem with much of this discussion is dealing with the areas for which the federal government has control – Federally administered lands and offshore sources. The government has no control over state and privately held lands. In November 2011, the Federal Government published its 5-year plan for domestic oil and natural gas production.

    So from the following source:

    Dated 15 November 2011

    * Oil and natural gas production on federal lands has fallen by over 40 percent since 2000

    * Since 2000, oil production on private and state lands has risen by 11 percent and natural gas production has riven by 40 percent

    * When President Obama was elected, all offshore lands were available for leasing except for a small area near Florida’s coast

    *The Obama administration’s new five-year plan doesn’t allow oil and natural gas exploration or production on the vast majority of taxpayer-owned offshore areas

    Now you tell me where the Federal government is proactively pursuing domestic oil production.

    • @sshiell I remain confused by how the Federal government owns vast tracts of land. The Constitution does not permit that. Seems an obvious way to reduce the deficit, forcing the BLM to sell off Federal lands, or remit them to the states.

      • @Ragspierre “I remain confused by how the Federal government owns vast tracts of land. The Constitution does not permit that.” Dude, as that awesome stateswoman and well known rocket scientist said “are you serious?” “We” own it because THEY decided on our behalf that we do, and what THEY do with it now is none of our flucking business, just ask them.

      • @Ragspierre With the Feds owning 80+% of Nevada, all of Harry Reid’s buddy keep the price of what they don’t control much higher.

      • @Ragspierre

        ” the Federal government owns vast tracts of land. The Constitution does not permit that”

        I beg to differ.

        Article I, Section 8

        “…, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings….”

        Article IV, Section 3;

        “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;”

        Historical precedent dates from at least 1789, with the organization of the Northwest Territory.

        Also, the Constitution does not forbid it.

        • @timactual Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings_______________________________

          Boy, you sure read that differently than I do. Pretty restrictive language. “CONSENT of the…STATE…

        • @timactual So…..where are the needful buildings? Do National Park huts count?

        • @Ragspierre
          It may be restrictive, but it is still constitutional.

        • @looker
          The point of my comment is that it is constitutional for the federal government to own property. The vastness is irrelevant, particularly given my other cites. Not to mention the Louisiana Purchase in 1803.

        • And I still do not appreciate this POS comment dingus.

        • @timactual you got me on the Louisiana purchase….so we may as well have Seward’s Folly thrown in too.

        • @looker “The vastness is irrelevant…”??!??!?! But the Founders KNEW that land was wealth in their time. They LIMITED land ownership by the Federal government to a FEW purposes. Find a place where they say that entire (nearly) states should be owned by the central government.

  • I agree that it’s not great in the short term but over in Europe our cars do 50 mpg already, so in 13 years when you hit those heady heights you’ll be more than 13 years behind Europe.

    • @Annabelle83 Really? Mercedes has a 50 mpg fleet average? Volvo? Saab…oh, that one wasn’t fair, was it? BMW?

    • @Annabelle83 I’ve been kicking about London this week and I can tell you I haven’t seen a single Mac truck or Kenny

    • @Annabelle83

      But I thought they stopped making the Trabant.

      • @timactual 20mpg…and two quarts of oil…

      • @timactual GM is bringing it back now – it needs about 5000 D cell batteries, costs $45,000 with a $10,000 government discount and it gets 5 million miles to the gallon. Over here I have a winged horse, not as good as the TALKING winged horse I had yesterday, but you’re late.

  • Gasoline is the number one export of the US. Maybe if oil companies would keep more gas in this country, we wouldn’t have such high fuel costs.

    • @tadcf “There ought to be a law”, right? That would fix it…

    • @tadcf They buy oil at the refineries based on the current cost of a bbl of oil. If they have the capacity to export fine, but what will cause the price of gasoline to decline is a decline in the price of the raw material – oil. Overall Increased production and an increased overall supply will cause such a decline.