23 Jan

Barack Obama: no jobs, no oil, no energy [Reader Post]

                                       

It’s the mother of all boners. Barack Obama gambled the future of the US oil supply on Brazil.

He lost. China kicked his butt.

In March Barack Obama put on his best groveling suit (you know, the same one he wore when genuflecting to the Saudi King) and went off to Brazil looking for foreign oil. The schtick was thick:

Obama started by saying that being in Brazil was a great joy, and thanking his hosts on behalf of his wife Michelle and family for the warm welcome they received.

The US president said it was a pity that he had to come only days after the Carnival but: “my only regret is that we missed the party by coming a few weeks after Carnival. Maybe that’s the best — since I’m not sure I would have had the same level of productivity from my staff”.

While emphasizing US weaknesses, he promised the US would be Brazil’s best customer:

Obama also spoke about energy. “The oil you recently discovered off the shores of Brazil could amount to twice the reserves we have in the United States”, he said, adding that the US want to help Brazil with the technology needed to extract it and, when Brazil is ready to begin selling the commodity, “we want to be one of your best customers”.

That is not to be. Brazil blew off Obama for China instead:

BUENOS AIRES — Off the coast of Rio de Janeiro — below a mile of water and two miles of shifting rock, sand and salt — is an ultradeep sea of oil that could turn Brazil into the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, behind Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The country’s state-controlled oil company, Petrobras, expects to pump 4.9 million barrels a day from the country’s oil fields by 2020, with 40 percent of that coming from the seabed. One and a half million barrels will be bound for export markets.

The United States wants it, but China is getting it.

Less than a month after President Obama visited Brazil in March to make a pitch for oil, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was off to Beijing to sign oil contracts with two huge state-owned Chinese companies.

The deals are part of a growing oil relationship between the two countries that, thanks to a series of billion-dollar agreements, is giving China greater influence over Brazil’s oil frontier.

Apparently deciding that the US needed neither the oil nor the jobs, Barack Obama rejected the Keystone Pipeline.

President Barack Obama’s decision yesterday to reject a permit for TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline may prompt Canada to turn to China for oil exports.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a telephone call yesterday, told Obama “Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports,” according to details provided by Harper’s office. Canadian Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said relying less on the U.S. would help strengthen the country’s “financial security.”

The “decision by the Obama administration underlines the importance of diversifying and expanding our markets, including the growing Asian market,” Oliver told reporters in Ottawa.

Once more, China will be the beneficiary.

Obama is strangling domestic oil exploration with bans and moratoriums pretty much everywhere in the US and at the same time is pouring billions of US tax dollars down the toilet on failed “green energy” projects for his top donors. Then in liquidation Obama made sure his donors got their money before us taxpayers.

No energy, no jobs, no oil. Barack Obama does seem determined to lead the United States into becoming a third world nation while making certain China prospers.

Change is….absolutely necessary.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Anti-Americanism, Canada, Economy, Energy, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Obamanomics, Oil, WtF? and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 8:19 am
| 1,977 views

62 Responses to Barack Obama: no jobs, no oil, no energy [Reader Post]

  1. MataHarley says: 51

    Ivan: Are you saying that it costs more to refine diesel? Sure sounds like you’re saying that.

    That sounds like a personal reading problem, Ivan. What I said was that it costs more to refine diesel now than it did in the past… plus the fact that the demand for diesel is up not only in the US, but in Europe, China and Mexico and South America. No where did I compare the price of refining gasoline to diesel per gallon.

    What I did say was the increased demand of diesel, and the declining demand of gasoline – combined with increased diesel refining costs and higher taxes – is the reason that diesel is more expensive than gasoline. And that’s been true for some years now.

    Your second point just makes my argument: we are shipping refined diesel from the US to foreign markets since the oil companies can get more profit on each gallon than they can in the US.

    Free trade, again, screws the US citizens.

    My my… running in circles on your “free trade” philosophy much? I thought you libertarian purists wanted US corporations to be able to trade with anyone, and sans any government trade agreements interfering, in order to profit.

    Oh, but not diesel? LOL

    Yes, the US diesel fuel exports have been on the rise for quite some time, and having a gi’normous leap between 2007-08 when the ppb rose astronomically. And since the nanny AGW governments of other countries have put in place low-sulfur mandates – and most the foreign refineries are incapable of producing it – the American refineries have an edge.

    And you consider this negative?

    Funny, after all your historic bad mouthing of trade on this forum, I have to say you sound a bit isolationist on business to me… wanting to keep all that diesel in the US and being all up in arms that they dare to export any for a profit.

    Well, revelation, Ivan. The US isn’t having a shortage of diesel. But the cost of diesel… a subject you, yourself, brought up… is increasing because there is more demand for it here, and elsewhere. Plus it costs more to refine it these days with the low-sulfur mandates. That’s called free market pricing at work. Want it to go down? Talk to the feds and the states who abscond anywhere from 45 to 75 cents per gallon taxes on diesel.

    But the US isn’t having a shortage, nor are the US citizens screwed. Instead the refineries are enjoying a time when our plants are superior to foreign nations’. That’s only provides a temporary window of opportunity, which can close when they upgrade their own refineries. And I don’t doubt that they will.

    And one more revelation for you… economists consider the demands for diesel an indicator. When they see the demand for diesel grow… ergo trucks, transport, jet fuels, etc… they equate that to an upward economic trend. (whether temporary or more sustaining) And, of course, as a few have pointed out above, the winter weather/heating oil also plays into the demand.

    ReplyReply
  2. MataHarley says: 52

    You’re welcome, drj. When you’re right, you’re right.

    ReplyReply
  3. oil guy from Alberta says: 53

    Some facts I’ve gleaned from buddies from (Nova Chemicals- a sub of TCP):

    1) The fresh water hot spot in Nebraska is traversed with thousands of miles of pipelines which transport a myriad of chemicals and fossil fuels. This bs has been debunked. In fact, the original Keystone traverses this aquifer. The pipeline map looks like a ball of yarn that a cat played with.

    2) The dirty oil phrase comes from Al Jezeera. I see that the Libturd uses this phrase a lot. He uses toxic sludge, also. Well, you folks have been consuming this toxic sludge for at least 10 years. Sludge does not move in pipelines. 0.4% of Canada’s boreal forest is being strip mined. Or is it 0.04%?? I gotta check this.

    3) You folks can see the strip mines from outer space. So what? We can see the liberal haven of Detroit from outer space also. You can see all sort of liberal hell holes from space.

    4) California crude< Venezuela crude< Oil Sands crude< W Texas Intermediate < Nigerian crude < Brent crude. These grades are dependent on sulphur content and "crackability". The new Brazil is < Bakken mixed with oil sands.

    5) Daryl Hannah is an expert on mermaids and cave women. Robert Redford is an expert on selling high carbon footprint condos in wilderness areas.

    I could debunk this lefty crap all day.

    ReplyReply
  4. Curt says: 54

    @Nan G: It works Nan, just gotta make sure you’re in the html mode of the comment box before you hit the reply button.

    ReplyReply
  5. Ivan says: 55

    @MataHarley:” That sounds like a personal reading problem, Ivan. What I said was that it costs more to refine diesel now than it did in the past… plus the fact that the demand for diesel is up not only in the US, but in Europe, China and Mexico and South America. No where did I compare the price of refining gasoline to diesel per gallon.”

    Then if it doesn’t refute my hypothesis, why bring it up? More misdirection and obfuscation from Mata/Aye.

    When you can’t refute my arguments, sling the bullshi$, Mata. You’re very good at that.

    ReplyReply
  6. MataHarley says: 56

    @oil guy from Alberta: Allow me to add some supporting pictures to your info.

    Below all the commodity pipelines in the US

    The US commodity pipelines, color designated as either interstate or intrastate.

    Below, the Keystone Pipeline proposed map

    It sure ain’t the lone ranger anywhere, and NE had already worked out alternative routes to satisfy many of the disgruntled. Not, of course, the enviros tho.

    ReplyReply
  7. meaghen

    yes, that’s the way it should be.  that is telling me the GOVERNMENT DOESN’T GIVE A HOOT ABOUT THE CITIZENS OF AMERICA, AND IT’S TELLING ME THEY ARE MAKING LOTS AND LOTS OF PROFITS FROM SELLING THE LOCAL OIL PRODUCTS ,AND THEY ARE IN THE RIGHT POSITION TO HIDE ALL THAT WHEALTH UNDERNEATH THEIR SCAMS OF REDISTRIBUTIONS MONEY WHICH COME RIGHT BACK IN THEIR OWN POCKET TROUGH MANY CHANNELS

    CONCEILED TO THE CITIZENS BECAUSE OF THE LABYRINTHS INVOLVED, AND ALL THIS WHILE THE AMERICANS SUFFER THESE ILLICITS MARKETTING SO COMPLICATED FOR ANY JOURNALIST TO BRING IT TO SURFACE,

    UNDER THE LIGHT OF DAY,, AND THE STRUGGLE OF AMERICANS ARE GOING ON ALL THIS TIME,

    WE CAN CALL THEIR PROFITABLE SCAMS THE MAFIA YEARS, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE GONE

    OUT OF POWER HOUSE.AND RENDERED UNABLE TO FURTHER SCREW THE CITIZENS THEY MADE THE OATH TO SERVE, AND PROTECT.

    BYE

    ReplyReply
  8. MataHarley says: 58

    Ivan, the predictable… #21 Why are gas/diesel prices at all-time high levels in the US when US consumer demand keeps falling from their 2008 highs? Doesn’t that seem to go against the law of supply and demand????

    #23 You’re kidding, right? Since gas/diesel demand is DECLINING due to an excess of refined product, why would we want/need MORE refined product since there isn’t a market in the US for it???

    #39 Tell me, if it costs less to “refine” Diesel, why is Diesel consistently more expensive than almost all grades of gasoline in the US?

    #55 Then if it doesn’t refute my hypothesis, why bring it up? More misdirection and obfuscation from Mata/Aye.

    When you can’t refute my arguments, sling the bullshi$, Mata. You’re very good at that.

    Ya know, even a toddler can count on it’s tiny little fingers just how soon you come up with your boring victim mantra… “you can’t refute my arguments, so you sling the BS or insult me personally” crap paraphrased. And that’s why none of us speak to you but on rare occasions, Ivan.

    First of all, you are boringly repetitive, and you never add anything of substance to a debate.

    Lastly, you simply don’t possess reading comprehension, which makes me wonder if you’re attacking the hooch for breakfast.

    For your first two comments above, *you* repeatedly said the diesel demand is declining. You are wrong, and the links are there… if you know how to click on a hotlink. You might even visit the Energy Dept website and they’ll tell you the same.

    In the third comment, you took a train to never never land, commenting about diesel refining costs as less. Well, Mr. Fuzz head… drj never once mentioned that diesel cost less or more to refine than regular gasoline, and we repeatedly corrected you that the prices to refine diesel went up after the 2004 mandate for low-sulfur diesel.

    All of which, of course, refutes your off topic and schizoid arguments that diesel is declining in demand, and that it’s cheaper to manufacture when it’s not. And we all thank you for your Buchanan’esque display of tariff/isolationist ideas of trade that the refineries should not be taking advantage of their edge in refining low sulfur diesel on the world market… which is not hurting the US citizens, but is contributing to jobs, profits and taxes.

    Now, your response will again be predictable. But I’m done toying with the insane and inane. You never are amusing for more than reply, Ivan. It’s like listening to a broken record of “poor me”.

    ReplyReply
  9. bbartlog says: 59

    @Mata: ‘I thought you libertarian purists wanted US corporations to be able to trade with anyone’

    Well, *I* do (with caveats), but you directed this at Ivan, who is no libertarian purist and no fan of free trade it seems. It’s hard to tell what he is since his posts are mostly either A) insults or B) expressions of how he’s foursquare *against* something, but he seems to be some kind of paleoconservative, albeit from some unusual non-Buchanan branch of the same.

    ReplyReply
  10. Ditto says: 60

    You’re all looking so hard that you are overlooking the nose in front of your face. Obama nixed the pipeline for the same reason he has taken the same ideological stance on all energy decisions. He stated it in the very beginning. Part of his far left agenda is for energy prices to purposely skyrocket. It’s the same liberal logic that the left used against smokers. You make it so expensive that the user has no choice but to cut back. Meanwhile he has insured that the public poured money into the pockets of his alternative-energy and environmentalist campaign cronies.

    ReplyReply
  11. Ditto

    hi,  yes  and I was reading a Mitch Daniels  address to the NATION, A WOW MUST READ, ON FOX

    HE put it so well, there is nothing to add, super

    bye

    ReplyReply
  12. Pingback: Buffett and Soros benefit from Obama’s decisions. Us not so much. [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>