Obama's boldest claim yet

[varun]

Actually, I liked Obama to begin with. Initially I thought 'Here is this democrat politician, free from the influence of Neo-cons and the oil-lobbyists, who seriously wants to do some good to the world'... But, listening to his bombastic claims off-late, I have lost hope. He is going to like every other US President; Lots of talk, less of action.

Read his energy plans. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf Tall claims ? Yes. Possible ? Definitely

[varun]

Here's the issue though ... will the author be willing to state this under oath in front of Congress or in a court of law.

That's what repugs said of McClellan and he testified before congress.

If not, how does one believe him?

How are you assuming that he won't ?

[Ram]

Read his energy plans. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf Tall claims ? Yes. Possible ? Definitely

Logistically, it maybe possible. But practically, it is literally impossible to make that happen. America has been using Middle-eastern oil for decades now. They cant just decide to stop doing all of a sudden. There are powerful external forces and lobbies who also control the situation. Some of those oil producers in the middle-east have strong connection with US politicans, both democrat and republican. They will try their every inch to make sure this plan doesnt go through. And dont forget, Saudi Arabia is not only America's staunchest Muslim ally, its also the biggest producer of oil in the world. If America decides to stop importing oil from 'em that will spell doom for the Saudi Arabian oil Industry. And last of all, If America wants to stop importing oil from middle-east, their obvious other choice is Russia. But there are already murmers in the West that Russia's increasing role in Oil production has given it both financial and political muscle in the world stage. In fact, given Russia's recent tiffs with countries like Ukraine on unsettled oil bills and how the Russian gas company Gazprom threatned to stop supplies, risking the prospect of plunging the whole of Ukraine into darkness, European nations want to diversify their oil/gas sources, and want to get more of their supply from the middle-east, so that Russia doesnt hold them to ransom in the future again. And dont forget, there needs to be massive logistical changes/upgrades to make sure this plan is implemented. Oil routes need to changed, ports need to upgraded, shipping lanes need to be modified. It will take billions of dollars of investment for these to happen. You cant just decide to change your supplies in a flick of a switch. Major oil companies would have signed long-term contracts worth billions of dollars with shipping companies. All those contracts now have to be re-negotiated. 10 years is too short a time for these things to happen. Essentially, a combination of influence of oil lobbyists and distrust for Russia as a source of energy will make sure this plan never materializes.

[varun]

Easier said than done. 41% of oil imports come from the Middle East (Saudi + Iraq + Kuwait) and Venezuela put together. The only way to replace this is to drill in the US, a policy to which Obama is opposed ... wait a minute, is he really?

41% of oil imports translates to 23% of oil dependency (see below). US production (i.e. drilling) currently satisfies 33% of it's oil dependency. Going from 33 to 56 is almost like doubling the amount of oil production from the US. You think that is a really feasible and long-term solution ? Never mind the environmental affects of such an undertaking. Crude Oil Imports:

------------------------------------------------------
Country         May-08  Apr-08  YTD 08  May 07  YTD 07
------------------------------------------------------
CANADA 		1,840 	1,952 	1,889 	1,858 	1,876
SAUDI ARABIA 	1,579 	1,453 	1,531 	1,574 	1,389
MEXICO 		1,116 	1,259 	1,207 	1,461 	1,467
VENEZUELA 	1,030 	1,019 	998 	1,232 	1,103
NIGERIA 	851 	1,115 	1,053 	882 	1,048
IRAQ 		583 	679 	670 	341 	456
ANGOLA 		464 	579 	468 	680 	581
ALGERIA 	440 	393 	329 	496 	492
BRAZIL 		318 	201 	209 	152 	165
KUWAIT 		263 	176 	227 	162 	179
COLOMBIA 	245 	149 	184 	104 	101
ECUADOR 	162 	160 	194 	201 	200
RUSSIA 		119 	106 	86 	232 	156
LIBYA 		96 	85 	73 	33 	51
EQ. GUINEA 	93 	40 	58 	0 	52

Total Crude Oil Imports: 10 million barrels/day Total U.S. Crude Oil Production: 5 million barrels/day % Dependency on foreign oil MIDDLE EAST (SA + IRAQ + KUWAIT) ~= 16% VENEZUELA ~= 7% Dependency on Middle-east + venezuela = 23%. References http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

[varun]

America has been using Middle-eastern oil for decades now. They cant just decide to stop doing all of a sudden.

It doesn't need to happen all of a sudden. There will obviously be a gradual reduction in the imports rather than a sudden stop.

There are powerful external forces and lobbies who also control the situation. Some of those oil producers in the middle-east have strong connection with US politicans, both democrat and republican. They will try their every inch to make sure this plan doesnt go through. And dont forget, Saudi Arabia is not only America's staunchest Muslim ally, its also the biggest producer of oil in the world. If America decides to stop importing oil from 'em that will spell doom for the Saudi Arabian oil Industry.

It will definitely hurt them but with China and India rising as they are, I don't think a gradual reduction in US imports will spell such doom and gloom for them.

And last of all, If America wants to stop importing oil from middle-east, their obvious other choice is Russia.

Russia is way down the pecking order right now. The Obama plan doesn't say that it will offset the reduction in oil imports by importing more from Russia or any other country. It talks about an increase in initiatives for green energy to offset this reduction.

[Brainfade]

That's what repugs said of McClellan and he testified before congress. How are you assuming that he won't ?

How did you assume that I assumed that he won't? He hasn't yet been called to testify. I will hold judgment until he does testify, whereas Democrats (see, one can take the high road on the silly use of puns) have already accepted his word. I tend to be skeptic all the way around. If you read this thread carefully, I was the one to bring this up as an admonition of the current administration (with a caveat that said: if true, ....).

[Brainfade]

41% of oil imports translates to 23% of oil dependency (see below). US production (i.e. drilling) currently satisfies 33% of it's oil dependency. Going from 33 to 56 is almost like doubling the amount of oil production from the US. You think that is a really feasible and long-term solution ? Never mind the environmental affects of such an undertaking. Crude Oil Imports:

------------------------------------------------------
Country         May-08  Apr-08  YTD 08  May 07  YTD 07
------------------------------------------------------
CANADA 		1,840 	1,952 	1,889 	1,858 	1,876
SAUDI ARABIA 	1,579 	1,453 	1,531 	1,574 	1,389
MEXICO 		1,116 	1,259 	1,207 	1,461 	1,467
VENEZUELA 	1,030 	1,019 	998 	1,232 	1,103
NIGERIA 	851 	1,115 	1,053 	882 	1,048
IRAQ 		583 	679 	670 	341 	456
ANGOLA 		464 	579 	468 	680 	581
ALGERIA 	440 	393 	329 	496 	492
BRAZIL 		318 	201 	209 	152 	165
KUWAIT 		263 	176 	227 	162 	179
COLOMBIA 	245 	149 	184 	104 	101
ECUADOR 	162 	160 	194 	201 	200
RUSSIA 		119 	106 	86 	232 	156
LIBYA 		96 	85 	73 	33 	51
EQ. GUINEA 	93 	40 	58 	0 	52

Total Crude Oil Imports: 10 million barrels/day Total U.S. Crude Oil Production: 5 million barrels/day % Dependency on foreign oil MIDDLE EAST (SA + IRAQ + KUWAIT) ~= 16% VENEZUELA ~= 7% Dependency on Middle-east + venezuela = 23%. References http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

Good stats. I got my 41% import figure from the same site. So, we're on the same page. My statement about off-shore was not well-articulated. Let me try again: IMO, increased domestic production is the first step (not ONLY) towards decreasing dependence on oil imports from the ME and V'zuela. Conservation alone will not do it. In other words, you cannot talk of decreasing dependence until you first produce more. Conservation comes later. The question I ask is this: What explains Obama's sudden willingness to allow increased off-shore drilling when he's been vehemently against any increase in off-shore drilling until now? The answer is simple: Politics as usual. Which is fine, as long as everyone admits that neither candidate is above it. It is ridiculous for Obama's supporters claim that only their man transcends politics.

[Brainfade]

It doesn't need to happen all of a sudden. There will obviously be a gradual reduction in the imports rather than a sudden stop. It will definitely hurt them but with China and India rising as they are, I don't think a gradual reduction in US imports will spell such doom and gloom for them. Russia is way down the pecking order right now. The Obama plan doesn't say that it will offset the reduction in oil imports by importing more from Russia or any other country. It talks about an increase in initiatives for green energy to offset this reduction.

While his website waxes eloquent about green initiatives, the man is ready to vote for increased off-shore drilling, and in the past has voted for huge subsidies for oil companies. There's a link somewhere in this thread. Moreover, how different is his plan from this one? http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm It's the same stuff that we all like to hear.

[Kriterion]

if the US pulls out of middle east oil, it helps india and china...a huge chunk of deman is gone and so prices must fall.

[THX_1138]

he says this because the canadians are coming close to profitably extracting oil from oil tars, of which they have reserves larger than those under entire middle east.

[kumble_rocks]

Good stats. I got my 41% import figure from the same site. So, we're on the same page. My statement about off-shore was not well-articulated. Let me try again: IMO, increased domestic production is the first step (not ONLY) towards decreasing dependence on oil imports from the ME and V'zuela. Conservation alone will not do it. In other words, you cannot talk of decreasing dependence until you first produce more. Conservation comes later. The question I ask is this: What explains Obama's sudden willingness to allow increased off-shore drilling when he's been vehemently against any increase in off-shore drilling until now? The answer is simple: Politics as usual. Which is fine, as long as everyone admits that neither candidate is above it. It is ridiculous for Obama's supporters claim that only their man transcends politics.

Totally agree . See , I am an Independent , I can acknowledge this fact . He was against off shore drilling just few weeks ago and ridiculed McCain for flip flopping on this topic . Also, remember how he was criticizing Hillary regarding the gas tax credits during the primary .. Now , he wants to give one ! This guy is nothing but a politician .Only question is - Is he gonna be better than McCain , I think so ... atleast for now.

[THX_1138]

^ agreed ' date=' Obama flip flops on the off shore drilling is not even funny. I still find it strange that both Candidates are against ANWAR drilling ! Although I am an environmentalist , prudence tells me that with the rising gas prices , it would make sense to drill there .[/quote'] no it wont. the oil reserves there are less than the annual consumption of america. oil flow would not begin till another 4 years and thus, drilling in ANWAR will achieve little. the point here is that most oil giants have been granted permits to drill in vast regions, permits they have not utilized since they either have not properly well logged in those regions for possible oil deposits or have jumped on the bandwagon to secure future drilling rights. oil prices are currently high due to a deregulation in trading practices that permits speculators to trade on commodities that they will not use. thus, in a period of decline housing prices and economic slow down, investors are hedging their investments by bidding on oil futures (futures that are purchasing with the sole objective of profits at maturity). thus, there is an unprecedented level of speculation on the prince of oil which is driving its cost higher. if the deregulation is reversed, and the regulations returned to the pre 2001 period, then speculation on the price of oil will be limited, and will predominantly be done only by investors who represent interests who will eventually use the inherent commodity. let me repeat... there is no shortage of oil, or oil supply. it is merely speculation on the market that is driving up the costs.