Thanks Cranky, I knew it was Bush's fault! From Cranky's link:

How Bush Pushed Gasoline Prices Sky High
By Katherine Yurica

On March 5, 2003, Senator Carl Levin, the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, released a report prepared by the minority staff that reveals why gasoline prices soared under the Bush administration. It has to do with the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) and some odd decisions by the Department of Energy (DOE) after consulting with White House officials.

According to the Senate Report, the Bush administration added forty million barrels of oil to the nation's reserves in 2002. That wouldn't be a problem in and of it self. But the purchases represented an extreme change in energy policy; they were made in a strong market, with a tight supply of oil, which increased demand, which in turn pushed up the gasoline prices to their highest levels in twelve years.

The Senate report said in a one-month period in mid 2002 the Bush administration purchases caused crude oil prices to soar, raising the cost of heating oil by 13%, jet fuel by 10% and diesel fuel by 8%. The bottom line was the Bush policy change cost citizens between $500 million and $1 billion.

When crude oil jumps from $20 a barrel to $30, the Senate report says, the costs to U.S. taxpayers are an additional $1 million per day. "Over three months, the additional cost of filling the SPR approached $100 million," which will ultimately be borne by U.S. taxpayers.

Why did Bush do it? For one thing, he was advised to do it. It has to do with the secret National Energy Policy advisory group headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney has steadfastly refused to release the names of those who advised the administration on energy matters. However, according to an article published in the Sunday Herald in Scotland (October 6, 2002), by Neil Mackay, it was former Secretary of State, James Baker who personally carried an advisory report to Cheney in April of 2001. Assembled at the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy of Rice University, the task force consisted of oil and energy executives. The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century is referred to simply as the "Baker Report" or "report" below.

The report advised the new president, "At a minimum the government should aim to fill all of the nearly 700 million barrels of [reserve] capacity it currently has available." Later, the National Energy Policy report recommended that the President wait until exchanged SPR barrels were returned and then he should determine whether offshore Gulf of Mexico royalty oil deposits to the SPR should be resumed. So after September 11, 2001, George W. Bush vowed to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) to capacity.

The Baker report was not irresponsible, it also warned the president, "One problem with trying to refill the reserve at this time when markets are strong is that any purchases made by the U.S. government would add to the current tight supply." In other words, prices would go up!

At one point, the Baker report recommended that purchases of reserve additions be accomplished through direct "budgetary allocations."

Trying to teach a new president the facts on SPR oil rights and wrongs must have been a heady proposition. There were many object lessons in which to point. The Baker report singled President Bill Clinton's use of his "discretionary authority to lease oil to the market on a time-swap or exchange basis" as an example of a no-no. First, according to the Baker experts, Clinton's exchanges reduced the size of the SPR at a time when more oil might have been needed. Next, the report chided, a president must not earn "far less in interest" than he could have, by using better methods. Perhaps Clinton's biggest faux pas according to the Baker experts is that he used the drain-down of the reserves "to address winter heating-oil inventory concerns," which indeed reduced heating oil from $37 to $31 per barrel. That was a big no-no. The Baker report advises a president must not use the SPR as "a market buffer stock to damp prices and price volatility." (Translation: A president must not help the poor to heat their homes at a reasonable price at the expense of oil company profit taking.)

Hence in the National Energy Policy report, the NEPD Group "recommends that the President reaffirm that the SPR is designed for addressing an imminent or actual disruption in oil supplies, and not for managing prices." (At page 8-17.)

That recommendation signaled a significant policy change: it denied the president the right to withdraw oil at times when prices are unusually high due to manipulation of the market.

What were the superior choices left for the President? The report advises taking advantage of "the market's forward price structure...if the market structure were backwardated, with future prices lower than current prices, the government would be able to replenish the reserve with more oil than it had leased on an auction basis. If the market structure were in contango, with future prices higher than prompt prices, the government could lease its cheaper spare storage capacity to industry, thereby also providing revenue to build government-owned reserves at a later time."

But the method the Bush administration chose was to fill the SPR without regard to crude oil prices at all but simply at a constant rate of speed. The result was extremely high prices for gasoline and increased charges to be born by the taxpayers. The Bush administration denies this. But the method they chose did not add any additional reserve oil to the nation's strategic supply. So why do it? Oil companies were happy, after all oilmen contributed $26.7 million to Bush's campaign in 2000 and another $18 million for the 2002 election.

Another possible reason is this: The only way to get oil companies willing to make investments in drilling new sources of oil is to keep oil prices high. The nice thing about this methodology is that criticism can be so easily deflected as a White House spokesman did in a recent interview, by claiming the "purchases were for national security reasons."

Whatever the motivation, this much is clear: American citizens had to pay and are still paying a hefty price for gasoline and home heating oil. In the end, regardless of the lip service Mr. Bush may offer to the American people on how he is benefiting all citizens, the facts show he benefits those corporations who made large contributions to his campaigns.








-------------------------
I was right.

$20 a barrel less than ten years ago.....

-------------------------
I was right.

I know the prez. usually doesn't have everything to do with gas prices, just tried to get to Cole, that's all.

maybe he was referring to mr/ms sandi of the sour grapes tribe. it's not always all about you, okra.

-------------------------
Water dissolving...and water removing
There is water at the bottom of the ocean

Unbiased?

Levin is a critic of the New Hampshire presidential primary's first-in-the-nation status, saying a more diverse state (such as his own Michigan) should hold its contest first.

In April 2006, Levin was selected by Time as one of "America's 10 Best Senators."^[21]

The American Civil Liberties Union has given Levin an 84% lifetime rating on civil liberties issues.ACLU Congressional Scorecard

A strong gun control advocate, Levin has been graded F by Gun Owners of America. He was one of the 16 senators who voted against the Vitter Amendment.

He is almost always seen wearing his glasses at the end of his nose, which has drawn much humorous attention. In response, he lightheartedly joked that the late Senator Strom Thurmond (while he was in office) would have never worn his glasses because they "make him look old."^[22] Daily Show host Jon Stewart refers to him both as the "kindly old shoemaker", and "Grandpa Munster".

An avid supporter of the non-profit civil rights organization Focus: HOPE, Levin was instrumental in the procurement of equipment and funding for their Machinist Training Institute (MTI).

-------------------------
Romans 8;18-32 John 3;16-18

Generally not. That doesn't hold true when the president is actively suppressing our supply and doing ignorant things like stopping oil pipelines. That does affect the cost of gas.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

It's all about politics, boys, it's all about politics.

Gas Prices Up, Time for More US Oil?

I think we need to beat the war drums with Iran just a bit louder- Maybe it's time to buy stock in oil futures - or should it be - alternative renewable fuels?

Do we expect Russia & China will sit idly by while we have our pawn causes havoc in the region - or is it our boss - AIPAC keeps getting me confused..

And what of the 'Arab Spring'?  

Do we still own the Egyptian military? or do the Egyptians?

Is it time to buy stock in Lockheed Martin 'et al' -

Will taxes to go up on the rich? Big time?

Who's financing this round is going to be the first question?

Anyone think the gop is going to control anything next round? Their bowels?

Practically  the same level of corrouption and back scratching regardless..

Fun fun fun!

-------------------------
There are NO white people at all in the Bible... take all the time you need with that...
Please stop feeding the trolls - they will go away if you do...

Saudi Arabia cuts oil production

Hence the statement "the prez. usually doesn't have everything to do with gas prices".
In the case of obama, he has alot to do with it.

Did the Republican leadership in Kansas support the pipeline and it's current path?

Did Mr Obama con the Israelis into beating the war drums against Iran?

I'm beginning to believe you guys are clueless on purpose.



-------------------------
I was right.

Oil production is up under the Obama administration, tahoe fails again.



-------------------------
I was right.

Oil production.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...1/gIQAWv8bsJ_blog.html

-------------------------
I was right.

Lies and half-truths are exploding again, looks like the Republicans are getting worried.

-------------------------
I was right.

I guess you could view that as successfully debunking the 'drill here, drill now crowd", but it still does not explain your position, Cole. No one with an eight grade education honestly believes that domestic production increases can decrease the price of oil on the world market. We simply don't have enough fossil fuel energy to cover our needs in the short term or long terms, and the world knows this. The President of the US has very little to do with this directly.

You're a guy that drives 1000 miles per week, and you think gas ought be more expensive? I will never understand this position. I think domestically produced oil should be equally distributed among citizens, whether in dollars or per capita amount of energy. Since gasoline is a necessity of life for most Americans, lowering the price of gasoline would put money back into American's pockets, thereby boosting the economy. Everyone wins, except people who own oil wells, they win slightly less.

"Oil drilling is up nearly 60 percent in the past year alone. "

@ Cole: You may want to think about the difference between "oil drilling" and "oil recovery." Simply boring a hole in the ground in search of oil doesn't equate to finding oil, sending it to the refineries, and processing it into fuels. 

Every one on here probably drives a car that uses gasoline as a fuel, to get to & from work, surf, grocery etc etc - but that does not mean that we should be complacent about it and not look for alternatives.

Brazil got the message in the 70's and now have totally renewable methanol as a very significant (?50%?) of their automobile fuel supply - and although they have offshore reerves that can leave that for their grandchildren etc to 'use'..

For all the GOP's talk about the legacy they want to leave their children/grandchildren - why the F do they want to use up the non- renewable carbon based oil (?) and natural gas that we have -

Yes, we may have aa bit of natural gas, but it certainly is not an 'endless supply' - and polluting the environment  - especially future water supplies - and not charging those who are doing it NOW for the future 'fixes' - is nothing but immorally bankrupt - and wreaks of Pac's etc - pure cronyism.. What we have come to expect from the Energy companies..

I have noticed that everyone I know who does NOT have kids (hence no grandkids etc) - and I am sure there are many exceptions to the rule - are GOP members? Anyone else see that co-relation, or is my observations unique?

-------------------------
There are NO white people at all in the Bible... take all the time you need with that...
Please stop feeding the trolls - they will go away if you do...

Iran's move to cut oil shipments to Britain, France expected to have little effect on supplies

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/20/oil-prices-jump-to-month-high-after-iran-cuts-exports/#ixzz1mwUuwDGY

I use no Gas in my truck!

-------------------------
Romans 8;18-32 John 3;16-18

The title of the article I posted is:

Yes, oil production is booming under Obama. No, it hasn't lowered gas prices.

Oil production is up, that's a fact.





-------------------------
I was right.