Coloradans blame oil companies, market speculation for high gas prices

(All lies. Blame Obama. – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Coloradans blame market speculation and oil companies for high gas prices, and the vast majority say the best way to bring prices down is to crackdown on market manipulation, according to an internal poll released today.

The Checks and Balances Project commissioned Colorado pollster Chris Keating to conduct research that shows that 79 percent of Coloradans favor a crackdown on oil price speculation and market manipulation to reduce gas prices. The survey showed 77 percent of Colorado voters think reducing oil consumption through efficiency would be an effective way to reduce prices.

“Coloradans are tired of paying for their gas twice: once at the pump and again through their taxes,” said Matt Garrington of the Checks and Balances Project. “It’s clear car and truck drivers in this state want solutions to this problem now, including a crackdown on market manipulation, a balanced approach to energy development and an end to taxpayer handouts for oil companies.”

Coloradans strongly favor ending taxpayer subsidies for oil companies. Seventy-two percent of Coloradans say ending oil company subsidies and transferring them to companies that are developing wind and solar power would be an effective strategy for the nation.

“It’s time for oil and gas companies to stand on their own two feet,” said Garrington. “Coloradans understand that we simply can’t afford to pay billions in taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil. It is simply immoral to continue the Big Oil gravy train when Americans have been asked to sacrifice billions in cuts to Medicare.”

To reduce gas prices seven of 10 Coloradans favor diversification of the sources of energy by creating a national renewable electricity standard that requires 20 percent of electricity to come from sources like solar, wind and geothermal power.

The live telephone poll conducted May 24-26, 2011 by Keating Research, Inc. as an internal messaging survey. It was released to the public on the eve of the Americans for Prosperity “Running on Empty” Colorado tour stops that promote increased oil drilling. The Checks and Balances Project criticized the group as a front for Big Oil and noted that billionaire oil refinery tycoons David and Charles Koch fund the organization.

“The Americans for Prosperity tour is running on empty ideas. Instead of investing our energy dollars into drilling deeper and putting Colorado land and water at risk, we need to build cars that can go further on a gallon of gasoline and to tap into the clean energy of the wind and sun – energy sources we have right here in Colorado that never run out,” said Garrington.

Results of the survey were based on 603 interviews with registered Colorado voters statewide. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

###

12 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

    • Libertad says:

      The poll that …… The Checks and Balances Project commissioned Colorado pollster Chris Keating to conduct research that shows that 79 percent of Coloradans favor a crackdown on oil price speculation and market manipulation to reduce gas prices.

      Anyone could commission a poll “to conduct research that shows”.

      It’s not entirely Obamas fault that gas is $3.50-$4.50/gallon, he just happens to be the man on who’s watch this is occurring. Let’s face it, we could drill all we wanted, but there is only so much pipeline capacity, refining capacity and other transport available….these factors together have resulted in high cost energy and further economic deterioration.

      So it’s not Obamas fault, but he is failing to lead and when his administration acts, it’s usually to the detriment of the consumer.

  1. Sir Robin says:

    She said so.

    The Bakken oil field has significantly increased production while Obama has been in office. In Bush’s last month in office, monthly oil production in North Dakota (where most of the Bakken production is taking place) was 6.3 million barrels. The most recent cumulative monthly production was 11.2 million barrels. Shall we credit Obama? Well, I certainly don’t, but neither do I blame him for current gas prices. But if Bachmann wants to cite statistics based on when Obama took office, certainly actual oil production should be an important one.

    And for that matter, not only has North Dakota production almost doubled since Obama has been in office, but oil production for the country as a whole has risen. In Bush’s last month in office, total monthly oil production in the U.S. was 157 million barrels. Today, monthly production is 174 million barrels — the highest level in 8 years. Maybe we should start calling Obama an “oil man.”

    What about Bachmann’s comment on natural gas? Again, let’s look at the data. Over the two terms of the Bush Administration, natural gas production rose from 1.6 trillion cubic feet per month to 1.7 trillion cubic feet per month. In Obama’s, second year in office, monthly production reached 1.8 trillion cubic feet — something never achieved under Bush. In 2011 production has reached an all-time record of over 1.9 trillion cubic feet.

    So what are we to make of this? I think very few people are going to credit President Obama for the increases in oil and gas production. In fact, those production increases are a function of high oil prices and of the development of shale gas technology — not any sort of presidential mandate. Presidents simply don’t control oil prices. Oil prices are set on the global market, and the best a president can do is to push for policies that ensure that demand doesn’t outpace supply. But due to the global nature of the oil market, they are limited in the impact they can make. If Bachmann thinks she is going to increase supplies by flooding the market with shale oil, then she is exceptionally naive. If she is just making hollow campaign promises, then she is another dishonest politician. Neither trait is one I want in a president.

    http://www.theoildrum.com/

  2. 20th Maine says:

    Doesn’t Colorado have some of the lowest fuel prices in the country?

    It’s not suprising that if you ask people of they like ‘price manipulation’ most would respond ‘no.’  But doesn’t mean it’s actually happening.

    The subsidies that aren’t right for oil & gas are even less right for wind & solar companies.  At least there’s a return on the fossil fuels.

    This diary is about as worthwhile as a Payday Loan diary around here.  Ugghh…

    • Gray in Mountains says:

      because our fuel tax is too low. So you can by less expensive gas to drive on roads that seriously need maintenance, bridges that need to be replaced. If your windshield is not already cracked it soon will be if you are driving in the hinterlands. Not much reason to have your wheels aligned, that won’t last either.

      • allyncooper says:

        We should have had higher fuel taxes long ago not only to provide adeguete funding for roads and bridge maintenance, but as a public policy to reduce consumption.

        The CAFE standards were circumvented by exempting certain trucks and SUV’s – higher fuel taxes would have corrected that. I’m not a fan of mandated fuel efficiency standards. The appropriate level of fuel tax will drive the market to fuel efficient vehicles.

        Excess amounts collected could be applied to renewable and energy efficient R & D and mass transit.  

    • GalapagoLarry says:

      The survey used open ended questions, not choices of disparate answers, such as, Why do you think gas prices are so high? A much better treatment of this survey is given over at Colorado Independent.

      In other words, this was not a Republican push poll.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.