President Obama’s Very Dishonest Campaign Ad Regarding Energy

Guest post by David Middleton

19 January 2012

Obama clean energy ad airing in Va.

A new ad from President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign that touts his energy and ethics record began airing in Virginia this week even as Republican blasted him over a decision to reject a permit for a proposed oil pipeline from Canada.

The 30-second spot (see below) makes a case that Obama’s policies have promoted clean energy jobs and reduced the nation’s dependence on foreign oil while enduring unfounded attacks funded by wealthy energy industry officials.

[...]

LINK

This campaign ad is nothing but a collection of falsehoods.

Lie #1

Falsehood #1: “Secretive oil billionaires attacking President Obama”… The Koch brothers (and the oil & gas industry in general) have been anything but secretive in their attacks on President Obama.

Lie #2

Falsehood #2: The ad implies that President Obama has created 2.7 million “clean energy industry” jobs.

The 2.7 million figure is purportedly cited from a Brookings report. The report said that there currently are 2.7 million jobs in America that “produce goods and services with an environmental benefit.”

The clean economy, which employs some 2.7 million workers, encompasses a signifi cant number of jobs in establishments spread across a diverse group of industries. (Page 4)

The report says that the “clean economy establishments added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010.” So… Obama didn’t even “create” half a million “clean energy jobs.” He didn’t even create half a million clean economy jobs. The Brookings report refers to “clean economy” not “clean energy” jobs. The vast majority of the “clean economy” jobs are not in energy… And almost all of those jobs were created before Obama took office.

More than 82% of the “clean economy” jobs listed in the report have nothing to do with energy production…

Waste Management & Treatment … 386,116 … 14%
Public Mass Transit … 350,547 … 13%
Conservation … 314,983 … 12%
Energy Saving Building Materials … 161,896 … 6%
Regulation & Compliance … 141,890 … 5%
Professional Environmental Services … 141,046 … 5%
Organic Food & Farming … 129,956 … 5%
Recycling & Reuse … 129,252 … 5%
Green Consumer Products … 77,264 … 3%
Green Building Materials … 76,577 … 3%
HVAC … 73,600 … 3%
Sustainable Forestry Products … 61,054 … 2%
Recycled Content Products … 59,712 … 2%
Green Architecture … 56,190 … 2%
Air & Water Purification … 24,930 … 1%
Green Chemical Products … 22,622 … 1%
Total … 2,207,635 … 82%

Lie #3

Falsehood #3: The ad implies that President Obama somehow played a role in the increase in US domestic oil production over the last few years… That is beyond ridiculous! The plays and prospects from which the production growth was derived were worked up, leased, drilled and plumbed-up for production over the last decade or more. The effects of Obama’s disastrous anti-drilling policies won’t show up in production data for quite some time.

Obama’s anti-drilling policies began in 2009 and were ramped up in 2010. This is either the most amazingly arrogant lie to ever come out of this President’s mouth or an example of his incredible ignorance of the oil & gas industry and energy in general.

The increase in US oil production has come from two main sources:

1) Shale plays like the Bakken.

The Bakken shale play has mostly been developed on private property. Very little of the shale plays have been developed on Federal lands – And the Obama administration has actively sought to further restrict development on Federal lands. Apart from the EPA, regulation and obstruction of these sorts of plays are mostly in the hands of State gov’ts.

2) Deepwater Gulf of Mexico discoveries.

The deepwater discoveries that have been brought on line over the last three years were discovered long before Obama took office… Many were discovered while Clinton was still in office. Construction and installation of the production facilities began long before Obama took office. On top of that, much of the increase in production was the result of the ongoing recovery from hurricanes Rita (2005), Katrina (2005) and Ike (2008).

Over the last two years, the Obama administration has almost paralyzed operations in the Gulf of Mexico with an unlawful permitorium and has aggressively tried to hamper the shale plays with fraudulent EPA attacks on fracking and unlawful efforts to make BLM lands unavailable

This is all anyone ever needs to know about President Obama’s views on energy…

About these ads

162 thoughts on “President Obama’s Very Dishonest Campaign Ad Regarding Energy

  1. “Regulation and Compliance” is green? Well, it’s pure waste and systemic friction aimed at slowing economic activity, so I guess it fits.

  2. There was a report on the BBC news this morning, from an oil industry expert, who stated that there is plenty of oil/gas available. his words-‘the world is awash with petroleum’.

    I was surprised that the BBC covered this but Greenpeace were allowed to comment- ‘We are staggered that the energy industry should make these claims when they know that the use of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic climate blah blah blah’. I threw the radio onto the floor at that stage.

    Mr Middleton, please continue with your worthwhile work. Thank you.

  3. Why is WUWT now covering US politics? Are you sure you want to keep the “best science blog” award?

  4. Dear America, you have enough carbon based fuel in the ground to see your country into the 23rd century.

    Stop the b@llshit of this crazy CAGW cra# and let your minds run free. It is the original thought that freedom brings that creates new invention. Government subsidies are anti invention.

    The world needs the Yanks to be free to think, for they with some input from a few other countries that are also some what subdued at the moment, invent almost every thing.

  5. steveta_uk says:
    January 24, 2012 at 2:09 am
    “Why is WUWT now covering US politics? Are you sure you want to keep the “best science blog” award?”

    It hurts, doesn’t it?

  6. wayne Job,

    You have hit the nail on the head. It is the West’s fear, not just America, of peak oil.
    It has been a concerted effort by many administrations, to protect from the threat, of when the East becomes a economic power bloc, wealth of oil.

    You can imagine the fear they harbor on your behalf. The East with money & religion, a deadly mix.

    To allay that fear, they gave it to you.

  7. This site is veering offtrack, IMHO. Please stick to science and leave the political bashing to others.

  8. “steveta_uk says:
    January 24, 2012 at 2:09 am
    Why is WUWT now covering US politics? Are you sure you want to keep the “best science blog” award?”

    The science is in, there is global warming, by man. Anthony’s just mopping up.

  9. steveta_uk says:

    January 24, 2012 at 2:09 am

    Why is WUWT now covering US politics? Are you sure you want to keep the “best science blog” award?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Even from our side of the pond, you should have realised by now that Cagw is allabout politics and always has been.

  10. Your President is telling ‘porky pies’.

    USA was my hero for its “CanDo” spirit. Sadly President B.O. has left a nasty smell in his wake. Only Al Gore could have been a worse President.

    Can’t believe you have all those resources and a President that wants to keep them buried – for whom may I ask?

  11. John Marshall,

    You shouldn’t have been surprised that the BBC allowed the oil guy on. They can then point to the balance in their reporting. Only it’s not. It’s set up for the Greenpeace guy to knock down (presumably with the last say?).

  12. Just how many of those “Green” jobs are actually reall jobs, & not just little corporals running around & poking their nosess into everyones’ lives? I dare say Obama will join that other great Lawyer Socialist Tony Blair being poked fun at…………Hi I’m Barack Obama, I never tell lies…..whoops there’s another one! :-)

  13. The world can produce all the oil and gas it needs from coal using current technology. Coal reserves at the current oil price will last at least 500 years at current consumption.

    With new technology, we have enough coal for perhaps 2,000 years.

    Here in Western Australia, we have coal fields bigger than all the coalfields of Europe put together, which have never produced a ton of coal because ample world supplies keep the price too low.

  14. Why is WUWT now covering US politics? Are you sure you want to keep the “best science blog” award?

    If AGW wasn’t TOTALLY political, I might agree with you.

  15. Mostly same-old same-old.
    Every socialist since Goebbels stated the main propaganda theorem of socialist tyrants: tell a lie enough times and it becomes true. The sophistication made by the Left, and others, are they make sure there is at least something that’s true or close to true so they won’t be accused of an outright lie. And if they can’t find the something, then they use some comment made somewhere on the internet as a “some say” source. They’ve even progressed to simply posting lies then citing themselves. Sound familiar?

  16. markus says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    January 24, 2012 at 3:00 am

    “steveta_uk says:
    January 24, 2012 at 2:09 am
    Why is WUWT now covering US politics? Are you sure you want to keep the “best science blog” award?”

    The science is in, there is no global warming, by man. Anthony’s just mopping up.

    Sorry about errors, sometimes a problem for me.

  17. State of the union tonight will be It’s not my fault it’s the republicans they wouldn’t let me do what I wanted.

  18. “This campaign ad is nothing but a collection of falsehoods.”

    I wouldn’t expect anything else from the worst mistake this country ever made. :(

  19. steveta_uk, I’m not sure if your objection is the political aspect of the story, or the US aspect. If the former, there are ‘science’ and ‘climate’ claims being made by President Obama, and others in the political arena. If the latter, like it or not, America is the big boy on the field. Our actions affect everyone else in the world. In either case, the claims being made are in fact relevant to people in the US, and the world at large. Also, Anthony’s blog, Anthony’s rules. If enough people have a problem with the stories, readership will decline, and WUWT will be number one no longer.

  20. I also couldn’t help but notice that, of the “jobs created,” you have, “Regulation & Compliance … 141,890 … 5%.”

    What does this represent. I hate to say this, but I tend to see “regulation and compliance” in the following way:

    You have a highway. Traffic is flowing along nicely. Then you erect 141,890 toll booths. Traffic is “regulated” and forsed to “comply,” and pretty much grinds to a halt. Not only do these jobs get in the way of productive people, but they waste the potential of 141,890 people, who could be doing something useful and productive, but instead are stuck in brain-numbing toll booths.

  21. America’s dependency on foreign oil is down because Obama and the democrats have destroyed the economy. Recession equals less demand.

  22. Agh, stop this partisan nonsense. Obama is simply continuing Bush policies seamlessly, but he’s actually allowing MORE oil production than Bush allowed.

    Obama’s ads are designed to satisfy his D base, just as Bush’s ads were designed to satisfy his R base. Under the surface of the ads and speeches, it’s the same administration with the same agenda.

  23. “This is either the most amazingly arrogant lie to ever come out of this President’s mouth. . . . ”

    I don’t think you’re doing justice to Obama’s skill as a prevaricator. He can tell ten howlers at least as bad before breakfast.

  24. From “Forecast The Facts”…immediate release…Biggest Obama Lies evah! Tonight in Robbinghood’s State Of The Union Address! Disney Land fears being seen as “harsh reality”….

  25. In one respect, Obama has lessened our dependence on foreign oil. By keeping the country in a prolonged recession, he has assured that demand would stay low. Demand low – less to import. Also, ensuring the price stayed high he has made sure that existing wells could be pumped for more oil that was not cost effective to do so when the price was $70/barrell.

    The rest is a lie. But too many swallow it.

  26. steveta_uk says:
    January 24, 2012 at 2:09 am
    Why is WUWT now covering US politics? Are you sure you want to keep the “best science blog” award?

    When science is corrupted to the purpose of advancing politics, it is the responsibility of science advocates to address the corruption. The objective is to elevate science. The actions of politicians stand on their own.

  27. ~100 million people did not vote for Obama….
    ….he’s toast

    Unless someone thinks there were 100 million disenfranchised liberals, kids, and blacks that sat it out………….

  28. Here we go into full blown election season, don’t trust this site or any advert. They are all lying. Politifact might be OK, but in general do your own research and use non-afiliated and unbiased sites.

  29. steveta_uk.

    I know exactly where you are coming from here. Junk Science used to be a science blog until it was hijacked by rampant republicanism, during the previous US presidential elections, if I recall. Now it is just partisan rubbish. This is where the slippery slope of criticising political, not scientific, opponents leads.

    I agree it’s Anthony’s blog and he runs it as he sees fit. But a word of advice – keep domestic politics out of it or lose your global audience.

  30. steveta_uk says:
    January 24, 2012 at 2:09 am

    “Why is WUWT now covering US politics? Are you sure you want to keep the “best science blog” award?”

    Unfortunately, climate science and politics are now, more than ever, intertwined – from climate elites getting government huge sums of “stimulus” money for their pet projects and new computers, to Jim Hansen (government employee) protesting the Keystone pipeline project.

    The ONLY way we in the U.S. will once and for all gain our energy independence (i.e. be able to search for and produce our own oil and natural gas) and bring a halt to the insanity of the CAGW climate elites is to make a change this November.

    PLEASE – U.S. readers – keep this in mind when you vote this November. And also remember to ask your local and state representatives where they stand on issues relate to energy independence and climate change.

  31. These are also running in North Carolina too. I do what I do for every political ad, not just the ones from President Obama. I change the channel or put the TV on mute. He is doing what politicians do, that is they will do whatever is needed to get power or stay in power. Have you seen the attacks the republicans are making against each other? But as soon as one wins the bid for presidency, they will be best friends.

  32. Unprecedented …allright
    never before have so many hopeful folks, been so disappointed.
    and yeah depressions tend to cut fuel food and everthing else.
    for the working folks, the well off seem to do ok..as ever.
    we wont be seeing Al or sotero riding a bike to work will we?
    we may?? if all goes well see the BOTH outta work themselves:-)

  33. The old time fairs and the carnival midway – main street. Cotton candy, corn dogs and plenty of Carn’ie barking to lure dime tossing toward a glass plate. A few, very few, win big but most just pay the ‘overhead expense’.

    Politics has in past driven poor or facade constricting science. Some science research repeating itself has opportunity to pay overhead costs. There are honest people, there is no sustainable honest politics that would perpetuate and create a norm.

  34. As a non-USA , EU citizen, I believe that whatever happens in the US effects so much the rest of the world that we should have the right to vote in US presidential elections. And if I were t ohave that right to vote I know whom not to vote to.
    As they say, if the US sneezes, the world catches a cold. Now that Obama has made the US to catch a cold, the world has now caught pneumonia.

    I have many relatives in the US and they cannot see the day when the (non-) US president goes.

  35. I find it interesting to hear bits and pieces of politics in other nations. Without WUWT, I wouldn’t have any idea who Julia Gillard was. Because of WUWT, I heard about Canada puliling out of Kyoto long before I saw a single story reported on the topic here in the US. The bits of national politics are useful because we can compare notes on how different governments lie to their people, and how they twist science to support their policies.

  36. Obama got away last time with all the lies because the MSM wouldn’t dare contradict him on fear of being called racists.

    That meme won’t hold this time. The Obamassiah Magic Shield is worn to thin.

  37. Alex the skeptic says:
    January 24, 2012 at 6:00 am

    The disease is socialism. Europe didn’t catch that from the US.

  38. cedarhill says:

    January 24, 2012 at 3:51 am

    Mostly same-old same-old.
    Every socialist since Goebbels stated the main propaganda theorem of socialist tyrants: tell a lie enough times and it becomes true. The sophistication made by the Left, and others, are they make sure there is at least something that’s true or close to true so they won’t be accused of an outright lie. And if they can’t find the something, then they use some comment made somewhere on the internet as a “some say” source. They’ve even progressed to simply posting lies then citing themselves. Sound familiar?

    Confidence tricksters credo, never tell a complete lie & never tell the whole truth. That way they leave enough loose ends lying around that by the time you’ve worked out what’s true & what’s not, you’ve tied tied yourself in nots! :-)

  39. Have we crossed into ‘Goebbels’* territory yet?

    ” … the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.

    * Paul Joseph Goebbels, German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda

    src

  40. This President is the worst mistake I’VE ever made! And will not make again, no matter who is running under the Democratic ticket. Never again. The few good Democrats that are out there will never see my vote again.

  41. polistra says on January 24, 2012 at 4:57 am

    … Obama is simply continuing Bush policies seamlessly, but he’s actually allowing MORE oil production than Bush allowed.

    Just like the cancellation (the possible terminal delay) of pipeline/petroleum projects like the Keystone XL pipeline.

    Oh wait …

    Just like the fewest oil lease auctions ever on govt land.

    Oh wait …

    (I’m with you on most topics, polistra, but you’re talking out-of-school on this one)

    .

  42. To those who object to the political aspect of this post… My deepest apologies. The last thing I want to do is to degrade the best science blog in the known universe.

    However, I posted this because energy and energy policy has been a frequent topic on WUWT. The blatant falsehoods in this campaign ad screamed for a rebuttal; so I wrote one. I thought it would be of interest to WUWT readers.

    I would not be offended in the least if Anthony deleted this post, if he thought that it was in the best interest of WUWT.

  43. I note that there wasn’t nearly as much complaining when UK and Australian politics were covered here. Fair and balanced means just that. Get a grip folks.

    REPLY:
    Thanks, Nor was there much complaining when I went dark last week to protest SOPA/PIPA, a political issue also. For a dose of pure science, see Robert Brown’s new top post Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates

    – Anthony

  44. Brad says:
    January 24, 2012 at 5:42 am
    Here we go into full blown election season, don’t trust this site or any advert. They are all lying. Politifact might be OK, but in general do your own research and use non-afiliated and unbiased sites.

    Make me wonder what sites Brad usually goes to? Generally if a site’s feeding me a line of crap, I don’t go back. I’ve been visiting Anthony for seven years. He hasn’t steered me wrong.
    It’s interesting that Brad doesn’t bother to clear up the issue, rebut with facts or figures, point out what’s right or wrong.
    He just gets his knickers in a twist because his boy is getting bruised.

    Thanks for the warning, Brad. I’ll give it the attention it deserves.

    /note to self:
    Stay clear of Politifact.

  45. Environmental science is tied to politics and not in a good way. To ignore the politics is to have no scientific response to the fraud being exerted by the left to strip the US of efficient energy production and use.

  46. Pamela Gray says:
    January 24, 2012 at 6:25 am
    This President is the worst mistake I’VE ever made!

    Ah, ha – so it’s your fault!

    Seriously, don’t beat yourself up so much Pamala – Obama made a lot of great sounding promises that he not only hasn’t kept but doubtfully even intended to. Anything to get elected – going from “change you could believe in” to not only “more of the same”, but sometimes even worse “more of the same”.

    A lot of folks were deceived. At least you recognize that you were, and that is worth something, I’d say.

  47. RE: the nature of this post on this site. I appreciate the factual counterpoints, and especially the inarguable proof of Falsehood #2. Comments are more in danger of wandering off the road with partisan politics, though. But demonstrably (a key aspect) false political claims of green energy success in any part of the world have never been off topic here so far as I can see.

  48. David Middleton says:
    January 24, 2012 at 6:29 am
    To those who object to the political aspect of this post… My deepest apologies. The last thing I want to do is to degrade the best science blog in the known universe.

    However, I posted this because energy and energy policy has been a frequent topic on WUWT. The blatant falsehoods in this campaign ad screamed for a rebuttal; so I wrote one. I thought it would be of interest to WUWT readers.

    I doubt if we would be doing anything but the usual “talking about the weather” if it weren’t for the political and economic aspects of “climate change”. You’ve just shown one more facet of the results of distortions of the science surrounding the topic.

    Why do any of us care what some self-proclaimed “climate scientist” says about an ever changing climate system? We care because of the political and economic ramifications that result from said self-proclaimed “climate scientist’s” proclamation. The interest on climate would be minimal on this site otherwise.

  49. Since we had a net loss of jobs since Obama took over, it’s arguable that his policies have created any jobs.

    ~More Soylent Green!

  50. An excellent article, Mr Middleton, and I for one hope to seem more like this one. Such as some more numbers on the origins and amounts of money going towards the environmental industry….? Jess thinkin’.

    Anyway, the “a-political” complainers either fail to understand, or perhaps they understand too well, that this issue has always been primarily about politics, not the science. We can trace its origins and its success as a series of ideological, financial and political goals and acts, with large interests including corporations, institutions, governmets and the UN playing prominent roles. Science…and quite a bit of pseudoscience…serves as a secondary gimmick to provide the glitter and the authority towards achieving what are undeniably political goals. No matter how well the AGW “science” may be challenged here and elsewhere, and how valid or self-evident the facts and the truths may be, they’ll make very little difference if the political reality is not addressed head-on. It’s deficit that needs correcting.

  51. miket says:
    January 24, 2012 at 3:40 am

    Actually (if it was the BBC R4 Today program I heard) the last word went to Nigel Lawson of The Global Warming Policy Foundation – but not until the Greenloon had made his riduclous point several times.

  52. Er, I meant ridiculous!

    We need an edit facility, Anthony.

    REPLY:
    For the ten gazillionth time, I cannot put a comment edit function into wordpress.com hosted blogs. I’ve asked, pleaded and begged, and they simply refuse to allow this plug in saying it is a security risk to do so. The only way I can do it is to move to a private hosted server, but then I have to do server management, backups, load balancing, and all of the other stuff that plagued Climate Audit for years until we moved that blog to wordpress.com hosting also.

    What we need are more careful commenters that don’t expect moderators to clean up their spelling errors and formatting messes. Just this morning I’ve cleaned up several requests like yours, and I’m not going to do any more. – Anthony

  53. Unprecedented ethics? True – the most corrupt regime in this countries history. Cut domestic oil demand by 50% True – at $3.50+ a gallon, who can afford to drive these days.

    I’m counting the days.

  54. Hilariously bad.

    His record on ethics is unprecedented? His own supporters in the white house press corps HATE his administration because of their unprecedented restrictions on freedom of the press. What about all his promises to roll back executive powers which he has done nothing on?

    I’ll say his record is unprecedented. He turned into Isildur, son of Elendil as soon as the ring of power was handed to him.

  55. When science has been hijacked for political purposes, it is in the best interest of everyone to stop the hijacking. This means exposing the lies of the so called “scientists” and the politicians! Therefore it is perfectly acceptable, and actually a public responsibility, for any website or blog having the necessary expertise to challenge and refute the false claims of those so called “scientists” and politicians to do so.

  56. Just re-read my earlier post, and it seems rather stronger than I intended.

    There is, of course, a strong political element to AGW, and lying politicians do need to be brought to book (although as many have said it is actually quite difficult to find a politician anywhere on the planet who doesn’t lie through their teeth).

    My concern was simply that partisan mud slinging is best avoided. I don’t think David’s post crosses that line, highlighting as it does the obvious shortcomings in the truth department in this particular aspect of this particular campaign.

    Anyway dear colonialists, we can only wish you good luck in November. Right now it seems to me that the extra box on the ballot paper that I would like to see all over the world should be made available; the one that says ‘None of the above’.

    I’ll leave you with this thought from the late Douglas Adams: “Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

  57. I think world events will soon simplify politics, as the world becomes increasingly reactive.

    On Monday, IMF chief Christine Lagarde warned the global economy could fall into an economic spiral reminiscent of the 1930s unless action was taken on the eurozone crisis.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16699807

    We have been running fast to stay in front of a ravenous bear. Running from a bear is most often wrong. Sooner or later the bear must be confronted. GK

  58. There is political science! The subject is undoubtedly one of, if not the most puzzling thing in our lives the world over. There is nothing to apologize about. This is one most important things people need to learn more about from a good source. I’m confident that the intelligent minds here do a better job of working out the truth than most purely political media outlets.

  59. tomjtx
    January 24, 2012 at 2:59 am

    This site is veering offtrack, IMHO. Please stick to science and leave the political bashing to others.
    ###

    Says the Marxist.

  60. Great post “evil” David Middleton. Who would have thought the process of exploration to discovery and finally to production in the oil industry could be squeezed into 2 short “Obama” years. Guess he deserves a second term just for slowing down time.

  61. David Middleton says:
    January 24, 2012 at 6:29 am
    To those who object to the political aspect of this post… My deepest apologies. The last thing I want to do is to degrade the best science blog in the known universe.
    =======================================================================
    Mr Middleton, No one was offended that didn’t choose to be offended.
    Your post is most important as surely our energy output will grind to a halt if Obama is re-elected.
    I’m glad that you have the “hobby” that you do !!!
    Climategate I and II have shown that “Climate Science” is 100% politics now

  62. I think this deserves a political Cartoon by Josh!

    I envisage the Cruise Ship U.S.A Economy sailing close to an island of Eco-Activists. At the helm, B.O. stands proudly waving to the unbridled applause of the Environmentalists on the Island. Meanwhile there are two big hungry economic sharks circling in the water; Asia and India.

  63. “What we need are more careful commenters that don’t expect moderators to clean up their spelling errors and formatting messes. Just this morning I’ve cleaned up several requests like yours, and I’m not going to do any more. – Anthony”

    Good on ‘ya Anthony. :) You’re not anybody’s nanny, or English teacher, and I appreciate that. :)

  64. Living in Virginia, I have seen this ad on TV already. The jobs claim made my jaw drop, but I about fell out of my chair when it was claimed he was responsible for increased domestic oil production! Somebody’s pants are on fire. From what I know, he has impeded oil production and any increase has come in spite of his efforts. And this is just the beginning of the campaign. Unless I just turn off the TV, in November I imagine my head will be spinning round and round if the duct tape can keep it from exploding.

  65. Good. Cancel the Texas pipeline and the Pacific one as well. Use the existing right-of-way of the Trans Canada Pipeline to existing refineries in Canada.
    What a concept. Canadian oil in Canadian pipe to Canadian producers to create Canadian jobs. Of course if the USA runs short of gas we can sell you some; for $5.00 a gallon (price subject to change without notice but only in an upward direction).

  66. @ tomjtx
    January 24, 2012 at 2:59 am

    This site is veering offtrack, IMHO. Please stick to science and leave the political bashing to others.

    Even tribes of monkeys and packs of wolves have to deal with their own brand of politics. People (usually) try to be a bit more civilized is all. But the goal is identical.

  67. 2.7 million jobs for $2 trillion investment is only $750,000 per job. Not bad for a government.

  68. Isn’t it ironic that he will proclaim he ‘inherited’ a bad economy, but then magically claim he brought foreign oil imports down through increased domestic productivity?

  69. Philip Bradley said @ January 24, 2012 at 3:45 am

    Here in Western Australia, we have coal fields bigger than all the coalfields of Europe put together, which have never produced a ton of coal because ample world supplies keep the price too low.

    Does that mean Gillard et al haven’t sold those coalfields to China yet?

  70. Also from VA, saw the ad and immediately thought “Yes we have more oil production – in SPITE of BO’s bad policies. I think I can extend that to everything our corrupt government touches.

  71. Caleb said @ January 24, 2012 at 4:50 am

    I tend to see “regulation and compliance” in the following way:

    You have a highway. Traffic is flowing along nicely. Then you erect 141,890 toll booths. Traffic is “regulated” and forsed to “comply,” and pretty much grinds to a halt. Not only do these jobs get in the way of productive people, but they waste the potential of 141,890 people, who could be doing something useful and productive, but instead are stuck in brain-numbing toll booths.

    Caleb, am I free to use your analogy, or is your IP protected under the new legislation?

  72. Alex the skeptic says:
    January 24, 2012 at 6:00 am

    As a non-USA , EU citizen, I believe that whatever happens in the US effects so much the rest of the world that we should have the right to vote in US presidential elections. And if I were t ohave that right to vote I know whom not to vote to.
    As they say, if the US sneezes, the world catches a cold. Now that Obama has made the US to catch a cold, the world has now caught pneumonia.
    ======================================================

    How right you are Alex…… here’s an interesting correlation.

    http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=k3s92bru78li6_#ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=txg_rpch&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=world&idim=world:Earth&idim=country:US&ifdim=world&hl=en&dl=en

    But, look how the world may not also effect things in the U.S.

    http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=k3s92bru78li6_#ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=pcpipch&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=world&idim=world:Earth&idim=country:US&ifdim=world&hl=en&dl=en

  73. G. Karst says:
    January 24, 2012 at 8:35 am
    “On Monday, IMF chief Christine Lagarde warned the global economy could fall into an economic spiral reminiscent of the 1930s unless action was taken on the eurozone crisis.”

    She must say that so all European nations agree to give their money to the unaccountable ESM. Scare the chicken.

  74. How about we take the millions of unemployed and put them to work on government jobs picking up trash and dog poop? Would that be a green job? How about if what they collected was recycled?

    We could have brigades of green shirts policing our trash, ensuring that nothing recyclable is discarded.

    Just wait, the SOTU speech is tonite.

  75. I’ve really liked this site for years, despite my friends telling me it was primarily a newsletter for right wing Americans. I always defended you, however I’m rapidly beginning to think was mistaken. It is a complete tragedy, we have lost one of the great voices for reason in climate change and seen it sell out to political lobbying. Many of us are not leaving your site Anthony, you are leaving us.

    REPLY: Well sorry you feel that way, but we have long covered politics on occasion during the 5 year history of the blog. SOPA/PIPA was politics, Waxman-Markey bills and subsequent variants were politics. Energy is now a more important issue than global warming according to the latest Pew poll, and if that isn’t being represented well, it should be pointed out don’t you think? And look either side of this post, lost of pure science abounds.

    I get this sort of complaint just about any time something of a political nature gets posted, and I understand your concerns. On occasion we cover a political issue if it has a relevance to some of our other topics. WUWT has always been a potpourri of things, just look at our categories and masthead, in place since day 1. This fits under news and current events.

    A good antidote would be to visit Science Blogs Pharangyla or Climate Progress, and see how often politics and science are mixed there, like every 5 minutes ;-) – Anthony

  76. Excellent post, Dave! Thanks for the ‘heads up’ on the abuse of factual science by these dishonest ads!

  77. Yea c’mon guys. This one is a political posting but there have been lots of those in the past. I come here for the science as do most everyone else, but face it, climate science is political science.

  78. dangerous sheep asked “Has anybody come across an honest political advertisement ?”
    Yes I have, and it was in reference to Oil dividends so it’s even somewhat topical, the politician, a Governor was urging the voters to keep the oil dividends to the state in a trust-fund because if he could get his hands on them he would just waste the money. That politician was George Wallace of all people.

  79. Pamela Gray says:
    January 24, 2012 at 6:25 am
    “This President is the worst mistake I’VE ever made! ”

    Pamela,

    Don’t feel like the ‘Lone Ranger’ on that one… I made a similar mistake when, as an impressionable new voter, I cast my ballot for Jimmy Carter some years back… Ugh – What a disappointment!

    However, it really made me assess my own core principles and re-evaluate who in politics most closely emulated to them. It was a ‘teaching moment’, indeed.

    ‘Once Burned, Forever Learned!’

    MtK

  80. klem says:
    January 24, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Yea c’mon guys. This one is a political posting but there have been lots of those in the past. I come here for the science as do most everyone else, but face it, climate science is political science.

    And climate science & policy are inextricably intertwined with energy science, economics & policy.

  81. How much is North Korea´s dependence on foreign oil?…less than 50%?…then you have a long way to reach such an extraordinary positive level. Congrats!

  82. Latitude said at 5:38 am
    ~100 million people did not vote for Obama….
    Actually it was quite a bit more of the Voting Eligible Population that din NOT vote for him-
    143,263,130, to be exact. He won with only 69,456,897 votes or 32.7% of the VEP.
    81,417,295 voting eligible people did NOT vote.
    BH

  83. Just an example of horrible science driving horrible politics.

    Thank goodness we’ll have an election soon that will rectify this problem.

  84. Paul says:
    January 24, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    dangerous sheep asked “Has anybody come across an honest political advertisement ?”
    Yes I have, and it was in reference to Oil dividends so it’s even somewhat topical, the politician, a Governor was urging the voters to keep the oil dividends to the state in a trust-fund because if he could get his hands on them he would just waste the money. That politician was George Wallace of all people.

    And in a similar situation, a recent governor from Alaska had oil dividends that she sent out to citizens of her state because that was the honest and fair thing to do. But it was certainly an exception rather than the rule.

  85. Milwaukee Bob says:
    January 24, 2012 at 1:10 pm
    Latitude said at 5:38 am
    ~100 million people did not vote for Obama….
    Actually it was quite a bit more of the Voting Eligible Population that din NOT vote for him-
    143,263,130, to be exact. He won with only 69,456,897 votes or 32.7% of the VEP.
    81,417,295 voting eligible people did NOT vote.
    BH

    People who don’t vote don’t count, except in Chicago, where they vote early and vote often. Repeatedly.

  86. I was hurt by the picture with the solar panels and the inscription “Clear-Energy American Jobs: 2.7 million” . I make a comparison with the situation in Germany. An excellent article on solar power in that country can be found on http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,809439,00.html .
    – In winter, the cost-efficiency of solar panels is very low: The days are short and the sky is overcast.
    The distribution networks are not designed to allow tens of thousands of solar panel owners to switch at will between drawing electricity from the grid and feeding power into it. Because there are almost no storage options, the excess energy has to be destroyed at substantial cost.
    – As Obama, also Merkel insisted on the opportunity to create jobs with the development of solar energy. But now even members of her own staff are calling it a massive money pit.
    – “The demand for subsidies is growing and growing,” says RWI [Rhine-Westphalia Institute for Economic Research] expert Manuel Frondel. If all commitments to pay subsidies so far are added together, Frondel adds, “we have already exceeded the €100 billion level.”

    – Plants that were producing solar cells are closed, shedding many jobs and losing the government subsidies in the process, because Chinese competitors offer systems of equivalent quality at significantly lower prices.

    Solar energy has the potential to become the most expensive mistake in German environmental policy.
    Will the destiny of solar energy in the United States be different from the one in Germany?

  87. Great expose and is definitely “on topic”…… too bad the republican candidates for office don’t come here and educate themselves. If one of the candidates had the courage to thoroughly educate themselves on the true facts of climate science and climate history, and had outstanding debating skills, they could probably win by a landslide in an election while at the same time putting CAGW in the grave – permanently.

    AGW is all about politics. To ignore the politics is to ignore the most important aspect about “climate science”.

  88. In addition to my comment above, I’d like to make a prediction…. if adds like these are allowed to stand and aren’t thoroughly debunked and exposed for the falsehoods they are…. Obama WILL win re-election.

  89. I, for one, have no problem with there being political commentary on WUWT. If you can’t get intelligent, well-thought-out commentary on political subjects here on WUWT, then where can you get it?

    At any rate, isn’t politics just another kind of weather – but one that we might possibly have an influence on? If and when mankind gets to the point where we can control weather, we should keep in mind the dangers of placing too much power into too few hands.

  90. steveta_uk says (January 24, 2012 at 2:09 am): “Why is WUWT now covering US politics? Are you sure you want to keep the “best science blog” award?”

    Science is about the truth.

    So is this article.

    WUWT still has my vote.

  91. More Soylent Green! said at 1:27 pm
    People who don’t vote don’t count, except in Chicago, where they vote early and vote often. Repeatedly.
    Funny you should mentioned Chicago. It was the University of Chicago that did the in-depth, precinct-by-precinct study of the election.
    AND Chicago is/was not the only place where that method of winning is/was used to try to win an election.
    AND-II, according to another survey/study, the BO machine probably pulled as many votes for BO as money can buy and the vast majority of that 81,417,295 who didn’t vote (in 2008) were right of center Americans unhappy with the then situation in the country, sepcifically any other canidate.
    Point is – their faliure to vote, did “count” – for BO.

  92. In today’s crippled economy, I hope Obama will focus tonight on how to get our people back to work. In his address, he should by all means admit that his hold on the Canada pipeline was a huge mistake that an evil GOP operative snuck into his last speech. And before you know it, there it was on the teleprompter, and he read it very well. In any event, and in furthering last night’s network policy of keeping the audience quiet during the GOP debate, we will surely see the Congressers applauding politely, and no hissing or calling out or generally whooping it up. After all, the SOTU is a solemn event, not a political rally. Just remember that when all hell breaks loose.

  93. Lies, more lies and dam lies!
    Obama lies about Climate and everything else!!!
    I am conservative in nature but I’m not religious. I find that Obama and his socialist henchmen/ Dems scare the hell out of me, their lies and manipulation disgust me. And Bush and his Neo-cons disgusted me with their warmongering in spite of the contrary evidence, he and Blair manufactured and used to take us to war.
    But the path that Obama has set for America is 10 time more terrifying and won’t be easy to remedy later on, The Titanic heading towards the Ice berg comes to mind, a disaster that WILL happen.
    My wife who is highly educated and a professional, watch’s the Maury show along with many of her professional male and female friends and workers. That show is a head shaker for me, both amusing and scary at the same time is this what America is and becoming? Obama’s path only leads us further down that path were the behavior on that in the gutter program is becoming the norm and Obama’s lies become his truth. 50+% of the population find him charming and except-able and can’t or won’t see what his plans / vision holds in store for them. He and his socialist are taking us all down the drain hole into the sewer.

  94. Garethman says:
    January 24, 2012 at 12:02 pm
    I’ve really liked this site for years, despite my friends telling me it was primarily a newsletter for right wing Americans. I always defended you, however I’m rapidly beginning to think was mistaken. It is a complete tragedy, we have lost one of the great voices for reason in climate change and seen it sell out to political lobbying. Many of us are not leaving your site Anthony, you are leaving us.

    As Grandma always used to say ” Don’t let the screen door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya!”
    I used to find the incredible naivety of those demanding that Anthony, and by extension all of us here, obsessively focus our attention on the “science” merely amusing, but I’ve come to realize that that attitude is every bit as dangerous as that of the malevolent forces that have been using this charade to foster their misanthropic agenda for decades. I suspect that the real forces behind this scam are overjoyed when the skeptical community engages in these ever more arcane depositions on S/B, ALR, millimeter scale changes in GMSL, etc. because, like me, they realize they have artfully constructed the language and form of the argument so that almost nothing in regard to it can ever be either convincingly proved or disproved. Focusing on the “science” means that no one will be peeking behind the curtain to ascertain the real logic and motivation driving the program. The irrelevance of “science” to the argument is demonstrated by the fact that we are no longer slandered as deniers of “global warming”, but as deniers of “climate change”. By any rational assessment the only parties in the controversy who have suggested that climate doesn’t change are the carbon demonizers who seem to claim that, absent increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, we would still be stuck in the LIA. That is the real climate change denial.
    Sadly, while we have been engaging in these endless and fundamentally impossible efforts to discredit the shoddy “science”, they have been relentlessly pursuing their program ofcreating a burgeoning assortment bureaucratic fiefdoms to manage every minutial detail of every human life, which are as immortal as Duncan MacLoed, but unlike him can’t even be dispatched by removing their heads. For all the ominous talk of “tipping points” we may indeed passed the only one that really matters i. e. the point where the bureaucratic momentum and the dominance of the “Big Lie” means that, even if someone could announce ironclad falsification of the CAGW conjecture tomorrow, it would have absolutely no effect on the future of humanity. We are locked onto our path as securely as the Empire Builder or Super Chief on the way to the coast and at the end lies not climatic doom, but the terminal station on Hayek’s “Road To Serfdom”.

  95. Back to Science. Democrats like Obama prove an alternative dimension exists because they sure don’t live in this one.

  96. lol, Anthony I’m here to protest that you don’t cover the political angle enough! …..

    My goodness how some of these people compartmentalize! Oh yeh, sure there’s no way ideology comes into play in the climate discussion. I’m just here for the science so I can be seen as an intellectual rebel with all of my totalitarian Luddite Malthusian misanthropist communist anti-American friends. ;-)

  97. Alcheson says:
    January 24, 2012 at 1:47 pm
    if adds like these are allowed to stand and aren’t thoroughly debunked and exposed for the falsehoods they are…. Obama WILL win re-election
    ======================================================
    Right on !!

  98. To be clear, Obama’s not telling lies. As Holder clarified during the Fast & Furious hearings, in order to lie, the teller must believe they are telling a lie. Obama believes this mis-information so he is not lying. Wrong, but not lying.

  99. I would point out that the last video in the post, in which the Obummer lays out his determination to cause energy prices to “skyrocket” and to drive the coal industry into bankruptcy, was widely posted all over the internet in the Summer of 2008, but you can search long and hard through the archives of the entire Lamestream Media without ever encountering a single mention of it. That blackout is only one of many by which they colluded in anointing “The One” and is proof of the incredible hurdle that anyone running against him must clear just to approach being on a level playing field.

  100. More Soylent Green! wrote
    “Just wait,the SOTU speech is tonite.”

    More like ‘The State Of The Campaign’ speech? Warren Buffett’s secretary will be up there with him. So after tax talk it will be interesting if he ever gets around to talk much about jobs. The speech is at 9 eastern.

    I think markets are thinking he squeaks by and gets re-elected. But the Republicans take the house and senate.

  101. Keith says:
    January 24, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    In New England FERC and Congressman Markey want to change the reliability guidelines for grid expansion.
    ================================================
    I would typically “lol” at such inanity, but if that truly gets adopted, jobs will get lost, but most importantly, people will die.

    If I were to wish to open a production plant, would reliability be one of the most import aspects of my electricity purchases? What of grocery stores? Is refrigeration important? Does a gas heater kick on without electricity these days? Are people knowledgeable enough to bypass the need for electricity for such things? Are our elderly able to do such? I hope such massive stupidity doesn’t have consequences, but if it does, I can only pray that the judge, Markey, and LaFleur bear the full brunt of such consequences.

  102. Ed Mertin says:
    January 24, 2012 at 4:36 pm

    More Soylent Green! wrote
    “Just wait,the SOTU speech is tonite.”

    More like ‘The State Of The Campaign’ speech?
    ================================================================
    If the excerpts released are anything like his real speech, he will have just blown his chances for re-election, but then he already has. My dirty sock puppet could be him in an election. But, I’m not going to blog about it until I hear him utter some insanely vapid and duplicitous words. But, I’m on the edge of my seat.

  103. Don’t disagree with the overall WUWT condemnation of Obama’s climate change stance, but at least he’s come straight out and said US electricity consumers WILL be hit hard by the costs of his proposals. Out here in Oz the Gillard government is spinning the desperate line that it’s only the ‘big polluters’ who will be hurt by Gillard’s forthcoming carbon tax, and there will be no pain for the rest of us.

  104. David Middleton says:
    January 24, 2012 at 6:29 am
    To those who object to the political aspect of this post… My deepest apologies. The last thing I want to do is to degrade the best science blog in the known universe.

    However, I posted this because energy and energy policy has been a frequent topic on WUWT. The blatant falsehoods in this campaign ad screamed for a rebuttal; so I wrote one. I thought it would be of interest to WUWT readers.

    I would not be offended in the least if Anthony deleted this post, if he thought that it was in the best interest of WUWT.

    =========================

    Thank you David. I have no problems with your post. I follow energy as well as climate. I feel very well educated within the energy arena. Climate has been my educational experience the past couple of years. The climate scam is being used to control the energy market. You owe no apologies but are due thanks.

    The entire AGW scam is the most politically motivated scheme devised in modern times other than election / reelection ones.

  105. ABO.. Anyone But Obama…

    Our economic malaise is worsened by the high energy prices, all of which is politics based. Forcing us to use ethanol, not allowing domestic drilling and over regulation of just about everything. Fix that and things will right themselves very quickly.

  106. markus says: “The science is in, there is global warming, by man. Anthony’s just mopping up.

    I liked that line, Markus! Thanks.

  107. JohnWho says:
    January 24, 2012 at 7:02 am

    Pamela Gray says:
    January 24, 2012 at 6:25 am
    This President is the worst mistake I’VE ever made!

    Ah, ha – so it’s your fault!

    Seriously, don’t beat yourself up so much Pamala – Obama made a lot of great sounding promises that he not only hasn’t kept but doubtfully even intended to. Anything to get elected – going from “change you could believe in” to not only “more of the same”, but sometimes even worse “more of the same”.

    A lot of folks were deceived. At least you recognize that you were, and that is worth something, I’d say.

    I beg to differ. After the filthy Chicago-style tricks that got him the nomination, there was no doubt about what kind of pig was in that poke. Anyone who then went on to vote for him was politically purblind or a damfool

  108. Hoser says:
    January 24, 2012 at 6:09 am

    I find it interesting to hear bits and pieces of politics in other nations. Without WUWT, I wouldn’t have any idea who Julia Gillard was. Because of WUWT, I heard about Canada puliling out of Kyoto long before I saw a single story reported on the topic here in the US.

    Good comment. I’ve almost grown blasé about how often I get first or core breaking or crucial info and news here, and have to wait some time before it shows up on the MSM, if ever it does..

  109. An opinion piece in the WSJ (1/24/12, p. A17) by Steyer & Podesta (chief of staff for Bill Clinton) has this LOL line:
    “Under President Obama’s leadership, we appear to be at the beginning of a domestic gas and oil boom.”

    The other author (Steyer) is the founder of Farallon Capital Management. The main thrust of the writing is to continue and increase the government handouts to “clean and green” firms. With such, our economy can be “soaring ahead.”

    Solyndra comes to mind. As does Range Fuels:

    http://theenergycollective.com/robertrapier/72768/range-fuels-goes-bust-harms-biofuels-industry-process

  110. There appears to be a breaking story on the blogosphere that large parts of Obama’s SOTU speech have been plagiarized (verbatim translations) from speeches already given months and years ago by President Hugo Chavez.

  111. While a little unusual I don’t see the article as too far off topic. obama is making some absurd claims about energy, including green energy, at the same time he and his henchmen are attempting to significantly change our country in the name of CAGW.

    If nothing else classify it under Puzzling Things In Life. I’d have to crawl right out of my skin in disgust if I were that dishonest with myself and others.

  112. adolfogiurfa says:
    January 24, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    How much is North Korea´s dependence on foreign oil?…less than 50%?…then you have a long way to reach such an extraordinary positive level. Congrats!

    Hilarious! What a gufe! Actually, its dependence is 120% on imports!!

    North Korea
    Oil – consumption:
    13,000 bbl/day

    Oil – imports:
    15,810 bbl/day

    Who knows how they manage to waste or give away that extra 20%!
    Super-losers, meet Adolfo, your admirer.

  113. By Golly Barack is absolutely right in his SOTU speech. Now that more than 13 million people are out of work and government debt stands at a record high of $15.2 trillion, up from $10.6 trillion when he took office, it is clear that exactly what we need is some economic fairness.

    Since there are still a few wealthy people left in the USA (1 in 100 or so) who have survived the destruction of the economy: clearly it is high time that they got screwed along with everyone else.

    The logic is impeccable.

  114. Wonder if Bill Clinton helped him write that SOTU? Whew, I thought Bubba Clinton had the longest one, but now I don’t know. Anyway, we have a dozen more Solyndras coming down the pike and he wants to double that by the sound of it.

  115. Alex the skeptic says:
    January 24, 2012 at 6:00 am

    As a non-USA , EU citizen, I believe that whatever happens in the US effects so much the rest of the world that we should have the right to vote in US presidential elections.

    Nothing at all to stop you from flying over here in November and voting.

    You don’t need to provide any sort of evidence you are an American citizen to vote in most places. In fact, you should be able to vote early and often in places like Chicago.

  116. Thanks for the post David and Anthony. I already know that if Obama’s lips are moving he is lying. But Romney and Gingrich are no better. If you really want hope and change you are going to have to go with Ron Paul.

  117. crosspatch says:
    January 24, 2012 at 1:12 am

    Quite an interesting link. I hope this turns out to be that there is even more recoverable oil in Monterrey than EIA thinks (which is the case with the Bakken field, or so it seems). But of course, Barack the Usurper will indeed try to prevent folks from drilling there. His energy policy is nuts.

    And by the way, yes, since Australian electoral politics is occasionally covered, it is fair, especially with the lies that Barack the Usurper has told in 2008 as well as now, for someone like David Middleton to point those things out for all of us to learn. Garethman, put a lid on it.

  118. climate policy equals energy policy in the U.S. its all poly-sci thanks Anthony, this is great stuff!

  119. Larry said I hope this turns out to be that there is even more recoverable oil in Monterrey than EIA thinks (which is the case with the Bakken field, or so it seems). But of course, Barack the Usurper will indeed try to prevent folks from drilling there.

    Larry, with all due respect, but the Monterrey (and Bakken) “recoverable oil” you are talking about is in fact at this point in time not “recoverable” at all. It’s embedded in rock, and oil companies simply have not found any thechnological way to extract it in any economically “recoverable” way. Not to mention that in the case of Monterrey, this rock is also situated under water, which makes it even harder. None of that has anything to do with American energy policy, not anything with Obama as president.

    It appears that Obama became the victim of simple ad hominems here on WUWT, without sort of reason of any sort of common sense about reality.

    When you find an economical way to extract oil from oil shale rock, you let us know, OK ?

  120. The EIA projected, before Obama, that between 2010 and 2035 US offf shore oil production would rise 40% This did not include increases in natural gas, shale oil production, or developing additional oil reserves in Alaska. Obama has acted to hinder every bit of this development.

    He has created many new jobs however. He created jobs tracking our US loans to Mexico and Brazil to develope their oil reserves. Jobs to assemble wind mills manufactured in China, assemble mirriors made in china for geo engineering space programs, employ folk to sale assult rifles to Mexican drug lords, increase pay for postal workers via arming them, lending a new meaning to the phrase, “going postal. This being the first step in creating a national security force as large and well funded as our military, / Launder money for green peace, / Artic expeditions to row to the pole. / Study anything and everthing, as long as it could be related it to man caused CAGW / Print trillions of dollars, for districts that do not exist, / Promote the golfing industry / Expand the role of NASA to include outreach for Muslims. / Create well over 100 new federal departments for the health industry. Increase of employment in the EPA to pass more laws to increase all energy costs.
    Please feel free to add to the list.

    Unfortunatel his green jobs have in all likely cost many more jobs then created, as well as raising the cost of energy to all, including those who can least afford it.

  121. Jack Simmons says:
    January 24, 2012 at 8:43 pm
    “Alex the skeptic says:
    January 24, 2012 at 6:00 am

    As a non-USA , EU citizen, I believe that whatever happens in the US effects so much the rest of the world that we should have the right to vote in US presidential elections.

    Nothing at all to stop you from flying over here in November and voting.

    You don’t need to provide any sort of evidence you are an American citizen to vote in most places. In fact, you should be able to vote early and often in places like Chicago.”
    ======================================================================
    And Alex, if you happen to die of a heart attack on the way over, don’t let that stop you from getting in a few votes before they fly your body back home.

  122. Rob Dekker says:
    January 25, 2012 at 1:22 am
    Larry said I hope this turns out to be that there is even more recoverable oil in Monterrey than EIA thinks (which is the case with the Bakken field, or so it seems). But of course, Barack the Usurper will indeed try to prevent folks from drilling there.

    Larry, with all due respect, but the Monterrey (and Bakken) “recoverable oil” you are talking about is in fact at this point in time not “recoverable” at all. It’s embedded in rock, and oil companies simply have not found any thechnological way to extract it in any economically “recoverable” way. Not to mention that in the case of Monterrey, this rock is also situated under water, which makes it even harder. None of that has anything to do with American energy policy, not anything with Obama as president.

    The Monterey Shale is primarily onshore and it is a well-established play…

    “Almost all the oil in California has been sourced by the Monterey,” said AAPG member Marc Kamerling, senior geologist at Denver-based Venoco Inc. “Only a small percentage has come from other source rocks.”

    To put this in perspective, the Monterey has sourced producing giants such as the Kern River, Elk Hills and Midway-Sunset fields, to name a few.

    It’s the source rock for about 37 to 38 billion barrels in conventional traps such as sandstones, according to Kamerling. All told, it’s estimated to contain more than 500 billion barrels of oil in place.

    Along with the copious amounts of Monterey oil being produced from conventional reservoirs, there’s also production from the shale itself. In fact, the rock produced in the Santa Maria Basin as far back as 1900.

    AAPG Explorer, Nov. 2010

    The only new thing is the application of horizontal completions and multi-stage fracking. The new technologies have vastly increased the recoverability of the oil in shale formations like the Bakken and Monterey.

    Rob Dekker says:
    January 25, 2012 at 1:22 am

    It appears that Obama became the victim of simple ad hominems here on WUWT, without sort of reason of any sort of common sense about reality.

    When you find an economical way to extract oil from oil shale rock, you let us know, OK ?

    We’ve been economically extracting oil from shale* for over 100 years. The Bakken, Monterey and Eagle Ford oil shales have become much more economically attractive because of the new drilling and completion technologies. (*Technically speaking, most shale plays are comprised of a combintation of shale, fine-grained sandstone, siltstone and marl.)

    Even the Green River oil shale could be economically developed, if the gov’t would get out of the way. The Green River formation oil shale has more than 1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil just in the Piceance Basin of Colorado.

    There are at least 1.8 trillion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil in just the Green River formation… DOE

    Oil shale deposits like the Green River formation (technically a marl) are currently economic at sustained oil prices of $54/bbl, possibly as low as $35/bbl… DOE

    Shell estimates that they could be producing 500,000 barrels per day from the Picenance Basin with a very small footprint using an in-situ recovery process, summarized by Rand here…

    Technical Viability and Commercial Readiness (pp 18-24)

    Shell has tested its in-situ process at a very small scale on Shell’s private holdings in the Piceance Basin. The energy yield of the extracted liquid and gas is equal to that predicted by the standardized assay test.13 The heating energy required for this process equals about one-sixth the energy value of the extracted product. These tests have indicated that the process may be technically and economically viable.

    This approach requires no subsurface mining and thus may be capable of achieving high resource recovery in the deepest and thickest portions of the U.S. oil shale resource. Most important, the Shell in-situ process can be implemented without the massive disturbance to land that would be caused by the only other method capable of high energy/resource recovery—namely, deep surface mining combined with surface retorting. The footprint of this approach is exceptionally small. When applied to the thickest oil shale deposits of the Piceance Basin, drilling in about 150 acres per year could support sustained production of a half-million barrels of oil per day and 500 billion cubic feet per year of natural gas.

    […]

    Once oil shale development reaches the production growth stage, how fast and how large the industry grows will depend on the economic competitiveness of shale derived oil with other liquid fuels and on how the issues raised in Chapter Five are ultimately resolved. If long lead-time activities are started in the prior stage, the first follow-on commercial operations could begin production within four years. Counting from the start of the production growth stage and assuming that 200,000 barrels per day of increased production capacity can be added each year, total production would reach 1 million barrels per day in seven years, 2 million barrels per day in 12 years, and 3 million barrels in 17 years.

    Assuming a 12-yr lead time to reach the production growth stage, it will take ~30 years to reach 3 million barrels per day. If production continued to grow at a rate of 1 million BOPD every 5 year, oil shale production from just the Piceance Basin could reach 15 million BOPD by the end of this century.

    The hydrocarbon characteristics of the the oil shales of the Green River formation in the Piceance Basin are superior to those of the Athabasca oil sands. The hydrocarbon areal density is about 13 times that of the Athabasca deposits. The Green River hydrocarbons are not technically “oil;” it’s a form of kerogen. But, for or refining purposes, it’s oil. It will be booked as oil, just like the Athabasca tar sand oil is. It’s a high-grade refinery feedstock…

    “Kerogen can be converted to superior quality jet fuel, #2 diesel, and other high value by-products.”

    Canada is currently producing ~ 1 million barrels of oil per day from Athabasca oil sand deposits. They expect to increase that to 2 million barrels per day over the next decade. The Green River oil shale deposits in the Piceance basin could easily outperform Athabasca within a decade and with a much smaller environmental footprint.

    Athabasca oil sands are currently economically competitive with the OPEC basket. Green River formation oil shales are superior, by a wide margin, to Athabasca oil sands. The Green River oil shales would yield 100,000 bbl of 38° API sweet refinery feed per 160,000 tons of ore & overburden. Athabasca oil sands yield 100,000 bbl of 34° sweet refinery feed per 430,000 tons of ore & overburden. The unconventional oil is actually very light and very sweet; the OPEC Basket is actually heavier (32.7° API).

    Athabasca is economically competitive now. Green River could be economically competitive now. Peak oil my @$$!

    The only obstacles to US energy security are environmental terrorists activist and the US government.

    See this publications for further reading on oil & gas shale plays:
    Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

  123. “Falsehood #3: The ad implies that President Obama somehow played a role in the increase in US domestic oil production over the last few years… That is beyond ridiculous! The plays and prospects from which the production growth was derived were worked up, leased, drilled and plumbed-up for production over the last decade or more. The effects of Obama’s disastrous anti-drilling policies won’t show up in production data for quite some time.”

    So, irrespective of who gets the credit, we now have more oil and we are in a recession, presumably using less as a result, so why are prices for petroleum products up in our “free market” system?

  124. David Middleton, thank you for your response above to Rob Dekker. I hope that you can offer more information in the future on oil and other energy sources. This is a very relevant topic to the climate issues usually discussed here at WUWT. What makes it relevant is the fact that the CAGW issue was created to control the energy sources and suck on government grants. Since the oil (petrolium) and coal recources are the primary targets that makes those very relevant.

    Knowledge will lead to a greater understanding and acceptance of the recovery procedures utilized. A blog dedicated to energy resource extraction operated by someone like Anthony Watts and in the same manner would likely have far reaching effects in the political world when the populace have the facts and not just the ‘green propaganda’ that is so ‘well’ presented by the media.

    There will be cries that WUWT should only cover ‘climate’ by those who want to avoid sunlight on the overall picture. To that I would suggest that if you don’t want to read it, then don’t click to expand on it. You still have that personal choice.

    I look forward to your future presentations.

  125. January 25, 2012 at 7:50 am
    “Falsehood #3: The ad implies that President Obama somehow played a role in the increase in US domestic oil production over the last few years… That is beyond ridiculous! The plays and prospects from which the production growth was derived were worked up, leased, drilled and plumbed-up for production over the last decade or more. The effects of Obama’s disastrous anti-drilling policies won’t show up in production data for quite some time.”

    So, irrespective of who gets the credit, we now have more oil and we are in a recession, presumably using less as a result, so why are prices for petroleum products up in our “free market” system

    Global demand is not down, OPEC spare production capacity has been declining and the US dollar has been steadily devalued since late 2008.

  126. It’s hilarious to watch him try to speak without a teleprompter. He has to stop and think about every word he says, there is simply no stream of thought. What a moron.

  127. “What we need are more careful commenters that don’t expect moderators to clean up their spelling errors and formatting messes. Just this morning I’ve cleaned up several requests like yours, and I’m not going to do any more. – Anthony”

    Anthony’s frustration is palpable, and completely understandable. Folks simply need to do two things:

    1. Use Firefox as their browser
    2. Download the Greasemonkey mod

    Not sure why more folks don’t seem to do this.

  128. For those on here that insist this should just be a science blog: It is a political machine waging the global warming war on us. You have to address the politics. That is how this carbon footprint propaganda won over Europe. Joseph Goebbels would be proud of what has been produced in the name of saving the planet from CO2. Nice work Herrr Mann und Herr Gore.

  129. “So, irrespective of who gets the credit, we now have more oil and we are in a recession, presumably using less as a result, so why are prices for petroleum products up in our “free market” system?”

    It’s quite simple; oil is bought on sold in dollars. The dollar (as are most currencies) are volatile due a number factors (record low interest rates, an explosion of liquidity in recent years, and record public debt). Speculators, therefore constantly heg thier bets against currency inflation by purchasing and selling commodities (gold, oil, wheat, corn, etc…). Refined gasoline also faces additional uncertainty because of EPA regulations and localized supply chain bottlenecks. In my own neck of the woods, unleaded gas went from $3.19 a gallon on New Years to $3.70 a gallon by 13 Jan 2012, back down to $3.30 on the 25th of January.

  130. JP says:
    January 25, 2012 at 11:44 am
    “So, irrespective of who gets the credit, we now have more oil and we are in a recession, presumably using less as a result, so why are prices for petroleum products up in our “free market” system?”

    “It’s quite simple; oil is bought on sold in dollars. The dollar (as are most currencies) are volatile due a number factors (record low interest rates, an explosion of liquidity in recent years, and record public debt). Speculators, therefore constantly heg thier bets against currency inflation by purchasing and selling commodities (gold, oil, wheat, corn, etc…). Refined gasoline also faces additional uncertainty because of EPA regulations and localized supply chain bottlenecks. In my own neck of the woods, unleaded gas went from $3.19 a gallon on New Years to $3.70 a gallon by 13 Jan 2012, back down to $3.30 on the 25th of January.”

    But the government says there is little or no inflation! Oh, I forgot, fuel is not in the “market basket” along with food, housing and other necessities. Sorry, but in addition to the speculators and decling dollar and OPEC production issue, I believe that the oligopoly in the oil industry also allows price fixing without any need for illegal communications to establish the price. Even when the price of crude goes down gasoline and heating fuel does not. There is always an excuse for why supply and demand is not working. There are plenty of liars in the corporate world to go along with those in government. I have seen it at the board room level and know it for a fact.

  131. Rob Dekker
    I concur with David. I worked in the early 70’s at Meeker CO. For fun, we’d sit around campfires lined with shale. When it got hot enough, it would burn. What’s stopping development is the requirement to do it in situ, and without harming the ground water. If the memories of open pit coal mining from the 1800’s weren’t conjured up by emotional nay-sayers, it could be strip mined and revegetated to near original condition at the price David showed.

  132. Jim G says:
    January 25, 2012 at 12:39 pm
    [...]

    I believe that the oligopoly in the oil industry also allows price fixing without any need for illegal communications to establish the price.

    Abject nonsense.

    The “oil industry” has zero direct control over oil & gas prices. We can only affect supply. When prices are high, we make more money and we spend more money trying to increase our production. When prices are low, we make less money and are forces to curtail spending.

    Prolonged low natural gas and high oil prices have caused Chesapeake Energy to redirect CapEx from dry gas plays to oil or liquid-rich gas plays…

    Chesapeake cuts operated dry gas drilling rig count

    01/23/2012
    By Paula Dittrick
    OGJ Senior Staff Writer

    Chesapeake Energy Corp. announced plans to cut its operated dry gas drilling rig count to 24 rigs, a decline of 50 rigs from its 2011 average operated dry gas rig count, citing “the lowest natural gas prices in the past 10 years.” The drilling reductions will be made in US unconventional gas plays.

    The company intends to redirect capital savings to its liquids-rich plays. Under the plan announced Jan. 23, Chesapeake will reduce its gross operated gas production by up to 1 bcfd. The company said it is deferring new dry gas well completions and pipeline connections where possible.

    [...]

    Oil & Gas Journal

    This is text book supply and demand.

    Jim G says:
    Even when the price of crude goes down gasoline and heating fuel does not.

    More abject nonesense.

    The prices may not go up and down on the same day; but they are highly correlated.

    Jim G says:
    There is always an excuse for why supply and demand is not working. There are plenty of liars in the corporate world to go along with those in government. I have seen it at the board room level and know it for a fact.

    Even more abject nonsense.

    I’ve been in the oil industry for 31 years, the last 5 as a VP, and I’ve never seen anything to indicate that unethical, dishonest, illegal or corrupt business practices were the norm.

  133. Well that Obama propaganda clip showed a number of solar cell installations, which he is in favor of.
    There was not a single Solyndra installation that Obama squandered 535 million of taxpayer’s dollars on. And he should fire energy secretary Chu, as totally incompetent. NOBODY who knows even the most rudimentary concepts of photo-Voltaic solar energy collection and conversion, would even take as a free gift, one of those Solyndra PV arrays to use up what valuable solar energy collection space s/he may have.
    Solyndra was a science/engineering scam a long time before it became a financing, and political skullduggery scam; and Chu should have known that and advised against giving Solyndra one brass razoo of taxpayer money.

  134. With regards to comment by George E. Smith.

    Chu is not even the beginning of the incompetent appointments by the Obama administration.

    Can you name a single position the has been filled by someone competent or worthy of the position. The list would be short indeed.

  135. “Optical trapping”, the confinement of small objects by the radiation pressure of laser light, was invented at Bell Labs by Arthur Ashkin around 1970. He actually started the work without any Bell Labs support. The resulting “optical tweezers” became widely used in holding biological specimens for examination under a microscope.
    eventually a chap named Steven Chu was hired into Ashkin’s group, and Ashkin taught him all about making optical traps. Subsequently Chu was awarded the Nobel prize in Physics, for trapping a single atom in an optical trap that Ashkin taught him how to build.

    None of Chu’s collaborators on this work received any credit for the final result; Chu alone was credited as the guru of optical trapping; and Arthur Ashkin, who invented it decades earlier go no credit at all.

    Chu thinks yeasts and microbes can be used to “create” renewable fuel.; and he clearly knows nothing about photo-Voltaic solar collection and conversion.

    But then he was at Lawrence Livermore and Berserkeley; so you can figure the politics of that. I believe that Stanford University also has a highly respected team working with optical trapping; which has many uses.

  136. Excellent Middleton article, as usual. Obama simply parrots what’s been written for him; he doesn’t really understand econ. Even his staff makes fun of him.

    The defining characteristic of this President: click

    I’m not a Newt fan, but a series of debates between Obama and Gingrich would show the world a naked emperor. So if Newt happens to get the nomination, expect Obama to either run ‘n’ hide out from any debate, or to stack the deck with sycophantic moderators, and a debate format that’s favorable to the Teleprompter-in-Chief.

  137. Jim G says:
    January 25, 2012 at 7:50 am

    “So, irrespective of who gets the credit, we now have more oil and we are in a recession, presumably using less as a result, so why are prices for petroleum products up in our “free market” system?”

    Although the current wholesale price of gasoline varies a bit across the US, $2.85/gal is probably a reasonable average estimate. That’s about 2 1/4 cents/oz. Many grocery stores nowadays have shelf price labels that breakdown unit prices for each item. Next time you find yourself in one, spend some time looking at the per ounce costs of a few liquid items that you normally purchase.I don’t know where you live, but around here $3.99 is a significant sale price for a 12 pack of Coke. Now think about the difference in what it takes to bring those items to those shelves relative to what it takes to bring that gallon of gasoline to the pump that delivers it to your car. The pump price for gas includes on average 48.8 cents/gallon (38 to 60 cents)in federal, state, and local taxes. The oil companies’profits on that gallon run less than 10 cents. Leave us not forget that at every stage of production from the geologist that picks the drill site, to the driller who drills the well, to the shippers who move the crude to refiners, to the refiners themselves, to the pipeline operators and truckers who deliver it to your local gas station and to the station operators as well, the government federal, state and local is taking further bites off of everyone’s profits Since Corporations don’t ever really pay taxes they only collect them, if you were actually able get the data to do the calculation, I think you’d find that well more than half of what you pay for a gallon of gas ends up in government coffers. Given that and the incredible difficulties of producing motor fuels to keep us moving in the current environment you ought to consider each gallon of gasoline you buy as one of the biggest bargains in your life

  138. @Dave Wendt,

    The tax data are in the 10k filings and the DOE’s annual survey of FRS companies.

    In 2009 ExxonMobil paid $75 billion in income (US Federal, State, local and foreign), sales, property and other taxes. Their net after-tax income was $19 billion.

    The average effective income tax rate for US oil companies is ~40%.

  139. Dave Wendt says:

    “… you ought to consider each gallon of gasoline you buy as one of the biggest bargains in your life.”

    Exactly. If in doubt, get into your car, put it in neutral, turn off the ignition, get out, and push it about twenty miles down the road. Then explain how the price of a gallon of gasoline is too high.

  140. David Middleton says:
    January 26, 2012 at 3:57 am

    “The average effective income tax rate for US oil companies is ~40%.”

    Generally the oil companies then distribute up to 50% or more of their after tax profits as dividends to their shareholders, whereupon the government takes another bite. As i indicated in my comment all of the corporations that are subcontractors and suppliers in the chain of production are hit with taxes on their profits, which because of the realities of economics ends up cooked into the prices they charge and by extension into the price of the final product. The always expensive permitting process is another cost which, though not necessarily collected by the government, is one they are entirely responsible for adding. Even with all that, the US is near the bottom of the world in the rake that government takes off of energy, although as clearly demonstrated by the last video in your post, that is something that our Dear Leader Barry would love to change.

  141. @Dave Wendt,

    The Federal waters of the US Gulf of Mexico accounts for about a quarter of US crude oil production (a bit over 1.5 million BOPD). The leases are awarded through an ausction process. The gov’t collects a lease bonus from the oil company with the high bid. Then it collects rental payments on held non-producing leases. If production is established, the then gov’t collects 1/8 to 1/6 of the gross production revenue in royalty payments.

  142. David Middleton says:
    January 26, 2012 at 11:18 am

    There are a couple interesting graphs in this piece concerning the average annual number of leases issued and the share of NG production from federal lands vs State and private lands

    http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/01/obama-deserves-no-credit-for-oil-and.html

    “MP: The bottom chart above shows that the share of total natural gas production taking place on federally administered land fell to 20% in 2010, the lowest share in at least 35 years.”

  143. In the aftermath of the SOTU another of BHO’s touted accomplishments is circling the bowl

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/26/another-green-tech-stimulus-recipient-files-for-bankruptcy/

    “We saw this coming last October, when CBS first reported on Ener1′s shaky financial position. At that time, the company had spent $53 million of the grant and had pledged to create 1700 jobs from it in total. When the story got reported, Ener1 traded at 11 cents a share, down from its December 2008 peak of $9.40 and the $3 per share price when the Department of Energy decided to invest in a company that had lost two-thirds of its value. The share price was five cents by the beginning of this month, and is now at two cents a share.

    Don’t forget, too, that the $53 million spent by October created jobs … 33 of them.”

  144. “”””” Smokey says:

    January 26, 2012 at 5:23 am

    Dave Wendt says:

    “… you ought to consider each gallon of gasoline you buy as one of the biggest bargains in your life.”

    “Exactly. If in doubt, get into your car, put it in neutral, turn off the ignition, get out, and push it about twenty miles down the road. Then explain how the price of a gallon of gasoline is too high.”

    I believe that gasoline is just about the cheapest liquid you can buy, that people consume in significant quantities. I’m sitting here at Starbucks, and the water they sell here is $10.40 per gallon, and that is far from the most expensive. Sometimes my wife pays around $35 per gallon for potable drinking water.

  145. @ David Middleton, January 26, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    Thank you for the link to The Institute for Energy Research. I now have the site in my bookmarks.

Comments are closed.