SOTU: Energy Fabrications, Falsehoods and Fantasies

Guest Post by David Middleton

During his State of the Union Address, President Obama had a few things to say about energy snd I have a few replies.

Pres. Obama: We buy… less foreign oil than we have in 20 [years].

Wrong!!! We buy more “foreign oil” now than we did 20 years ago.

Monthly crude oil imports (thousands of barrels per day) are about 33% higher now than they were 20 years ago (Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration).

Pres. Obama: We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years.

What do you mean by “we”? You don’t produce any oil.

See that decline in Federal Gulf of Mexico production from ~1.7 MMbbl/d to ~1.4 MMbbl/d since early 2010?

You actually did build that.

All of the increase in domestic US crude oil production has come from State and privately owned mineral leases. Production from Federal leases has declined by about 300,000 barrels per day since 2009 (Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration).

Pres. Obama: That’s why my administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits.

Drilling permits that once took 30 days to be approved now take more than 180 days. Even relatively simple things like the approval of development plan (DOCD) revisions are sometimes drawn out to nearly 300 days. As of a year ago, the average delays for independent oil companies are currently 1.4 years on the shelf and almost 2 years in deepwater:

While the permiting process has recovered a bit over the past year, it is still very slow (Source: Quest Offshore Resources).

Between the “permitorium” and high product prices, many of the best, most capable drilling rigs have been moved overseas. Once we manage to get permits approved, the delays in obtaining a rig can be almost as long as the permit delays were. In this “dynamic regulatory environment,” wells can’t be drilled quickly enough to compensate for decline rates, much less to increase production. This is why the production rate in the Gulf of Mexico is still 300,000 bbl/d lower than it was prior to Macondo. The only red tape you have cut, is red tape that your maladministration created.

Pres. Obama: So tonight, I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.

What do you mean by “our oil and gas revenues”? You don’t generate any oil and gas revenue. The Federal gov’t does generate some revenue from the private sector development of Federal mineral leases.

Federal mineral revenues for FY 2012 were HALF of what they were in FY 2008!

Federal mineral lease revenues for FY 2008 were $24 billion, with $18 coming from Federal offshore leases (Source: Office of Natural Resource Revenue).

Federal mineral lease revenue for FY 2012 was only $12 billion, with less than $7 billion coming from Federal offshore leases (Source: Office of Natural Resource Revenue).

The decline in Federal mineral revenues is really ironic considering the fact that the US Navy can’t afford to deploy a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf due to a lack of revenue. The reason for maintaining a strong naval presence in the region is the free flow of oil at market prices (the Carter Doctrine). The Navy only expects to “save several hundred million dollars” by not delaying the deployment of CVN 75 USS Harry S Truman. The royalty payments from the missing 300,000 bbl/d of production could have been as much as $1.8 billion and have more than covered the cost of the deployment.

What’s even more ironic? We’re importing 50% more from the Persian Gulf than just three years ago!

U.S. crude oil imports from the Persian Gulf have risen over the last three years.

The actions of this administration have both increased our need to maintain freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and reduced our means to do so.

Sources:

U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Imports by Country of Origin

U.S. Energy Information Administration, Crude Oil Production

Quest Offshore Resources, Inc. The State of the Offshore U.S. Oil and Gas Industry, December 2011

Office of Natural Resource Revenue, Statistical Information

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Ouch! Is energy drink good for sinuses? 🙂

tobias

Thank you for your research. The BS last night out of Washington was stunning I wonder when Americans are ever going to wake up to what is happening in their country. Your assessment regarding the energy industry is only the tip of (according to some other BS’rs the disappearing) iceberg.

Thanks. Interesting data. I’d add that all that gas being flared in N Dakota, because there isn’t a pipeline to ship it, makes the USA look like the developing world 50 years ago.

AndyL

I don’t come to this site for politics.
It’s particularly irritating to see posts like this when the beneficiaries of the argument are the oil industry, because other people will use this to “prove” links between sceptics and the oil industry.

Is the man not the leading producer of snake-oil in the US of A?

John F. Hultquist

What I find disturbing is the source of the President’s misinformation. Does he ask for information or an interpretation of data that supports his agenda? If he does not, what adviser or bureaucrat at what level substitutes misleading numbers for actual facts? How far down the hierarchy does this process go? Isn’t it inappropriate to feed the President of the United States false information? Maybe “distributing” isn’t the best word – scary is better.

pat

another F word comes to mind…FRAUD. pollies need to be held accountable for their CAGW excesses:
14 Feb: UK Daily Mail: Hugo Duncan/Tim Shipman: King blames rising inflation on ‘own goals’ by ministers: Governor attacks green taxes and university fees
Sir Mervyn said squeeze on living standards will last for another three years
The Governor of the Bank of England warned that the unprecedented squeeze on living standards will last for a further three years as prices rise and wages stagnate.
But, in a coded attack on ministers, he said much of the pain was ‘self-inflicted’ because it stemmed from big increases in energy bills and tuition fees.
‘Whether it’s on financing education, green policies or other policies, what they have done is push up prices and that clearly makes our job in the short-run more difficult,’ Sir Mervyn said.
The average household energy bill is now more than £1,300 a year and has risen nearly 25 per cent since early 2011, with suppliers blaming green levies imposed by the Government…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278368/King-blames-rising-inflation-goals-ministers-Governor-attacks-green-taxes-university-fees.html

Almah Geddon

It always amuses me when government departments leave the recycled paper logo on presentations when they move them to the web.
I always like my web pages displayed on 100% recyclable pixels.

Robertv

So God Made A Liberal…
http://youtu.be/EUzMPlQb2G4

Village Idiot

So the Village Notice Board can also be used for those who use the whetstone of statistics to grind their political ax.
Yawn

Roy

What a load of pedantic nonsense much of this article is! It could have been an interesting article if David Middleton stuck to the facts, like in the section where he pointed out the problems the US government has created with red tape. However it is simply ridiculous to criticise Obama’s use of the word “we” when he is obviously referring to the American people, not himself and his pals.
How on earth do you expect a head of state to speak? I am sure that Middleton would have had no objection to Obama using the word “we” if he had been espousing right-wing policies.

oldfossil

“…to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.”
Off oil and onto coal. Right.
Check out the wiki article on coal emissions (which lists CO2 as a pollutant):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station
Coal emits three more sulfur dioxide than petroleum and twice the nitrous oxide, and I think we’re all pretty much agreed that SO2 and NO are serious pollutants.

Bloke down the pub

He won’t bother about the truth, as long as enough voters believe the lies.

Village Idiot

So the notice board on the village green can also be used by those who grind their political ax on the whetstone of statistics?
Yawn

johnmarshall

Well said Sir.
Pres. Obama is positively the worst president the US has ever had backed up by the worst administration and advisors. (John Holdren for instance)

Jeremy

“Nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime,” Obama, Feb 12th, 2013.
The US ran trillion dollar+ annual deficits for the past four years (the past four years are the highest in history). Isn’t it comforting to know that the US will stick with trillion dollar deficits but steer bravely and steadfastly away from one trillion dollar and 10 cents annual deficit!
“The dime stops here”
It is disingenuous to place emphasis on “not increasing the deficit” when the nation is actually hemmorrhaging!

Nice little post David! Can we expect a deeper analysis of some of the information provided? For instance, I’m a very strong advocate for reducing US dependence on foreign oil, particularly from the mid-east. However, our recent reduction in imports isn’t really a positive sign. It isn’t coincidental that the recent reduction has occurred with our recent economic decline.
And, because of the alarmists dense misunderstanding about our reliance on oil and their strange preoccupation with whirlygigs and suncatchers, we can never overstate the fact that all the windmills and solar panels in country have absolutely nothing to do with decreasing our dependence on oil. They are not related.
For those whining about the political aspect of the post, Zero is teh one who brought out the intentional deception. Climate science, energy policy, and politics are impossible to separate if one is to have an open and honest discussion of such. It is altogether right and proper, in a free society, to correct our leaders when they are wrong. It is even more imperative to point out intentional deception. Although, one can make a case that Zero is ignorant and simply parroting what someone told him, so “intentional” could be questioned.

AndyL says:
February 13, 2013 at 11:32 pm
I don’t come to this site for politics.
It’s particularly irritating to see posts like this when the beneficiaries of the argument are the oil industry, because other people will use this to “prove” links between sceptics and the oil industry.
Why did you come to this site?
Roy says:
February 14, 2013 at 1:38 am
How on earth do you expect a head of state to speak?
Some facts, occasionally, perhaps.

Roy says:
February 14, 2013 at 1:38 am
What a load of pedantic nonsense much of this article is!…….How on earth do you expect a head of state to speak?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I expect the leader of my country to at least have the courage of his convictions. He gets up in front of the world and tries to take credit for increased domestic oil production when we see him obstructing it. We see him try to take credit for the decrease in oil imports, but, he doesn’t honestly tell the people why. David was spot on by correcting that mis-articulation. Zero has worked to thwart oil production. I expect my head of state to be honest about his actions and advocacy.

Bair Polaire

The tone of this post is a little childish.
You don’t produce any oil.” Really?

old construction worker

Wow. China will be drilling in the golf of Mexico. Maybe they will get a low interest loan from the U.S. then Obama can exclaim “we’ll be your best consumer”.

I liked the artical too,but….I agree about the”We” thing.
As I read I thought,why is the writer tossing a wooden
shoe into it.Is he trying to destroy it?Maybe I’m too harsh.
…..Just sayin <]"?!
Alfred

Thats article Sorry
Alfred

Alan the Brit

The way Obama is reported over here by AljaBeeba (BBC) you would have thought that the Sun shone out of his, well, derriere! The over weening sycophancy is literally sick making, he cannot put a foot wrong in their eyes, & all republicans are racist, gun toting, bigots, all in the pay of Big Oil! It really is appalling at times. When I listen to or watch the news reporting on the USA I always go to Newsmax website to read what is really going on. All we get over here is what the BBC wants the “people” to know! As for misrepresenting the facts, he’s a lawyer & a politician, what did you really expect from him? When will Americans give up on their racial/slavery guilt trip? Criticism seems stifled because a black man is in the White House, & as usual the left always play the “race” card at every opportunity to that effect!

Dr. John M. Ware

The article is good and true. It is inevitable that politics would affect our lives, and the politics of deliberate falsehood will affect them badly. For those who find that factor irritating, or who wish to ignore it for their own political reasons, I can only say that they are probably the same people who blamed the Bush administration for everything from wars to head lice, and I commend to them a healthy dose of objectivity.

(SNIP) \SNIP0 AND (SNIP). That’s what I think of Oboomers so called energy policy.

Tucci78

Of course, this kind of fine granularity in analysis will never make it to the leftie-luzer legacy lamestream media that’s [snip . . site rules . . mod] since 2007.

Think of our Kenyan Keynesian as killing the U.S. economy with metastatic demosclerosis.

The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s good-bye to the Bill of Rights.
— H.L. Mencken

Joe McIntosh

AndyL says:
February 13, 2013 at 11:32 pm
I don’t come to this site for politics.
It’s particularly irritating to see posts like this when the beneficiaries of the argument are the oil industry, because other people will use this to “prove” links between sceptics and the oil industry.
AndyL this is a post about federal energy policies. The beneficiaries are consumers of oil/gas products. The beneficiaries are the citizens of this country with a stronger national security stance. And finally my scepticism has nothing to do with the “oil industry”, it is based on logical thinking, an appreciation of history, and a non-politically correct review of the facts.

Bruce Cobb

He speaks with a forked tongue. He clearly has a “green” agenda, which contradicts everything else he says on energy independence, and on rebuilding America. The “green” agenda will do nothing but force energy prices up, hurting the poor and middle class most, and killing American jobs since it forces our prices up, making our goods less competitive overseas.
But that’s Obama, our Liar-In-Chief.

M Wagner

@Andy L:
No, the beneficiaries are you and me. I don ‘t know about you, but I like having cheap gas.
Having been involved in an accident where the only thing that saved my wife and me was the fact that we were in a 6,000 pound vehicle. If we’d had a “smart” car, we’d be dead. I like being able to afford the gas to drive my new 6,000 pound vehicle. It’s smarter for my continued longevity.
That means cheap gas, and that means cheap oil, and that means we need to do more to free up production here, at home.
Political or not, it benefits the consumers.

Don K

I hope it’s just a problem local to Opera 11.50 on Linux, but none of the graphs are showing up on my computer. They’re out there at photobucket. I was able to download and view one manually (wget and xv). But Opera doesn’t seem to be quite able to cope with the convoluted CSS in the webpage. Hopefully other browsers can do better.

lurker passing through, laughing

Obama’s true genius is that he can say anything he wants and is never held accountable for it, that he can place blame on anyone he wants, take credit for everything he wants, and is never responsible for how his policies turn out. Meanwhile in the important news of the day. Marco Rubio actually drank a sip of water on TV, and is therefor clearly not qualified to be in any public office and should resign immediately.

bikermailman

Do I remember correctly that he also said that we *have* doubled gas mileage for vehicles? No, *you* have proclaimed that it shall be so in a decade and a half. Big difference.

CodeTech

Wow – talk about missing the point.
It is wrong to write off this post as merely “political” (although I admit, it was delivered with a decidedly anti-0bama tone).
FACT: 0bama lied repeatedly on this topic. If Dubya had done that, you can BET every last error, mistake, or “lie” would have been called out in detail on every news show and every paper, front page. There is your “political” story.
FACT: 0bama made claims that are, both on the surface and deeper down, completely wrong, and intended to leave Americans with disinformation.
* America is buying more “foreign oil” than 20 years ago, but 0bama claimed otherwise. This is either an error, or an outright lie.
* It is MORE difficult and time consuming to get permission to produce oil in the US, but 0bama claimed it’s easier. That is an outright lie.
* More oil is moving from the Persian Gulf now than a few years ago. This is a DANGEROUS and UNSTABLE situation that leaves the US even more vulnerable to terrorism and other actions. Does nobody alive today remember the Oil Crisis of the 70s? If not, you should learn about it. It was a valuable lesson on being dependent on OPEC.
Also, the concept of using oil and gas revenues to drive development in reducing the use of oil and gas is some of the worst economics any sane person could imagine. In Alberta “we” started the Heritage Fund in 1976 as a “buffer” for future finances. The majority of that money was put into various oil and gas projects, hospitals, irrigation, agriculture, and lots of it was frittered away and wasted by bad government decisions. (reference http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/alberta-heritage-savings-trust-fund )
Imagine, if you will, ANY level of government in control of a vaguely monitored, massive fund. Whatever your political bent, the “other side” will be in control of it at some point. Do you want that? I don’t.
Why, oh why, does nobody in government seem capable of learning from the mistakes of others? If a massive fund is created to suck away a percentage of oil industry revenue, then it should be used STRICTLY for the long term benefit of PEOPLE… things like infrastructure, roads, water supplies, power grid updates, etc. Using that money to develop “alternative energy” will end up simply transferring wealth to an elite group of upper class con men. If that doesn’t seem credible, it is exactly what has already happened in the last 4 years, and will continue to happen.

Robert of Ottawa

John F. Hultquist asks on February 13, 2013 at 11:56 pm
What I find disturbing is the source of the President’s misinformation. Does he ask for information or an interpretation of data that supports his agenda?
Mr. Hulquist, you assume Obama is merely mis-informed? Perhaps he is simply lieing.
AndyL says February 13, 2013 at 11:32 pm
I don’t come to this site for politics.
Unfortunately, the whole global warming scam is about politics.

@ James Sexton says: February 14, 2013 at 2:56 am
” correcting that mis-articulation.” – Mis-articulation? Even my spell checker does not recognize that BS – just call it what it is – a bald faced lie.

AndyL

Sorry, but there are ways of making the points in this post without it coming across as a right-wing pro-big-oil rant. A straight-forward factual analysis would be more effective as well. The stuff about ‘we’ and the federal v private argument is pure politics and just not neessary

higley7

Do not forget that they are trying to run the Navy on biofuels which cost as much as ten times the normal cost for fuel. The Navy surely cannot afford that!
There is no way, short of putting nuclear reactors in cars that they can produce motive energy for cars that has the energy density of hydrocarbons. Natural gas maybe, but that’s still of the evil fuels, despite our having a lot of it.
The UK initially estimated that they had 5.3 trillion cu ft of natural gas. Now they estimate that it’s more like 1300 to 1700 trillion cu ft, enough for about 1500 years! Their greenies are going to have a rough time soon as people figure out that they are literally sitting on a huge energy source.

me

Imports of petroleum in October of 1992 were higher than today. Doesnt that make the statement correct?
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTTIMUS2&f=W

snotrocket

@andyl: ‘The stuff about ‘we’ and the federal v private argument is pure politics and just not neessary’
No, Andyl, it’s economics. Think about it…

philjourdan says:
February 14, 2013 at 5:05 am
@ James Sexton says: February 14, 2013 at 2:56 am
” correcting that mis-articulation.” – Mis-articulation? Even my spell checker does not recognize that BS – just call it what it is – a bald faced lie.
================================================================
Oh, sure, the one time I try to be charitable to Teh Won, and I get beat up for it! 😀 (Note: if you add the word to your spell checker’s vocabulary, then it will recognize it) 😉

robinedwards36

I remain surprised that the USA seems unable or unwilling to adjust oil usage by the mechanism used widely in Europe, and especially here in the UK. The rulers simply impose a tax or duty on fuel sales (gasoline and diesel) that is over 60% of the pump price. Transport companies don’t like it, the public hates it, manufacturing companies complain about the extra costs they have, and our roads remain crowded and ill maintained. Who in the USA will bite the bullet?

wwschmidt

“Unfortunately, the whole global warming scam is about politics.”
Bingo!!

Grey Lensman

Democratic, constitutional Republic.
Dont fall in that hole

Bruce Cobb

AndyL says:
February 14, 2013 at 5:12 am
Sorry, but there are ways of making the points in this post without it coming across as a right-wing pro-big-oil rant.
That’s odd. It doesn’t come accross that way to me, or anyone else apparently.
Concern troll much?

Bill from Pittsburgh

As a daily visitor to this fine website, I value the information and illuminating scientific discussion. While I appreciate the information and data contained in this post, even as a Rebublican, I find the pejorative barbs contained within the narrative offensive, unhelpful and counterproductive to honest discussion.