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.
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.
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:
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!
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!
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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
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.
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
@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
@ur momisugly 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) 😉
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?
“Unfortunately, the whole global warming scam is about politics.”
Bingo!!
Democratic, constitutional Republic.
Dont fall in that hole
I apologize for the numerous typos in this post.
Errata:
During his State of the Union Address, President Obama had a few things to say about energy and I have a few replies…
[…]
As of a year ago, the average delays for independent oil companies were currently 1.4 years on the shelf and almost 2 years in deepwater…
[…]
The Navy only expects to “save several hundred million dollars” by
notdelaying the deployment of CVN 75 USS Harry S Truman.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?
blockquote>Bair Polaire says:
February 14, 2013 at 3:07 am
The tone of this post is a little childish.
“You don’t produce any oil.” Really?
My pet peeve regarding Mr. Obama’s use of “we” when discussing oil production started here:
Lie #1: “Under my administration America is producing more oil than at any time in the last eight years.”
Lie #2: “We’ve opened up new areas for exploration.”
Lie #3: “We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high.”
.Baker Hughes Rotary Rig Count
Lie #4: “We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipelines to circle the Earth and then some.”
On top of the lies, the President tossed in some peachy logical fallacies…
The Institute for Energy Research (IER) has a very good explanation of Obama’s 2% strawman… Exposing the 2 percent oil reserves myth.
Proved Reserves
Probable Reserves
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.