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
My understanding of what David wrote was “WE” stands for oil/gas produced from leases on federal land.
I certainly understand his point of view on the “WE” Farmers went ballistic over the statement.
By 2025, America’s farms, forests and ranches will provide 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States, while continuing to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed and fiber.
Farmers also were royally P.O. when they were reduced to “Stakeholder” by the USDA. A stakeholder is a third party holding property while the true owner is determined. This become a bit more scary when coupled with the USDA’s second move.
“Premises Identification:” “The Legal effect of this registration is unknown, because there has been nothing
like it before, permanent federal registration of citizens property… The word premises is a synonym for the word tenement. A definition of the word tenement in law is: “Property, such as land, rents, or franchises, held by one person leasing it to another.
Black’s Law Dictionary, premises, in the context of estates and property, means: lands and tenaments, buildings, an estate, the subject matter of a conveyance, land and appurtenances thereto…” link
I have learned the hard way when ever someone starts uses the word “WE” when referring to my property he is a thief.
@Gail Combs,
My beef is with Obama’s use of “we” regarding any oil production… Or any production and/or manufacture of anything. I don’t doubt that he is not the first President to speak this way. But he is the first President I am aware of to say things like this:
And like this:
We (as in the people of the United States of America) may have won World War II (no offense intended to our allies) and put a man on the Moon… But “we” do very few things in that manner.
And I suppose, technically speaking, “we” didn’t put a man on the Moon. We just paid for it with our tax dollars. Engineers, scientists, pilots and regular working stiffs with Grumman Aviation, North American Rockwell, NASA and a whole host of other businesses, agencies and academic institutions put a man on the Moon.
I find posts more interesting, educational, and entertaining when the author has a style. Some examples: James Taranto of the WSJ, Luboš Motl of the reference frame, Willis E. of WUWT, and the current post. So, just two comments. When a politician gives a political speech responses are pre-ordained to be political also. No big deal there. To the thing about the President using the term “we”, I understand it to be entirely appropriate. However, insofar as the President is also famous for have said “you didn’t build that” (and other strange things) he opens himself up for jocularity — such language and words otherwise ought not to draw attention.
Anyhow, the term “we” can be used in several ways, and is repeatedly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural
http://dancingczars.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/obama-not-amused.png
Why in the world do we need 2 Aircraft carrier groups in that area. The firepower of ONE aircraft carrier group is more than the US Navy in WW2.
Two aircraft carriers are a total waste of money…..and we do NOT have any money.
IF, somehow, Fed oil taxes brought in MORE revenue, you use it to lower the deficit. NOT be a liberal and think of some dumb way to spend it.
Conservatives are demanding accountability. Finally.
Putting a man on the moon was the easy part. Returning him safely to Earth, that was a little more complicated… and within a decade, A decade that started with monochrome television, where the word “digital” meant “on your fingers”, the only rockets were right from the V2 program, nuclear weapons were considered a usable tactical weapon, cars were gigantic boats that sometimes got single-digit mileage, and I could go on.
Having a major goal was a unifying force for the entire decade, an untold technological revolution occurred. NASA meant something. We still say “it ain’t rocket science”, even though rocket science is pretty much a direct application of Newton’s laws, gyroscopes, and computational power.
I know that many people believed, and still believe, that putting a man on the moon was a stupid goal, that it was wasteful and “all that money” should have gone to social programs and feeding the hungry. If not for NASA and the rapid development of aerospace and other technologies you wouldn’t be having this discussion on an Internet, we might well be decades behind where we are now.
The thing that still amazes me is that it came from a Democrat President. Because nobody on that side of the aisle has since shown anything like the leadership and practicality that JFK demonstrated. He even stood up to a major enemy with backbone and direct action. Freaked the world out at the time, but hey, it worked.
Also meant to comment: I own a business. Often when I’m talking on the phone or discussing what my company does, I use the phrase “we”. I learned this in my early days working, where the concept of “we” meant “the company”. It makes it sound like, you know, the Tokyo office and the London office and all of our staff. Of course, my business is a one-man operation…
While I don’t have a problem with zero using the term “we”, I DO have a problem with him using the word this way. Saying “we” did something, when in fact he has done as much as possible to inhibit those accomplishments. There’s a good time to use the phrase “in spite of all I tried, ‘we’ still did all this stuff”.
Even National Public Radio (of all people) is getting into the act of examining the chartsmanship (thank you Willis Eschenbach) of the SOTU Address:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/02/13/171935151/chart-check-did-obama-s-graphics-enhance-his-big-speech
The point wasn’t that we need to have 1, 2 or 3 CVN’s in the region. I’m not even sure that carriers are the right tool for maintaining freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf.
The point is that the Obama administration suddenly can’t afford 2 because it costs several hundred million dollars per year. The same Obama administration also mismanaged our [1] Federal mineral resources so badly that they have cut the ONRR’s annual revenue from $24 billion to $12 billion.
[1] The Federally owned mineral resources are actually “our” resources. Although “we” (as in the American people) don’t drill the wells and produce the oil & gas. “We” rely on our administrative overhead (the US gov’t) to ensure that those resources are developed and that “we” (as in the American people) derive the maximum potential value from that development.
CodeTech says:
February 14, 2013 at 12:35 pm
“The thing that still amazes me is that it came from a Democrat President. Because nobody on that side of the aisle has since shown anything like the leadership and practicality that JFK demonstrated.”
Don’t know your age but Democrats then, such as Kennedy, were more like Republicans of today. Kennedy recognized that over taxing was very bad and pushed through changes to the tax code. That is directly opposite of Democrats today. Republicans back then were far more conservative than they are now. The change into what we have today started shortly thereafter with the election of Lyndon Johnson and his “Great Society” ideas.
True. But then the shoulder held weapons of today are a lot more powerful than those of WW2. If we only had to concern ourselves with WW2 Weapons, one would always be enough. As it is, the weapons of today are a lot more formidable as well.
President Obama made it abundantly clear that we all better be watching our wallets; the tax and spend crowd has a friend in the White House. If you don’t like gun control, immigration reform higher taxes, carbon taxes, more regulations, and windmills this is going to be a tough couple of years, no doubt about that.
However, the only accurate thing about this post is the title as it describes the content. I’ve read through the statistics and claims in the post pretty carefully. Between the cherry picking, rants and insults there really isn’t much substance. Yes the President stretched the truth in the first point. There’s a shocker – a politician exaggerated.
1. “Wrong!!! We buy more “foreign oil” now than we did 20 years ago.”
No doubt that President Obama did a politician’s stretch on this one. It’s been about 14-16 years since crude imports were this low. But the fact is that imports have been falling dramatically since 2006 and they are approaching mid-90s levels.
2. “We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years.”
Your own data shows that the President’s statement was true. Furthermore, you know that oil production in the federal lands in the Gulf slowed because there was a moratorium on exploration following the big spill. He made no claim regarding public vs. private vs. state. And that’s a split hair given what is happening in the Gulf. For example, BP now a total of 14 rigs in the gulf – that’s more than ever according to their reports. Additionally, the rights to many millions of hectares in the GOM will be auctioned off in the near future.
3. “The only red tape you have cut, is red tape that your maladministration created.”
This Administration didn’t create the spill. And most Americans won’t be surprised or disappointed that production was slowed following that accident. There were videos on the nightly news of a gaping hole on the ocean floor spilling millions of barrels of oil. I’m not arguing that the delay was necessary, useful or effective. But the delay was inevitable no matter who controlled the White House.
Returning to the facts for a moment, Federal Gulf Crude production has increased by approximately 5% since this President took office in January of 2009. Your own graph confirms that point. And with the new fields that are coming online forecasts have us at 1.5 million bbl/day in 2014, a 13% increase during the Obama Administration.
4. What do you mean by “our oil and gas revenues”?
You know exactly what he meant by “our” revenues. Show us where you held Mitt Romney (or any other politician) to the same standard when he (they) discussed “our” coal, oil, nuclear, renewables, education system, trips to the moon, agriculture, obesity problem, anything. He wasn’t taking personal credit for drilling a well. This comment is childish and it is a pejorative jab despite your explanations.
5. “Federal mineral revenues for FY 2012 were HALF of what they were in FY 2008!”
Great cherry pick. This one is a doozy.
Since 2008 natural gas has a seen a decrease in price. Due to global economic conditions demand has also fallen. Accordingly revenue decreased. Maybe you’d like to blame that on the President. Fair enough.
But that’s a small piece of the decrease. In 2008 the mineral revenues were extremely high due to the fact that Bonuses were about 10x greater than normal. Here’s the data from 2003 to 2012 which shows that 2008 was an outlier to the tune of $9 Billion:
2003 $1,263,517,244.50
2004 $ 602,801,496.25
2005 $ 798,679,399.50
2006 $1,163,225,776.25
2007 $ 550,571,499.49
2008 $9,682,957,464.55
2009 $1,555,182,756.70
2010 $1,181,441,803.16
2011 $ 270,218,666.17
2012 $ 946,766,723.25
6. “What’s even more ironic? We’re importing 50% more from the Persian Gulf than just three years ago!”
Persian Gulf imports down since 2008, way down since 2002, and we are at 1994 levels. Of course you trimmed that out of the graph. You must own a cherry orchard.
I love it when right-wing hacks just double-down on their toxin pedantry. Too bad, it spoiled what might otherwise have been an interesting discussion.
REPLY: I love if when left wing hacks hurl insults without having the integrity to put their name to their own words. – Anthony
Tom in Florida says:
I was 17 days old when JFK was assassinated.
At 2:30 PM on 14 February, CodeTech had reported:
Maybe they need to call an exterminator to 1600 Penn. Ave.; it sounds like BO has a mouse in his pocket.
I said this post is political because it was purely about whether the president was “economical with the truth” in a speech.
I don’t have great expectations of the honesty of politicians. I’m not American and don’t care what Obama said; my point would be the same if someone criticised Bush for his deceitful linking of Saddam Hussain with WMDs and the Twin Towers.
I don’t think it is the role of this site to make issues about one political speech, especially when the points are only tangentially related to climate. For WUWT to provide a platform to political views of either persuasion can only damage it.
brokenyogi says:
February 14, 2013 at 2:03 pm
I love it when right-wing hacks just double-down on their toxin pedantry. Too bad, it spoiled what might otherwise have been an interesting discussion.
REPLY: I love if when left wing hacks hurl insults without having the integrity to put their name to their own words. – Anthony
=====================================================
And without showing examples of said pedantry. Too bad, it spoiled what could have otherwise been an interesting discussion. Instead, it was just a typical left-wing hack response to information they don’t like to hear.
David,
Outstanding summary of the actual facts and exposure of the mis information by the president on the subject of energy et al.. Basically you tore up the Presidents claims. When one sees so many errors in one section of the State of the Union address, it is obvious that the entire speech is also littered with lies and distortions. One other unbelievable statement is that none of his spending programs will contribute one dime to the debt. Can anone say they believe that with a straight face?
David, one question comes to mind in the first chart plots only imported crude, not total fossil fuels. It is common knowledge that a lot of product is imported into the east coast market backing out crude that was previously refined into product in the US. Many refineries on the east Coast have shut down (most recently Hess in NJ, Sunoco in Marc0us Hook, etc..) since they cannot compete with imported product. Does this further distort the false claim?
I realize that the net flow of products is complex and many refineries in the Gulf export product (while often importing crude). Have you seen any data on the net flow of product?
Your work is impressive!!
AndyL,
You must be very new to WUWT. I suggest you look near the top where Mr. Watts has expressed his intent with HIS blog, namely
“Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news –”
If you are only looking for “climate” then you should not be here.
DGH says:
February 14, 2013 at 1:36 pm
1. “Wrong!!! We buy more “foreign oil” now than we did 20 years ago.”
No doubt that President Obama did a politician’s stretch on this one. It’s been about 14-16 years since crude imports were this low. But the fact is that imports have been falling dramatically since 2006 and they are approaching mid-90s levels.
Due in no small part to Obama’s policies even though he is more than happy to claim credit for them *cough Iraq Surge, TARP cough*. That’s what Middleton is justifiably ranting about.
2. “We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years.”
Your own data shows that the President’s statement was true. Furthermore, you know that oil production in the federal lands in the Gulf slowed because there was a moratorium on exploration following the big spill.
Um, the moratorium was Obama’s idea. Far from being the president –sorry, I just can’t capitalize it with its current occupant– who follows the science, Obama explicitly overruled/ignored his commission’s (NAS/NAE? I don’t recall and I’m too lazy to look it up) recommendation to NOT impose a blanket moratorium in the gulf.
Seems like you have a few cherry pits of your own to swallow.
“We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years.”
“Your own data shows that the President’s statement was true. Furthermore, you know that oil production in the federal lands in the Gulf slowed because there was a moratorium on exploration following the big spill. ”
By the way that moratorium was declared illegal in court when it was tested, and the Judge declared the administration in contempt of court when they ignored the judges ruling and dragged their heels rather than comply with the Judges ruling to resume drilling in the Gulf.
As indicated, it was the administration’ decision and they thumbed their nose at the US Court ruling.
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/02/08/obama-found-in-contempt-of-court-gulf-drilling-moratorium-u-s-federal-judge-rules/
Maybe the word” we” would have been acceptable if the President took the opportunity to praise and honor those workers in the oil business for their hard work to increase the oil and gas production in the US. Truly the industry has done a remarkable job in developing and applying technology while taking huge financial risk to increase our reserves and provide jobs during a difficult climate. Many of the new jobs created in the US during this recession were created in the oil/gas industry and the future is even brighter.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2012/10/24/creating-jobs-by-drilling/
So TSK, Catracking and I agree…
1. The moratorium on exploration permits that the Administration imposed was a bad decision.
2. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years despite the moratorium.
, I have to navigate the political world’s agendas. For instance our city council hears the “scientific” predictions of rapid sea rise and adopts requirements to raise the ground elevation of new buildings based upon the projections…… at huge additional expense with no pay back. Because they are alarmed by the CO2 narrative they would consider banning fuel derived from the Alberta Tar Sands. My aching head!
There is a precedent of manipulation of the information given to the voting public that is as old as Democracy. It is the Themistocles dilemma. It follows this basic train of logic. “I believe that the Persians are coming, the Athenians believe the long march required of an invading army around the Black Sea would offer time for preparation and see no reason to build ships to protect themselves. If my truth is insufficient how but by misrepresentation do the voters become motivated to vote to build the triremes that are necessary for their defense?” Famously in this long argued political science case study Themistocles invented a threatening pirate fleet that would interrupt Athenian trade. In response to the invention the Athenians built the ships. The furious Persian king, to avoid the march, built a bridge across the Bosporus and his army was immediately at the gates of Athens. The ships were there to save Athens. Is this manipulation acceptable?
It appears to me that one can put this scenario into a general form, and see it being shamelessly applied all around us. The motivation is personal and political gain and the damage is unnerving.
False facts are debilitating and require the time and effort to overcome them. The information is now available and those repeating false claims have to be corrected to start the paradigm shift toward data based decisions sooner rather than later.
Right or wrong I must conform to the political reality. As the hard data mocks the political agenda It is time to change our narrative. I see no particular harm in shining the flashlight on this misinformation …rather than being silent.
David wrote:
“According to a Reuters report, in 2009 the Pentagon paid Solazyme $8.5 million for 20,055 gallons of algae-based biofuel, which works out to $424 a gallon. Last year the order was 450,000 gallons, the biggest-ever biofuel order from government, at a cost of $12 million, which works out to more than $26 a gallon.”
Do you see the trend there ($424/gal. to $26/gal.)?
The first was a research project, the second a demonstration project, and Phase 3 is the commercialization scale-up project (scale-up already proven at a AMD partnered facility, recently).
They are also producing food substitutes for butter, eggs, and vegetable oil, while reducing some of bad stuff in them, like cholesterol. Algae to food for a hungry world.
They will be providing transformer oil (with better characteristics, such as a higher flash point) to DOW from their Bunge partnered facility in Brazil at the end of this year.
Solazyme is a misnomer since the algae is now fermented in closed dark vats – they began in outdoor open ponds, but had contamination problems. SZYM alters the DNA of micro-algae strains, to produce oils with characteristics that don’t exist in nature. They can almost make the algae sing and dance. Sorry for the over-enthusiasm, but…
I am long SZYM (as well as: CVX, RDS, KOG, AXAS, ERF, CHKR, and other “real” oil producers).