Obama's Energy Claims Are Nothing But Gas

[3rdnlng]

Read the whole article. It's worth it.

 

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/national-editorial-president-obama-steals-credit-for-energy-success-he-opposed/article/2528463?custom_click=rss&utm_campaign=Weekly+Standard+Story+Box&utm_source=weeklystandard.com&utm_medium=referral

 

 

"This proposed lease sale reflects President Obama's continued commitment to safely and responsibly develop our domestic energy resources to help create jobs, foster economic opportunities and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil," said Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell. The next graph in the Interior announcement said that "domestic oil and gas production has grown each year President Obama has been in office, with domestic oil production currently higher than any time in two decades; [and] natural gas production at its highest level ever." These assertions are true, as far as they go, but there is much more to the story."

 

 

"Crude oil production on federal lands is 4 percent lower in fiscal year 2012 than in fiscal year 2011, (a smaller percentage than its reduction in fiscal year 2011 compared to fiscal year 2010 levels), with the total percentage reduction over the 2 years at 15 percent.

Offshore oil production in federal waters is 8 percent lower in fiscal year 2012 compared to fiscal year 2011 with the total percentage reduction over the past 2 years at 23 percent.

Natural gas production on federal lands is the lowest in the 11 years that data is available and is 7 percent lower in fiscal year 2012 than in fiscal year 2011 with a total percentage reduction over the past 2 years of 15 percent.

Offshore natural gas production in federal waters is 20 percent lower in fiscal year 2012 compared to fiscal year 2011 levels with a total percentage reduction over the past 2 years of 32 percent.

Revenues fiscal year 2008 were more than double those received in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, and 2.5 times those received in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The main reason for the drop in revenues is that fewer federal lands and waters were being offered than in fiscal year 2008 and those that were offered were less attractive than the fiscal 2008 offerings."

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

Crickets.

 

All you Obama backers sure are staying away from this topic. I don't blame you, the hypocrisy of Obama is as clear as a Rocky Mountain stream.

[JuanGuzman]

I don't get your point? Please make one and I'll respond.

 

Ultimately the high level story on oil and natural gas is new horizontal drilling technology has opened up a whack of new plays, pariicularily tigh oil and shale natural gas deposits. It's also caused producers to look at old plays that were previously thought to be tapped out. The price environment has been accomodative enough (despite NG struggles) to induce investment Should Obama get credit for this no he shouldn't. But the reality is domestic production is at all time high. I'm fine with President Obama saying that "domestic oil and gas production has grown each year he has been president" It's simply stating a fact. Yes it's a fact that paints him a positive light, but given that he operates in a political arena this what happens.

 

I'm not familiar the federal. private share statistics so I can't comment to much on it. But some of the statistics used by the author seem deliberately misleading, for example the author focuses a lot of attention on the difference between natural gas production in 2011 vs 2012... well we know the the 2012 ($4) average price for Henry hub gas was 45 per cent lower than the price in 2011($2.75). It's not mentioned in the article, we saw a lot of producers shut-in natural gas production due to low prices in 2012, when an journalist can't even be bothered to mention a key fact like that I question his objectivity. Finally all the focus on avg. leases issued by presidency makes no sense in the end all we care about is production and it's at record highs. I notice the "journalist" doesn't compare domestic production against past presidencies or even federal production against past presidents. for emaple the author writes "

• Average number of new leases that BLM issued during each Presidency: Clinton (3764), Bush (2879), Obama (1824). Obama Administration issued less than half the number of new leases as did the Clinton administration on average.
  

 

not only should we care more about production as opposed "leases" (lease statistics assist in projecting future production - but those numbers depend on whether horizontal or vertical wells are being drilled) but its unclear if the journalist is actually comparing annual data, or cherry picking 8 years of clintion and bush against 4 years of Obama.

 

honestly, 3rdning when i read your posts, you never come across as a very informed poster. Now that i know what news your consider to be new thread worthy, I understand why.. Biased, relatively thoughtless article - thanks for sharing. Make some real points on energy please.

 

.

[3rdnlng]

I don't get your point? Please make one and I'll respond.

 

Ultimately the high level story on oil and natural gas is new horizontal drilling technology has opened up a whack of new plays, pariicularily tigh oil and shale natural gas deposits. It's also caused producers to look at old plays that were previously thought to be tapped out. The price environment has been accomodative enough (despite NG struggles) to induce investment Should Obama get credit for this no he shouldn't. But the reality is domestic production is at all time high. I'm fine with President Obama saying that "domestic oil and gas production has grown each year he has been president" It's simply stating a fact. Yes it's a fact that paints him a positive light, but given that he operates in a political arena this what happens.

 

I'm not familiar the federal. private share statistics so I can't comment to much on it. But some of the statistics used by the author seem deliberately misleading, for example the author focuses a lot of attention on the difference between natural gas production in 2011 vs 2012... well we know the the 2012 ($4) average price for Henry hub gas was 45 per cent lower than the price in 2011($2.75). It's not mentioned in the article, we saw a lot of producers shut-in natural gas production due to low prices in 2012, when an journalist can't even be bothered to mention a key fact like that I question his objectivity. Finally all the focus on avg. leases issued by presidency makes no sense in the end all we care about is production and it's at record highs. I notice the "journalist" doesn't compare domestic production against past presidencies or even federal production against past presidents. for emaple the author writes "

• Average number of new leases that BLM issued during each Presidency: Clinton (3764), Bush (2879), Obama (1824). Obama Administration issued less than half the number of new leases as did the Clinton administration on average.
  

not only should we care more about production as opposed "leases" (lease statistics assist in projecting future production - but those numbers depend on whether horizontal or vertical wells are being drilled) but its unclear if the journalist is actually comparing annual data, or cherry picking 8 years of clintion and bush against 4 years of Obama.

 

honestly, 3rdning when i read your posts, you never come across as a very informed poster. Now that i know what news your consider to be new thread worthy, I understand why.. Biased, relatively thoughtless article - thanks for sharing. Make some real points on energy please.

 

.

 

It's very simple. Obama has obstructed as much drilling/leasing/pipeline building as possible and is taking credit for something he has little or no control over. He has a wonderful opportunity to help this country to get back on its feet economically and allow us to become energy independent and a net exporter of energy. We could permanently get rid of our dependence on middle eastern oil. He refuses. He has failed this country in just about every aspect, this being one of if not the biggest.

 

BTW, I guess I can understand your snarky little comments because you always get your ass handed to you here, Mr Bill Nye your science guy. Also, learn to spell my screen name right.

[JuanGuzman]

 

 

It's very simple. Obama has obstructed as much drilling/leasing/pipeline building as possible and is taking credit for something he has little or no control over. He has a wonderful opportunity to help this country to get back on its feet economically and allow us to become energy independent and a net exporter of energy. We could permanently get rid of our dependence on middle eastern oil. He refuses. He has failed this country in just about every aspect, this being one of if not the biggest.

 

BTW, I guess I can understand your snarky little comments because you always get your ass handed to you here, Mr Bill Nye your science guy. Also, learn to spell my screen name right.

 

Yawn. This is your reply, "the president who presided over the biggest expansion of domestic gas and oil production could have done better". Oh no the horrors. You posting that article tells me one of two things: either 1) you don't understand when a journalist is lying with statistics or 2) you don't care about having a reputation as a poster who brings thoughtful threads to the board, instead you throw up crap and see if any of it sticks. In fact you go so far as to bump your own crappy threads which no one replied to because the reasoning in your original link was so weak.

 

I wanted to see keystone xl approved in 2010 but I get the reasoning to delay it until after the election. BARACK needed the support from environmental movement to help win the election. And Im thankful he did win, Obama is a thoughtful and pragmatic president. U.S.A. is lucky to have him. If waiting a couple years to see keystone xl approved meant winning the election and keeping good things like OBAMACARE than so be it. Some politics have to played and im happy Obama knows how to play a winning hand cause he is just such a superior president compared to Romney.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Yawn. This is your reply, "the president who presided over the biggest expansion of domestic gas and oil production could have done better". Oh no the horrors. You posting that article tells me one of two things: either 1) you don't understand when a journalist is lying with statistics or 2) you don't care about having a reputation as a poster who brings thoughtful threads to the board, instead you throw up crap and see if any of it sticks. In fact you go so far as to bump your own crappy threads which no one replied to because the reasoning in your original link was so weak.

 

I wanted to see keystone xl approved in 2010 but I get the reasoning to delay it until after the election. BARACK needed the support from environmental movement to help win the election. And Im thankful he did win, Obama is a thoughtful and pragmatic president. U.S.A. is lucky to have him. If waiting a couple years to see keystone xl approved meant winning the election and keeping good things like OBAMACARE than so be it. Some politics have to played and im happy Obama knows how to play a winning hand cause he is just such a superior president compared to Romney.

 

You aren't even a good troll. You laud Obama for failing to curtail domestic oil and gas production while at the same time praise him for falsely taking money from the environmentalists? At the same time you are able to get a plug in for Obamacare? I don't blame you for not posting this schit under your real screen name.

Edited May 2, 2013 by 3rdnlng

[JuanGuzman]

You aren't even a good troll. You laud Obama for failing to curtail domestic oil and gas production while at the same time praise him for falsely taking money from the environmentalists? At the same time you are able to get a plug in for Obamacare? I don't blame you for not posting this schit under your real screen name.

 

Honestly, it's almost all there in your summary. You fail to connect the dots, but you have the arguments right....It might take some abstract thought to take it all in so I'll just go ahead and connect the dots for you:

 

1) Yes I have been happy with Obama on domestic energy policy, we are at record production highs

2) I'd have liked to see Keystone XL approved in 2010 but I understand that politics and winning takes strategy, hence the need to pander to the environmental pipeline movement *on Keystone to shore up support for the 2012 election..

3) Support from enviromentalists along with other groups including minorities and women helped propel Obama.That means broadly we get another four years of Obama's policy agenda as well as his leadership which is better than the alternatives. I'll gladly take that over Keystone XL getting approved a few years earlier. It's a game of tradeoffs.

 

But really, you have had three chances to say something substantive in this thread. Not once have you articulated anything informative or worth my time, your argument that

Obama We could permanently get rid of our dependence on middle eastern oil. He refuses. He has failed this country in just about every aspect, this being one of if not the biggest.

is hairbrained, it ignores any statistical evidence showing just the contrary, that under Obama the U.S. has become closer and closer to becoming energy independent since imports first started exceeding exports. You say he refuses to do this but you provide zero evidence, the article you linked to was done by hack using statistics to lie, when I challenge the "statistics" you roll over and play dead. No longer do you want to talk about this "important article that is worth reading", my god man you were bumping your own thread to get people to talk about it, than when your challenged on it you can't run fast enough if the opposite direction, with your ears covered screaming "bill nye the science guy, and some crap about not posting under a real screen name" its comical really to see someone get so flustered by an actual argument and logic. take a seat 3rdning.

[TakeYouToTasker]

JuanGuzman:

 

How did you feel about the levels of social spending, funding for public schools and public works, and advancement of minority issues during the Bush administration?

[3rdnlng]

Honestly, it's almost all there in your summary. You fail to connect the dots, but you have the arguments right....It might take some abstract thought to take it all in so I'll just go ahead and connect the dots for you:

 

1) Yes I have been happy with Obama on domestic energy policy, we are at record production highs

2) I'd have liked to see Keystone XL approved in 2010 but I understand that politics and winning takes strategy, hence the need to pander to the environmental pipeline movement *on Keystone to shore up support for the 2012 election..

3) Support from enviromentalists along with other groups including minorities and women helped propel Obama.That means broadly we get another four years of Obama's policy agenda as well as his leadership which is better than the alternatives. I'll gladly take that over Keystone XL getting approved a few years earlier. It's a game of tradeoffs.

 

But really, you have had three chances to say something substantive in this thread. Not once have you articulated anything informative or worth my time, your argument that

is hairbrained, it ignores any statistical evidence showing just the contrary, that under Obama the U.S. has become closer and closer to becoming energy independent since imports first started exceeding exports. You say he refuses to do this but you provide zero evidence, the article you linked to was done by hack using statistics to lie, when I challenge the "statistics" you roll over and play dead. No longer do you want to talk about this "important article that is worth reading", my god man you were bumping your own thread to get people to talk about it, than when your challenged on it you can't run fast enough if the opposite direction, with your ears covered screaming "bill nye the science guy, and some crap about not posting under a real screen name" its comical really to see someone get so flustered by an actual argument and logic. take a seat 3rdning.

 

You might want to go back and actually read the original article I posted. Read it very carefully and see if you can find where you did the "cherry picking", not the author. The facts are that oil and gas production on federal lands is down significantly and it is substantially up on private lands. The amount of federal leases and acres under lease is around 1/2 of what it was during the Clinton years. The fact of the matter is very simple: Obama has done what he reasonably could to lessen oil and gas production. In spite of that, domestic oil and gas production is up enough on private lands that we are producing more than ever. Obama failed to prevent what he is now proudly taking credit for. Spin it any way you want, but Obama failed miserably in restricting drilling so he's now trying to make it appear that he really was for more production all along. This is the kind of person you want for president?

[JuanGuzman]

JuanGuzman:

How did you feel about the levels of social spending, funding for public schools and public works, and advancement of minority issues during the Bush administration?

 

I am assuming you are talking about George W. History will be the judge but I think the bush presidency may go down as one of the worst on record, high level he what we have left is 2 expensive quagmire wars + use of torture, tax cuts for some of the wealthiest among us, economic growth that was artificially inflated by a massive housing bubble that grew under Bush's watch and nearly destroyed the global economy.

 

Specifically to your question, social spending, I'm happy he didn't cut social security or whatever that stupid individual savings account plan the republican base was pushing. Medicare part D is a really dumb policy for controlling costs and poorly designed, I think there were a lot of better options to increase access to prescription drugs.

 

Schools: I think no-child-left behind was a failure from a policy standpoint. I like spending on education but the design of the policy policy created perverses incentives as result outcomes for students were't all that great.

 

Can't really comment on public works spending because Im not that familiar with his record, on the minority rights questions....? nothing stands out.

 

What about TASKER, I'd be interested to hear

what you think of about the levels of social spending, funding for public schools and public works, and advancement of minority issues during the Bush administration?

[TakeYouToTasker]

George W. Bush's government invested more resources into social spending, the funding of public education, and the advancment of minority issues than any president before him.

 

By your own definition, all of his efforts should be lauded as a resounding success.

[JuanGuzman]

George W. Bush's government invested more resources into social spending, the funding of public education, and the advancment of minority issues than any president before him.

 

By your own definition, all of his efforts should be lauded as a resounding success.

 

There is no logic to what your saying, your making a faulty comparison, keep in mind that its your comparison and definition not mine... please try and be more precise. On Oil and Gas production we have a clear metric to define successful outcomes e.g., the amount barrels of oil we produce a day or cubic feet of natural gas.production -- and it's at record highs under Barry O. What your saying is that spending levels by Bush on programs should be my metric for success, I object to anyone who thinks this way because its moronic, I hope you don't think this way. My metric for success on government social policies is cost benefit analysis, I want to compare the outcomes of all that social spending against the cost to taxpayers. In Bush's case poorly designed policies, led to expensive ineffective actions by government. I listed that in my examples of No-Child-Left-Behind and Part D, but you clearly ignored that or have zero reading comprehension skills.

Edited May 2, 2013 by JuanGuzman

[3rdnlng]

Obama should be praised for his failure to reduce energy production thus allowing increased energy production which is really a success. Even when he fails he succeeds.