Top 3 myths in Obamas lecture on gas prices.
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
http://www.americansolutions.com/drill/ ... prices.php
Top 3 Myths in Obama's Lecture on Gas Prices
By Steve Everley on March 11, 2011 2:06 PM
President Obama held a press conference today to discuss rising gasoline and oil prices. Gasoline at the pump now costs an average of $3.50 per gallon nationwide, and experts project prices to eclipse $4 per gallon this year, possibly by the beginning of the summer driving season.
But instead of providing a solution that most of America wants -- more domestic drilling -- President Obama used his presser to recite misleading talking points to justify his anti-energy policies, arguments that have all been thoroughly debunked.
Here are the three biggest myths from President Obama's remarks this afternoon:
"We can't escape the fact that we control only 2% of the world's oil." This is a common refrain among anti-drilling Democrats and environmentalists, and it's repeated enough that many people accept it as true. In reality, it's 100% false. The number comes from a highly conservative estimate from the Energy Information Administration totaling America's proven reserves where we are already drilling. It does not include the 10 billion barrels available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It does not include most of the 86 billion barrels available offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, most of which President Obama has placed under an executive drilling ban. And it does not include the 800 billion barrels of oil we have locked in shale in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Those shale resources alone are actually three times larger than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, so the claim that the U.S. only has 2% of the world's oil is clearly false.
"Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they aren't producing a thing." President Obama adds to this whopper by saying he wants to "encourage companies to produce [on] the leases they hold." While this sounds like a common sense fix, it's actually just blind rhetoric reserved only for people with a shocking ignorance of drilling. You can read more about this here and here, but it basically boils down to this: A lease is for exploration and production, not just production, and because oil is not equally distributed across the globe, one parcel of leased acreage may not hold any oil. Moreover, due to the circuitous and needlessly complicated permitting process, it can take years for companies who own a lease to complete their exploration activities. To get to the production phase, it could take as long as ten years. Ironically, President Obama wants to tax companies for not producing on their leases, even if the federal government's refusal to grant permits is the reason why those companies are not drilling.
"Last year...our oil production reached its highest level in 7 years." This is pure spin. President Obama is deliberately trying to take credit for actions unrelated to his policies. The increased level of production is due to the actions of previous administrations and production in the Dakotas where most drilling is occurring on private land. By contrast, the Energy Information Administration projects that there will be a decline in production of 220,000 barrels of domestic oil per day in 2011, and in 2012 America will produce 150 million fewer barrels in the Gulf of Mexico, all because of President Obama's policies to discourage or ban domestic drilling. In addition, President Obama's drilling moratorium (and subsequent refusal to issue drilling permits) has forced at least 7 rigs to leave the Gulf and sign contracts in other countries, taking much needed jobs and revenue with them.
As gas prices skyrocket, Americans are reminded every day that the federal government's refusal to allow responsible domestic drilling can have an incredibly destructive economic impact. Instead of trying to fix this problem, the Obama administration has worked every day to make sure that America produces less oil and has to rely more on OPEC for our energy needs.
No amount of White House spin or misleading talking points can change that tragic fact.
TAGS:
Drill Now,Gas Prices,Offshore Drilling,President Obama
Last week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told Congress that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico "remained at an all-time high, and we expect that it will continue as we bring new production online." He claimed: "In 2009 there were 116 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, in 2010 in February, 120, in February 2011, 126."
But Salazar's numbers distort the true number of working rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. According to Baker Hughes:
Four days before the Deepwater Horizon accident there were 55 rotary rigs actually drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
On May 28, 2010, when the administration announced the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, there were 46 rotary rigs operating in the Gulf.
Last week, 25 rotary rigs were operating in the Gulf of Mexico.
So the fact that there is an "all-time high" number of rigs in the Gulf ignores the fact that most of those rigs are not working. Claiming an increase in idle rigs in the Gulf as a success story is like claiming the job market is great because a lot of people are unemployed and available to work.
In the same hearing, the Secretary also claimed that "the production has remained at an all-time high" within the Gulf of Mexico and there is no way to actually make this true. The Energy Department's Energy Information Administration reports that production in the Gulf of Mexico is in decline, forecasting a decline of 250,000 barrels a day from Gulf production, due partly to the moratorium and restricted permitting. While the annual production figure for 2010 was greater than 2009, EIA's month-by-month production figures show a peak in May of 2010, and a relatively steady decline since. And EIA Petroleum Engineer Gary Long told trade publication E&E News that the rig count in the Gulf was cut in half after the Deepwater Horizon accident and that it wouldn't rebound to previous levels until the end of 2011 under the assumption that the permitting process is restored to historical rates. Further, since there is a lag time from the time an exploration permit is approved to the time of actual production, and since no only a handful of permits for new wells have been granted since April of 2010, it is likely that Gulf of Mexico production will continue to be hit hard in 2012 and beyond.
We appreciate that, when it comes to selling the administration's energy policy, Secretary Salazar is in a tough position. Fortunately we are here to help, help provide the abundant and affordable energy that our economy needs, and help create the jobs our workers want. As API President Jack Gerard said recently:
"Our industry remains committed to working with government to meet our current and future challenges, but we need Congress and the administration on board. Let's stop talking and let's get back to work."
Top 3 Myths in Obama's Lecture on Gas Prices
By Steve Everley on March 11, 2011 2:06 PM
President Obama held a press conference today to discuss rising gasoline and oil prices. Gasoline at the pump now costs an average of $3.50 per gallon nationwide, and experts project prices to eclipse $4 per gallon this year, possibly by the beginning of the summer driving season.
But instead of providing a solution that most of America wants -- more domestic drilling -- President Obama used his presser to recite misleading talking points to justify his anti-energy policies, arguments that have all been thoroughly debunked.
Here are the three biggest myths from President Obama's remarks this afternoon:
"We can't escape the fact that we control only 2% of the world's oil." This is a common refrain among anti-drilling Democrats and environmentalists, and it's repeated enough that many people accept it as true. In reality, it's 100% false. The number comes from a highly conservative estimate from the Energy Information Administration totaling America's proven reserves where we are already drilling. It does not include the 10 billion barrels available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It does not include most of the 86 billion barrels available offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, most of which President Obama has placed under an executive drilling ban. And it does not include the 800 billion barrels of oil we have locked in shale in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Those shale resources alone are actually three times larger than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, so the claim that the U.S. only has 2% of the world's oil is clearly false.
"Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they aren't producing a thing." President Obama adds to this whopper by saying he wants to "encourage companies to produce [on] the leases they hold." While this sounds like a common sense fix, it's actually just blind rhetoric reserved only for people with a shocking ignorance of drilling. You can read more about this here and here, but it basically boils down to this: A lease is for exploration and production, not just production, and because oil is not equally distributed across the globe, one parcel of leased acreage may not hold any oil. Moreover, due to the circuitous and needlessly complicated permitting process, it can take years for companies who own a lease to complete their exploration activities. To get to the production phase, it could take as long as ten years. Ironically, President Obama wants to tax companies for not producing on their leases, even if the federal government's refusal to grant permits is the reason why those companies are not drilling.
"Last year...our oil production reached its highest level in 7 years." This is pure spin. President Obama is deliberately trying to take credit for actions unrelated to his policies. The increased level of production is due to the actions of previous administrations and production in the Dakotas where most drilling is occurring on private land. By contrast, the Energy Information Administration projects that there will be a decline in production of 220,000 barrels of domestic oil per day in 2011, and in 2012 America will produce 150 million fewer barrels in the Gulf of Mexico, all because of President Obama's policies to discourage or ban domestic drilling. In addition, President Obama's drilling moratorium (and subsequent refusal to issue drilling permits) has forced at least 7 rigs to leave the Gulf and sign contracts in other countries, taking much needed jobs and revenue with them.
As gas prices skyrocket, Americans are reminded every day that the federal government's refusal to allow responsible domestic drilling can have an incredibly destructive economic impact. Instead of trying to fix this problem, the Obama administration has worked every day to make sure that America produces less oil and has to rely more on OPEC for our energy needs.
No amount of White House spin or misleading talking points can change that tragic fact.
TAGS:
Drill Now,Gas Prices,Offshore Drilling,President Obama
Last week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told Congress that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico "remained at an all-time high, and we expect that it will continue as we bring new production online." He claimed: "In 2009 there were 116 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, in 2010 in February, 120, in February 2011, 126."
But Salazar's numbers distort the true number of working rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. According to Baker Hughes:
Four days before the Deepwater Horizon accident there were 55 rotary rigs actually drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
On May 28, 2010, when the administration announced the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, there were 46 rotary rigs operating in the Gulf.
Last week, 25 rotary rigs were operating in the Gulf of Mexico.
So the fact that there is an "all-time high" number of rigs in the Gulf ignores the fact that most of those rigs are not working. Claiming an increase in idle rigs in the Gulf as a success story is like claiming the job market is great because a lot of people are unemployed and available to work.
In the same hearing, the Secretary also claimed that "the production has remained at an all-time high" within the Gulf of Mexico and there is no way to actually make this true. The Energy Department's Energy Information Administration reports that production in the Gulf of Mexico is in decline, forecasting a decline of 250,000 barrels a day from Gulf production, due partly to the moratorium and restricted permitting. While the annual production figure for 2010 was greater than 2009, EIA's month-by-month production figures show a peak in May of 2010, and a relatively steady decline since. And EIA Petroleum Engineer Gary Long told trade publication E&E News that the rig count in the Gulf was cut in half after the Deepwater Horizon accident and that it wouldn't rebound to previous levels until the end of 2011 under the assumption that the permitting process is restored to historical rates. Further, since there is a lag time from the time an exploration permit is approved to the time of actual production, and since no only a handful of permits for new wells have been granted since April of 2010, it is likely that Gulf of Mexico production will continue to be hit hard in 2012 and beyond.
We appreciate that, when it comes to selling the administration's energy policy, Secretary Salazar is in a tough position. Fortunately we are here to help, help provide the abundant and affordable energy that our economy needs, and help create the jobs our workers want. As API President Jack Gerard said recently:
"Our industry remains committed to working with government to meet our current and future challenges, but we need Congress and the administration on board. Let's stop talking and let's get back to work."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Godfather.
We sold one of our two cars and I ride a mountain bike to work and use public transport where possible.
Every little bit counts.
Paul, you are trying to preach common sense to Americans. It is useless.
As for the article presented by the OP, I have read numerous articles written by scientists who say the exact opposite. Let's look past one website article before we decide what is fact and what is not.
sorry.....but that tells me all i need to know about americansolutions.com...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
And that's why I said the article has zero credibility.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Clearly it isn't here.
So just bcos you don't like Newt you automatically dismiss it? :roll: why don't you research it and prove its claims to be false then. I know I'm out numbered by the progressive statist on here like yourself,but It's the party and president that you support that constantly lies and is deceiving people on a daily basis.I'm not here to defend the republican party,I'm just as discusted with them as I am the democrats. All m trying to say is sometimes it's better to be a little open minded and not throw your guard up all the time. And the link is actually two different links. I forgot to post the second one.
http://blog.energytomorrow.org/2011/03/ ... ction.html
Last week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told Congress that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico "remained at an all-time high, and we expect that it will continue as we bring new production online." He claimed: "In 2009 there were 116 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, in 2010 in February, 120, in February 2011, 126."
But Salazar's numbers distort the true number of working rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. According to Baker Hughes:
Four days before the Deepwater Horizon accident there were 55 rotary rigs actually drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
On May 28, 2010, when the administration announced the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, there were 46 rotary rigs operating in the Gulf.
Last week, 25 rotary rigs were operating in the Gulf of Mexico.
So the fact that there is an "all-time high" number of rigs in the Gulf ignores the fact that most of those rigs are not working. Claiming an increase in idle rigs in the Gulf as a success story is like claiming the job market is great because a lot of people are unemployed and available to work.
In the same hearing, the Secretary also claimed that "the production has remained at an all-time high" within the Gulf of Mexico and there is no way to actually make this true. The Energy Department's Energy Information Administration reports that production in the Gulf of Mexico is in decline, forecasting a decline of 250,000 barrels a day from Gulf production, due partly to the moratorium and restricted permitting. While the annual production figure for 2010 was greater than 2009, EIA's month-by-month production figures show a peak in May of 2010, and a relatively steady decline since. And EIA Petroleum Engineer Gary Long told trade publication E&E News that the rig count in the Gulf was cut in half after the Deepwater Horizon accident and that it wouldn't rebound to previous levels until the end of 2011 under the assumption that the permitting process is restored to historical rates. Further, since there is a lag time from the time an exploration permit is approved to the time of actual production, and since no only a handful of permits for new wells have been granted since April of 2010, it is likely that Gulf of Mexico production will continue to be hit hard in 2012 and beyond.
We appreciate that, when it comes to selling the administration's energy policy, Secretary Salazar is in a tough position. Fortunately we are here to help, help provide the abundant and affordable energy that our economy needs, and help create the jobs our workers want. As API President Jack Gerard said recently:
"Our industry remains committed to working with government to meet our current and future challenges, but we need Congress and the administration on board. Let's stop talking and let's get back to work."
Well if it's false than by all means please prove it and I will admit I was wrong.and
Guess what? Were not other countries. We have something called freedom of speech and one you should be thankful for called freedom of expression.
When "Freedom of Speech" means that news stations can broadcast outright lies to spread propaganda, fear and ignorance, I think we might want to rethink it for the new reality.
When it means that newspapers can publish fabricated stories as a way to mislead the public, I'd say it's nt really helping us.
However, since you believe so much in "freedom of expression," I don't have to post proof that you're wrong, right? I can just say "everything you just posted is a big pile o crap" and you have to just let me say it.
First of all we are trying but when you have beuracrates like the EPA who are he'll bent on shutting down oil companies and coal it's not easy. If we were invading countries for their oil then why do prices continue to rise? I mean wouldn't it be cheaper :? Also for what it's worth I also ride a bike and use CARTA every day to and from work which is our public trans system
You mean networks like MSNBC or just FOX? You mean lib rags like the NYslimes and the Washington Compost?
I think your confusing the two freedoms. To my knowledge freedom of expression is like art, porno flicks ect..
and please, let's not discuss presidents who lie to the people on a daily basis....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
most people on here are more moderate than your sources on american thinker and all of that, so i am sure i am not the only one who dismisses your sources out of hand. look why most of your threads only have a few responses. right wing extremism never causes good debate.
but you have to realize that he can not do what he wants because he is hogtied by a rightwing congress. before you criticize me or my politics, read my posts and look at the political landscape in it's entirety.
tea party on, garth..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I dont really care if it (we control 2%) was accurate or not.. bottom line is we have to work faster at getting off oil. Maybe rising prices is a good thing for awhile. Give Alternative fueled vehicles design/manufacturing a kick in the ass again.
And Whygo.. its not usless to preach common sense to Americans. Just on a personal note, I know a lot of folk who have taken to carpooling and riding bikes if they can.
Although there are some of the less-intelligent conservatives who blather on about how he's "a socialist" or "the most liberal president in history" or "not American" or some other clueless twaddle, my beefs have been that he tried too hard to cave to Republicans early on, didn't deliver a very good health care law, turned his back on the gay community and has been way too much of a pro-corporation president to give us real change that we wanted.
That said, it's hard not to side with him when he's up against fruitcakes like Sarah Palin who thinks that her one term as mayor of a very small town and her few months as Governor are enough experience to run America but whines about how our current president's years as US senator and two years as the actual president are "just not enough."
Or boobs like New Gingrich who went mercilessly at Bill Clinton for getting a blowjob in the white house when he himself never met a whore he didn't bang.
Or people who insist on posting obvious misinformation like "Wisconsin is broke" or "Climate change is still being debated" or "the tea party is a grass-roots movement."
That article is your idea of right-wing extremism? Wow. Maybe you should read the article before you draw that conclusion. You also claim to hate "partisan crap" but then go on to say that anything said by anyone in the Republican party is an outright lie! I'm cool with differing opinions, but a LITTLE open-mindedness and/or consistency would be nice.
maybe not everything said by any prominent republican is a lie, but most of it is half truth.
why should i have to be open minded to the right when the right still to this day is questioning obama's citizenship? a person who was governor of a state for 2 years is questioning the experience of a sitting president who has been president for OVER 2 years? people calling for cuts to all social services, yet let's keep making bombs and shelling out defense contracts, etc..why should i have to be open minded when most of their positions are hypocritical and contrary to my core beliefs? i agree with nothing of their current platform, they are not compromising anytime soon, and i think that my side has conceded way too much without any sort of fight.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Unfortunately as partisan politics goes, most truly partisan republicans think Lennon is in charge of the DNC, and most partisan democrats think the vocal minority of the fringe tea-party represent the main stream republican party...
I think the 85 to 90% that fall in the middle of those fringe efforts on both sides should somehow use their majority power to tell the fringe sides to start their own parties.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i do not think the tea party represents most in the GOP, but the GOP has given the tea party a lot of credence, and perhaps too much influence. a group like that, when engaged and mobilized, can cause a big problem for whatever party they choose to support.
i think if i was any sort of a leader i could start my own party. with social media it is easier than ever to do something like that in this day and age.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
this is what gives me hope for the future actually. Social medias influence in the world will begin to really show itself years and years from now...It is already having an influence and it is relatively new in the whole scheme of things. I don't participate in any of it besides this forum, Facebook and Myspace seem awfully silly to me, but I am glad there are people on there using it to try to inform/change the world. I have always held a belief that as long as people are getting motivated and involved, I really don't care much if they agree with me or not...having more and more people involved in our government can only benefit us all...including the crazy ones!! The more discourse we have the better, eventually I think we will start having real support for outsiders and finally get something done about the status quo
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
maybe one day there will be enough different groups to where the dems and reps lose the grip on power in this 2 party system. let's do like they do in europe where there are enough different little parties that you actually have to unite a clear majority to get something done. i think in that environment it takes more calculation and more willingness to compromise to effect any real change. in the states today one side refuses to compromise and the other rolls over too easily. i want the people to be fought for. the people deserve that much at least. the people do not exist to give government power, the government exists to provide the people with the things that it can not do for itself. and politicians lose sight of this far too often...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
if more people are talking there will be more information that isn't 100% accurate being said...that is a given...but I don't think those lies are as easy to spread if the more people are actually involved in the process and not just getting second hand "facts" from talking heads. My hope would be since the people who actually believe that nonsensical stuff are such a minority on both sides that they would stay in those proportions and there would actually be less people to buy into it and vote on information that is wrong. I guess ultimately what I am saying is that the more people are involved, turn on, and tune in the more they will be inclined to research something instead of taking the second hand reports from a first hand dipshit like Glenn Beck. A guy can dream right?
I still cannot figure out why only two politicians, and I guess sometimes three(very rare though) are aloud to debate the topics on national television. Everyone running for president should be at those debates...every single person, I mean, they conduct multiple person debates when it is primary season, why on earth can that not continue. seriously, libertarian, communist party of the USA, the green party, all of them should be respresented at the presidential debates...they should change it from presidential debates to DNC/RNC debate if they continue on in this present policy of exclusion.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
if "the rent is too damn high party" can start a party and have a platform, why can't any one of us?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."