Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
REALLY?
We cant escape the fact that we control only 2% of the worlds oil. This is a common refrain among anti-drilling Democrats and environmentalists, and its repeated enough that many people accept it as true. In reality, its 100% false. The number comes from a highly conservative estimate from the Energy Information Administration totaling Americas 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 worlds oil is clearly false.
Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they arent 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, its 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 governments 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 Obamas policies to discourage or ban domestic drilling. In addition, President Obamas 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.
Remember when Presidents held press conferences to clarify issues?
Oil goes to companies that lease land in the US. I suspect that most of those companies are "foreign", like BP.
That oil then goes on the "open market". Add the tens of billion in subsidies oil companies get from the US, and you can see, they have it "sweet". The American public? Not so much.
If the price goes down, oil companies hold back their reserves to drive the price back up. Sweet.
The only way to stop this is to produce energy here not based on oil. Like nuclear, wind, wave, hydraulic or solar. I don't see any other answer. Why the right wing supports being "gouged" is beyond me.
80% of the wells drilled in the U.S. are done so by independents. Not foreign, not "big oil".
The vast majority of wells are drilled on private lands - not public lands. Public lands are off limits thanks to the enviro-leftists.
100% of the oil produced from leased acreage belongs to the mineral interests until it is transferred to the first purchaser. At that time, the mineral interests are paid a royalty based upon a previously executed contract agreement. This royalty is free and clear of any costs associated with drilling and producing the oil.
Oil companies don't "get" subsidies from the U.S. They are afforded treatments under the tax code the same as they have been for decades. And most of these "subsidies" are also extended to other industries.
Taking less revenue from a business isn't a subsidy. Robbing half as much from a bank than you normally would doesn't mean you're contributing to the success of that bank.
Drill baby Drill, how many oil production jobs is the left shipping over-seas?
Not the "the left" decides how much domestic oil is produced; but domestic oil production is at the highest level since 2003, so you tell me.
EIA - Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf
The Energy Information Administration (EIA), in a short-term energy outlook released Wednesday, says domestic oil production increased by 150,000 barrels per day in 2010.
Thats a significant increase, Heather Zichal, deputy assistant to the president for energy and climate change, noted in a blog post published on the White House website Tuesday night.
The EIA data show that 2010 had the highest U.S. domestic oil production since 2003, a figure Zichal notes in her blog post.
White House, GOP lock horns over US oil production - The Hill's E2-Wire
Our president is the most un-ethical person I have ever met, I mean no personal attack to this man, I feel violated by that mans methods
The President took to the bully pulpit for a presser covering a wide range of topics including the Japanese earthquake and the situation in Libya. He also took time out to make a rather curious claim about US oil supplies.
Were adapting. Were producing more oil, and were importing less, he remarked.
Now, the hard truth is, is that as long as our economy depends on foreign oil, well always be subject to price spikes, he noted.
He indicated that our oil production reached its highest level in seven years. Oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time high, adding that for the first time in more than a decade, imports accounted for less than half of what we consumed.
Thats an interesting claim, particularly given Hot Airs coverage of the subject just prior to the press event. But record setting production would certainly be good news, wouldnt it? Sadly, it seems that the President was basing his claims on some recent comments by Ken Salazar. While they sound great on paper, Ken was talking about the total number of oil rigs in the gulf, not the total amount of oil being produced. Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute attempts to straighten out the math for the Oil Analyst in Chief.
Salazars 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.
With all due respect to API, a better analagy would be to have a poultry farmer claiming that egg production was at an all time high based on the number of chickens he has, regardless of the fact that more than half the hens have stopped laying. But in fairness to Americas poultry farmers, your average chicken doesnt have to wait for a permit from the federal government before dropping more eggs in the nest.
The president needs to go back and do a bit more work on his math. Or possibly pardon a few chickens. Perhaps the new media meme for 2011 could be the one put forward by a good friend of Hot Air on Twitter. So Obama lied, Gulf oil workers cried?
Update (Ed): Over at American Solutions, Steve Everley debunks a few more claims from Obama:
We cant escape the fact that we control only 2% of the worlds oil. This is a common refrain among anti-drilling Democrats and environmentalists, and its repeated enough that many people accept it as true. In reality, its 100% false. The number comes from a highly conservative estimate from the Energy Information Administration totaling Americas 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 worlds oil is clearly false.
Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they arent 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, its 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 governments 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 Obamas policies to discourage or ban domestic drilling. In addition, President Obamas 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.
Remember when Presidents held press conferences to clarify issues?
Not the "the left" decides how much domestic oil is produced; but domestic oil production is at the highest level since 2003, so you tell me.
EIA - Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf
Our president is the most un-ethical person I have ever met, I mean no personal attack to this man, I feel violated by that mans methods
The President took to the bully pulpit for a presser covering a wide range of topics including the Japanese earthquake and the situation in Libya. He also took time out to make a rather curious claim about US oil supplies.
Were adapting. Were producing more oil, and were importing less, he remarked.
Now, the hard truth is, is that as long as our economy depends on foreign oil, well always be subject to price spikes, he noted.
He indicated that our oil production reached its highest level in seven years. Oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time high, adding that for the first time in more than a decade, imports accounted for less than half of what we consumed.
Thats an interesting claim, particularly given Hot Airs coverage of the subject just prior to the press event. But record setting production would certainly be good news, wouldnt it? Sadly, it seems that the President was basing his claims on some recent comments by Ken Salazar. While they sound great on paper, Ken was talking about the total number of oil rigs in the gulf, not the total amount of oil being produced. Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute attempts to straighten out the math for the Oil Analyst in Chief.
Salazars 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.
With all due respect to API, a better analagy would be to have a poultry farmer claiming that egg production was at an all time high based on the number of chickens he has, regardless of the fact that more than half the hens have stopped laying. But in fairness to Americas poultry farmers, your average chicken doesnt have to wait for a permit from the federal government before dropping more eggs in the nest.
The president needs to go back and do a bit more work on his math. Or possibly pardon a few chickens. Perhaps the new media meme for 2011 could be the one put forward by a good friend of Hot Air on Twitter. So Obama lied, Gulf oil workers cried?
Update (Ed): Over at American Solutions, Steve Everley debunks a few more claims from Obama:
We cant escape the fact that we control only 2% of the worlds oil. This is a common refrain among anti-drilling Democrats and environmentalists, and its repeated enough that many people accept it as true. In reality, its 100% false. The number comes from a highly conservative estimate from the Energy Information Administration totaling Americas 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 worlds oil is clearly false.
Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they arent 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, its 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 governments 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 Obamas policies to discourage or ban domestic drilling. In addition, President Obamas 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.
Remember when Presidents held press conferences to clarify issues?
I think HotAir is one of the most un-ethical publications we've seen in America. I'd put them with Brietphart any day of the week.
Just the first point about oil production. I think the President was refering to the fact that in Dec. 2010 we produced more oil (monthly total) than we had since Oct 2003.
Face it (oil man) we ran out of cheap oil in the 60's and reached our peak production capacity in 1970. It's been all downhill from there. (Sure the graph goes up a little here and there but it's spriraling downward. Today we produce roughly half of what we produced in 1970.
Should have followed the hard road Carter was pointing us down b insack then instead of the easy road with Raygun. Now the road is going to be alot tougher.
What we learned in the gulf was that environmental whako's will make a temporory problem seem like a permanent horror if its suits them. The problem there was not that regulation was insufficient, the problem was the government allowed varriance from it.We can't just rush into this, we have to make sure we can make domestic drilling as environmentally safe as we can. As we have learned in the gulf, environmental health is essential to many peoples livelihoods as well as our overall economic health.
How does the market assign someone to work on a rig the government won't permit?Drill baby Drill, how many oil production jobs is the left shipping over-seas?
Zero.
FYI the "left" does not assign petroleum workers to their tasks.
The invisible hand of the market and the corporatists who guide that hand do the scheduling.
Thought you right wingers understood how markets worked.
Apparently not.
How does the market assign someone to work on a rig the government won't permit?Drill baby Drill, how many oil production jobs is the left shipping over-seas?
Zero.
FYI the "left" does not assign petroleum workers to their tasks.
The invisible hand of the market and the corporatists who guide that hand do the scheduling.
Thought you right wingers understood how markets worked.
Apparently not.
How about we just allow them to be built?I do not dis agree
I work in the oil industry and we have this fear of something we should not fear
It is un clear to me what agenda is driving the left in this country to have such a fear of a resource that could be a win-win-win
Local exploration
local refinement
local distribution
Where i am working in Texas I leave a son and a brother bankrupt in Florida with no chance of work in the next 4-ever
Obama does not see this. we have to take advantage of every thing there is to create jobs
How much oil does the US consume every year? How much oil is available to us Domestically? When would this oil become available? Are you saying you want the United States government to build these oil refineries?
Leftist dogma will not suffice, the US has 17% of the worlds revoverable oil supplies, and we have more than enough to provide for our own needs while we transition to another fuel source. Drilling for oil does not destroy land.The answer to our energy and economic woes is not drilling in our protected lands and off our delicate shores. There isn't enough out there to make a damn bit of difference. We are only talking something like 2% of all the oil in the world. We need to reduce our consumption, not destroy our land for the thimbleful of oil that is left in it.
When renewable energy is econoimically feasable the market will demand it... untill then coal and oil are king.Yes, jobs are key to our economic recovery and jobs can be created...moving forward with cleaner, more renewable energies...and that includes some nuclear (although what is happening in Japan should give us pause). I'd like to see more research into micro (or is it macro?) nuclear energy ('cause waste is still a problem too).
Van Jones is a fucking moron. Subsidizing alternative energy by making current energy sources more expensive and gifting the alternatives the difference only makes energy more expensive and will result in economic hardship. There is no net gain from taking from one hand to give to the other... especially when you have to jack up the price of the first hand to do it.Despite being unfairly demonized by the right, Van Jones makes an excellent argument for green jobs, that could hasten our economic recovery and make us a "top dog" again. Right now we are trailing FAR behind countries like China and Germany.
Do you know how much power Germany gets from solar? They aren't really known for their copious amounts of sunshine are they?
I do not dis agree
I work in the oil industry and we have this fear of something we should not fear
It is un clear to me what agenda is driving the left in this country to have such a fear of a resource that could be a win-win-win
Local exploration
local refinement
local distribution
Where i am working in Texas I leave a son and a brother bankrupt in Florida with no chance of work in the next 4-ever
Obama does not see this. we have to take advantage of every thing there is to create jobs
How much oil does the US consume every year? How much oil is available to us Domestically? When would this oil become available? Are you saying you want the United States government to build these oil refineries?
The answer to our energy and economic woes is not drilling in our protected lands and off our delicate shores. There isn't enough out there to make a damn bit of difference. We are only talking something like 2% of all the oil in the world. We need to reduce our consumption, not destroy our land for the thimbleful of oil that is left in it.
Yes, jobs are key to our economic recovery and jobs can be created...moving forward with cleaner, more renewable energies...and that includes some nuclear (although what is happening in Japan should give us pause). I'd like to see more research into micro (or is it macro?) nuclear energy ('cause waste is still a problem too).
Despite being unfairly demonized by the right, Van Jones makes an excellent argument for green jobs, that could hasten our economic recovery and make us a "top dog" again. Right now we are trailing FAR behind countries like China and Germany.
Do you know how much power Germany gets from solar? They aren't really known for their copious amounts of sunshine are they?
How does the market assign someone to work on a rig the government won't permit?Drill baby Drill, how many oil production jobs is the left shipping over-seas?
Zero.
FYI the "left" does not assign petroleum workers to their tasks.
The invisible hand of the market and the corporatists who guide that hand do the scheduling.
Thought you right wingers understood how markets worked.
Apparently not.
BHP Billiton spokesman Ruban Yogarajah confirmed the permit approval Friday night, telling POLITICO: "We are very pleased to be resuming work."
In announcing the Noble Energy permit last month, BOEMRE Director Michael Bromwich had predicted that more permits were to come.
This permit represents a significant milestone for us and for the offshore oil and gas industry, and is an important step towards safely developing deepwater energy supplies offshore, Bromwich said of the Noble permit at the time. This permit was issued for one simple reason: The operator successfully demonstrated that it can drill its deepwater well safely and that it is capable of containing a subsea blowout if it were to occur.
He added: We expect further deepwater permits to be approved in coming weeks and months based on the same process that led to the approval of this permit.
Read more: Interior Department approves second deepwater permit - Darren Goode - POLITICO.com
Two deep-water permits reinstated in the past couple weeks. In addition to 35 shallow-water permits since the BP blowout. I don't know how that number stacks up against previous years, but the department seem to have gotten the new regulations applied and are moving toward issuing or reinstating more permits.
BHP Billiton spokesman Ruban Yogarajah confirmed the permit approval Friday night, telling POLITICO: "We are very pleased to be resuming work."
In announcing the Noble Energy permit last month, BOEMRE Director Michael Bromwich had predicted that more permits were to come.
This permit represents a significant milestone for us and for the offshore oil and gas industry, and is an important step towards safely developing deepwater energy supplies offshore, Bromwich said of the Noble permit at the time. This permit was issued for one simple reason: The operator successfully demonstrated that it can drill its deepwater well safely and that it is capable of containing a subsea blowout if it were to occur.
He added: We expect further deepwater permits to be approved in coming weeks and months based on the same process that led to the approval of this permit.
Read more: Interior Department approves second deepwater permit - Darren Goode - POLITICO.com
Two deep-water permits reinstated in the past couple weeks. In addition to 35 shallow-water permits since the BP blowout. I don't know how that number stacks up against previous years, but the department seem to have gotten the new regulations applied and are moving toward issuing or reinstating more permits.
Which is why his administration is appealing the judge's order to get moving on granting permits...
Thank gods GWB permitted drilling, 8 years from now is another story.Drill baby Drill, how many oil production jobs is the left shipping over-seas?
Not the "the left" decides how much domestic oil is produced; but domestic oil production is at the highest level since 2003, so you tell me.
EIA - Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf
The Energy Information Administration (EIA), in a short-term energy outlook released Wednesday, says domestic oil production increased by 150,000 barrels per day in 2010.
Thats a significant increase, Heather Zichal, deputy assistant to the president for energy and climate change, noted in a blog post published on the White House website Tuesday night.
The EIA data show that 2010 had the highest U.S. domestic oil production since 2003, a figure Zichal notes in her blog post.
White House, GOP lock horns over US oil production - The Hill's E2-Wire
You're confusing an exploration lease with a permit to drill.Consumption has EVERYTHING to do with it. Do you think the smartest thing to do when automobiles started rolling off factory lines, would have been to go out and buy a buggy factory? We consume 20 million BARRELS of oil a day. (that's like almost 180 million gallons a day) and produce less than 5% of the world's oil.
How much MORE oil is available to us even if we were to, say, drill in the Arctic? Estimates are from 3 to 16 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic. We use 6.6 barrels a year. The answer is NOT more drilling.
Gee, so Germany is the size of Georgia...great, let's start with Georgia. Provide the same percentage of their electricity via solar as Germany does. It will be a great experiment. I don't get this "size" argument at all. Why can't something that works be expanded?
What's wrong with doing this in the US? Hydrogen Community Lolland - the Future is Here : TreeHugger
And don't try to tell me that the US government isn't all tied up in OIL. We subsidize the shit out of it (and yet the oil companies manage to turn ridiculous profits). Take away ALL the oil subsidies and invest in renewable energies.
Vestenskov: The world
The World's Greenest Cities | Do Something
We subsidize oil?
News Headlines
LL: The Obama Administration has been very consistent in its message on green energy. How much of taxpayer dollars have been used to fund "green jobs" and are these jobs real?
TP: We are still counting all the billions billions of dollars the administration has wasted on the green jobs agenda. The stimulus bill alone had $41 billion in spending on energymuch of which could be categorized as spending on "green jobs." Regardless of the exact amount, green jobs are not real, sustainable jobs and that is the central problem.
Green jobs are created and completely reliant on government subsidies and mandates. When the subsidies and mandates go away, the green jobs go away. The money to pay for green jobs subsidies has to come from somewhere. In the case of the subsidies, that somewhere is the taxpayers pocket. And since these policies lead to higher energy prices, we all pay. A study in Spain, for example, found that 2.2 jobs were lost as an opportunity cost of every green job created.
its not just about driller either
Colorado, Utah and Wyoming have enough oil and gas in shale oil formations to completely supply all U.S. needs for several hundred years with current technology and oil prices.[20] The BLM estimates that 1.21.8 trillion barrels of oil is available in Wyomings Green River Formation alone. A moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of oil that would be recoverable from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia[21] That is over a 100 year supply of oil at present U.S. consumption rates just from Wyoming. Yet, the progressives in Congress have stonewalled shale oil development for over a decade. They want a more permanent solution. Wild lands designationsappear to be the progressive answer.
It appears, however, that Obama cannot wait for even these wild land designations. On February 14, 2011, the Obama administration announced it is going to take a "fresh look" at the oil shale leasing rules put in place by President George W. Bush in 2008. Bushs rules allowed the development of the oil-rich shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming over nearly 2 million acres of BLM land in the Green River Formation alone.
what are the drawbacks to shale oil recovery? Why did you leave that out of your post?
also, why are the oil companies SITTING on most of the new oil leases that they have? Why not drill on the leases they ALREADY HAVE?
You regurgitate Obama's lies as truth and ask for better sources when countered with truth?
Hotair? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That's hilarious. Do you have any real proof?
That would be wrong, a lease to explore in a tract for oil and a permit to actually drill are not the same thing. Many of the newly aquired tracts sold under Bush were on the atlantic seaboard and gulf... where even if you found the oil you couldn't drill for it right now.what are the drawbacks to shale oil recovery? Why did you leave that out of your post?
also, why are the oil companies SITTING on most of the new oil leases that they have? Why not drill on the leases they ALREADY HAVE?
Maybe because there are no "drawbacks to shale oil recovery?" Why did YOU leave that out of YOUR post?
If they are "sitting" on most of the new oil leases thatr they have, it could be a number of reasons. The first that comes to mind is the resources to develop the lease simply are not available.
What an assinine comment, I can see the future, but I have to live NOW.Right wingers have such limited vision. What a shame.
What subsidies? Do you mean the tax credit they get for exploring and finding the governments oil? Is there a reason they shouldn't get a tax credit for it? What the fuck will any of those sources do to alleviate the demand for oil? Oil is barely used at all to produce electricity and you can't use wind to make plastic. Electric cars are the dumbest of the dumb ideas to replace gasoline with so none of those sources will help. Whether or not you like it until the market provides an alternative we need oil.Right wingers have such limited vision. What a shame.
REALLY?
We cant escape the fact that we control only 2% of the worlds oil. This is a common refrain among anti-drilling Democrats and environmentalists, and its repeated enough that many people accept it as true. In reality, its 100% false. The number comes from a highly conservative estimate from the Energy Information Administration totaling Americas 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 worlds oil is clearly false.
Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they arent 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, its 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 governments 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 Obamas policies to discourage or ban domestic drilling. In addition, President Obamas 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.
Remember when Presidents held press conferences to clarify issues?
Oil goes to companies that lease land in the US. I suspect that most of those companies are "foreign", like BP.
That oil then goes on the "open market". Add the tens of billion in subsidies oil companies get from the US, and you can see, they have it "sweet". The American public? Not so much.
If the price goes down, oil companies hold back their reserves to drive the price back up. Sweet.
The only way to stop this is to produce energy here not based on oil. Like nuclear, wind, wave, hydraulic or solar. I don't see any other answer. Why the right wing supports being "gouged" is beyond me.
The lie is in Obama taking any credit for the surge in production affectuated by Bush's permits.This whole rant is based on a lie.
The lie being that OBAMA is preventing the petro industry from increasing production.
Now go look at production numbers.
2000 5,822
2001 5,801
2002 5,746
2003 5,681
2004 5,419
2005 5,178
2006 5,102
2007 5,064
2008 4,950
2009 5,361
Release Date: 7/29/2010Next Release Date: 7/29/2011
See?
Per usual the haters start their threads with an false presupposition and expect us to take their hateful POV seriously.
REALLY?
We cant escape the fact that we control only 2% of the worlds oil. This is a common refrain among anti-drilling Democrats and environmentalists, and its repeated enough that many people accept it as true. In reality, its 100% false. The number comes from a highly conservative estimate from the Energy Information Administration totaling Americas 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 worlds oil is clearly false.
Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they arent 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, its 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 governments 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 Obamas policies to discourage or ban domestic drilling. In addition, President Obamas 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.
Remember when Presidents held press conferences to clarify issues?
Oil goes to companies that lease land in the US. I suspect that most of those companies are "foreign", like BP.
That oil then goes on the "open market". Add the tens of billion in subsidies oil companies get from the US, and you can see, they have it "sweet". The American public? Not so much.
If the price goes down, oil companies hold back their reserves to drive the price back up. Sweet.
The only way to stop this is to produce energy here not based on oil. Like nuclear, wind, wave, hydraulic or solar. I don't see any other answer. Why the right wing supports being "gouged" is beyond me.
80% of the wells drilled in the U.S. are done so by independents. Not foreign, not "big oil".
The vast majority of wells are drilled on private lands - not public lands. Public lands are off limits thanks to the enviro-leftists.
100% of the oil produced from leased acreage belongs to the mineral interests until it is transferred to the first purchaser. At that time, the mineral interests are paid a royalty based upon a previously executed contract agreement. This royalty is free and clear of any costs associated with drilling and producing the oil.
Oil companies don't "get" subsidies from the U.S. They are afforded treatments under the tax code the same as they have been for decades. And most of these "subsidies" are also extended to other industries.
Taking less revenue from a business isn't a subsidy. Robbing half as much from a bank than you normally would doesn't mean you're contributing to the success of that bank.
