Oldstyle 13025350
What's laughable is that you think Barry's love of flying around the country on Air Force One somehow proves that he's pro fossil fuels!
I did not stop at AF1. Re read my post. Your response is non responsive to the argument.
Obama is pro-drilling and pro-all American made energy sources as proven by my preceding post. Containing this;
“We can’t have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in the past. We need an energy strategy for the future – an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.”– President Barack Obama, March 15, 2012
Every source. That is every source.
In case you don't know what every means:
"all possible; the greatest possibledegree of:"
Obama chose that word for a reason. He is pro fracking and pro-offshore drilling. Also proven by the fact that so much fracking took place while he was President in the private market and the moratorium on offshore permits has long been lifted and he had authorized limited drilling in the arctic sea.
. But according to the president, it’s impossible to stop oil exploration in the Arctic completely.
Despite
low global crude prices (helped along by a natural gas boom in the United States), the Arctic remains an appealing long-term development project for oil companies — it’s one of the last untapped areas on the planet, and by some estimates could hold
as much as 20 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas resources. Oil companies like Shell, which recently
received the green lightfrom the Obama administration to begin drilling in the Chukchi Sea as soon as this summer, have been trying to gain access to the Arctic
for years; Shell alone has spent over
$6 billion and spent more than 6 years fighting legal battles to gain access to the Arctic
Obama Explains Why He Approved Arctic Drilling In The Face Of Climate Concerns
So there you go. Obama approved drilling in high risk areas he could have easily stopped.
Do you know what was the result of that approval?
""""Shell Exits Arctic as Slump in Oil Prices Forces Industry to Retrench""""
.By CLIFFORD KRAUSS and STANLEY REED SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 As
oil prices have continued their steady decline this year, rig after rig has been shut down, costing thousands of jobs in the United States. Yet major
oil producers have been loath to pull the plug on their most ambitious projects — the multibillion-dollar investments that form the backbone of their operations.Until now. On Monday,
Royal Dutch Shell ended its expensive and fruitless nine-year effort to explore for oil in the Alaskan Arctic — a $7 billion investment — in another sign that the entire industry is trimming its ambitions in the wake of collapsing oil prices
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/2...dutch-shell-alaska-oil-exploration-halt.html?
A nine year $7 billion investment by Royal Dutch Shell abandoned after getting Obama to approve this high risk drilling.
Why you ask? Here's why:
. But the company announced that its one well drilled this summer “found indications of oil and gas, but these are not sufficient to warrant further exploration.” In a statement, it also acknowledged “the high costs associated with the project and the challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska.”
So they quit:
And their $7 billion nine year price tab gets passed on eventually to the price at the pump etc. What about taxpayer costs to review this lease. Not a drop of oil extracted from under the Arctic seabed.
So yes Obama is pro-drilling. In the Arctic Sea - Royal Dutch Shell is not. Well, until they get oil priced at $100 a barrel again like it was nine years ago when this particular boondoggle was born.
