US energy production growing, consumption down

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't ask that and the fact that production of crude and natural gas is more in Obama's less than 4 years than in the oil man Bush's 8 years speaks volumes. The fact that Bush's dad started that moratorium on offshore drilling speaks volumes.

Your rhetoric only shows your willingness to ignore facts.

If your "fine" state of Texas thinks it has the right to avoid federal law, then they get what they deserve. Of course, they could decide to secede again and see how far that gets them.

The air doesn't stay over Texas, so figure it out!

the fact that production of crude and natural gas is more in Obama's less than 4 years than in the oil man Bush's 8 years speaks volumes.

LOL!

I'll see if I can find someone good at teaching special ed and help you with that sentence.

Try someone who understands math, it's clear you don't.

 

[Dubya]

the fact that production of crude and natural gas is more in Obama's less than 4 years than in the oil man Bush's 8 years speaks volumes.

LOL!

I'll see if I can find someone good at teaching special ed and help you with that sentence.

Try someone who understands math, it's clear you don't.

It's not a math problem, it's a reading problem or in your case a reading into problem, probably because you're too lazy to visit the EIA site and figure out the definition of production and total production.

There is always some right-wing moron pretending they are right about something.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'll see if I can find someone good at teaching special ed and help you with that sentence.

Try someone who understands math, it's clear you don't.

It's not a math problem, it's a reading problem or in your case a reading into problem, probably because you're too lazy to visit the EIA site and figure out the definition of production and total production.

There is always some right-wing moron pretending they are right about something.

It's not a math problem,

Obviously not. You think more oil was produced in less than 4 years under Obama than in 8 years under Bush.
You're clearly wrong.

 

[Dubya]

Try someone who understands math, it's clear you don't.

It's not a math problem, it's a reading problem or in your case a reading into problem, probably because you're too lazy to visit the EIA site and figure out the definition of production and total production.

There is always some right-wing moron pretending they are right about something.

It's not a math problem,

Obviously not. You think more oil was produced in less than 4 years under Obama than in 8 years under Bush.
You're clearly wrong.

I posted production figures once for the EIA, so can you explain what production means according to them and not you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's not a math problem, it's a reading problem or in your case a reading into problem, probably because you're too lazy to visit the EIA site and figure out the definition of production and total production.

There is always some right-wing moron pretending they are right about something.

It's not a math problem,

Obviously not. You think more oil was produced in less than 4 years under Obama than in 8 years under Bush.
You're clearly wrong.

I posted production figures once for the EIA, so can you explain what production means according to them and not you?

Excellent! So you can post proof that production in the last 4 years was higher than in the prior 8 years. I'll wait.

 

[Dubya]

It's not a math problem,

Obviously not. You think more oil was produced in less than 4 years under Obama than in 8 years under Bush.
You're clearly wrong.

I posted production figures once for the EIA, so can you explain what production means according to them and not you?

Excellent! So you can post proof that production in the last 4 years was higher than in the prior 8 years. I'll wait.

If you would have went to the EIA site, like I told you and gave a link for, you would know production or consumption is defined as the rate of production or consumption.

You're just too lazy to do anything but spout nonsense based on the limits of your understanding.

If you had a brain that was functional, you would realize that the only way to track production is to track it's rate. It isn't practical to just keep adding up numbers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I posted production figures once for the EIA, so can you explain what production means according to them and not you?

Excellent! So you can post proof that production in the last 4 years was higher than in the prior 8 years. I'll wait.

If you would have went to the EIA site, like I told you and gave a link for, you would know production or consumption is defined as the rate of production or consumption.

You're just too lazy to do anything but spout nonsense based on the limits of your understanding.

If you had a brain that was functional, you would realize that the only way to track production is to track it's rate. It isn't practical to just keep adding up numbers.

I've been to that site. I know that your claim, "production in Obama's less than 4 years was more than in Bush's 8 years" is beyond wrong.

 

[Dubya]

Excellent! So you can post proof that production in the last 4 years was higher than in the prior 8 years. I'll wait.

If you would have went to the EIA site, like I told you and gave a link for, you would know production or consumption is defined as the rate of production or consumption.

You're just too lazy to do anything but spout nonsense based on the limits of your understanding.

If you had a brain that was functional, you would realize that the only way to track production is to track it's rate. It isn't practical to just keep adding up numbers.

I've been to that site. I know that your claim, "production in Obama's less than 4 years was more than in Bush's 8 years" is beyond wrong.

You've been going on with this nonsense too long. Why don't you look up the history of our gasoline exports and explain how they managed to increase as we received bitumen from the Keystone Pipeline?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you would have went to the EIA site, like I told you and gave a link for, you would know production or consumption is defined as the rate of production or consumption.

You're just too lazy to do anything but spout nonsense based on the limits of your understanding.

If you had a brain that was functional, you would realize that the only way to track production is to track it's rate. It isn't practical to just keep adding up numbers.

I've been to that site. I know that your claim, "production in Obama's less than 4 years was more than in Bush's 8 years" is beyond wrong.

You've been going on with this nonsense too long. Why don't you look up the history of our gasoline exports and explain how they managed to increase as we received bitumen from the Keystone Pipeline?

Damn you're stupid, typical lib.
Tired of playing with you, so I'll just show your error.
US annual oil production, from EIA. Link....
U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)
In thousands of barrels
2001 - 2,117,511 (because you're slow, this is over 2.1 billion barrels)

2002 - 2,096,588

2003 - 2,060,085

2004 - 1,989,263

2005 - 1,892,796

2006 - 1,857,322

2007 - 1,853,086

2008 - 1,830,136

2009 - 1,953,800

2010 - 1,999,731

2011 - 2,062,964

The first 10 months of 2012, 1,934,093

So, Bush's 8 years, about 15.67 billion barrels were produced in the US, according to the EIA.

Obama's less than 4 years, a bit less than 8 billion barrels.

the fact that production of crude and natural gas is more in Obama's less than 4 years than in the oil man Bush's 8 years speaks volumes.

Sticking with your silly claim?

 

[Dubya]

I've been to that site. I know that your claim, "production in Obama's less than 4 years was more than in Bush's 8 years" is beyond wrong.

You've been going on with this nonsense too long. Why don't you look up the history of our gasoline exports and explain how they managed to increase as we received bitumen from the Keystone Pipeline?

Damn you're stupid, typical lib.
Tired of playing with you, so I'll just show your error.
US annual oil production, from EIA. Link....
U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)
In thousands of barrels
2001 - 2,117,511 (because you're slow, this is over 2.1 billion barrels)

2002 - 2,096,588

2003 - 2,060,085

2004 - 1,989,263

2005 - 1,892,796

2006 - 1,857,322

2007 - 1,853,086

2008 - 1,830,136

2009 - 1,953,800

2010 - 1,999,731

2011 - 2,062,964

The first 10 months of 2012, 1,934,093

So, Bush's 8 years, about 15.67 billion barrels were produced in the US, according to the EIA.

Obama's less than 4 years, a bit less than 8 billion barrels.

the fact that production of crude and natural gas is more in Obama's less than 4 years than in the oil man Bush's 8 years speaks volumes.

Sticking with your silly claim?

What does the word field mean? Try this one and notice crude oil production was declining until 2009. You can also get the past history, which is what you did to exclude offshore crude production and lie:

Crude Oil Production

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You've been going on with this nonsense too long. Why don't you look up the history of our gasoline exports and explain how they managed to increase as we received bitumen from the Keystone Pipeline?

Damn you're stupid, typical lib.
Tired of playing with you, so I'll just show your error.
US annual oil production, from EIA. Link....
U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)
In thousands of barrels
2001 - 2,117,511 (because you're slow, this is over 2.1 billion barrels)

2002 - 2,096,588

2003 - 2,060,085

2004 - 1,989,263

2005 - 1,892,796

2006 - 1,857,322

2007 - 1,853,086

2008 - 1,830,136

2009 - 1,953,800

2010 - 1,999,731

2011 - 2,062,964

The first 10 months of 2012, 1,934,093

So, Bush's 8 years, about 15.67 billion barrels were produced in the US, according to the EIA.

Obama's less than 4 years, a bit less than 8 billion barrels.

the fact that production of crude and natural gas is more in Obama's less than 4 years than in the oil man Bush's 8 years speaks volumes.

Sticking with your silly claim?

What does the word field mean? Try this one and notice crude oil production was declining until 2009. You can also get the past history, which is what you did to exclude offshore crude production and lie:

Crude Oil Production

What does the word field mean?

It doesn't mean your ridiculous claim is any less ridiculous.
Feel free to post your own set of EIA numbers that proves your claim.

 

[whitehall]

Do we really have an "energy information administration" who's job it is to cherry pick and rig energy statistics to make the administration look good? We can see the price of diesel fuel posted on gas stations and the price of commodities rise due to transportation costs. None of it is good news.

 

[Dubya]

Do we really have an "energy information administration" who's job it is to cherry pick and rig energy statistics to make the administration look good? We can see the price of diesel fuel posted on gas stations and the price of commodities rise due to transportation costs. None of it is good news.

The CIA gathers energy information of all kind in all countries.

There are records on energy production, consumption, imports, exports, you name it.

Only someone running their mouth on the internet doubts the figures.

 

[Dubya]

Damn you're stupid, typical lib.
Tired of playing with you, so I'll just show your error.
US annual oil production, from EIA. Link....
U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)
In thousands of barrels
2001 - 2,117,511 (because you're slow, this is over 2.1 billion barrels)

2002 - 2,096,588

2003 - 2,060,085

2004 - 1,989,263

2005 - 1,892,796

2006 - 1,857,322

2007 - 1,853,086

2008 - 1,830,136

2009 - 1,953,800

2010 - 1,999,731

2011 - 2,062,964

The first 10 months of 2012, 1,934,093

So, Bush's 8 years, about 15.67 billion barrels were produced in the US, according to the EIA.

Obama's less than 4 years, a bit less than 8 billion barrels.

the fact that production of crude and natural gas is more in Obama's less than 4 years than in the oil man Bush's 8 years speaks volumes.

Sticking with your silly claim?

What does the word field mean? Try this one and notice crude oil production was declining until 2009. You can also get the past history, which is what you did to exclude offshore crude production and lie:

Crude Oil Production

What does the word field mean?

It doesn't mean your ridiculous claim is any less ridiculous.
Feel free to post your own set of EIA numbers that proves your claim.

I said crude oil production, even quoted an article discussing it and provided a link to the EIA. You switched to a link about field crude oil production, which excludes offshore production to lie.

Are the figures for crude oil production and field crude oil production the same?

Crude oil production was declining with Bush and that changed in 2009 and it's increased since then.

I gave you the link and you had to use it to get to your link. Here it is again:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_CRD_CRPDN_ADC_MBBL_A.htm

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What does the word field mean? Try this one and notice crude oil production was declining until 2009. You can also get the past history, which is what you did to exclude offshore crude production and lie:

Crude Oil Production

What does the word field mean?

It doesn't mean your ridiculous claim is any less ridiculous.
Feel free to post your own set of EIA numbers that proves your claim.

I said crude oil production, even quoted an article discussing it and provided a link to the EIA. You switched to a link about field crude oil production, which excludes offshore production to lie.

Are the figures for crude oil production and field crude oil production the same?

Crude oil production was declining with Bush and that changed in 2009 and it's increased since then.

I gave you the link and you had to use it to get to your link. Here it is again:

Crude Oil Production

I gave you the link and you had to use it to get to your link. Here it is again:

Sorry, I used my own link. Your link doesn't prove your initial claim either.

Crude oil production was declining with Bush and that changed in 2009 and it's increased since then.

Yes, annual production has increased recently, thanks to fracking. Imagine what production could be if Obama actually helped, rather than hindered production.

You can admit your error anytime. It won't kill you.

 

[Mr. H.]

Come on Dubya, don't let Todd have the last word!

 

[Dubya]

What does the word field mean?

It doesn't mean your ridiculous claim is any less ridiculous.
Feel free to post your own set of EIA numbers that proves your claim.

I said crude oil production, even quoted an article discussing it and provided a link to the EIA. You switched to a link about field crude oil production, which excludes offshore production to lie.

Are the figures for crude oil production and field crude oil production the same?

Crude oil production was declining with Bush and that changed in 2009 and it's increased since then.

I gave you the link and you had to use it to get to your link. Here it is again:

Crude Oil Production

I gave you the link and you had to use it to get to your link. Here it is again:

Sorry, I used my own link. Your link doesn't prove your initial claim either.

Crude oil production was declining with Bush and that changed in 2009 and it's increased since then.

Yes, annual production has increased recently, thanks to fracking. Imagine what production could be if Obama actually helped, rather than hindered production.

You can admit your error anytime. It won't kill you.

Your link doesn't have data for 2012 and again production means the rate of production. Do you think the EIA only makes annual reports or production has to mean annual production? I gave you the right link and all you had to do is switch to monthly:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=M

Crude oil production is at an 18 year high, so get use to it. Natural gas production is the highest it's been and the prices are very low.

Obama has been better for the oil and gas industry than Bush was and that's a fact.

Now, consider all the bitching about coal! There are regulations in the future that are going to shutdown some power plants that have bad emissions. A coal fired boiler can be changed to natural gas without that much difficulty. That means we don't have to continue having mercury and arsenic pollution. Have you ever checked how much sulfur some of those power plants emit? The reductions in coal fired power plants have been going on for sometime, but during that time coal production has been at it's historic highs, with minor fluctuation based on exports.

You wingnuts might see a President against the energy industry, but the evidence doesn't show it and since when have you ever gotten something right?

Coal exports seem to be doing fine

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I said crude oil production, even quoted an article discussing it and provided a link to the EIA. You switched to a link about field crude oil production, which excludes offshore production to lie.

Are the figures for crude oil production and field crude oil production the same?

Crude oil production was declining with Bush and that changed in 2009 and it's increased since then.

I gave you the link and you had to use it to get to your link. Here it is again:

Crude Oil Production

I gave you the link and you had to use it to get to your link. Here it is again:

Sorry, I used my own link. Your link doesn't prove your initial claim either.

Crude oil production was declining with Bush and that changed in 2009 and it's increased since then.

Yes, annual production has increased recently, thanks to fracking. Imagine what production could be if Obama actually helped, rather than hindered production.

You can admit your error anytime. It won't kill you.

Your link doesn't have data for 2012 and again production means the rate of production. Do you think the EIA only makes annual reports or production has to mean annual production? I gave you the right link and all you had to do is switch to monthly:

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)

Crude oil production is at an 18 year high, so get use to it. Natural gas production is the highest it's been and the prices are very low.

Obama has been better for the oil and gas industry than Bush was and that's a fact.

Now, consider all the bitching about coal! There are regulations in the future that are going to shutdown some power plants that have bad emissions. A coal fired boiler can be changed to natural gas without that much difficulty. That means we don't have to continue having mercury and arsenic pollution. Have you ever checked how much sulfur some of those power plants emit? The reductions in coal fired power plants have been going on for sometime, but during that time coal production has been at it's historic highs, with minor fluctuation based on exports.

You wingnuts might see a President against the energy industry, but the evidence doesn't show it and since when have you ever gotten something right?

Coal exports seem to be doing fine

Your link doesn't have data for 2012 and again production means the rate of production. Do you think the EIA only makes annual reports or production has to mean annual production?

It does have the 2012 data, you just have to click on the monthly button, instead of the annual button.
When you compare less than 4 years of production to 8 years of production, what are you discussing? I understood that to mean 4 years of totals versus 8 years of totals.

If you want to change your claim to say we produce more now than we did during Bush's presidency, on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis, you should leave off the word years.

Crude oil production is at an 18 year high, so get use to it.

That's a good thing. It would be higher if he stopped hindering production.

Obama has been better for the oil and gas industry than Bush was and that's a fact.

LOL! How do you figure that?

You wingnuts might see a President against the energy industry

He's only against energy that makes sense, like oil and natural gas. When it come to budget busting subsidies for losers like solar and wind, he's on board!

and since when have you ever gotten something right?

Plenty, starting when I predicted Obama would be as big a failure in DC as he was here in Chicago.

 

[Dubya]

I gave you the link and you had to use it to get to your link. Here it is again:

Sorry, I used my own link. Your link doesn't prove your initial claim either.

Crude oil production was declining with Bush and that changed in 2009 and it's increased since then.

Yes, annual production has increased recently, thanks to fracking. Imagine what production could be if Obama actually helped, rather than hindered production.

You can admit your error anytime. It won't kill you.

Your link doesn't have data for 2012 and again production means the rate of production. Do you think the EIA only makes annual reports or production has to mean annual production? I gave you the right link and all you had to do is switch to monthly:

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)

Crude oil production is at an 18 year high, so get use to it. Natural gas production is the highest it's been and the prices are very low.

Obama has been better for the oil and gas industry than Bush was and that's a fact.

Now, consider all the bitching about coal! There are regulations in the future that are going to shutdown some power plants that have bad emissions. A coal fired boiler can be changed to natural gas without that much difficulty. That means we don't have to continue having mercury and arsenic pollution. Have you ever checked how much sulfur some of those power plants emit? The reductions in coal fired power plants have been going on for sometime, but during that time coal production has been at it's historic highs, with minor fluctuation based on exports.

You wingnuts might see a President against the energy industry, but the evidence doesn't show it and since when have you ever gotten something right?

Coal exports seem to be doing fine

Your link doesn't have data for 2012 and again production means the rate of production. Do you think the EIA only makes annual reports or production has to mean annual production?

It does have the 2012 data, you just have to click on the monthly button, instead of the annual button.
When you compare less than 4 years of production to 8 years of production, what are you discussing? I understood that to mean 4 years of totals versus 8 years of totals.

If you want to change your claim to say we produce more now than we did during Bush's presidency, on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis, you should leave off the word years.

Crude oil production is at an 18 year high, so get use to it.

That's a good thing. It would be higher if he stopped hindering production.

Obama has been better for the oil and gas industry than Bush was and that's a fact.

LOL! How do you figure that?

You wingnuts might see a President against the energy industry

He's only against energy that makes sense, like oil and natural gas. When it come to budget busting subsidies for losers like solar and wind, he's on board!

and since when have you ever gotten something right?

Plenty, starting when I predicted Obama would be as big a failure in DC as he was here in Chicago.

You don't understand anything or you would have the sense to know anything you say is suspect. The monthly figures for crude production end in Oct 2012 and you have to go back to Dec 1993 to find higher production. Natural gas is at record production and coal is near record production and fluctuates with exports. It's been that way even though coal fired electricity production has been declining for a long time.

You wingnuts act like someone not giving away public resources to the rich is against the industries, when he has done more than you clowns.

I've pointed out twice how as we were importing bitumen from Canada with the Keystone Pipeline, we have been exporting gasoline that matches the amount of barrels. That all happened recently with Obama, so the fact is the Keystone Pipeline hasn't lowered our gasoline prices, but it's allowed Texas refineries to export gasoline. Cushing Oklahoma has had an oil glut and the Keystone project to connect it to the Texas refineries was approved. The only pipeline that wasn't approved was that shortcut across the Ogallala Aquifer. If they were so interested in getting their project approved, why didn't they just follow the original pipeline, where they have already used eminent domain to take the land?

I also noticed you didn't say anything about that pipeline crossing ANWR and speaking of ANWR, why is it smart for us to hand over about a trillion and a half dollars of crude oil to the oil companies? If you owned it on your private land, would you hand it over to them?

There is nothing about Obama that makes him appear to be against the fossil fuel industries, except the crap you right-wingers spew. Obama is very pro-business and you right-wingers are delusional. Obama throughs crumbs to the environmentalists and those projects you have complained about are very important for California electricity production, because of the advances in technology. On wind, Obama and Bush are about the same in their approach. The fact is I don't think Obama had much choice in his pro-business stance, because he inherited an economy you right-wingers trashed.

 

[Mr. H.]

You don't understand anything or you would have the sense to know anything you say is suspect. The monthly figures for crude production end in Oct 2012 and you have to go back to Dec 1993 to find higher production. Natural gas is at record production and coal is near record production and fluctuates with exports. It's been that way even though coal fired electricity production has been declining for a long time.

You wingnuts act like someone not giving away public resources to the rich is against the industries, when he has done more than you clowns.

I've pointed out twice how as we were importing bitumen from Canada with the Keystone Pipeline, we have been exporting gasoline that matches the amount of barrels. That all happened recently with Obama, so the fact is the Keystone Pipeline hasn't lowered our gasoline prices, but it's allowed Texas refineries to export gasoline. Cushing Oklahoma has had an oil glut and the Keystone project to connect it to the Texas refineries was approved. The only pipeline that wasn't approved was that shortcut across the Ogallala Aquifer. If they were so interested in getting their project approved, why didn't they just follow the original pipeline, where they have already used eminent domain to take the land?

I also noticed you didn't say anything about that pipeline crossing ANWR and speaking of ANWR, why is it smart for us to hand over about a trillion and a half dollars of crude oil to the oil companies? If you owned it on your private land, would you hand it over to them?

There is nothing about Obama that makes him appear to be against the fossil fuel industries, except the crap you right-wingers spew. Obama is very pro-business and you right-wingers are delusional. Obama throughs crumbs to the environmentalists and those projects you have complained about are very important for California electricity production, because of the advances in technology. On wind, Obama and Bush are about the same in their approach. The fact is I don't think Obama had much choice in his pro-business stance, because he inherited an economy you right-wingers trashed.

High domestic crude oil production is a good thing. The current phenonemon is absolutely undeniably NOT attributable to Obama or his policies. It's about hydraulic fracturing which Obama and his EPA thugs want buried and done.

Natural gas production is at record levels because of private enterprise, not Obama's Liberal agenda. Obama risks our tax dollars on failed renewable/alternative projects to no avail, while private commerce risks their own dollars in the marketplace.

Keep in mind that Obama's proposed budget contains over $40 billion in taxes on oil and natural gas. How's that for "incentive".

"Handing over" ANWR reserves would net the Federal Treasury untold millions of dollars in lease bonuses and royalties. More money INTO the pocket of the Negro-monkey.

The rest of your post is blathering bullshit and you are one seriously fucked up individual.