Debunking Obama’s Energy Policy Lies


Pages: 1 2

As U.S. gas prices steadily rise to alarming levels, Republican presidential hopefuls have pointed to the Obama administration’s dysfunctional energy policies as a significant influence in the distressing trend. It’s an issue that endangers the president’s re-election prospects and Team Obama is now in full defensive mode, simultaneously claiming that it is “all in” with respect to energy sources of all sorts, while it says that it has also made important inroads toward increasing domestic oil production and reducing dependence of foreign oil.

In order to support these claims, the administration turned to the tactic that has become a staple among global warming alarmists: pick a couple of convenient data points that support your position, claim they are representative of an overall trend and let the ever-gullible, technologically ignorant mainstream media regurgitate the message. For example, Obama has tried to mollify critics by saying that domestic production of crude oil is up to the highest levels that we’ve seen over the past eight years. While that is technically true, it’s a meaningless factoid, for the president doesn’t seem to understand – or refuses to acknowledge – that market forces have raised the value of crude oil enough that domestic production has marginally increased over the already pitiful rates of 2004.

The fact is that United States’ domestic crude oil production topped out at about 3.5 billion barrels per year in the 1970s, according to Department of Energy statistics (see graph below). Since then domestic production has steadily declined, as both Congress and presidential administrations of both parties have sacrificed energy independence in favor of appeasing environmental radicals. By 2004 – the year that the administration cites as the benchmark – domestic production had dropped more than forty percent, to about 2 billion barrels per year. Since then, domestic production has basically leveled out in the 1.8 billion to 2 billion barrel per year range, nowhere close to what we could actually produce if somebody in power had the wisdom and courage to tell leftist environmentalists to find something else to complain about. So yes, 2012 domestic production is creeping a bit higher than the already pitiful 2004 figures, simply because oil prices are high enough to bring more marginal wells back into production, but the Obama administration had nothing to do with that dubious achievement.

 

The president also attempted to dabble in the unfamiliar realm of free market economics, asserting that the only way to reduce gasoline prices was to reduce demand and thus the United States must consume less petroleum products. This we have been doing. Overall consumption of crude oil in the United States has dropped almost ten percent since the peak year of 2005. Interestingly, that reduction – along with reductions in burning coal to produce power – have also resulted in significant drops in greenhouse gas emission in the United States since 2005, something that the president strangely fails to mention. (The Obama administration’s EPA recently released its annual greenhouse gas inventory report, in which it picked 1990 as the benchmark year in order to claim an overall rise in United States’ greenhouse gas emissions, while it pretty much ignored the overall reductions that have been achieved relative to 2005).

Pages: 1 2

  • maturin20

    Leaving the untapped domestic oil sources in the ground for a rainy day couldn't hurt. Prices seem inclined upward for some time to come.

    • swemson

      It's raining right now in case you haven't noticed. And there's plenty of oil left in the ground… don't worry!

      fs

      • maturin20

        Why is it raining right now? How much oil is left in the ground?

        • mrbean

          You like so many products of a progressive (same as dumbed down with perversion) education are so uniformed about energy it is laughable. The largest oil deposits (100 times that of the Middle East) in the world are in Western Montana, North Dakota, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitioba. The largest natural gas deposits in the world are in the United States. In addition, the largest clean coal deposits in the world are in the United States and Southern Canada. Scrubbbers make this a clean fuel. Wind power is a loser at a 19% maximum theoretical efficiency not even counting the friction, distribution, and availability losses nor the enormous construction, daily operational, and maintenance costs on thousands of wind generators. Any agriculture based fuel costs between 10 times and 100 times as much to refine fuel from and drives up the cost of corn for example to articfially high prices. And that be the lesson for today.

          • maturin20

            Why haven't these large oil deposits been tapped before?

          • ofbag

            Now you're asking the right question, why not ask your leftist and environmentalist friends?

          • maturin20

            They cut me off when I started wearing acrylic shirts.

          • trickyblain

            Because it's in sludge and/or coal form. Not the light, sweet stuff that is virtually ready for the gas tank in the ME.

          • maturin20

            Does that mean that it's more expensive to process and refine?

          • trickyblain

            Many times more expensive (and it takes more energy to do so than it produces). Much of it can't be refined at all using current tech/facilities.

          • maturin20

            Doesn't sound like a viable alternative.

    • Asher

      Well guess where the oil is going that is being pumped…China….to help their growing economy and collapse ours with high gas prices. Please….leave it for a rainy day….how rediculous. By utilizing our own resources we become more independent and less foreign dependent on Middle East oil…its only good sense to use your own resources, if you have them, and it will make the prices decrease.. This argument will not save Obama's presidency!

      • maturin20

        I think the USA still uses more oil than any other nation. If we use our own resources now, won't that throw us back on foreign supplies even harder when we run dry?

  • kblink45

    Oil is America's lifeblood. Diminished use is an indication of a weak heart.

  • joel

    The rhetoric of this article is obviously intended for the uber conserves who see conspiracy and threats around every corner. For the readers who are not blinded by fear, there is another side to the story. One of science and empirical discovery. The oil that was produced almost exclusively during the Carboniferous Period and that oil is running out. However, by exploiting all of the oil in the ground and burning it up, we're pushing the CO2 levels too high and global temp levels will rise too high, too fast for life to adapt. We're currently living in the sixth mass earth extinction. There are similarities with the fourth mass earth extinction that caused the deaths of over 90% of all species. You can demonize those "alarmists" if you want but you're fears and priorities are direly misplaced. You're preaching a selfish life that's going to end life here on earth for all of our children's children!

    • swemson

      The oil isn't running out, far from it. We have the largest reserves in the world, more than enough for more than 200 years of use. And using oil doesn't have any statistically meaningful effect on CO2 levels, which, if truth be told are better the higher they are because CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's plant food, and the more CO2 we have, the more all life forms thrive from the abundance that it makes possible.

      Joel sounds exactly like the liberals Reagan used to make fun of. It's not that they don't know anything, it's just that so much of what they know, just isn't so.

      fs

      • Asher

        Staggering how much oil and Shale oil the US has……Get a good President who finally changes the scope of our energy problem, and the gas prices will come down again!

    • ASG

      "However, by exploiting all of the oil in the ground and burning it up, we're pushing the CO2 levels too high and global temp levels will rise too high, too fast for life to adapt. We're currently living in the sixth mass earth extinction. There are similarities with the fourth mass earth extinction that caused the deaths of over 90% of all species."

      Did T-Rex refuse to give up his SUV too? If we are looking at a sixth extinction event, perhaps it's innevitably like the first five.

    • ofbag

      If you can shoulder two dollars for every gallon I buy, I have no problem with your ideology.

    • Asher

      Sorry, You cannot pull the wool over people's eyes who know the truth, so keep on babbling because no one is listening!

  • joel

    I'm just curious how much pay one can receive from Heartland Institute and various fossil fuel company leaders that would inspire a writer to nefariously counter the science behind global warming that will lead to extinction of so many species on earth- possibly including the human species! You can call scientists "climate alarmists" but I think you're more of a monster. Are you clueless about the science or are you uncaring about life on earth? Mr Trzupek, stop trying to corrupt people.

    • Common Sense

      Cherry-picking data points and hiding data that doesn't fit the agenda is NOT science, far from it — it is politcs pure and simple. Species go extinct and have done so for decades and even centuries. Thousands more are discovered every year. Crawl back under the DemonRat party rock.

    • davarino

      Unfortunately its you that doesnt understand the science. CO2 is a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases and mans contribution to it are even tinier, except for your addition of hot air.

      Thanks for the propoganda.

    • Steeloak

      I think I'll go with Burt Rutan's take on the debate. This should help you understand how the science is being manipulated for a political agenda. http://www.usrea.org/documents/EngrCritique.AGW-S

      • maturin20

        Boy, that was a horrible document. Not because of its argument or anything, it was just really poorly laid out.

        • Steeloak

          It's a powerpoint. If you can't understand the clear charts, you can always watch the actual presentation on YouTube. http://youtu.be/Gm8vaH8LEV0 (Part 1 of 6)

    • JoJoJams

      Laughing my arse off! ~ And weren't you the one complaing above about "the right" and their belief in conspiracy theories! Too funny! (if it wasn't so sad…)

  • ObamaYoMoma

    but the Obama administration had nothing to do with that dubious achievement.

    Oh yes it did, as it helped to drive up those oil prices or did nothing to stem them.

  • Im_Old_BBart_School

    ~ Debunking Obama’s Energy Policy Lies …….

    …Barack Obama gave a big speech on the enviornment and race. There was one heckler in the audience, kept screaming crazy stuff the whole time.

    Turns out; he was Obama's pastor.

  • phillyfanatic

    Now we find out Chu, the dope who has no car and is not interested in lowering gas pump prices, has some ties with an Obama bundler-Kaiser and corruption continues in this Admin. This group does not care about gas pump prices or heating oil, but poor workers with cars and seniors who get cold are interested. Bama is still nutty to lower our demands on oil and lies about how much oil is being drilled yet that is not….private drilling. We could make that so much that we would be independent. He wants to punish America. And he hates coal, shale, gas and we Americans have enough for 200 years. No wonder many wish Mitch Rapp were real and would clean out his corruption.

  • SuicidePrevention

    The graph showing US oil production tells the story. Production relentlessly
    declined despite improving geoimaging and drilling technology. So, the supply is finite
    and dwindling. Why is conservation antithetical to conservatives? Let's conserve what oil is under our
    feet for future generations of Americans. For the time being we can pay for imported oil with ever printable new dollars. That game will end eventually, but with less dire consequences than actually exhausting our
    own locally produced oil. Although that will happen eventually.

    • swemson

      Conservation is fine when necessary, but it's not necessary right now. We have more than ample fossil fuel reserves to last us more than 200 years. New sources of energy will be discovered way before those reserves are used up. In fact we're on the cusp of a major new technology right now that will change the entire energy game within the next few years…

      • SuicidePrevention

        "fossil fuel reserves to last us more than 200 years" Our oil won't last nearly that long at
        current consumption rates. And while major oil fields all around the world are depleting, major new
        discoveries are rare and usually under several miles of brine and rock, so they are very expensive to
        produce and prone to BP-type accidents. In fact they require lots of energy to locate, drill, and operate. Far more than the easy oil which we've been blessed with. But the easy oil is running out.
        Perhaps coal can last 200 years. I'm not sure. But, in any case coal is hardly an ideal transportation fuel.

    • reader

      Just watch the demagoguery. On one hand, Obama brags about production being all time high. On the other, it's dwindling because it is finite. Of course, it is neither. The production is dwindling because the feds are in a full-front obstruction mode blocking anybody from drilling on federal owned land, and their "green" red friends harrass everybody with the permission to drill with relentless court action.

  • SuicidePrevention

    Rich Trzupek engages in wishful thinking when he blames the domestic oil production decline on government policies. He writes, "The fact is that United States’ domestic crude oil production topped out at about 3.5 billion barrels per year in the 1970s, according to Department of Energy statistics (see graph below). Since then domestic production has steadily declined, as both Congress and presidential administrations of both parties have sacrificed energy independence in favor of appeasing environmental radicals." He can't conceive that oil is finite. Trzupek somehow imagines that the Bush Cheney administration didn't do it's damndest to maximize production by eviscerating environmental regulations. They did eviscerate regulation, but to no avail.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Obama must drive the cost of living up for Americans to stifle the economy and drag us down to the
    level of the third world in order to make us a Socialist heaven. It is a sure thing for Obama to want
    America poor and desolate without hope of a futute in order for his Islamist buds to feel at home as
    he has them imported here in the hundreds of thousands. Is there and upside, yes many of the
    South American illegals are leaving for Haiti…………………………….William

  • Wesley69

    The grievances against this administration are many. Among them is his energy policy.

    Grievance 1 – Obama has imposed upon the citizenry the burden of higher energy costs due to his desire to replace the current fossil-fuels with renewable energy sources. He and the Environmental Protection Agency, by executive fiat and ever increasing regulations, is forcing this change despite the fact that Congress failed to pass Cap and Trade legislation. Besides ever increasing costs, which this administration has declared they have no interest in reversing, his policies have made the United States more dependent upon less secure foreign sources for its petroleum. This is being done despite the presence of abundant natural resources within the United States and newly discovered technologies. While ignoring these facts, the President has focused, instead, on unproven renewable energy sources, investing heavily in this field. Many of these corporations have since filed for bankruptcy, or manufactured products which are too expensive for the average citizen, meaning that the United States taxpayer will never see any return on this President’s investment in green technology.

    Grievance 2 Obama has shown his hypocrisy by his shutdown of petroleum production in the Gulf of Mexico and other areas within the territorial waters of the United States, while at the same time provided financial support to the country of Brazil for similar efforts to extract petroleum from their territorial waters. That such a financial transaction would be allowed in view of this administration’s expressed concern for the protection of the environment is indeed a puzzling thing to contemplate.

    Grievance 3 – Obama has used the power of government to force a private corporation, the party held responsible for a catastrophic oil spill within the Gulf of Mexico, to create an escrow fund without the approval of Congress, or any legislation passed by that body. He, alone, has set down the procedures by which those suffering financial injury, due to the petroleum spill, will be compensated, determining the amount of such compensation.

    Grievance 4- Obama has used the construction of a petroleum pipeline from the tar sands of Canada to the United States for his own political purposes. By delaying his decision, he has gained the support of environmentalists for his reelection bid. Yet, his action threatens the national interests of this country. Should this project not be approved, the United States will not reap the benefits of this petroleum or the employment opportunities associated with the construction and maintenance of the pipeline. At this moment, Canada has negotiated a deal for the purchase of this tar-sands oil with China. This event has not fast-tracked the approval process within the administration.

    And here's the granddaddy grievance:
    *He has, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve Board, weakened the national currency, by the strategy of Quantitative Easing. The resulting inflation is effecting the standard of living of all Americans and the standing of our currency in the eyes of the world. This is why prices keep going up. Our dollar is worth less. Print more money and we will have hyperinflation, which will destroy the savings and retirement of everyone. It will lead to people unable to buy the bare necessities of life.

    • Arab Bling

      I would like to add to that a Grievance under the Gulf of Mexico oil category, which is that he turned down prudent and timely international offers of equipment and help to contain and harvest the oil spill in the Gulf, allowing it to reach a size with minimal and late intervention efforts that could not be stopped from reaching our coastline. The resulting ecological and economic disaster was then used, in my opinion, to bolster his justification to stop new gulf drilling. Essentially he allowed …perhaps caused the mess that was used as the reason to justify a moratorium on any new gulf drilling.

  • Wesley69

    He gave the clean-up job to the unions. I always wonders, why, after he did announce an extension of offshore drilling, that this disaster SUDDENLY occurred.

  • http://www.dancome.org web hosting

    Great day! I could have sworn I have been to this internet website prior to but after taking a look at a few of the articles I realized it is new to me. Anyhow, I am certainly pleased I stumbled upon it and I will be bookmarking it and checking back frequently!