Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44

Thread: U.S. Passes Saudis In Oil Output, No Thanks To White House

  1. #31
    Guru
    soot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-17 @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,308

    Re: U.S. Passes Saudis In Oil Output, No Thanks To White House

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Hatred of the President does cause some folks to believe anything negative and to disavow any positive news.
    I don't hate the President and I don't blame him for things that aren't his fault or that are truly beyond his power to influence.

    While he has taken a more hostile tact toward fossil fule production than his predecessor it has been, to my knowledge, on slightly moreso in respect to oil drilling on federal land.

    In every other respect, however, President Obama has been downright combative toward the energy industry.

    While I won't fault him for things that aren't his fault neither will I give him credit for things that he doesn't deserve credit for.

    And he does not, in any way, deserve any credit at all for the recent increase in domestic oil production.

    Yes, the increase happened during his tenure but it happened for reasons that have nothing to do with his leadership.

    Giving credit to President Obama because oil production increased is like blaming President Obama because school shootings took on a grizzly new cast with the mass murder of grade schoolers at Sandy Hook.

    Both are complete bull$h*t.

    His being president at the time was coincidence, nothing more.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: U.S. Passes Saudis In Oil Output, No Thanks To White House

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Hatred of the President does cause some folks to believe anything negative and to disavow any positive news

    Gulf of Mexico oil production forecast to reach record high - Offshore


    Don't know history either

    from 2008


    The President simply continued the policies of past Administrations. When attacking Obama for limiting offshore drilling, one should note that certain Republican governors didn't want offshore drilling along their coastlines for fear of another Deepwater Horizon event destroying tourism.

    Estimates for the off limits areas are in the 17 to 19 billion barrels range, while the Gulf of Mexico alone has over 80 billion barrels available using present technology.
    Hatred.....Nah. That would means he knew what he was doing along and that would be on purpose.

    In 2008 Obama promised to put Americans to work with "shovel-ready projects, rebuilding our roads, our bridges." Yet President Obama later acknowledged that "Shovel-ready was not as... uh... shovel-ready as we expected."

    In 2008 Obama told us he opposed corporate welfare. He said we need to "cut back" a program called "the Export-Import Bank," or Ex-Im Bank, that he said had "become little more than a fund for corporate welfare." When Congress instead increased its funding by $40 billion, Obama signed the bill and said "congratulations on reauthorizing Ex-Im Bank to continue upon its extraordinary mission." Under Obama, that mission including a $2 billion loan guarantee to Brazilian oil giant Petrobras to drill off the coast of Brazil.

    Offshore drilling here in America might be Obama's flippiest flop of all. He started the 2008 campaign against drilling, but flipped when the public outrage was crystallized during the summer's "Drill Here! Drill Now!" protests. Then he flopped back to opposing drilling, and his Interior Department set-aside an already-approved leasing plan immediately upon Obama taking office. Then he flipped again, in March 2010 announcing an offshore drilling plan. The New York Times headline was "Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for the First Time." That plan never was implemented, and by December 2010 the New York Times ran the headline: "White House rescinds plan to expand drilling." Virginians were especially outraged, because the canceled lease sale off the Virginia coast would have created 10,000 jobs and had strong bipartisan support in the state.....snip~

    The Debate Between Obama's Promises and His Record - Phil Kerpen - [page]

  3. #33
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:30 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,499

    Re: U.S. Passes Saudis In Oil Output, No Thanks To White House

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Hatred.....Nah. That would means he knew what he was doing along and that would be on purpose.

    In 2008 Obama promised to put Americans to work with "shovel-ready projects, rebuilding our roads, our bridges." Yet President Obama later acknowledged that "Shovel-ready was not as... uh... shovel-ready as we expected."

    In 2008 Obama told us he opposed corporate welfare. He said we need to "cut back" a program called "the Export-Import Bank," or Ex-Im Bank, that he said had "become little more than a fund for corporate welfare." When Congress instead increased its funding by $40 billion, Obama signed the bill and said "congratulations on reauthorizing Ex-Im Bank to continue upon its extraordinary mission." Under Obama, that mission including a $2 billion loan guarantee to Brazilian oil giant Petrobras to drill off the coast of Brazil.

    Offshore drilling here in America might be Obama's flippiest flop of all. He started the 2008 campaign against drilling, but flipped when the public outrage was crystallized during the summer's "Drill Here! Drill Now!" protests. Then he flopped back to opposing drilling, and his Interior Department set-aside an already-approved leasing plan immediately upon Obama taking office. Then he flipped again, in March 2010 announcing an offshore drilling plan. The New York Times headline was "Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for the First Time." That plan never was implemented, and by December 2010 the New York Times ran the headline: "White House rescinds plan to expand drilling." Virginians were especially outraged, because the canceled lease sale off the Virginia coast would have created 10,000 jobs and had strong bipartisan support in the state.....snip~

    The Debate Between Obama's Promises and His Record - Phil Kerpen - [page]
    You forget -- any criticism of Obama is "hatred."
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #34
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,774

    Re: U.S. Passes Saudis In Oil Output, No Thanks To White House

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    While technically accurate, the increase in total U.S. production can be completely attributed to increased production on state and private lands, like development of North Dakota’s Bakken formation....snip~



    Why then are energy companies not using approved permits to drill on federal lands?

    http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medial....File.dat/AAPD Report (approved_apd_not_drilled_September 30,2011).pdf
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  5. #35
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,964

    Re: U.S. Passes Saudis In Oil Output, No Thanks To White House

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Because demand has increased since then. Gosh, notice when the slump happened?

    This is isn't new oil production; this is ramping up on existing facilities.

    It always amazes me how people will defend their man against anything, even if it's about a policy they'd otherwise be all for. Both sides do it.
    If Obama was really against this as much as you say, why would demand have anything to do with increased production, especially on federal lands? If he was really out to suppress this every opportunity he could, why would demand matter?

    You can't just point to the negatives and dismiss the points which contradict your argument, when the points are relevant to the discussion. If you wish to explain why the increase has happened despite Obama, I'd be interested but you just can't dismiss without acknowledging it's true and note the link in timing.

    Again, I won't dispute Obama clearly favors alternative energy, but I think it's a little much to say he's been excessively hostile to fossil fuels. I don't think preferring item A over item B means one is clearly hostile to item B.

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Oil Production on federal lands has been dropping since 2002. That's a long term trend.
    From what I've found, it's suggested it's actually done better under Obama than it did under Bush.

    On federal and Indian lands, as well as federally approved offshore drilling sites, oil production went up from 1.6 million barrels per day to 2 million barrels per day between fiscal years 2008 and 2010. But it dropped to 1.8 million barrels per day for the last fiscal year available, a decrease that the U.S. Energy Information Administration attributes to the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Despite the one-year drop in production, oil production on federal and Indian lands from 2009 through 2011 totaled 2.027 million barrels. That's an average of 675,000 barrels per year during Obama's term, compared to an average annual production of 609,000 barrels annually during Bush's last term.
    Fact check: Oil and natural gas production under Obama - CNN.com

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: U.S. Passes Saudis In Oil Output, No Thanks To White House

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Why then are energy companies not using approved permits to drill on federal lands?

    http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medial....File.dat/AAPD Report (approved_apd_not_drilled_September 30,2011).pdf
    Only a handful of permits have been issued earning this era the nomenclature, “permatorium.” Compared to pre-moratorium levels, almost twice as many exploration and development plans are stuck at DOI. Approval of plans has decreased by 86 percent explaining why the median number of days for approving an exploration plan has increased from 36 to 131 days. Most telling, revenue from offshore lease sales dropped from $9.5 billion in 2008 to $36 million in 2011.....snip~


  7. #37
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:30 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,499

    Re: U.S. Passes Saudis In Oil Output, No Thanks To White House

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    If Obama was really against this as much as you say, why would demand have anything to do with increased production, especially on federal lands? If he was really out to suppress this every opportunity he could, why would demand matter?

    You can't just point to the negatives and dismiss the points which contradict your argument, when the points are relevant to the discussion. If you wish to explain why the increase has happened despite Obama, I'd be interested but you just can't dismiss without acknowledging it's true and note the link in timing.

    Again, I won't dispute Obama clearly favors alternative energy, but I think it's a little much to say he's been excessively hostile to fossil fuels. I don't think preferring item A over item B means one is clearly hostile to item B.



    From what I've found, it's suggested it's actually done better under Obama than it did under Bush.


    Fact check: Oil and natural gas production under Obama - CNN.com
    I think that which has already been compendiously posted in the thread established what I was saying.

    I didn't say he was able to squash any manifestation, I said he's put the kibosh on that which he could, and he has.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: U.S. Passes Saudis In Oil Output, No Thanks To White House

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    If Obama was really against this as much as you say, why would demand have anything to do with increased production, especially on federal lands? If he was really out to suppress this every opportunity he could, why would demand matter?

    You can't just point to the negatives and dismiss the points which contradict your argument, when the points are relevant to the discussion. If you wish to explain why the increase has happened despite Obama, I'd be interested but you just can't dismiss without acknowledging it's true and note the link in timing.

    Again, I won't dispute Obama clearly favors alternative energy, but I think it's a little much to say he's been excessively hostile to fossil fuels. I don't think preferring item A over item B means one is clearly hostile to item B.



    From what I've found, it's suggested it's actually done better under Obama than it did under Bush.


    Fact check: Oil and natural gas production under Obama - CNN.com
    Addendum: In the WSJ this morning, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal published a piece slamming President Obama's politicized energy policy and misleading rhetoric, and outlining the steps we could take to increase our supplies and improve our economy right now. Solidarity, sir:


    To pursue national and economic security, the president's first obligations on energy should be to increase the quantity of domestic energy sources and to decrease the cost of that energy to consumers. That starts with implementing a clear strategy of increasing energy production in all sectors—including the hydrocarbon sources abhorred by the left—and by providing the kind of long-term regulatory certainty that private capital demands before investment.

    While the president is quick to tell anyone who will listen that domestic oil production is higher today than at any time since 2003, that's not the whole story. The truth is that today's production levels are not based on anything this president has done, but on the decisions made by private companies before he took office. And much of this production is taking place on private land.

    Because energy prices are driven by a sense of future risk, the president should create a more predictable environment for exploration and production. In an election year, the federal government is now suddenly attempting to reach pre-moratorium—that is, pre-2010 BP oil spill—levels for approving deep-water drilling permits. That's not enough. The average number of deep-water drilling permits approved monthly by the administration is down by nearly 30% from the historical norm prior to the spill.

    Team Obama's Deliberately Misleading Energy Messaging - Erika Johnsen


  9. #39
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,964

    Re: U.S. Passes Saudis In Oil Output, No Thanks To White House

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I think that which has already been compendiously posted in the thread established what I was saying.
    I don't. You're accusing Obama of hating fossil fuels, despite the evidence production has increased, not just on private lands, but public lands as well. You claimed this increased production is due to increased demand (which I do not dispute), but I have not satisfactorily seen you make the connection to how increased production falls in line with your claim of Obama hating fossil fuels.

    I didn't say he was able to squash any manifestation, I said he's put the kibosh on that which he could, and he has.
    Well that's certainly a convenient argument. You get to ignore the fact production has increased while still getting to make your claim Obama hates fossil fuels. In this way, you actually get to argue something which appears to be false, and yet still feel like you're in the right.

    I admire your argument, even as I find it to be lacking in many ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Addendum: In the WSJ this morning, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal published a piece slamming President Obama's politicized energy policy and misleading rhetoric, and outlining the steps we could take to increase our supplies and improve our economy right now. Solidarity, sir:


    To pursue national and economic security, the president's first obligations on energy should be to increase the quantity of domestic energy sources and to decrease the cost of that energy to consumers. That starts with implementing a clear strategy of increasing energy production in all sectors—including the hydrocarbon sources abhorred by the left—and by providing the kind of long-term regulatory certainty that private capital demands before investment.

    While the president is quick to tell anyone who will listen that domestic oil production is higher today than at any time since 2003, that's not the whole story. The truth is that today's production levels are not based on anything this president has done, but on the decisions made by private companies before he took office. And much of this production is taking place on private land.

    Because energy prices are driven by a sense of future risk, the president should create a more predictable environment for exploration and production. In an election year, the federal government is now suddenly attempting to reach pre-moratorium—that is, pre-2010 BP oil spill—levels for approving deep-water drilling permits. That's not enough. The average number of deep-water drilling permits approved monthly by the administration is down by nearly 30% from the historical norm prior to the spill.

    Team Obama's Deliberately Misleading Energy Messaging - Erika Johnsen

    I'm sure it's probably not right, but when I see you post Bobby Jindal and quote a source which freely admits to be a conservative media outlet, I really don't take the time to read what you post. Could you find something which would be a little less biased? I'll be happy to read then.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: U.S. Passes Saudis In Oil Output, No Thanks To White House

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    I don't. You're accusing Obama of hating fossil fuels, despite the evidence production has increased, not just on private lands, but public lands as well. You claimed this increased production is due to increased demand (which I do not dispute), but I have not satisfactorily seen you make the connection to how increased production falls in line with your claim of Obama hating fossil fuels.

    Well that's certainly a convenient argument. You get to ignore the fact production has increased while still getting to make your claim Obama hates fossil fuels. In this way, you actually get to argue something which appears to be false, and yet still feel like you're in the right.

    I admire your argument, even as I find it to be lacking in many ways.


    I'm sure it's probably not right, but when I see you post Bobby Jindal and quote a source which freely admits to be a conservative media outlet, I really don't take the time to read what you post. Could you find something which would be a little less biased? I'll be happy to read then.
    What does that matter when they cite their source such as Politico or the WSJ, Washington Post, NY Times. Not to mention a host of government sites. That's why sources are referenced.

    Moreover anything they cited can be checked with Politi-Fact. The CBO, and the DOI.

    Also Jindal was quoted out with what he said carried by several news sources. As it was Election time. Which Huff-PO and Politico carried.
    Last edited by MMC; 04-08-13 at 03:36 PM.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •