• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
U.S. Passes Saudis In Oil Output, No Thanks To White House - Investors.com

In spite of the Obama Administration's hostility to carbon-rich energy, private actors with private capital deployed on private (and state) land have launched a game-changing revolution in domestic oil and natural gas production.

A scarcely reported milestone conveys the magnitude of this turnaround in the global energy landscape.

The U.S. passed Saudi Arabia as the world's largest petroleum producer in November 2012, according to recently released data of the federal Energy Information Administr
Click to expand...

Oil reserves that can currently be reached by new technologies in the US are huge, several times the previous known reserves of a few years ago.

By law 100% of this oil is consumed here in the US.

The EPA may try to reduce production through regulation. If they do it will be the end of the EPA.
 
LowDown said:
U.S. Passes Saudis In Oil Output, No Thanks To White House - Investors.com



Oil reserves that can currently be reached by new technologies in the US are huge, several times the previous known reserves of a few years ago.

By law 100% of this oil is consumed here in the US.

The EPA may try to reduce production through regulation. If they do it will be the end of the EPA.
Click to expand...

Really?

U.S. Exports of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)

http://priceofoil.org/2013/02/08/us-crude-exports-the-iea-cant-have-it-both-ways/

Crude exports are governed by the Export Administration Act of 1979, which gives the president the authority to ban or curtail the export of commodities thought to be in short supply. While certain exceptions have been granted, most U.S. energy companies are unable to export crude to foreign countries besides Mexico and Canada.

Adam Sieminski, the recently appointed head of the US Energy Information Administration, has also voiced his support in favor of crude oil exports. He argues that crude exports could actually benefit the U.S. economy by creating jobs and ultimately reducing prices.
Click to expand...

Should the U.S. Export Crude Oil?
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
I stand corrected. I read somewhere that export of oil produced in the US was against the law.
Click to expand...

It is now minimal and very heavily regulated but has the potential to be much higher. As was noted in the links provided, it requires pipeline infrastucture (jobs?) to be done efficiently.
 
"No thanks to the White House"? Wow! Some folks will believe anything as long as it is negative about the present Administration


Connected to the headline is this:

Texas Refinery Is Saudi Foothold in U.S. Market

PORT ARTHUR, Tex. — It is hard to imagine the desert sands of the Persian Gulf being any farther away than from this swampy refinery port known for Cajun food, sport fishing and being the birthplace of Janis Joplin.

But right in the middle of town stands a strategic outpost for Saudi Arabia's global ambitions, although one that the Saudis appear loath to publicize.

The giant Motiva oil refinery, which just completed a $10 billion expansion that makes it the largest processor of gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products in the United States, is owned by Saudi Aramco and Royal Dutch Shell in a 50-50 partnership.

Saudi Aramco's investment in the refinery expansion is meant to ensure that Saudi Arabia will retain an important market for its crude in the United States at a time when American politicians are declaring their intention to wean the country off imported oil.
Click to expand...
 
LowDown said:
U.S. Passes Saudis In Oil Output, No Thanks To White House - Investors.com



Oil reserves that can currently be reached by new technologies in the US are huge, several times the previous known reserves of a few years ago.

By law 100% of this oil is consumed here in the US.

The EPA may try to reduce production through regulation. If they do it will be the end of the EPA.
Click to expand...

If we had passed the Saudis in output 6 years ago, it would be proof of W's greatness. Now it's "No thanks to the White House."
 
There is no question at all that the Obama White House is hostile to oil production, and fossil fuels in general. To pretend otherwise is pure hackery.

And it's a stupid thing. Purposely crippling ourselves in favor of some fantastical "clean energy" which may or may not happen is ludicrous. (Never mind that there is NO form of "clean energy" which isn't being protested and opposed by someone naturally sympathetic to the aforementioned Obama White House.)
 
Harshaw said:
There is no question at all that the Obama White House is hostile to oil production, and fossil fuels in general. To pretend otherwise is pure hackery.
Click to expand...
I definitely question it. I do NOT question Obama prefers to pursue clean/renewable forms of energy. And in a perfect world, Obama would be right in this. Obviously we don't live in a perfect world, but I'm not really interested in discussing clean vs oil.

What I'm curious about is your statement saying they are hostile to fossil fuels. What sort of things has he done to show he's hostile to fossil fuels?
 
Slyfox696 said:
I definitely question it. I do NOT question Obama prefers to pursue clean/renewable forms of energy. And in a perfect world, Obama would be right in this. Obviously we don't live in a perfect world, but I'm not really interested in discussing clean vs oil.

What I'm curious about is your statement saying they are hostile to fossil fuels. What sort of things has he done to show he's hostile to fossil fuels?
Click to expand...

Oh, please. He has shut down every attempt at domestic drilling he could. He's gone after coal with a vengeance, which cost him every county in West Virginia and every coal-producing county in Ohio. He's gone after natural gas with the same zeal. And by "he," of course, I mean his administration, but he's the one in charge.

If you don't already know this, you haven't paid attention.
 
LowDown said:
I stand corrected. I read somewhere that export of oil produced in the US was against the law.
Click to expand...

You are technically right...it's highly restricted and cases are only made in certain circumstances...like if crude oil taken say in a portion of Alaska could much more easily be refined in neighboring Canadian refineries.

Unless you get a special license to export crude you can't do it.
 
Somerville said:
If the present Administration is so "hostile" to oil production - why has oil production increased since Obama was inaugurated in Jan 2009?


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

Does Obama Deserve Credit for Increased Oil Production? Hint: No.

But, then the President also turned around and threw out a bunch of impressive statistics about how domestic oil production has only gone up during his administration, there are a record number of oil rigs operating now, etcetera. ...Anyone? Anyone?

As White House spokesman Jay Carney said this week "Oil and gas production in the United States has risen every year since the president's been in office. Oil production is now higher than it's been in eight years."

Industry analysts say production is rising -- not because of President Obama, but in spite of him.

"Today on federal land, the area where the president has control, production in the Gulf of Mexico is down 30 percent. Lease sales in Rocky Mountains on federal lands are down 70 percent," Jack Gerard, head of the American Petroleum Institute said.

He says the president has put 85 percent of the outer continental shelf off limits and overall, is only making 3 percent of the areas under his control available for development.

So, the Obama/White House All-Purpose Strategy Numero Uno goes something like: blame the Bush administration's policies for everything from the terrible economy to the dragging war in Afghanistan, but gloss over and take credit for the long-term effects of the Bush administration's policies when it helps Obama to quell voters unhappy with rising gas prices. Got it.

And now, for your listening pleasure, here's Dennis Prager absolutely stomping on Obama's 'algae' energy policy. Brilliant:

Does Obama Deserve Credit for Increased Oil Production? Hint: No. - Erika Johnsen

;)
 
Harshaw said:
Oh, please. He has shut down every attempt at domestic drilling he could. He's gone after coal with a vengeance, which cost him every county in West Virginia and every coal-producing county in Ohio. He's gone after natural gas with the same zeal. And by "he," of course, I mean his administration, but he's the one in charge.

If you don't already know this, you haven't paid attention.
Click to expand...

Coal is dying because natural gas. Coal no longer is the cheapest method of providing energy.

There is the real fact that coal is dirty when burned. Would you want an unregulated coal burning plant in your neighborhood? I'm not talking about the coal plants which already include technologies that decrease the pollution but an old school coal plant just burning the **** unfiltered?
 
LowDown said:
I stand corrected. I read somewhere that export of oil produced in the US was against the law.
Click to expand...

We also export 400,000 Barrels a day of GASOLINE. I bet you didn't know that either.
 
Somerville said:
If the present Administration is so "hostile" to oil production - why has oil production increased since Obama was inaugurated in Jan 2009?


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

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.

One wonders what I'd find if I were to go back through your own posting history in terms of defending Obama's hostility to oil and exploration. Would I find posts along the lines of "there's not even enough oil there to make a dent in prices"? I suspect I might.
 
iliveonramen said:
Coal is dying because natural gas. Coal no longer is the cheapest method of providing energy.
Click to expand...

That's OK, because he's against natural gas, too.

There is the real fact that coal is dirty when burned. Would you want an unregulated coal burning plant in your neighborhood? I'm not talking about the coal plants which already include technologies that decrease the pollution but an old school coal plant just burning the **** unfiltered?
Click to expand...

Whether I would or wouldn't, it's still a hostility to fossil fuels. So, thanks for helping.
 
MMC said:
Does Obama Deserve Credit for Increased Oil Production? Hint: No.

But, then the President also turned around and threw out a bunch of impressive statistics about how domestic oil production has only gone up during his administration, there are a record number of oil rigs operating now, etcetera. ...Anyone? Anyone?

As White House spokesman Jay Carney said this week "Oil and gas production in the United States has risen every year since the president's been in office. Oil production is now higher than it's been in eight years."

Industry analysts say production is rising -- not because of President Obama, but in spite of him.

"Today on federal land, the area where the president has control, production in the Gulf of Mexico is down 30 percent. Lease sales in Rocky Mountains on federal lands are down 70 percent," Jack Gerard, head of the American Petroleum Institute said.

He says the president has put 85 percent of the outer continental shelf off limits and overall, is only making 3 percent of the areas under his control available for development.

So, the Obama/White House All-Purpose Strategy Numero Uno goes something like: blame the Bush administration's policies for everything from the terrible economy to the dragging war in Afghanistan, but gloss over and take credit for the long-term effects of the Bush administration's policies when it helps Obama to quell voters unhappy with rising gas prices. Got it.

And now, for your listening pleasure, here's Dennis Prager absolutely stomping on Obama's 'algae' energy policy. Brilliant:

Does Obama Deserve Credit for Increased Oil Production? Hint: No. - Erika Johnsen

;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the chances near 100% that Somerville is in favor of his doing all of this.
 
MMC said:
Does Obama Deserve Credit for Increased Oil Production? Hint: No.

But, then the President also turned around and threw out a bunch of impressive statistics about how domestic oil production has only gone up during his administration, there are a record number of oil rigs operating now, etcetera. ...Anyone? Anyone?

As White House spokesman Jay Carney said this week "Oil and gas production in the United States has risen every year since the president's been in office. Oil production is now higher than it's been in eight years."

Industry analysts say production is rising -- not because of President Obama, but in spite of him.

"Today on federal land, the area where the president has control, production in the Gulf of Mexico is down 30 percent. Lease sales in Rocky Mountains on federal lands are down 70 percent," Jack Gerard, head of the American Petroleum Institute said.

He says the president has put 85 percent of the outer continental shelf off limits and overall, is only making 3 percent of the areas under his control available for development.

So, the Obama/White House All-Purpose Strategy Numero Uno goes something like: blame the Bush administration's policies for everything from the terrible economy to the dragging war in Afghanistan, but gloss over and take credit for the long-term effects of the Bush administration's policies when it helps Obama to quell voters unhappy with rising gas prices. Got it.

And now, for your listening pleasure, here's Dennis Prager absolutely stomping on Obama's 'algae' energy policy. Brilliant:

Does Obama Deserve Credit for Increased Oil Production? Hint: No. - Erika Johnsen

;)
Click to expand...

Oil Production on federal lands has been dropping since 2002. That's a long term trend.
 
MMC said:
I was just pointing out such wasn't coming from Team Obama. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, yeah; production being up does not in and of itself refute what I said..
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah, and the chances near 100% that Somerville is in favor of his doing all of this.
Click to expand...

Also there was this. ;)

Obama's War on Domestic Oil Production.

This week the Department of Interior (DOI) sold its first oil lease in the Gulf of Mexico in over a year. Withholding drilling permits and cancelling leases, the Obama Administration has made what was once routine nearly impossible.

Upon assuming office, President Obama cancelled 31 oil and gas lease sales, delaying thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity. Not letting any crisis go to waste, the Department of Interior imposed a six month drilling moratorium on the Gulf following the Macondo disaster.

The Obama Administration’s recent offshore drilling plan codifies the White House’s anti-energy, anti-jobs position. The Obama 2012-2017 draft drilling plan closes a majority of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to new energy production. In fact, less than 3 percent of America’s OCS will be available for development.

While the moratorium technically ended, 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.

DOI Secretary Ken Salazar told Politico that “total U.S. crude oil production was higher in 2010 than in any year since 2003. The Obama administration continues to take meaningful steps to grow America’s domestic energy economy and secure our energy future.” 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.

Production on federal lands, territory under Salazar’s purview, has been decreasing since Obama was sworn in. The fact that America’s oil output has increased is a testament to oil and natural gas companies revolutionary extracting techniques—like hydraulic fracturing—and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Adding insult to injury, foreign countries from all over the world are drilling near our coasts. Canada is drilling near Maine, Russia near Alaska, and Mexico is busy developing its vast reserves. Cuba is now soliciting help to drill within its waters, a mere 60 miles away from Florida. The position of this Administration is pro-drilling, as long as the oil wells being developed are in foreign waters. President Obama laid out this policy when speaking in Brazil, “We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

President Obama’s refusal to embrace domestic drilling from American companies has exacerbated our economic downturn. Simply allowing U.S. companies to develop natural resources currently prohibited by the federal government would have huge economic and geopolitical benefits. A million jobs would be created over the next ten years—literally. Drilling projects are enormously expensive, labor intensive projects that cost billions to undertake. These new wells would nearly double our domestic oil output adding another 4 million barrels to our daily production. And lastly, the government would receive around $127 billion in additional revenue, all according to a Wood Mackenzie study.

http://townhall.com/columnists/chri...mas_war_on_domestic_oil_production/page/full/
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Well, yeah; production being up does not in and of itself refute what I said..
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know I was refuting what he had said about production going up under Obama. I was pointing out that Obama didn't have anything to do with it, other than he is hurting business and jobs. What Bush started he can't take the credit for and then just blame Bush for the rest.
 
MMC said:
Also there was this. ;)

Obama's War on Domestic Oil Production.

This week the Department of Interior (DOI) sold its first oil lease in the Gulf of Mexico in over a year. Withholding drilling permits and cancelling leases, the Obama Administration has made what was once routine nearly impossible.

Upon assuming office, President Obama cancelled 31 oil and gas lease sales, delaying thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity. Not letting any crisis go to waste, the Department of Interior imposed a six month drilling moratorium on the Gulf following the Macondo disaster.

The Obama Administration’s recent offshore drilling plan codifies the White House’s anti-energy, anti-jobs position. The Obama 2012-2017 draft drilling plan closes a majority of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to new energy production. In fact, less than 3 percent of America’s OCS will be available for development.

While the moratorium technically ended, 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.

DOI Secretary Ken Salazar told Politico that “total U.S. crude oil production was higher in 2010 than in any year since 2003. The Obama administration continues to take meaningful steps to grow America’s domestic energy economy and secure our energy future.” 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.

Production on federal lands, territory under Salazar’s purview, has been decreasing since Obama was sworn in. The fact that America’s oil output has increased is a testament to oil and natural gas companies revolutionary extracting techniques—like hydraulic fracturing—and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Adding insult to injury, foreign countries from all over the world are drilling near our coasts. Canada is drilling near Maine, Russia near Alaska, and Mexico is busy developing its vast reserves. Cuba is now soliciting help to drill within its waters, a mere 60 miles away from Florida. The position of this Administration is pro-drilling, as long as the oil wells being developed are in foreign waters. President Obama laid out this policy when speaking in Brazil, “We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

President Obama’s refusal to embrace domestic drilling from American companies has exacerbated our economic downturn. Simply allowing U.S. companies to develop natural resources currently prohibited by the federal government would have huge economic and geopolitical benefits. A million jobs would be created over the next ten years—literally. Drilling projects are enormously expensive, labor intensive projects that cost billions to undertake. These new wells would nearly double our domestic oil output adding another 4 million barrels to our daily production. And lastly, the government would receive around $127 billion in additional revenue, all according to a Wood Mackenzie study.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Also stuff those saying he's not hostile to oil most likely favor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom