The Purpose of This Bl;og

By and large, liberals are very decent, kind, and compassionate people who genuinely want what is best. This should be kept in mind as we explore the Law of Unintended Negative Consequences near invariably resulting from Leftist big-hearted solutions to societal problems.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Obama Energy - Coal

Over the years, Obama and other liberal leaders have made a number of seemingly contradictory statements and have taken several conflicting actions regarding coal. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)   

On the one hand, in a controversial interview of 2008, which continues to haunt Obama even during his second term as president, then candidate Obama denied being a "coal booster," and even intimated that his proposed cap and trade policy was intended to bankrupt or effectively get rid of the coal industry. (See HERE) After acknowledging the futility of eliminating coal any time soon by saying, "This notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion, because the fact of the matter is that right now, we are getting a lot of our energy from coal," Obama went on to proclaim, "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted....What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it." (ibid.)

Whereas, on the other hand, according to the President's "All of the Above Approach to Energy Independence" website: "President Obama has set a 10-year goal to develop and deploy cost-effective clean coal technology."

In the face of all the double-speak, and in the wake of the Climate Change Strategy (greenhouse gas regulations) announced by the White House in June of 2013 (see HERE and HERE), some liberals have been quick to deny that Obama is at war against coal (see HERE), while opponents and industry experts strenuously assert that he is. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) Even some of Obama's own supporters and union backers have begun "protesting EPA's war on coal." (See HERE, see also HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) Yet other liberals, including a White House advisor, figure that a war on coal is precisely what is needed. (See HERE and HERE)

Whether there is a war on coal or not, the potential Leftist LUNCs of Obama's coal policy (which again subordinates energy concerns to his environmental and climate change agendas), then, may be the disruption of a relatively cheap energy source, subsequent economic fallout, shipping of "dirty coal" overseas, and "an unrecoverable blow to coal-rich states." (Reported HERE). It may lead to further closure of coal-powered electric plants--145 out of 589 have already announced retirement (see HERE and HERE); effectively prevent new coal plants from coming on line; kill jobs; and raise energy costs. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

All this downside without any upside change in the climate. (See HERE)

"For example, in attacking coal, a new EPA regulation will ban the construction of any new coal plants. Other regulatory rulings being contemplated will effectively close most or all of the existing coal plants in the United States. The U.S. coal industry is already under great economic pressure from abundant and inexpensive natural gas which will continue to replace coal for power and heating. Enormous shale gas resources that are being developed in places like the Barnett in Texas and the Marsalis in Pennsylvania are having a huge impact, but that does not mean our nation, with the largest supplies of coal in the world, should deny ourselves its use and become overly reliant on one energy source that the government could then regulate out of business.  That is, in a word, stupid.} (See HERE)

The Heritage Foundation reports: "If the regulations on the coal industry are allowed to stand, they will almost certainly destroy the coal industry, with predictable, undesirable economic effects on the rest of the country....significantly reducing coal’s share in America’s energy mix would, before 2030: Destroy more than 500,000 jobs, Cause a family of four to lose more than $1,000 in annual income, and Increase electricity prices by 20 percent. Even worse, the Americans forced into unemployment lines and those paying higher energy prices couldn’t even claim that their suffering is helping to save the planet. If America stopped all carbon emissions, it would decrease the global temperature by only 0.08 degrees Celsius by 2050. The war on coal provides no hope for the economy and little change in the earth’s temperature. Not quite the hope and change Americans desired." (See HERE)


For an explanation as to why these Leftist energy LUNCs occur, please see: Gov: Wrong Tool for the Right Job - Introduction and Cold Nanny as well as The Politics of Compassion, Emotions, Ignorance, Denial, Blame-Shifting, and Victimization

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Obama Energy - Fracking

Leftist environmentalist have long been known for their disdain of fossil fuels, not just in terms of the wide-spread and presumably environment-unfriendly use of those fuels, but also the alleged problematic locations and means for extracting them--including fracking.

According to wikipedia, "Induced hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracturing, commonly known as fracking, is a technique in which typically water is mixed with sand and chemicals, and the mixture is injected at high pressure into a wellbore to create small fractures (typically less than 1mm), along which fluids such as gas, petroleum, uranium-bearing solution, and brine water may migrate to the well. Hydraulic pressure is removed from the well, then small grains of proppant (sand or aluminium oxide) hold these fractures open once the rock achieves equilibrium...This well stimulation is only conducted once in the life of the well and greatly enhances fluid removal and well productivity." (See HERE)

The reason fracking has been a heated public issue is because, on the one hand it has been immensely advantages (see below), while on the other hand "Hydraulic fracturing has raised environmental concerns and is challenging the adequacy of existing regulatory regimes. These concerns have included ground water contamination, risks to air quality, migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, mishandling of waste, and the health effects of all these, as well as its contribution to raised atmospheric CO2 levels by enabling the extraction of previously-sequestered hydrocarbons." (ibid)

Ronald Bailey has noted: "Matt Damon’s new film Promised Land is stoking the controversy over fracking, the shorthand for natural gas production using hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. The film pits a big natural gas production company against economically stressed farmers in a Pennsylvania community who are being offered lots of money to permit drilling on their land. To illustrate the alleged evils of fracking, an environmental activist sets a model farm on fire in an elementary class." (See HERE) (See also HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

In the minds of many people, these environmental and safety concerns have either been addressed or shown to be unwarranted given improved safety techniques: "today’s practices are even much better than those 60 years ago. Yet people in Washington still attempt to conjure up a problem that hasn’t been evidenced in six decades to justify seizures of more powers from local and state governments. Agencies are looking at everything from groundwater pollution to earthquakes risks, trying to figure out a creative new way to squeeze the federal government’s camel nose under the tent of a world-changing energy revolution. Fracking is largely responsible for a new natural gas miracle. But if the federal government is successful in these power grabs, that miracle will likely end, representing a disastrous loss of economic and job opportunities, not only for the states containing that great resource treasure, but for the entire nation." (See HERE and HERE)

In spite of the presumed environmental concerns, not all liberal environmentalist are entirely against fracking--most notably President Obama. In fact, he has "endorsed the new production" (see HERE)--likely due to political expediency (see HERE), in large part because fracking has been and is projected to be such an enormous boon to energy and the economy. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

Forbes reports: "The result is that our exports of petroleum products are up nearly 150% in three years to a record $140 billion. As hyperbolic as the increase in oil production has been, so has the decrease in our petroleum trade deficit, falling from $360 billion a year ago to an annual rate of $224 billion today (less than half the $500 billion annual oil deficit of 2008). his [Obama] is an awesome accomplishment. And it is all thanks to fracking. Without the techniques of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, this Great American Oil & Gas Boom would simply not exist....Thanks to fracking, lower natural gas prices already save consumers $100 billion a year – far more than any crumbs the federal government might want to dole out." (See HERE)

A Bloomberg economist has noted: "Surging oil and natural gas production bought on by hydraulic fracturing is lifting the U.S. economy by lowering energy costs for consumers and manufacturers, according an industry-funded report. In 2012, the energy boom supported 2.1 million jobs, added almost US$75-billion in federal and state revenues, contributed US$283-billion to the gross domestic product and lifted household income by more than US$1,200, according to the report released today from IHS CERA. The competitive advantage for U.S. manufacturers from lower fuel prices will raise industrial production by 3.5 percent by the end of the decade, said the report from CERA, which provides business advice for energy companies." (See HERE) (See also HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

However, the Leftist LUNCs of Obama's fracking position is that, as reported by Sean Cockerham, "it leaves both sides grumbling." (See HERE and HERE)

Sean stated that, "Environmental activists like David Braun said they volunteered for Obama’s election campaign and now feel like the president is turning their backs on them. 'It’s time for him to represent those who elected him, not big oil and gas,' said Braun, an anti-fracking organizer from New York. 'While it’s admirable that the president wants to tackle climate change, fracking has no place in any plan to combat it.' Anti-fracking protesters greeted Obama on Friday as he toured upstate New York to promote a college affordability plan. A large number lined the road into Obama’s town hall event at Binghamton University with signs, some saying 'No Fracking Way.'” (ibid, see also HERE and HERE and HERE)

On the other side, advocates for the oil and gas industry believe that Obama's fracking regulations, if implemented as initially proposed, would, among other things, "add at least $1.2 billion to the cost of new wells in 13 states." (See HEREa) Other reports put the figure closer to $1.6 billion. (See HERE and HERE)  And, even in their current scaled-back form and postponed to 2015 (see HERE and HERE and HERE), the regulations still draw criticism. The Wall Street Journal posted: "Industry groups, while welcoming several revisions to the rules since they were first proposed in 2012, say federal regulation is still unnecessary and costly. They say that there is no evidence of groundwater pollution, and that the rules could damp the drilling boom that has made the U.S. the world's largest producer of natural gas." (See HERE) (See also HERE and HERE and HERE)

For an explanation as to why these Leftist energy LUNCs occur, please see: Gov: Wrong Tool for the Right Job - Introduction and Cold Nanny as well as The Politics of Compassion, Emotions, Ignorance, Denial, Blame-Shifting, and Victimization

Obama Energy - Keystone Pipeline

At the nexus of the oil dependency and job creation issues, is the Keystone Pipeline XL project.

Wikipedia describes the project as a "pipeline system to transport oil sands bitumen from Canada and the northern United States primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast of Texas...Two phases of the project are in operation, a third, from Oklahoma to the Texas Gulf coast, is under construction and the fourth is awaiting U.S. government approval as of mid-March 2013. Upon completion, the Keystone Pipeline System would consist of the completed 2,151-mile (3,462 km) Keystone Pipeline (Phases I and II) and the proposed 1,661-mile (2,673 km) Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Project (Phases III and IV) . The controversial fourth phase, the Keystone XL Pipeline Project, would begin at the oil distribution hub in Hardisty, Alberta and extend 1,179 miles (1,897 km), to Steele City, Nebraska." (See HERE)

Regarding oil dependency, "The operational Keystone Pipeline system currently has the capacity to deliver up to 590,000 barrels per day (94,000 m3/d) of Canadian crude oil into the Mid-West refining markets." (ibid.) This amounts to more than 10 percent of Obama's pledge to "lowering imports by 5.5 million barrels per day and reducing our reliance on foreign oil to its lowest level in almost three decades." (See HERE)

As for job creation, "This pipeline would produce 20,000 construction jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs, and it would provide a much-needed transportation line between oil refineries along our Gulf Coast and production facilities in Canada, not to mention the booming Bakken oil fields of Montana and North Dakota. Our friends to the north have been reliable and steadfast trading partners, and the president should be making this pipeline decision on policy grounds instead of cheap political appeals to his liberal base." (See HERE)

Obama disputes these employment numbers, and has said, "Any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline -- which might take a year or two -- and then after that we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 jobs in a economy of 150 million working people." (See HERE)

However, this disagrees with Obama's own State Department conservative estimates: "Approximately 10,000 construction workers engaged for 4-to 8-month seasonal construction periods (approximately 5,000 to 6,000 per construction period) would be required to complete the proposed project. When expressed as average annual employment, this equates to approximately 3,900 jobs." (Reported HERE)

Taking the middle-ground in estimates, combined with the undisputed benefit of decreased dependency on Mid-East oil, the Keystone Pipeline looms very important--enough so that in March of 2012, President Obama promised, "Today, I’m directing my administration to cut through the red tape, break through the bureaucratic hurdles, and make this project a priority, to go ahead and get it done." (Reported HERE)

The Leftist LUNC, though, is that against his directive, Obama's administration has been repeatedly delaying the yes/no decision on the Keystone Pipeline, the latest delay coming in August, 2013. (See HERE and HERE)

This raises the question of: why?  Since the pipeline will diminish oil dependency and decrease unemployment (things that most everyone seems to want), what is behind Obama's contradictory delays?

Evidently, the main impediment is Obama's "green" agenda. (See HERE and HERE)  As indicated in Obama Energy - Intro, appeasing radical environmentalist is apparently more important to the President than improving national security by eliminating reliance on OPEC and/or boosting the economy by creating jobs and lowering energy cost.

Are there legitimate environmental concerns? Larry Bell, an energy expert and contributor to Forbes, says:
"The whole issue of the Keystone XL pipeline is stunning, because it shows how a few squeaky voices armed only with emotions and devoid of facts, can disrupt vast opportunities for new economic activity. The U.S. now has over 2,000,000 miles of energy pipelines, which are the safest, most efficient and most environmentally-sound way of moving energy from place to place. In fact, the State Department has already undertaken three studies, all of which found that the pipeline could be constructed safely.  Still, the president and his State Department, now going into a fourth year since the original permit was applied for, continue to delay a decision regarding whether oil can be transported from Canada by the safest means possible.This uncertainty is a direct affront to our friend and ally Canada, and one that is beginning to cost them dearly. Their oil market prices have been dropping like a rock due to an inability to export product. It’s ironic that while Keystone XL opponents state that their chief concern revolves around carbon dioxide emissions from Canadian oil, current Obama administration indecision and stonewalling is likely to drive Canadians to sell that oil to China where their people and industries will burn all they can get. That certainly isn’t going to help reduce global carbon emissions, if that indeed truly matters." (See HERE)

For an explanation as to why these Leftist energy LUNCs occur, please see: Gov: Wrong Tool for the Right Job - Introduction and Cold Nanny as well as The Politics of Compassion, Emotions, Ignorance, Denial, Blame-Shifting, and Victimization

Monday, August 5, 2013

Obama Energy - "Subsidizing Big Oil"

Obama and others on the Left have long railed against the government subsidizing big oil companies making obscene profits, and they have vowed to put an end to those subsidies. Obama is quoted as saying: "“And because billions of your tax dollars continue to still subsidize some of the most profitable corporations in the history of the world, my budget once again calls for Congress to end the tax breaks for big oil companies..." (See HERE)

A popular version of their argument is set forth in the White House blog, dated 3/28/2012, with the title of, "It is Time to End the Taxpayer Subsidies of Big Oil." (See HERE) It states:
"The United States has been subsidizing the oil industry for a century. President Obama believes that’s long enough. In fact, some of the oldest tax breaks for the oil companies date back to 1913 – a time when there were only 48 states in the Union and Ford was still producing the Model T.

After 100 years, there’s no reason for Congress to keep these subsidies on the books, especially right now. Today, as American families all across the country are feeling pain at the pump, the oil industry is posting record profits. In 2011 alone, the three largest American oil companies made a combined profit of more than $80 billion, or more than $200 million per day.

Now, we don’t begrudge companies for being successful in America. We want them to thrive and grow. But we also have to get our priorities straight. We have to invest in our future, not subsidize the past...."

On the surface this makes a lot of sense. If so-called "big oil" companies are experiencing windfall profits, it would be asinine for the government to give them billions of dollars (i.e. subsidies), particularly when we as a nation are suffering hard economic times and mounting debts.

In fact, during a campaign speech in 2012, Obama said: "Right now, $4 billion of your tax dollars—$4 billion—subsidizes the oil industry every year”. He continued: “Four billion dollars. Now, these companies are making record profits right now—tens of billions of dollars a year. Every time you go to the gas tank or fill up your gas tank, they’re making money. Every time.  Now, does anyone really think that Congress should give them another $4 billion this year?...Of course not — it’s outrageous.” (Reported HERE)

Yet, this isn't what has happened. Of course the major oil firms are making money each time we go to the pump. They make a profit of between $.04 and $.07 per gallon as compared with $.24 to $.27 a gallon that the government takes--speaking of who is really profiting. (See HERE and HERE)

However, oil companies aren't receiving a dime from the government to do anything--which is what "subsidy" means. So-called "big oil" isn't being subsidized. Rather, they have utilized legitimate tax expenses (see HERE and HERE and HERE), which are similar in principle to itemized deductions for personal income as well as depreciation of equipment and off-setting capital gains with capital loses in business.

Calling this a "subsidy" is purely propagandistic word-play intended to mislead and politically manipulate.

And, it is a semantic game that is at risk of causing Leftist LUNCs.

This is illustrated perfectly, in part, in a NY Times article, dated July 2010, that deviously misapplied the term "subsidy," evidently in the hopes of garnering support for increasing taxes on the oil industry, while unwittingly telegraphing unintended consequences in doing so. (See HERE)  The article takes great pains in drawing loose comparisons in relation to "effective tax rates," and talked on about the billions in dollars in oil "tax breaks," so as to advance the deceptive point that: “There is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer.” Yet, without grasping the stunning implications, the author also pointed out how various oil corporations had moved their headquarters out of the U.S., and were utilizing clever leasing strategies, to avoid paying higher taxes. In other words, the very oil taxes that the leftist author (as well as Obama and other Democrats) was arguing for, would, unbeknown to him, cause corporate flight from the U.S. and thus the loss of tax revenues and much-needed jobs. Utterly brilliant!

Let's look at the articles own figures (ibid): the tax breaks amount to about $4 billion each year. whereas the oil companies pay about $140 billion in taxes annually and provide about 9.2 million jobs (which likewise generate annual income tax revenues and stimulate the economy). The Leftist LUNCs here, then, is that the liberals are ultimately asking us to, proportionately, put several hundred dollars at risk to gain three cents. Does that make sense to you?

This is not to say that the government isn't subsidizing energy at all. Larry Bell reported: "Since 2009 we have shelled out $14 billion in cash payments to solar, wind and other renewable energy project developers. This includes $9.2 billion to 748 small and large wind projects, and $2.7 billion to more than 44,000 solar projects, which will add just 48 terawatt hours of electricity. Yet according to EIA figures, wind accounted for 3.4 percent of electricity in 2012, while solar accounted for only 0.11 percent." (See HERE)

So, if a person is looking to complain about government subsidizing energy companies, don't look at "big oil." Instead, look to President Obama and his liberal friends. I will examine how well these actual subsidies have panned out when I complete my article on Obama Energy - Green.

For an explanation as to why these Leftist energy LUNCs occur, please see: Gov: Wrong Tool for the Right Job - Introduction and Cold Nanny as well as The Politics of Compassion, Emotions, Ignorance, Denial, Blame-Shifting, and Victimization

Obama Energy - Drilling

In 2008, candidate Obama set forth his blueprint for ending, in 10 years, America's dependency on foreign oil. (See HERE)


To accomplish this daunting feat, and in conflict with his campaign promise to retain the ban on off-shore drilling (see HERE), Obama acknowledged the need to expand domestic production--which he proposed would come about through forcing oil companies to use their drilling leases or lose them, as well as through appropriately expanding offshore drilling, with the caveat that: “With only 2% of the world’s oil reserves, we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices…Not when we consume 20% of the world’s oil.”(ibid., and HERE)

During his presidency, Obama "said he will 'take every possible action to safely develop' natural gas;" (See HERE) He also promised, "you have my word that we will keep drilling everywhere we can -- and we'll do it while protecting the health and safety of the American people." (See HERE)

USAToday reported in 2012: "President Obama is using his energy tour to make the case that oil drilling is at a record pace on his watch..." (See HERE)  Elsewhere, Obama declared: "Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. That's a fact. That's a fact. We've quadrupled the number of operating oil rigs to a record high. So do not tell me that we're not drilling. We're drilling all over this country. I mean, I guess there are -- there are a few spots where we're not drilling. We're not drilling in the National Mall. We're not drilling at your house." (See HERE)


However, according to left-leaning "Obama was wrong when he denied Romney’s claim that the Obama administration cut in half the number of new permits and new leases for offshore oil and gas drilling. The decrease is actually more than half....Obama was wrong to flatly deny that he cut in half the number of new federal permits and leases for oil and natural gas drilling. The number of new offshore leases has plummeted under Obama — falling by more than half, according to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. During Obama’s first term, the U.S. has so far issued 1,304 new offshore leases compared with 3,317 in Bush’s second term — a decrease of 61 percent. The number of new permits for offshore wells also nosedived. The U.S. approved 1,316 new permits during Bush’s second term. The number has fallen to 515 — so far — under Obama, also a 61 percent drop. The Obama administration had halted the drilling of all new offshore wells for one month after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in 2010, which killed 11 people and resulted in the largest oil spill in U.S. history. The administration then issued a months-long moratorium on the drilling of new deepwater wells. New safety requirements also slowed down the permitting process for new shallow-water wells. The administration, for instance, approved only 12 new offshore leases in 2011." (See HERE)

Liberals have also suggested that the scale-back in lease permits was due to the oil spill in the gulf of Mexico. "Speaking on ABC’s 'Good Morning America,' senior adviser David Axelrod said 'no additional [offshore] drilling has been authorized, and none will until we find out what happened and whether there was something unique and preventable here. … No domestic drilling in new areas is going to go forward until there is an adequate review of what’s happened here and of what is being proposed elsewhere.'” (reported HERE and HERE)

Whereas, "The reality is that the Obama administration slowed the permitting process long before the spill happened. Rather than playing catch up, we're falling further behind. The American people and the oil and gas industry need certainty that energy independence, not politics, will drive our nation's security. The president should also start opening new fields where there is clear bipartisan local support—along the mid-Atlantic coast, the Eastern Gulf, and in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge—and he should stop slow-walking lease sales for onshore drilling on federal lands, which in 2011 reached an all-time low (since 1984), when discounting for leases sold in previous years." (See HERE)

Even more problematic, regarding drilling on private and state lands: "Obama's policies threaten to slow energy development there, as well. He has proposed taxes on the oil industry that discourage exploration. And new EPA rules would significantly slow down drilling. According to a study by Washington-based Advanced Resources International, Obama's new regulations would reduce domestic oil production by up to 37%. There are lies, damned lies, and then there are Obama's charts." (See HERE

In March of 2013, energy expert, Dan Kish, declared: "The Department of Interior which controls permits for drilling on federal onshore lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is also exerting a big influence upon fracking operations. To give you an idea how difficult it is to get federal government land permitting approval versus states, consider the difference in time schedules. Under the Obama administration, the time required for a permit has doubled to 307 days, while in North Dakota, where booming oil shale fracking has effectively wiped out unemployment, permitting currently takes only 10 days. There should be no wonder that all of the states that regulate permitting are fighting efforts of the government to interfere." (See HERE)

That same month, Jonathan Strong from Roll Call, indicated: "Well, and it's kind of like the drill -- the oil production has increased in spite of his policies, not because of them. And so he [Obama] -- in the speech, he's also saying, you know, drilling is at its highest rate, but that is also not why gas prices have increased. He's trying to take credit for something that he says has nothing to do with the price of gas." (See HERE)

So, the Leftist LUNC here is that drilling is up, in spite of president Obama.

For an explanation as to why these Leftist energy LUNCs occur, please see: Gov: Wrong Tool for the Right Job - Introduction and Cold Nanny as well as The Politics of Compassion, Emotions, Ignorance, Denial, Blame-Shifting, and Victimization

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Obama Energy - Domestic Production of Oil and Gas

Obama's energy website indicates that under his administration oil and gas production has been on the rise in nearly every region of the country, oil rigs in operation are proliferating, domestic production of crude oil is on track to surpass imports for first time since 1995. Isn't that wonderful?

During his second presidential campaign, Obama declared: "Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years." (See HERE)

Yet, "The increase in domestic drilling was almost entirely in areas for which the Obama administration exercised no authority, as oil production on federal land declined by 11 percent in fiscal year 2011, according to a study by the Institute on Energy Research (IER), a free-market energy think tank. But oil production on state lands increased that year by 14 percent and increased by 12 percent on private lands. 'A lot of the wells that were supposed to be drilled weren’t because of the moratorium,' Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy at the IER, told 'Drilling is up in the U.S. on lands he [Obama] has no say over. On lands he has all the say over, drilling is down.'" (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

Elsewhere Dan said: "Even though the federal government, between its onshore and offshore lands, owns more acreage than all private and state lands in the U.S. combined, last August the Congressional Research Service found that 96% of the increased production in oil over the last five years came from those private and state lands. Thanks to current government policies, only the very largest companies can survive the bureaucratic and legal hassles of operating on federal lands.  Although they belong to taxpayers, regulators behave as if they are the king’s lands and waters, which no one dare touch....The president is quick to take credit for an increase in oil and gas production that is happening everywhere but on his lands, but accepts no responsibility for those areas where he has any control.  In those areas the record is abysmal...Last year the U.S. increased oil production faster than at any time since the first oil well was drilled in 1859…that was prior to the Civil War. Yet while this year’s estimated increase will be larger, chances are that production on government lands will continue to fall.  If that isn’t positive proof that the government is holding back U.S. economic growth, then I don’t know what is." (See HERE)

Left-leaning indicates: "Obama was wrong when he told Romney it’s 'just not true' that domestic oil production on federal lands is down 14 percent and gas production has fallen 9 percent in one year. Production of oil and natural gas on federal lands and in federal waters did indeed fall by those percentages as Romney said, although Romney erred in saying the drops took place 'this year.' The decreases occurred in fiscal year 2011." (See HERE) indicates: "What about Obama's companion boast — that his energy policies have spurred increased domestic oil production? That dog won't hunt, either. He claims he's opened up more offshore areas to drilling; but in fact, he's scaled back leasing in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. And the entire Pacific Coast is still off-limits. Energy Department data show oil production on federally controlled offshore areas is down. On federal lands, it's flat. The only reason oil production is up today is thanks to drilling on private and state lands." (See HERE)

Worse yet, "According to a study by Washington-based Advanced Resources International, Obama's new regulations would reduce domestic oil production by up to 37%. There are lies, damned lies, and then there are Obama's charts." (See HERE)

For an explanation as to why these Leftist energy LUNCs occur, please see: Gov: Wrong Tool for the Right Job - Introduction and Cold Nanny as well as The Politics of Compassion, Emotions, Ignorance, Denial, Blame-Shifting, and Victimization

Saturday, August 3, 2013

Obama Energy - Oil Dependency

During his first presidential run, Obama indicated that dependency on foreign oil poised a terrorist threat (see HERE), and he also said, "that's why if I am president, I will put the full resources of the federal government and the full energy of the private sector behind a single, overarching goal -- in ten years, we will eliminate the need for oil from the entire Middle East and Venezuela." (reported HERE)

Wouldn't that have been great?

Perhaps reality set in once Obama became president because we later find the following revised commitment: "President Obama has charted a course to cut net oil imports in half between 2008 and 2020, lowering imports by 5.5 million barrels per day and reducing our reliance on foreign oil to its lowest level in almost three decades." (See HERE)

According to Obama's energy website, U.S. dependency on foreign oil is at a 20-year low and declining. And, during the presidential race in 2012, an Obama ad claimed: "For the first time in 13 years, our dependence on foreign oil is below 50 percent," (See HERE)

This all sounds fantastic, doesn't it?

However, regarding dependency on foreign oil, left-leaning reports: "Yet this decline in dependence has occurred since 2005. Team Obama is correct in saying dependence only recently -- in 2010 -- fell below 50 percent, but the commercial suggests that the current president deserves credit. The problem with that is apparent when looking at the year--to-year drop, because it mirrors the recession, with the biggest annual decline in 2009." (See HERE)

And, "Domestic energy production has been increasing because high oil prices make it attractive and profitable to do so." (See HERE)

In other words, most of the decline in dependency occurred during the Bush administration, and the decline wasn't due to efforts on Obama's part--contrary to his claim, but due in part to the recession and rising prices that made domestic oil more competitive. (See HERE and HERE)

"Of more interest is the fact that although the amount of foreign oil has declined, it has grown as a percentage of our overall supply. During the Obama Presidency we have become more dependent on foreign oil, not less!" (see HERE and HERE) "Foreign oil dependency rose from roughly 37% to 40% under his administration. To be more precise, foreign petroleum usage in his administration went from 37% to a peak of 41% last year, currently at 39.9%." (ibid)

For an explanation as to why these Leftist energy LUNCs occur, please see: Gov: Wrong Tool for the Right Job - Introduction and Cold Nanny as well as The Politics of Compassion, Emotions, Ignorance, Denial, Blame-Shifting, and Victimization

Friday, August 2, 2013

Obama Energy - Gas Prices

In July of 2006, Democrat leaders staged a protest against what they considered the mounting burden of high gas prices presumably caused by Bush's energy policies. The sign behind the liberals showed regular gas at $3.19 a gallon. (See HERE) At the time, who didn't want lower gas prices?

Then, in April of 2008, when Barak Obama was running for president, he held a similar press conference where the gas sign in the background showed regular gas at $3.55. He lamented about families struggling from rising energy costs, and noted that the fastest rise was in the price of gas--reaching its highest level in nearly 30 years, and he said that for most Americans it was a "huge problem, bordering on a crisis." He indicated that there has been a lot of talk about lowering gas prices since the early 70's, but with no apparent change. He then suggested that the reason he was running for president was to make that change and to challenge the "broken system" in Washington where gas prices had continued to rise. (See HERE) He remarked, "I meet folks every day who have to drive a long way to get to work and filling up this gas tank gets more and more painful and it's a tax out of their pocketbooks,'" (See HERE)

Clearly, Obama felt America's grief and promised to do something about it. That was nice.

However, according to, an independent organization that has charted the average cost nation-wide per gallon of regular gas (see HERE), the price started to drop sharply in the summer before the presidential elections, and reached a low of $1.43 just a month before Obama was sworn in. Yet, after becoming president, the price rose steadily for three years, and has vacillated between $3.90 and $3.31 ever since. And, as of 8/19/13 it was up to about $3.60 (five cents more than in 2008 when Obama held his gas station press conference). Gov. Jindal has remarked, "In 2011 [the third year of the Obama presidency], the average annual prices of a barrel of oil and a gallon of gas were higher than at any time in the last 150 years." (See HERE)  

As it turns out, the rise in gas prices was due in part to Obama's EPA regulations, which also increased the cost for cars by $130.00. (See HERE)

Gov. Jindal also said: "the president could reverse a series of cabinet-level decisions that are at odds with a strategy of affordable domestic energy production. That starts with rebuking Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who once said that our goal should be to increase gasoline prices to the levels seen in Europe. It also means suspending regulations like Tier 3 gasoline standards that are expected to increase gas prices by 25 cents a gallon. (See HERE)

Thus, while Bush saw gas prices drop by more than 50% during his last months as president, Obama saw gas prices continue to rise more than double throughout his first term. So, the leftist LUNC of Obama's energy policy here was that no change happened and no challenge to the "broken system" as promised, but evidently a perpetuation of the same old same O'l.

It is also customary for liberals to speak of high gas prices in connection with billions of dollars in oil company profits, suggesting that the American public is being gouged and ripped off by "big oil," and that this is terribly wrong  This sentimant may resonate with a lot of people, particularly the anti-corporation crowd.

However, as noted in an article by John Stossel, if you compare what "big oil" gets from a gallon of gas as contrasted with the government, you may rightly have a change of mind about who really is doing the gouging and ripping off. Stossel said: "Per gallon, ExxonMobil makes about 7 cents. Governments, by contrast, grab about 27 cents per gallon. That's the average gas tax. If anyone takes too much, it's government." (See HERE)


For an explanation as to why these Leftist energy LUNCs occur, please see: Gov: Wrong Tool for the Right Job - Introduction and Cold Nanny as well as The Politics of Compassion, Emotions, Ignorance, Denial, Blame-Shifting, and Victimization

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Obama Energy--Introduction

Barak Obama and other liberals have made a number of commendable promises about energy. For one, in 2008, then candidate Obama pledged: "As president, I'll work to solve this energy crisis once and for all." (reported HERE)  That would have been great!

When he became president he outlined his energy agenda here: WHITE HOUSE - ENERGY  And, it may be summarized as: "The President has taken unprecedented action to build the foundation for a clean energy economy, tackle the issues of climate change, and protect our environment." (ibid.)

In other words, President Obama's energy policy appears to be a subset, or after-thought, of his environmental agenda. He has made climate change a top priority, even though global warming ranked at the bottom of American concerns, and well below their concern about energy issues. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

Furthermore, Dan Kish, Senior Vice-President of the Institute for Energy Research, has said: "This blatant playing-field-tipping strategy, where government picks winners and losers, permeates virtually all aspects of the Obama administration’s energy policy. We don’t have an energy problem....We have a government problem … a government that is deliberately, and by its own admission, striving to make energy much more expensive for American citizens and job-producing industries." (See HERE)

Since Obama has prioritized the environment above serious energy concerns, and has selectively interjected the government into the energy market in ways biased against tradition energy forms, it should come as no surprise that Leftist LUNCs have occurred--including:

[Update 8/30/15: Obama's Promises on the Environment and Energy, How The are Holding Up]
  • Gas Prices -We were promised positive change, but were given the same O'l misery at the pump.
  • Oil Dependency -Taking credit where discredit is due.
  • Domestic Production of Oil -He really didn't build that, and even got in the way.
  • Drilling -Oil and gas drilling is up, in spite of President Obama
  • "Subsidizing Big Oil" -A word game that could cost hundreds of billions of dollars and loss of millions of jobs.
  • Keystone Pipeline - Clear evidence that the President's "Green" agenda is getting inanely in the way of diminished energy costs, job creation, improved economy and national security.
  • Fracking - Obama's fracking policies manage to disappoint all sides.
  • Coal - Another example where Obama's "green" agenda is destined to ruin a viable energy source, wreck havoc on jobs and the economy, without producing any discernible impact on "climate change."
  • Green

For an explanation as to why these Leftist energy LUNCs occur, please see: Gov: Wrong Tool for the Right Job - Introduction and Cold Nanny as well as The Politics of Compassion, Emotions, Ignorance, Denial, Blame-Shifting, and Victimization