Blog Archives

Winners and losers energy policies …

We can and must rejuvenate our economy by developing America’s resource bounties

by Paul Driessen

Governor Mitt Romney strongly supports North American energy independence as the foundation of renewed US employment and prosperity. President Obama is waging war on fossil fuels, job creation, and efforts to end our economic recession and reduce dependence on Middle Eastern and Russian oil.

Romney’s emphasis on careful analysis and due diligence brought him and Bain Capital notable winners like AMC Entertainment, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Domino’s Pizza, Dunkin’ Donuts and Staples. Obama’s focus on ideology, political calculation, cronyism and campaign contributors produced scandalous losers like A123, Abound Solar, Crescent Dunes, Ener1, Fisker, Mountain Plaza, Solyndra, Tesla, and a host of wind and biofuel projects that would collapse if their taxpayer subsidies were cut off.

Not surprisingly, US gasoline prices are double what they were the day Obama took office. Some 25 million Americans are without full-time jobs – leaving 23% of the workforce unemployed, involuntarily working part-time or at jobs where they are overqualified, making far less money than they did previously, or no longer looking for a job. Our 64% “labor participation rate” is at a 30-year low.

There are still 4.5 million fewer jobs than in 2007, even though our population has grown; the hourly wage of college-educated Americans age 23 to 29 fell 4.7% between 2007 and 2011; median household income plummeted $3,040 since the recession (supposedly, officially) ended in June 2009; and a record 45 million Americans are on food stamps.

Meanwhile, the ever-unstable Middle East is even more unstable. Terrorists murdered our ambassador to Libya. A pitiful anti-Islamist video excused riots in Egypt, where a Muslim Brotherhood leader is now president. More than 33,000 have died in a nasty Syrian civil war. Internecine conflicts continue in Iraq and elsewhere. The seemingly perpetual Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains poised to intensify. the Taliban and Al Qaeda continue to build power and launch vicious attacks, such as gunning down the US embassy’s Yemeni security chief in Sana’a. And we are importing oil from brutal human rights violators.

Outside the Middle East, the Putin government is using energy to pressure and blackmail European nations dependent on Russian oil and gas, while orchestrating anti-fracking campaigns to keep EU countries from tapping their abundant shale gas supplies. Politics, events and human rights violations raise further questions about Russia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Nigeria and Sudan. And many of these countries are among our most important oil suppliers – because we refuse to develop our own deposits.

Since oil is sold in a world market, producing more in the United States means we could import less from abroad, free up more oil for other nations, and push prices down. Exporting US natural gas and drilling, fracking and production expertise would make other nations less dependent on the Middle East and Russia, bring natural gas prices down further, turbo-charge economies, and encourage African countries to use gas to generate electricity, rather than “flaring” it as an unwanted byproduct of oil production.

Romney understands this. He is calling for more oil and natural gas production here in the United States, changes to excessive and counterproductive federal regulations that raise energy costs and kill jobs, and increased use of friendly Canadian oil to serve America’s consumers. He knows this will protect us against disruptions in Middle East oil supplies, reduce the flow of American dollars to totalitarian human rights violators, create American jobs, increase tax revenues, and jumpstart our sluggish economy.

President Obama, by contrast, continues to ignore reality and embrace policies based on hope, green dreams, and a determination to “fundamentally transform” America’s Constitution, economy, society and business system. He continues to waste billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize unreliable, unsustainable, inefficient, insufficient energy forms that are at best decades from competing in the free market – even as 80% of Department of Energy grants and loans went to companies owned or controlled by Obama contributors; DOE restructured its $465 million loan to Tesla, to make sure the electric-car company doesn’t run out of cash right before the election; and President Obama says malnourished, energy-deprived Africans should avoid fossil fuels and rely instead on wind, solar and biofuel power.

Many recipients of involuntary taxpayer largesse are donors to Obama and Democrat re-election campaigns; have electoral clout in crucial swing states, where corn growers and others benefit from ethanol, wind and solar schemes; or provide crucial propaganda and campaign services via government employee and labor unions and tax-exempt radical environmentalist organizations.

While Obama turns his back on the reliable fossil fuels that power America’s economic engine, he denounces and demonizes companies that produce this hydrocarbon energy, pay billions of dollars in taxes and support millions of American jobs. He singles out America’s oil and natural gas sector for discriminatory tax increases and excessive regulations, and makes more and more federal lands, waters and resources off limits to responsible exploration and development.

Environmental activists and the Obama Administration express outrage about subsidies for traditional, efficient means of generating electricity, which amount to $0.25-$0.44 (25-44 cents) per megawatt-hour for coal and natural gas and $1.59 per MWH for nuclear. But they are eerily silent about enormous subsidies for wind ($23.37 per MWH) and solar electricity ($24.34 per MWH).

They express equal outrage about importing petroleum from Canada’s oil sands via the Keystone Pipeline – but are silent about imports of thick, gooey crude from Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. They brag about increased US oil and gas production on private lands, but insist that there be little or no drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Rocky Mountains or even National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, which Congress set aside decades ago specifically to safeguard our national security by increasing exploration in areas with the best potential for oil and gas.

Lisa Jackson’s Environmental Protection Agency is imposing draconian restrictions on power plants and other CO2 sources, as another way of “skinning the cat” and hyper-regulating coal out of the US energy picture, after Congress rejected cap-tax-and-trade legislation. Meantime, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) has introduced the Managed Carbon Price Act, which analysts say will impose regressive taxes that will rise to $5.20 per gallon of gasoline by 2024 and equally hefty surcharges on other hydrocarbon use.

The impact on transportation, shipping, commuting, manufacturing, jobs and families is frightening to contemplate. So is the fact that these actions are coming even as Britain’s Meteorological Office released data showing that the world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago – and that average global temperatures rose an impossible-to-measure and statistically insignificant 0.03 degrees C per decade.

Meanwhile, Germany, Italy and Japan plan to phase out nuclear power, thereby increasing their use of natural gas and coal for electricity – while China and India plan to build 900 new coal-fired power plants to electrify their growing economies. All will pump millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – dwarfing any reductions the USA might achieve by closing more power plants and further shackling our economy.

The Administration’s actions have been arrogant, irresponsible and autocratic. Win or lose in November, the White House, EPA, DOE and Interior Department will impose boxcars of punitive new regulations that have been put on hold until November 7.

We can dig ourselves out of this hole. We can and must rejuvenate and reinvigorate our economy, by developing America’s resource bounties.

We don’t need to “fundamentally transform” America’s economy, society and free enterprise system. We need to fundamentally transform the anti-hydrocarbon culture that pervades the Congress, White House, Executive Branch and radical environmental groups that have brought us to where we are today.

_____________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author or Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. 10/15/12

Source

API: Hispanic Employment Rate, Jobs Creation Hurt by Keystone Delay

https://i0.wp.com/www.rigzone.com/images/home/article/hf_117681_jobs.jpg

President Barack Obama’s decision to delay approval of the Keystone Pipeline project is hurting job creation opportunities in the United States, particularly among Hispanics, said officials with the American Petroleum Institute (API) on Tuesday.

The Keystone Pipeline will not only help lower oil prices for U.S. consumers, but have a ripple effect spreading outward from Nebraska and neighboring states to create jobs and help small businesses.

This job creation will be helpful in particular for the U.S. Hispanic population, the unemployment rate for which is one to two points higher than other demographic groups in the United States.

The Los Angeles Times reported in 2010 that the unemployment rate among U.S. Hispanics rose because of their disproportionate unemployment in industries and regions significantly impacted by the economic downturn.

According to a U.S. Department of Labor report, the unemployment rate among Latinos in the United States averaged 11.5 percent in 2011; the most recent unemployment report in February 2012 shows improvement for all Americans, including Latinos, who have seen their unemployment rate decline to 10.7 percent in February from a high of 13.1 percent in November 2010.

In 2011, 5.8 percent of Latinos were self-employed compared to 7.2 percent among whites, partly due to lower educational attainment and less access to financial wealth.

The entry rate of Latinos into self-employment compares favorably to that of non-Latino Whites and their entry rate is even higher compared with whites in low-barrier sectors, according to the Department of Labor report. However, Latinos tend to have lower success rates with their new businesses and exit self-employment at a higher rate than whites.

People of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity represented 15 percent of the U.S. labor force in 2011, or nearly 23 million workers. By 2020, Latinos are expected to comprise 19 percent of the U.S. labor force, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

API ‘Disappointed’ in Keystone Delay, Impact on Jobs

“We’re disappointed that the current administration doesn’t see how this project doesn’t add up,” said Hispanic Leadership Fund President Mario Lopez during a conference call with reporters, noting that the project appears to be delayed for political reasons.

“Four years ago, Obama promised to push unemployment lower and lead us out of the depression,” Lopez said. “Approval of the Keystone pipeline would demonstrate to all Americans and to Latinos across the country that he cares about jobs and domestic energy.”

API has committed significant resources to support all aspects of the Keystone project.

“The earth hasn’t moved and the geology hasn’t changed,” said API Executive Vice President Marty Durbin, adding that the Keystone pipeline project is “as ready as it can get.”

Durbin said that imports of Canadian oil sands supply to the U.S. Gulf Coast would not create a supply glut, but would displace oil imported from other countries.

Karen Boman has more than 10 years of experience covering the upstream oil and gas sector. Email Karen at kboman@rigzone.com.

Rigzone

Russell: Obama’s Energy Strategy of Contradiction

image

By Barry Russell
Special to Roll Call
April 23, 2012, Midnight

Right now, voters across the country are mobilizing around an issue that could determine who wins the 2012 presidential election: energy.

The rising cost of gasoline has influenced the American people to do a double-take on President Barack Obama’s overall energy policy. In light of this election-year scrutiny, it’s no surprise that Obama has tried to defend and define his administration’s energy policy.

But under the public’s watchful eye, the president is continually contradicting himself inside the Beltway and on the campaign trail. Obama calls to expedite infrastructure projects, but in the wake of rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama claims increased oil and natural gas production on his watch, but then follows up with accusations that oil companies are profiting at the expense of the American people. Obama repeatedly calls for an “all of the above” energy strategy, but then singles out the oil and natural gas industry for new regulations and targeted tax attacks.

Something doesn’t add up. To discover Obama’s real feelings and policies toward American-made energy, we must look to areas that the administration actually has jurisdiction over: public lands, federal agencies and his own calls for legislative action.

Responsible, common-sense regulations on development are a foundation of the oil and natural gas industry’s operations — and rightly so. Protecting the environment and developing our resources must go hand in hand. But right now, under the Obama administration, there are not two, not three, but 11 federal agencies seeking to regulate, study and reassess oil and natural gas production in the United States.

The Environmental Protection Agency, for its part, has been acting like an all-around bully; doing everything it can to smother the industry with one-size-fits-all regulations from Washington, D.C. It disregards the states’ impressive history of successful regulation of hydraulic fracturing. Also, the EPA has been using American tax dollars to conduct studies that distort scientific results to accuse the oil and natural gas industry of harming the environment. These studies have ignored the industry’s incredibly safe record and serve as a rallying cry for the president’s environmental base.

Obama’s State Department rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport oil from our neighbor Canada and alleviate the oil bottleneck that is causing problems for U.S. producers in Cushing, Okla., and refiners on the Gulf Coast.

And the American people are not amused. A recent Gallup poll revealed that Americans favor the Keystone XL pipeline by a ratio of 2-to-1. On the campaign trail recently, the president tried to backtrack, urging expedited work on the southern leg of Keystone. No matter that his administration has no jurisdiction on this issue: The southern portion of the pipeline could and would have continued without his approval.

Do his federal agencies’ brakes on development mean that Obama is fundamentally hostile to oil and natural gas as fuel sources? The president’s major rebuttal to this claim involves pointing to increased production under his administration. It’s true that the United States is experiencing an impressive increase in oil and natural gas development. But these huge gains are happening because of the advanced technologies U.S. producers utilize on private and state lands, where his federal agencies have limited jurisdiction.

On the other hand, Obama’s record on public lands — where his administration does have control — is far from stellar. Oil and natural gas production on public lands has decreased significantly under his watch. The Interior Department institutes duplicative and expensive regulations that make it impossible for many independent oil and natural gas producers, small American businesses that employ 12 people on average, to conduct business on public lands.

The president’s own punitive legislative proposals offer a stark contrast to his pro-development rhetoric. Obama repeatedly calls on Congress to repeal the “subsidies” that oil companies receive. However, these are neither subsidies nor government handouts. These are typical business deductions, such as labor and construction costs, which many industries have. These provisions, namely intangible drilling costs and percentage depletion, encourage new development of American energy. Eliminating them is a sure way to decrease energy supply and stunt job creation. Singling out the most productive, creative energy industry for targeted tax attacks certainly does not sound like an “all of the above” strategy for U.S. energy.

A recent poll revealed 68 percent of Americans disagree with the way Obama is handling gasoline prices. The public may be taking note of Obama’s energy policy contradictions. The 2012 election may rest upon the question: Can Obama have his energy cake and eat it, too?

Barry Russell is president and CEO of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.

Source

The Anti-Energy President

image

He really meant it when he said prices would “skyrocket.”

By PETE DU PONT

Our America today is very different from the America of some years ago. Government spending is greatly increased, as is the regulation of our economy. The growing size and reach of our government is sapping our nation’s strength and independence. And our current president’s policies have been quite different from our leaders of some years ago.

One of the best examples of these public policy changes is the huge increase in government regulation in how we generate and use energy, with its negative impact on supply, its focus on financing new and inefficient energy industries, and the resulting higher costs.

The policy of the Obama administration has been not to increase the energy supplies that are so critical to our nation’s economic health, but to limit them, to increase energy prices, and to make energy more expensive.

Eliminating tax deductions for the oil and gas industries is at the top of the President’s list, which would increase the price of gasoline and home heating oil for everyone. But this fits in with the Obama administration’s overall inclination to hamper domestic production, whether through slowness in granting new permits or refusal to open new areas for exploration. In fact oil, production on federal lands was flat between 2009 to 2011, while production on nonfederal lands increased almost 7%.

And it is not just petroleum. Mr. Obama‘s Environmental Protection Agency wants to increase regulation of coal-fueled electricity plants, which produce almost half of our electricity, so as to drive up the price of electricity and force plants to close. None of this should be surprising, for as we know, Obama’s energy secretary, Steven Chu, told The Wall Street Journal in 2008 that we must “figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

The president admitted that his cap-and-trade energy proposals, had they come to pass, would cause energy prices to “skyrocket” and bankrupt coal companies. In the Mr. Obama’s words, coal fired plants can be built, but if they are, “it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum” for emitting the greenhouse gases.

On the other hand, the current administration is throwing money at “green” energy companies, exemplified by the failed $535 million federal loan guarantee in Solyndra. Alternative energy sources do need to be developed, but it is clear that the federal government is not a wise allocator of taxpayer dollars in this effort. These sources will never be developed to the point of affordability unless the free market is allowed to sort good technologies from bad without the skewing of investment that comes from government trying to pick winners and losers. America badly needs very different national energy policies that will increase our energy supplies, reduce the cost of energy, and get America positively moving again.

Approving the Keystone pipeline so that more energy comes into America is an important first step. The president has twice rejected congressional efforts to approve it.

We must encourage hydraulic “fracking,” of underground reserves in shale. Already there are many fracking gas efforts underway, and the government’s latest estimates of the gas available from shale are about 500 trillion cubic feet. We currently use about 24 trillion cubic feet per year, so shale gas can add around 20 years to our supply.

The Obama administration must open up more areas for exploration and production, from drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to reducing the number of prohibited areas offshore. It simply must do what it can to speed up the permit granting process. And it must recognize that now is not the time, if there ever is a good time, to raise taxes on energy producers.

Finally, a look at the George W. Bush’s and Mr. Obama’s efforts to increase government regulation—not just in energy, but across the economy—shows the difference between the two presidents. In his first three years in office Mr. Bush put into place 28 major regulations. Mr. Obama’s three years have seen 106 major regulations. In dollar terms the Bush regulations cost $8.1 billion and Obama’s $46 billion.

So where America is and what it is doing in energy policies has changed a great deal in the past three years, mostly in a regressive direction. Energy is essential for a strong America, but the current administration seems to be doing all it can to keep us from tapping the reliable energy supplies we have right here in our country—coal, oil, and gas—and from our neighbor to the north. Instead we are being pushed towards other energy sources that are inefficient, expensive and will only provide a fraction of the energy a strong America needs.

Source

Insiders: Southern Section of Keystone Pipeline Doesn’t Need Obama

image

By Olga Belogolova
Updated: March 28, 2012 | 6:24 a.m.
March 27, 2012 | 9:30 p.m.

Standing at a podium in front of piles of pipes in Cushing, Okla., last week, President Obama unveiled an executive order meant to speed federal permitting of pipeline infrastructure, including the southern portion of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline. Critics immediately jumped on the move, accusing Obama of being “the rooster taking credit for the dawn” and arguing that no federal action is actually needed for that portion of the Keystone pipeline to move forward. National Journal’s Energy & Environment Insiders agree.

More than 70 percent of Insiders said that Obama’s executive order was unnecessary, with some even saying the move smacks of federal overreach.

Insiders overwhelmingly agreed that the southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline, which will run from Cushing to refineries in Port Arthur, Texas, only needs local approval. States typically handle the siting of interstate oil pipelines, while the only federal involvement normally comes from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Obama’s involvement in the approval process is “not even remotely necessary,” said one Insider, arguing that Obama’s campaign likely thought it was “politically necessary to invent an executive action to [stanch] the coming decline in the polls.”

The Cushing campaign stop came just a day after Gallup released a poll showing that nearly 60 percent of Americans think the U.S. government should approve the entire Keystone project, which Obama rejected in late January.

“The Cushing event was all show … but a well-executed one,” said another Insider.

Still, by rejecting the permit for the full pipeline—which would run from Canada to the Gulf Coast—and then going full-force in supporting the southern section of the pipeline, Obama is sending out inconsistent messages to the public, Insiders said.

“This is a local permitting decision. The president getting involved looks like federal government interfering in the traditionally local decision of land-use planning—and it likely won’t actually change the permitting process, which is already under way,” said one Insider. “Not great optics—and I say this as a fan of the president.”

Even some of the 29 percent of Insiders who said the Obama administration should be involved argued that it is not legally necessary but noted that it is politically important.

“It is necessary in a political sense, to demonstrate that the administration is doing everything it can to lower high gas prices,” said one Insider. “But even without the administration’s involvement, the southern portion of Keystone will get built and, shockingly, gas prices will remain high.”

Insiders overwhelmingly agreed that the southern portion of the pipeline won’t do much for oil prices. Asked whether prices will go up or down once this piece of the pipeline is completed, 75 percent of Insiders chose “neither,” a mere 14 percent said prices would go down, and 11 percent said they would go up.

“You need to connect the hose to the spigot if you want to water the lawn,” one Insider said, arguing that only the approval of the full Keystone XL pipeline project would affect prices.

Insiders said that aside from some efficiencies in delivery, this portion of the pipeline won’t have much of an impact.

“It will only have an impact on the price of oil if investors see the construction as a sign of things to come in terms of fostering more domestic development,” said one Insider.

Read More

Obama Energy Plan: Delay, Deny, Deceive

image

Saturday, 24 March 2012 00:00 Right Side News

This administration’s record speaks for itself. For more than three years, President Obama has implemented a three part energy strategy: delay, deny, and deceive.”  — IER President Thomas Pyle

WASHINGTON D.C. — The president continued his taxpayer-funded energy charade yesterday in Cushing, Okla., where he claimed that his administration will fast-track the southern segment of the Keystone XL pipeline.  Since the administration announced the intention to delay the pipeline’s permit in Nov. 2011, American consumers have spent more than $8.8 billion to purchase overseas oil.  And when the U.S. Senate considered earlier this month a bipartisan Keystone XL provision to authorize the pipeline, the president personally lobbied senators to defeat the measure, which failed to reach a 60-vote threshold despite gaining a 56-vote majority.

IER President Thomas Pyle released the following statement in response to President Obama’s speech today in Cushing, Okla.

“President Obama wants to deceive the American people into believing that he’s somehow responsible for the southern segment of the Keystone XL pipeline, much like he wants them to think he’s responsible for increased oil and gas production in the United States. Neither claim is true, and the president knows it.

“The administration has blocked full development of the Keystone XL pipeline, from delays last fall to the outright rejection of the pipeline permit earlier this year. The president wants to reject the pipeline, and yet take credit for approving it. Similarly, he’s closed development of millions of acres of onshore and offshore federal lands for oil and gas production, while attempting to take credit for production increases on state and private lands where he has no role.

“Just this week, the Congressional Research Service released a report showing that federal oil production represents 7.5 percent of the total oil produced from all onshore U.S. lands in 2011, despite the fact that the federal government owns more than 30 percent of the lands with oil producing potential.

“And the Energy Information Administration released data this month that shows oil production on federal lands is down 13 percent this year under the Obama administration. Natural gas production is at a 9 year low. These energy facts stand in stark contrast to the President’s bogus claims.

“Today, the Washington Post ‘downgraded’ the president’s record of truthfulness on America’s vast oil resources. The administration continues to claim that the U.S. only has 2 percent of the world’s oil resources. But according to his own administration’s data, America has 200 years of domestic oil supply at current consumption levels. And that’s not counting Canadian oil that the Keystone XL pipeline would bring to U.S. refineries.

Had the president authorized the Keystone XL permit in January – when he denied it – America would be well on our way to bringing more than 700,000 barrels of Canadian oil on line. That’s more than twice the oil that was produced on federal onshore lands last year, and it could have created as many as 20,000 jobs in the process.

“The glaring hypocrisy of the president’s speech today is that he announced that his administration would fast-track approval of a pipeline project that the White House has no control over. And if the president has the ability to fast-track permits, why has he waited until today to use that executive authority? And why only for this project?

“This administration’s record speaks for itself. For more than three years, President Obama has implemented a three part energy strategy: delay, deny, and deceive.”

» If you liked this article, please subscribe to Right Side News Daily

There are Lies, Damned Lies, and now…"Obama Lies"

image

Jeffrey Klein
Political Buzz Examiner

Today President Barack Obama, along with his royally expensive Air Force One entourage, landed in Cushing, Oklahoma–the nation’s oil and gas pipeline capital–for another non-public mainstream media event, designed to stifle the public fury over skyrocketing gasoline prices.

The president once again exclaimed his standard slate of “Obama Lies;” specifically, the U.S. must always rely on foreign oil, because we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves, but we use 20% of the world’s oil production–therefore, no amount of increase in domestic production can lower the price of gasoline.

Not so, say those in the know, along with several federal agencies–including the U.S. Department of Energy, run by the famously anti-oil Secretary, Steven Chu.

“It’s accurate but extremely misleading,” says Dan Kish of [the] Institute for Energy Research, which is supported by the industry. “What he is talking about is oil we already have found,” according to Jim Angle’s excellent FOXNews article yesterday.

Kish argues that it is at least very misleading, because Obama is referring to “proven” reserves of some 21 billion barrels.

However, analysts point out that so-called “proven reserves” were pegged at 20 billion barrels back in 1944.  Interestingly enough, since then, the U.S. has extracted about 170 billion barrels–but we still only show 20 billion barrels of “proven reserves” on the books.

The Obama Administration is already famous for double-counting 500 billion Obamacare bucks.

One federal agency says there’s 10 times more — 219 billion barrels of “technically recoverable” energy [sic].

Author’s note: For purposes of accuracy and the elimination of political and environmental “fashion-speak” in this context, only oil volume is measured in barrels–not “Energy.”  There is no such recognized thing as a “barrel of energy.”  Further, in this context, [usable] “energy” is produced by some form of [combustion] “engine” via the consumption petroleum byproducts, refined from barrels of oil.

Another agency in the Energy Department says there’s 20 times that much–400 billion barrels; while some in the oil and gas industry claim there’s 60 times that amount–1.4 trillion barrels in untapped resources.

That’s energy the government knows we have but that has not yet been drilled for; and, industry experts argue it’s there for the taking.

“The trillion-plus barrels of oil in this country, more oil than in Saudi Arabia, is not counted by the president, and I think that’s misleading the American people,” John Hofmeister, the former CEO of Shell Oil, said.

With those kinds of resources, the U.S. could continue at its current consumption rate for 200 years without any imports, Kish of IER said. “And add Canada and Mexico? The numbers go off the chart.”

Another favorite Obama lie is … “As much as we’re doing to increase oil production–we’re not going to be able to just drill our way out of the problem of high gas prices.”

“Some of us believe that the president is trying to suggest that we don’t have adequate resource[s] here in the United States, which is just not true,” says Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, another industry group.

In fact, one industry analyst says [that] by tapping American oil along with Canadian resources and renewable energy, the U.S. could be self sufficient in just 12 years.

Nonetheless, the Obama lies continued, with the president taking credit for approving the “fast-tracking” of the Oklahoma-to-Texas [last] leg of the Keystone XL pipeline–even though he will not, and has not, had anything to do with it–whatsoever.

Source

Interest groups protest Obama’s support for Oklahoma-Texas pipeline

Various groups on Thursday protested President Barack Obama’s speech at a pipe yard near Cushing.

 

image

President Barack Obama arrives at the TransCanada Pipe Yard near Cushing, Okla., Thursday, March 22, 2012. Photo by Nate Billings, The Oklahoman

By Adam Wilmoth

Published: March 23, 2012

CUSHING — President Barack Obama‘s speech near Cushing on Thursday drew strong opinions and protests from a variety of interest groups.

Crowds along the motorcade route held signs with a variety of messages including “Drill, baby, drill,” “Oklahomans for Obama,” “Stop Keystone” and “Tar Sands are Toxic.”

Americans for Prosperity opposed the president for his efforts to promote renewable energy with tax credits and other incentives at the expense of the oil and natural gas industry.

“The truth is the Obama administration has repeatedly blocked domestic energy production, vilified the oil and gas industry and actually cheered the rise of fuel prices,” AFP President Tim Phillips said. AFP activists held signs and rallied in Cushing while the president gave his speech.

The Domestic Energy Producers Alliance had a similar message.

“President Obama’s message of support for the oil industry is completely disingenuous because he has spent three years discouraging oil production,” said Mike Cantrell, Oklahoma oilman and member of the producers alliance. “He stands up there and takes credit for the things the private sector has done without him.”

Read more: NewsOk

%d bloggers like this: