Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Thank you semi-retired President Barack Hussein Obama for such a reduction in oil production on Federal Lands

5 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Markle

Markle

Thank you semi-retired President Barack Hussein Obama for such a reduction in oil production on Federal Lands

Obama Stymies Oil and Natural Gas Production on Federal Lands

4/17/2014 @ 10:02AM

A new nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) report quantifies the Obama administration’s hostility towards America’s oil and natural gas industry. While oil and natural gas production has surged on non-federal lands, President Obama has overseen a decline in production on federal lands.

There are four entities that own land in the United States: the federal government, states, private landowners, and Native Americans. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at the Department of the Interior is charged with leasing, selling, and generally managing oil and natural gas reserves on federal land.

Although the federal government heavily regulates the exploration and production process through laws like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, etc, the federal government doesn’t control land owned by states or individuals. The point being, a fair way to judge the Obama administration’s stance towards oil and natural gas is to compare federal production to state and private land production.

According to the CRS report, oil production on federal lands actually fell 6 percent between 2009 and 2013. Over the same period of time, oil production increased by an astounding 61 percent on state and private lands.
The decrease in federal production is not insubstantial but requires context in the form of state and private production numbers. As a result of these massive gains, crude oil production on state and private lands has risen by 2.1 million barrels per day. That increase alone is more than Algeria, Libya, Qatar, and Norway produce– all countries with storied oil reputations – and explains why the U.S. is on track to be the world’s largest oil producer.

Touting natural gas during this year’s State of the Union, President Obama said, “America is closer to energy independence than we’ve been in decades. One of the reasons why is natural gas – if extracted safely, it’s the bridge fuel that can power our economy.” Speaking at Georgetown University, the president again reaffirmed his supposed support for natural gas, “And today, we produce more natural gas than anybody else. So we’re producing energy. And these advances have grown our economy, they’ve created new jobs, they can’t be shipped overseas.”

Unfortunately, these words amount to nothing more than lip service. Natural gas production on federal lands decreased by an astounding 28 percent from 2009 to 2013 while natural gas production on non-federal lands increased by 33 percent from 2009 to 2013. Actions speak louder than words.

Commenting on the administration’s shuttering of federal lands, Energy and Power Subcommittee Vice Chairman Steve Scalise (R-LA) said:

The shale gas revolution on non-federal lands has transformed our economy and propelled America into the position of a global energy superpower. But we cannot become complacent with this progress. America can secure energy independence by developing all of our energy resources on both federal and non-federal lands. Unfortunately the Obama administration has turned its back on energy exploration on federal lands, costing us hundreds of thousands of good jobs and billions in potential federal revenue.

One way the Obama administration hamstrings energy production on federal lands is by elongating the permitting process. According to the CRS report, it took 41 percent longer to process an application for permit to drill (APD) in 2011 than it did in 2006, from 218 days to 307 days. If a company can’t get permits, they can’t drill. If they can’t drill, production declines.

Much of the new 2.1 million barrels of oil produced every day comes from horizontal drilling, and no one knows more about horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing than Harold Hamm, founder and CEO of Continental Resources CLR -0.08%. Continental Resources defined itself by developing overlooked oil plays in North Dakota. Continental now employs around a thousand people, contracts with many more, and supports thousands more with its enormous capital expenditures. None of these gains would have been possible if the federal government controlled most of the land in North Dakota. The state’s unemployment rate would not be 2.6 percent if the federal government controlled land in North Dakota.

Nearby western states, like Utah and Wyoming, that have the misfortune of substantial oil and natural gas reserves on federal land can only look at North Dakota and wonder, “what if?”


Read more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisprandoni/2014/04/17/obama-stymies-oil-and-natural-gas-production-on-federal-lands/

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Thank you semi-retired President Barack Hussein Obama for such a reduction in oil production on Federal Lands HamsterOnWheel

Keep running along that hamster wheel, Markle. You have not arrived yet.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Markle knows nothing about where those so-called federal lands are located, how much oil they might hold, or other pertinent information that might actually support his argument.

Google, cut, and paste--Markle's trademark, LOL!
 

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

Always fun to have my Progressive good friend agree with me. Their total frustration and desperation is, indeed, amusing.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


You are apparently a slow learner. We've already had this conversation. It is not cost effective for the federal government to allow drilling on federal lands. That is because the royalties from said drilling have not been increased since the 1920's. Before you cut and paste again, you should actually read what you're posting.

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:
You are apparently a slow learner.  We've already had this conversation. It is not cost effective for the federal government to allow drilling on federal lands.  That is because the royalties from said drilling have not been increased since the 1920's.  Before you cut and paste again, you should actually read what you're posting.

The same could be said about you being a slow learner.  Progressives certainly want to believe anything to keep their messiah walking on water.  Even if not factual.

Would you please show us the link to your source that royalties have not increased since the 1920's. Why does that make a difference in whether or not our semi-retired President has not allowed more drilling on Federal land.



Last edited by Markle on 8/24/2014, 11:17 pm; edited 1 time in total

2seaoat



Mr Markle must have learned his analytical skills from selling real estate......hey seller the market is being flooded with abundant supply of cheap houses and the prices are tumbling as the demand cannot keep up with over supply.....list your house now and sell it really really cheap, even though you do not have to and like where you are.........

Stunning stupidity as leases with the use it or lose it condition mean that all those reserves can be release when the market changes, and not locking in special interest sweetheart leases at low prices......I would not want Mr. Markle in any line command position in any Corporation in America........he is not real good with the math and basic economic concepts......but blame it on the black guy in the White House.....he has a PHD.......pushing horsechit downhill.......

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Mr Markle must have learned his analytical skills from selling real estate......hey seller the market is being flooded with abundant supply of cheap houses and the prices are tumbling as the demand cannot keep up with over supply.....list your house now and sell it really really cheap, even though you do not have to and like where you are.........

Stunning stupidity as leases with the use it or lose it condition mean that all those reserves can be release when the market changes, and not locking in special interest sweetheart leases at low prices......I would not want Mr. Markle in any line command position in any Corporation in America........he is not real good with the math and basic economic concepts......but blame it on the black guy in the White House.....he has a PHD.......pushing horsechit downhill.......

I do love your kind words, I really do! THANK YOU!

By the way, when did our semi-retired President earn a PhD in geology? Or a PhD in anything? Or are you counting any honorary degrees he has received. You know, like his Nobel Peace Prize.


2seaoat



He came into office and said he would stop the giving away of leases on federal property, and he instituted the use it or lose it standard. So instead of Big oil grabbing all the leases and stealing america waiting thirty years to exploit their low payback to this country.......they will have to bid on the leases when oil and gas prices are high, and our return on the leases will be a massive gain for America......my kind words are reserved for the traitors of America. You know.....the ones who support theft of our wealth, and justify such theft by simply being a hired gun for the bad guys.....

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

I think Marco Rubio should start his 2016 presidential campaign by saying his administration will open up all of those federal lands for oil drilling that Barrack Obama has been holding back--in fact, the very ones Markle is complaining about. We can start with opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the eastern Gulf of Mexico for leasing by energy companies.

That should go over big with wingnuts who have been carping at the President over not allowing America to fully exploit all of its natural resources. It may not boost Senator Rubio's stock with most voters, but it should really attract the support of the base.

It will put environmentalists' pants in a wad, but since when do Republicans care about those types of voters?

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I think Marco Rubio should start his 2016 presidential campaign by saying his administration will open up all of those federal lands for oil drilling that Barrack Obama has been holding back--in fact, the very ones Markle is complaining about. We can start with opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the eastern Gulf of Mexico for leasing by energy companies.

That should go over big with wingnuts who have been carping at the President over not allowing America to fully exploit all of its natural resources. It may not boost Senator Rubio's stock with most voters, but it should really attract the support of the base.

It will put environmentalists' pants in a wad, but since when do Republicans care about those types of voters?

Since when do Progressives care about the "type" of voter who creates JOBS?

2seaoat



Since when do Progressives care about the "type" of voter who creates JOBS?


Since they have strongly urged investment in America's infrastructure. Private sector job creation is good for America. There seems to be only one party concerned about average middle class Americans and job creation. There is a difference in passing more fungible wealth to an oligarchy responsible for the closing of 50k factories and exporting jobs and wealth over seas, and the false concept of job creators needing more tax breaks......mumbo jumbo right up there with trickle down economics.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Markle can't defend the thesis of the thread he started, so now he is trying to change the subject and make it a thread about jobs....... Hilarious......

Let's open up those federal lands, Markle..... Senator Rubio should say he is all for opening up ANWR to Exxon and BP. There are only 500,000 people in Alaska, and they all receive an annual check from the state government that comes from oil revenues. I am sure they will be all for drilling oil wells where polar bears roost.

And about the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Rubio should say he is for opening up the eastern gulf to energy development. Florida's tourism should accommodate this without problems.

This should sit well with the base, and show voters that Republicans are not going to sit around and watch those federal lands go undeveloped!

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Markle wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
You are apparently a slow learner.  We've already had this conversation. It is not cost effective for the federal government to allow drilling on federal lands.  That is because the royalties from said drilling have not been increased since the 1920's.  Before you cut and paste again, you should actually read what you're posting.

The same could be said about you being a slow learner.  Progressives certainly want to believe anything to keep their messiah walking on water.  Even if not factual.

Would you please show us the link to your source that royalties have not increased since the 1920's.  Why does that make a difference in whether or not our semi-retired President has not allowed more drilling on Federal land.


My daughter and her husband are "land men".

LOL

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Markle can't defend the thesis of the thread he started, so now he is trying to change the subject and make it a thread about jobs....... Hilarious......

Let's open up those federal lands, Markle..... Senator Rubio should say he is all for opening up ANWR to Exxon and BP. There are only 500,000 people in Alaska, and they all receive an annual check from the state government that comes from oil revenues. I am sure they will be all for drilling oil wells where polar bears roost.

And about the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Rubio should say he is for opening up the eastern gulf to energy development. Florida's tourism should accommodate this without problems.

This should sit well with the base, and show voters that Republicans are not going to sit around and watch those federal lands go undeveloped!

We purchased Alaska from Russia for one reason, the wealth of natural resources.

Why should we NOT make good use of the oil in ANWR? What does that have to do with polar bears?

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:Always fun to have my Progressive good friend agree with me.  Their total frustration and desperation is, indeed, amusing.

Why in hell should anyone care about a reduction of oil production on such Federal Lands? Our overall oil production continues to rise.

But, once again, you've made us all frustrated and desperate, even suicidal.

Uh huh. Yeah.

2seaoat



We purchased Alaska from Russia for one reason, the wealth of natural resources.

Why should we NOT make good use of the oil in ANWR? What does that have to do with polar bears?


For strategic reserves and environmental reasons. Thirty years from now it will be brilliant, but for now we are squeezing additional oil from old fields and we are producing at a rate that the Alaska discussion is basically moot.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Markle wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Markle can't defend the thesis of the thread he started, so now he is trying to change the subject and make it a thread about jobs....... Hilarious......

Let's open up those federal lands, Markle..... Senator Rubio should say he is all for opening up ANWR to Exxon and BP. There are only 500,000 people in Alaska, and they all receive an annual check from the state government that comes from oil revenues. I am sure they will be all for drilling oil wells where polar bears roost.

And about the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Rubio should say he is for opening up the eastern gulf to energy development. Florida's tourism should accommodate this without problems.

This should sit well with the base, and show voters that Republicans are not going to sit around and watch those federal lands go undeveloped!

We purchased Alaska from Russia for one reason, the wealth of natural resources.

Why should we NOT make good use of the oil in ANWR?  What does that have to do with polar bears?

That is not my point.... Which GOP politician is going to risk stepping forward to advocate drilling in ANWR? My guess is nobody...... The political backlash would be enormous.

Besides, with over 100 billion bbls of recoverable petroleum in the lower 48 onshore (nearly 100 billion bbls in the Texas Permian Basin alone), there is no current need to risk drilling in the ecologically-sensitive ANWR; nor do we need to outlay the costs associated with drilling so far away from existing infrastructure (roads, pipelines, railheads, power supplies). These are things your silly "Federal Lands" argument fails to take into consideration. I am sure, however, you will keep choking that chicken; and I will again remind you of how weak your premise is.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Markle wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Markle can't defend the thesis of the thread he started, so now he is trying to change the subject and make it a thread about jobs....... Hilarious......

Let's open up those federal lands, Markle..... Senator Rubio should say he is all for opening up ANWR to Exxon and BP. There are only 500,000 people in Alaska, and they all receive an annual check from the state government that comes from oil revenues. I am sure they will be all for drilling oil wells where polar bears roost.

And about the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Rubio should say he is for opening up the eastern gulf to energy development. Florida's tourism should accommodate this without problems.

This should sit well with the base, and show voters that Republicans are not going to sit around and watch those federal lands go undeveloped!

We purchased Alaska from Russia for one reason, the wealth of natural resources.

Why should we NOT make good use of the oil in ANWR?  What does that have to do with polar bears?

That is not my point.... Which GOP politician is going to risk stepping forward to advocate drilling in ANWR? My guess is nobody...... The political backlash would be enormous.

Besides, with over 100 billion bbls of recoverable petroleum in the lower 48 onshore (nearly 100 billion bbls in the Texas Permian Basin alone), there is no current need to risk drilling in the ecologically-sensitive ANWR; nor do we need to outlay the costs associated with drilling so far away from existing infrastructure (roads, pipelines, railheads, power supplies). These are things your silly "Federal Lands" argument fails to take into consideration. I am sure, however, you will keep choking that chicken; and I will again remind you of how weak your premise is.

Amusing, for well over a year, you, 2seaoat and a few other die hard fans of our semi-retired President insisted that President Obama was responsible for the increase in our oil and gas output. When repeatedly proven wrong, now your line is the resources on Federal lands is irrelevant, immaterial and unimportant.

By the way, ANWR is not ecologically-sensitive. It is a vast, wasteland, as is the vast Escalante Staircase Monument closed as a payoff to the Chinese by President William Jefferson Clinton.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

By the way, ANWR is not ecologically-sensitive.  It is a vast, wasteland...

Great, I hope this becomes a part of the 2016 GOP platform for securing the White House. I hope you keep pushing this with all of your might. It is a winning strategy......  Razz

We have already explained why there is no current need to drill in ANWR. However, I do realize that in your case, ideological bent will always supersede common sense.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:By the way, ANWR is not ecologically-sensitive.  It is a vast, wasteland...

Great, I hope this becomes a part of the 2016 GOP platform for securing the White House. I hope you keep pushing this with all of your might. It is a winning strategy......  Razz

We have already explained why there is no current need to drill in ANWR. However, I do realize that in your case, ideological bent will always supersede common sense.


Good that you agree in your backhanded tradition. ANWR is not ecologically sensitive and is a vast wasteland. Alaska knows it's only usefulness is to mine its natural resources.

What percentage of ANWR would be developed if oil exploration and drilling was allowed?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum