Why tell the truth when you can lie, right Obama? His Two Pinocchio lie.

nochain wrote:Oblamer states in a speech that Keystone would only result in an initial 2,000 jobs then 50-100 afterward.  His teleprompter engineer probably forgot about the generally accepted figures from Oblamers very own State Dept that suggested 5-6,000 jobs, now that portions of the line are complete this number has been revised down to about 4,000. But no, instead of telling the truth (that wouldn’t support his agenda) Oblamer more than likely used numbers from an anti-Keystone “think tank”.
But the most interesting part of this is found in the linked article:
“But that doesn’t make much sense either, because the White House routinely claimed the job gains created by the stimulus by adding up the number of “person-years” — in other words, one person employed per year. That’s how the White House could claim 3 million jobs were saved or created by the stimulus through 2012. (See Table 12 of this White House report.)
Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs.”

So, why tell the truth when a lie will better support your agenda?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-low-ball-estimate-for-keystone-xl-jobs/2013/07/29/ce886b1e-f897-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_blog.html?hpid=z8

newswatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:Oblamer states in a speech that Keystone would only result in an initial 2,000 jobs then 50-100 afterward.  His teleprompter engineer probably forgot about the generally accepted figures from Oblamers very own State Dept that suggested 5-6,000 jobs, now that portions of the line are complete this number has been revised down to about 4,000. But no, instead of telling the truth (that wouldn’t support his agenda) Oblamer more than likely used numbers from an anti-Keystone “think tank”.
But the most interesting part of this is found in the linked article:
“But that doesn’t make much sense either, because the White House routinely claimed the job gains created by the stimulus by adding up the number of “person-years” — in other words, one person employed per year. That’s how the White House could claim 3 million jobs were saved or created by the stimulus through 2012. (See Table 12 of this White House report.)
Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs.”

So, why tell the truth when a lie will better support your agenda?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-low-ball-estimate-for-keystone-xl-jobs/2013/07/29/ce886b1e-f897-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_blog.html?hpid=z8

    He wants to keep his tree hugging celebrities happy rather than actually create jobs and begin to establish a energy policy not dependent on the middle east....yes we'd be paying but would we rather be partners with Canada or continue with opec?....

knothead wrote:From the link below the srticle reads in part: "Strict new federal fuel-economy and carbon-emission standards made final Tuesday are the biggest technological challenge to the auto industry since the government began regulating emissions in 1970 and mileage in 1975.

The rule sets the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon as the average the auto industry must achieve by 2025, up from 29.7 mpg now and 35.5 mpg in 2016.
The tough "CAFE" standard (for corporate average fuel economy), which was to be announced earlier this month, was announced Tuesday by the Obama administration on the day that Republicans' national convention got underway in Tampa."

This is only one example of Obama's energy policy to decrease our nation's dependence on foreign oil.  The pipeline controversy will create few good jobs and will put our water supply in jeopardy.  Good policy!


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/story/2012-08-29/fuel-standards/57383050/1

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:Oblamer states in a speech that Keystone would only result in an initial 2,000 jobs then 50-100 afterward.  His teleprompter engineer probably forgot about the generally accepted figures from Oblamers very own State Dept that suggested 5-6,000 jobs, now that portions of the line are complete this number has been revised down to about 4,000. But no, instead of telling the truth (that wouldn’t support his agenda) Oblamer more than likely used numbers from an anti-Keystone “think tank”.
But the most interesting part of this is found in the linked article:
“But that doesn’t make much sense either, because the White House routinely claimed the job gains created by the stimulus by adding up the number of “person-years” — in other words, one person employed per year. That’s how the White House could claim 3 million jobs were saved or created by the stimulus through 2012. (See Table 12 of this White House report.)
Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs.”

So, why tell the truth when a lie will better support your agenda?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-low-ball-estimate-for-keystone-xl-jobs/2013/07/29/ce886b1e-f897-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_blog.html?hpid=z8

    He wants to keep his tree hugging celebrities happy rather than actually create jobs and begin to establish a energy policy not dependent on the middle east....yes we'd be paying but would we rather be partners with Canada or continue with opec?....

Not factual at all. U.S. oil production has grown every year since Obama has been in office, and will contunue to grow--to 10 million barrels per day. The President will do nothing to stop the revolution in extracting oil and gas from America's tight shale formations.

I subscribe to the Oil & Gas Journal, and I have seen no articles complaining about this president's attitude or lack of friendliness toward the energy industry.

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:Oblamer states in a speech that Keystone would only result in an initial 2,000 jobs then 50-100 afterward.  His teleprompter engineer probably forgot about the generally accepted figures from Oblamers very own State Dept that suggested 5-6,000 jobs, now that portions of the line are complete this number has been revised down to about 4,000. But no, instead of telling the truth (that wouldn’t support his agenda) Oblamer more than likely used numbers from an anti-Keystone “think tank”.
But the most interesting part of this is found in the linked article:
“But that doesn’t make much sense either, because the White House routinely claimed the job gains created by the stimulus by adding up the number of “person-years” — in other words, one person employed per year. That’s how the White House could claim 3 million jobs were saved or created by the stimulus through 2012. (See Table 12 of this White House report.)
Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs.”

So, why tell the truth when a lie will better support your agenda?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-low-ball-estimate-for-keystone-xl-jobs/2013/07/29/ce886b1e-f897-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_blog.html?hpid=z8

    He wants to keep his tree hugging celebrities happy rather than actually create jobs and begin to establish a energy policy not dependent on the middle east....yes we'd be paying but would we rather be partners with Canada or continue with opec?....

Not factual at all. U.S. oil production has grown every year since Obama has been in office, and will contunue to grow--to 10 million barrels per day. The President will do nothing to stop the revolution in extracting oil and gas from America's tight shale formations.

I subscribe to the Oil & Gas Journal, and I have seen no articles complaining about this president's attitude or lack of friendliness toward the energy industry.

As you well know, all those gains in oil and gas production have been on State and Private Land NOT Federal Land, NOT land President Obama has any control whatsoever over.

For you, I'll even provide a visual aid.  Please read Total FEDERAL and Total NON-FEDERAL.

knothead wrote:From the link below the srticle reads in part: "Strict new federal fuel-economy and carbon-emission standards made final Tuesday are the biggest technological challenge to the auto industry since the government began regulating emissions in 1970 and mileage in 1975.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/story/2012-08-29/fuel-standards/57383050/1

newswatcher wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:Oblamer states in a speech that Keystone would only result in an initial 2,000 jobs then 50-100 afterward.  His teleprompter engineer probably forgot about the generally accepted figures from Oblamers very own State Dept that suggested 5-6,000 jobs, now that portions of the line are complete this number has been revised down to about 4,000. But no, instead of telling the truth (that wouldn’t support his agenda) Oblamer more than likely used numbers from an anti-Keystone “think tank”.
But the most interesting part of this is found in the linked article:
“But that doesn’t make much sense either, because the White House routinely claimed the job gains created by the stimulus by adding up the number of “person-years” — in other words, one person employed per year. That’s how the White House could claim 3 million jobs were saved or created by the stimulus through 2012. (See Table 12 of this White House report.)
Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs.”

So, why tell the truth when a lie will better support your agenda?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-low-ball-estimate-for-keystone-xl-jobs/2013/07/29/ce886b1e-f897-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_blog.html?hpid=z8

    He wants to keep his tree hugging celebrities happy rather than actually create jobs and begin to establish a energy policy not dependent on the middle east....yes we'd be paying but would we rather be partners with Canada or continue with opec?....

Not factual at all. U.S. oil production has grown every year since Obama has been in office, and will contunue to grow--to 10 million barrels per day. The President will do nothing to stop the revolution in extracting oil and gas from America's tight shale formations.

I subscribe to the Oil & Gas Journal, and I have seen no articles complaining about this president's attitude or lack of friendliness toward the energy industry.

As you well know, all those gains in oil and gas production have been on State and Private Land NOT Federal Land, NOT land President Obama has any control whatsoever over.

For you, I'll even provide a visual aid.  Please read Total FEDERAL and Total NON-FEDERAL.

 Oops those darn FACTS!...This was pointed out by Romney in the debates and he was blasted by the media and then they backtracked only after the damages had been done...As far as his attitude....his position has always been that paying higher prices would reduce the amount used....once again inflicting the most pain on the working middle class....

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:Oblamer states in a speech that Keystone would only result in an initial 2,000 jobs then 50-100 afterward.  His teleprompter engineer probably forgot about the generally accepted figures from Oblamers very own State Dept that suggested 5-6,000 jobs, now that portions of the line are complete this number has been revised down to about 4,000. But no, instead of telling the truth (that wouldn’t support his agenda) Oblamer more than likely used numbers from an anti-Keystone “think tank”.
But the most interesting part of this is found in the linked article:
“But that doesn’t make much sense either, because the White House routinely claimed the job gains created by the stimulus by adding up the number of “person-years” — in other words, one person employed per year. That’s how the White House could claim 3 million jobs were saved or created by the stimulus through 2012. (See Table 12 of this White House report.)
Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs.”

So, why tell the truth when a lie will better support your agenda?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-low-ball-estimate-for-keystone-xl-jobs/2013/07/29/ce886b1e-f897-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_blog.html?hpid=z8

    He wants to keep his tree hugging celebrities happy rather than actually create jobs and begin to establish a energy policy not dependent on the middle east....yes we'd be paying but would we rather be partners with Canada or continue with opec?....

Not factual at all. U.S. oil production has grown every year since Obama has been in office, and will contunue to grow--to 10 million barrels per day. The President will do nothing to stop the revolution in extracting oil and gas from America's tight shale formations.

I subscribe to the Oil & Gas Journal, and I have seen no articles complaining about this president's attitude or lack of friendliness toward the energy industry.

As you well know, all those gains in oil and gas production have been on State and Private Land NOT Federal Land, NOT land President Obama has any control whatsoever over.

For you, I'll even provide a visual aid.  Please read Total FEDERAL and Total NON-FEDERAL.

 Oops those darn FACTS!...This was pointed out by Romney in the debates and he was blasted by the media and then they backtracked only after the damages had been done...As far as his attitude....his position has always been that paying higher prices would reduce the amount used....once again inflicting the most pain on the working middle class....

Oops, yep, those darn facts. Why don't you and Markle enlighten us on the "Federal lands" Obama is not allowing exploration on? What states are these lands located in, and over which geologic formations do they sit? How much oil are we talking about in these geologic formations? What companies are complaining about not being able to lease these lands?

Don't worry, I don't think either of you would even know where to look for this information.

Let me tell you some FACTS: There are 9,000 oil wells in the Williston Basin in North Dakota; scheduled to grow to 50,000 in the next 17 years. Oil production continues to grow in ND, and so much associated-gas is being recovered with this oil that they are having to flare off $100 million worth a month. The pipeline infrastructure isn't there to bring this gas to market, though they are trying to install the infrastructure to reduce flaring.

The same revolution taking place in North Dakota is about to hit the San Joaquin Valley in California, where there is an even bigger shale formation, the Monterey Shale. Oil companies have been falling over themselves leasing-up mineral rights in Kern County, CA, where I grew up, and where the sweetest spots are for development of the Monterey formation. They are lined up inthe chocks, waiting for the starting pistol to be fired.

And What about Texas? Google the Eagle Ford shale formation. And what about the ocean of shale gas being pulled out of the ground?

Domestic oil production will continue to grow unfettered during Obama's 2nd term. By 2030, U.S. domestic oil production is expected to rise to 10 million barrels per day. The President is doing nothing to impede or slow this progress from occurring.

nochain wrote:Oblamer states in a speech that Keystone would only result in an initial 2,000 jobs then 50-100 afterward.  His teleprompter engineer probably forgot about the generally accepted figures from Oblamers very own State Dept that suggested 5-6,000 jobs, now that portions of the line are complete this number has been revised down to about 4,000. But no, instead of telling the truth (that wouldn’t support his agenda) Oblamer more than likely used numbers from an anti-Keystone “think tank”.
But the most interesting part of this is found in the linked article:
“But that doesn’t make much sense either, because the White House routinely claimed the job gains created by the stimulus by adding up the number of “person-years” — in other words, one person employed per year. That’s how the White House could claim 3 million jobs were saved or created by the stimulus through 2012. (See Table 12 of this White House report.)
Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs.”

So, why tell the truth when a lie will better support your agenda?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-low-ball-estimate-for-keystone-xl-jobs/2013/07/29/ce886b1e-f897-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_blog.html?hpid=z8

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:Oblamer states in a speech that Keystone would only result in an initial 2,000 jobs then 50-100 afterward.  His teleprompter engineer probably forgot about the generally accepted figures from Oblamers very own State Dept that suggested 5-6,000 jobs, now that portions of the line are complete this number has been revised down to about 4,000. But no, instead of telling the truth (that wouldn’t support his agenda) Oblamer more than likely used numbers from an anti-Keystone “think tank”.
But the most interesting part of this is found in the linked article:
“But that doesn’t make much sense either, because the White House routinely claimed the job gains created by the stimulus by adding up the number of “person-years” — in other words, one person employed per year. That’s how the White House could claim 3 million jobs were saved or created by the stimulus through 2012. (See Table 12 of this White House report.)
Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs.”

So, why tell the truth when a lie will better support your agenda?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-low-ball-estimate-for-keystone-xl-jobs/2013/07/29/ce886b1e-f897-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_blog.html?hpid=z8

    He wants to keep his tree hugging celebrities happy rather than actually create jobs and begin to establish a energy policy not dependent on the middle east....yes we'd be paying but would we rather be partners with Canada or continue with opec?....

Not factual at all. U.S. oil production has grown every year since Obama has been in office, and will contunue to grow--to 10 million barrels per day. The President will do nothing to stop the revolution in extracting oil and gas from America's tight shale formations.

I subscribe to the Oil & Gas Journal, and I have seen no articles complaining about this president's attitude or lack of friendliness toward the energy industry.

As you well know, all those gains in oil and gas production have been on State and Private Land NOT Federal Land, NOT land President Obama has any control whatsoever over.

For you, I'll even provide a visual aid.  Please read Total FEDERAL and Total NON-FEDERAL.

 Oops those darn FACTS!...This was pointed out by Romney in the debates and he was blasted by the media and then they backtracked only after the damages had been done...As far as his attitude....his position has always been that paying higher prices would reduce the amount used....once again inflicting the most pain on the working middle class....

Oops, yep, those darn facts. Why don't you and Markle enlighten us on the "Federal lands" Obama is not allowing exploration on? What states are these lands located in, and over which geologic formations do they sit? How much oil are we talking about in these geologic formations? What companies are complaining about not being able to lease these lands?

Don't worry, I don't think either of you would even know where to look for this information.

Let me tell you some FACTS: There are 9,000 oil wells in the Williston Basin in North Dakota; scheduled to grow to 50,000 in the next 17 years. Oil production continues to grow in ND, and so much associated-gas is being recovered with this oil that they are having to flare off $100 million worth a month. The pipeline infrastructure isn't there to bring this gas to market, though they are trying to install the infrastructure to reduce flaring.

The same revolution taking place in North Dakota is about to hit the San Joaquin Valley in California, where there is an even bigger shale formation, the Monterey Shale. Oil companies have been falling over themselves leasing-up mineral rights in Kern County, CA, where I grew up, and where the sweetest spots are for development of the Monterey formation. They are lined up inthe chocks, waiting for the starting pistol to be fired.

And What about Texas? Google the Eagle Ford shale formation. And what about the ocean of shale gas being pulled out of the ground?

Domestic oil production will continue to grow unfettered during Obama's 2nd term. By 2030, U.S. domestic oil production is expected to rise to 10 million barrels per day. The President is doing nothing to impede or slow this progress from occurring.

Great word salad...yum yum!  NOW refer again to the chart showing the differences in oil and gas produced on state and private land as opposed to what President Obama has allowed.  He simply uses regulations and delays in permitting to achieve his goal of "Skyrocketing Energy Prices".  Which hurts the low and middle income people the most.  You know, those he lies about helping.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:Oblamer states in a speech that Keystone would only result in an initial 2,000 jobs then 50-100 afterward.  His teleprompter engineer probably forgot about the generally accepted figures from Oblamers very own State Dept that suggested 5-6,000 jobs, now that portions of the line are complete this number has been revised down to about 4,000. But no, instead of telling the truth (that wouldn’t support his agenda) Oblamer more than likely used numbers from an anti-Keystone “think tank”.
But the most interesting part of this is found in the linked article:
“But that doesn’t make much sense either, because the White House routinely claimed the job gains created by the stimulus by adding up the number of “person-years” — in other words, one person employed per year. That’s how the White House could claim 3 million jobs were saved or created by the stimulus through 2012. (See Table 12 of this White House report.)
Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs.”

So, why tell the truth when a lie will better support your agenda?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-low-ball-estimate-for-keystone-xl-jobs/2013/07/29/ce886b1e-f897-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_blog.html?hpid=z8

    He wants to keep his tree hugging celebrities happy rather than actually create jobs and begin to establish a energy policy not dependent on the middle east....yes we'd be paying but would we rather be partners with Canada or continue with opec?....

Not factual at all. U.S. oil production has grown every year since Obama has been in office, and will contunue to grow--to 10 million barrels per day. The President will do nothing to stop the revolution in extracting oil and gas from America's tight shale formations.

I subscribe to the Oil & Gas Journal, and I have seen no articles complaining about this president's attitude or lack of friendliness toward the energy industry.

As you well know, all those gains in oil and gas production have been on State and Private Land NOT Federal Land, NOT land President Obama has any control whatsoever over.

For you, I'll even provide a visual aid.  Please read Total FEDERAL and Total NON-FEDERAL.

 Oops those darn FACTS!...This was pointed out by Romney in the debates and he was blasted by the media and then they backtracked only after the damages had been done...As far as his attitude....his position has always been that paying higher prices would reduce the amount used....once again inflicting the most pain on the working middle class....

Oops, yep, those darn facts. Why don't you and Markle enlighten us on the "Federal lands" Obama is not allowing exploration on? What states are these lands located in, and over which geologic formations do they sit? How much oil are we talking about in these geologic formations? What companies are complaining about not being able to lease these lands?

Don't worry, I don't think either of you would even know where to look for this information.

Let me tell you some FACTS: There are 9,000 oil wells in the Williston Basin in North Dakota; scheduled to grow to 50,000 in the next 17 years. Oil production continues to grow in ND, and so much associated-gas is being recovered with this oil that they are having to flare off $100 million worth a month. The pipeline infrastructure isn't there to bring this gas to market, though they are trying to install the infrastructure to reduce flaring.

The same revolution taking place in North Dakota is about to hit the San Joaquin Valley in California, where there is an even bigger shale formation, the Monterey Shale. Oil companies have been falling over themselves leasing-up mineral rights in Kern County, CA, where I grew up, and where the sweetest spots are for development of the Monterey formation. They are lined up inthe chocks, waiting for the starting pistol to be fired.

And What about Texas? Google the Eagle Ford shale formation. And what about the ocean of shale gas being pulled out of the ground?

Domestic oil production will continue to grow unfettered during Obama's 2nd term. By 2030, U.S. domestic oil production is expected to rise to 10 million barrels per day. The President is doing nothing to impede or slow this progress from occurring.

Great word salad...yum yum!  NOW refer again to the chart showing the differences in oil and gas produced on state and private land as opposed to what President Obama has allowed.  He simply uses regulations and delays in permitting to achieve his goal of "Skyrocketing Energy Prices".  Which hurts the low and middle income people the most.  You know, those he lies about helping.

You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you in the face. I am sorry if the FACTS I presented were too complicated for you to understand.

PkrBum wrote:She seems smart and pretty... you must be very proud.

Floridatexan wrote:My daughter is a landman on the Bakkan formation.  She rightly states that she is "reducing our dependence on foreign oil".  We don't need Canada's dirty tar sands product.  Let them haul it across their own country.

Floridatexan wrote:My daughter is a landman on the Bakkan formation.  She rightly states that she is "reducing our dependence on foreign oil".  We don't need Canada's dirty tar sands product.  Let them haul it across their own country.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:Oblamer states in a speech that Keystone would only result in an initial 2,000 jobs then 50-100 afterward.  His teleprompter engineer probably forgot about the generally accepted figures from Oblamers very own State Dept that suggested 5-6,000 jobs, now that portions of the line are complete this number has been revised down to about 4,000. But no, instead of telling the truth (that wouldn’t support his agenda) Oblamer more than likely used numbers from an anti-Keystone “think tank”.
But the most interesting part of this is found in the linked article:
“But that doesn’t make much sense either, because the White House routinely claimed the job gains created by the stimulus by adding up the number of “person-years” — in other words, one person employed per year. That’s how the White House could claim 3 million jobs were saved or created by the stimulus through 2012. (See Table 12 of this White House report.)
Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs.”

So, why tell the truth when a lie will better support your agenda?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-low-ball-estimate-for-keystone-xl-jobs/2013/07/29/ce886b1e-f897-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_blog.html?hpid=z8

    He wants to keep his tree hugging celebrities happy rather than actually create jobs and begin to establish a energy policy not dependent on the middle east....yes we'd be paying but would we rather be partners with Canada or continue with opec?....

Not factual at all. U.S. oil production has grown every year since Obama has been in office, and will contunue to grow--to 10 million barrels per day. The President will do nothing to stop the revolution in extracting oil and gas from America's tight shale formations.

I subscribe to the Oil & Gas Journal, and I have seen no articles complaining about this president's attitude or lack of friendliness toward the energy industry.

As you well know, all those gains in oil and gas production have been on State and Private Land NOT Federal Land, NOT land President Obama has any control whatsoever over.

For you, I'll even provide a visual aid.  Please read Total FEDERAL and Total NON-FEDERAL.

 Oops those darn FACTS!...This was pointed out by Romney in the debates and he was blasted by the media and then they backtracked only after the damages had been done...As far as his attitude....his position has always been that paying higher prices would reduce the amount used....once again inflicting the most pain on the working middle class....

Oops, yep, those darn facts. Why don't you and Markle enlighten us on the "Federal lands" Obama is not allowing exploration on? What states are these lands located in, and over which geologic formations do they sit? How much oil are we talking about in these geologic formations? What companies are complaining about not being able to lease these lands?

Don't worry, I don't think either of you would even know where to look for this information.

Let me tell you some FACTS: There are 9,000 oil wells in the Williston Basin in North Dakota; scheduled to grow to 50,000 in the next 17 years. Oil production continues to grow in ND, and so much associated-gas is being recovered with this oil that they are having to flare off $100 million worth a month. The pipeline infrastructure isn't there to bring this gas to market, though they are trying to install the infrastructure to reduce flaring.

The same revolution taking place in North Dakota is about to hit the San Joaquin Valley in California, where there is an even bigger shale formation, the Monterey Shale. Oil companies have been falling over themselves leasing-up mineral rights in Kern County, CA, where I grew up, and where the sweetest spots are for development of the Monterey formation. They are lined up inthe chocks, waiting for the starting pistol to be fired.

And What about Texas? Google the Eagle Ford shale formation. And what about the ocean of shale gas being pulled out of the ground?

Domestic oil production will continue to grow unfettered during Obama's 2nd term. By 2030, U.S. domestic oil production is expected to rise to 10 million barrels per day. The President is doing nothing to impede or slow this progress from occurring.

Great word salad...yum yum!  NOW refer again to the chart showing the differences in oil and gas produced on state and private land as opposed to what President Obama has allowed.  He simply uses regulations and delays in permitting to achieve his goal of "Skyrocketing Energy Prices".  Which hurts the low and middle income people the most.  You know, those he lies about helping.

You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you in the face. I am sorry if the FACTS I presented were too complicated for you to understand.

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:Oblamer states in a speech that Keystone would only result in an initial 2,000 jobs then 50-100 afterward.  His teleprompter engineer probably forgot about the generally accepted figures from Oblamers very own State Dept that suggested 5-6,000 jobs, now that portions of the line are complete this number has been revised down to about 4,000. But no, instead of telling the truth (that wouldn’t support his agenda) Oblamer more than likely used numbers from an anti-Keystone “think tank”.
But the most interesting part of this is found in the linked article:
“But that doesn’t make much sense either, because the White House routinely claimed the job gains created by the stimulus by adding up the number of “person-years” — in other words, one person employed per year. That’s how the White House could claim 3 million jobs were saved or created by the stimulus through 2012. (See Table 12 of this White House report.)
Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs.”

So, why tell the truth when a lie will better support your agenda?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-low-ball-estimate-for-keystone-xl-jobs/2013/07/29/ce886b1e-f897-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_blog.html?hpid=z8

    He wants to keep his tree hugging celebrities happy rather than actually create jobs and begin to establish a energy policy not dependent on the middle east....yes we'd be paying but would we rather be partners with Canada or continue with opec?....

Not factual at all. U.S. oil production has grown every year since Obama has been in office, and will contunue to grow--to 10 million barrels per day. The President will do nothing to stop the revolution in extracting oil and gas from America's tight shale formations.

I subscribe to the Oil & Gas Journal, and I have seen no articles complaining about this president's attitude or lack of friendliness toward the energy industry.

As you well know, all those gains in oil and gas production have been on State and Private Land NOT Federal Land, NOT land President Obama has any control whatsoever over.

For you, I'll even provide a visual aid.  Please read Total FEDERAL and Total NON-FEDERAL.

 Oops those darn FACTS!...This was pointed out by Romney in the debates and he was blasted by the media and then they backtracked only after the damages had been done...As far as his attitude....his position has always been that paying higher prices would reduce the amount used....once again inflicting the most pain on the working middle class....

Oops, yep, those darn facts. Why don't you and Markle enlighten us on the "Federal lands" Obama is not allowing exploration on? What states are these lands located in, and over which geologic formations do they sit? How much oil are we talking about in these geologic formations? What companies are complaining about not being able to lease these lands?

Don't worry, I don't think either of you would even know where to look for this information.

Let me tell you some FACTS: There are 9,000 oil wells in the Williston Basin in North Dakota; scheduled to grow to 50,000 in the next 17 years. Oil production continues to grow in ND, and so much associated-gas is being recovered with this oil that they are having to flare off $100 million worth a month. The pipeline infrastructure isn't there to bring this gas to market, though they are trying to install the infrastructure to reduce flaring.

The same revolution taking place in North Dakota is about to hit the San Joaquin Valley in California, where there is an even bigger shale formation, the Monterey Shale. Oil companies have been falling over themselves leasing-up mineral rights in Kern County, CA, where I grew up, and where the sweetest spots are for development of the Monterey formation. They are lined up inthe chocks, waiting for the starting pistol to be fired.

And What about Texas? Google the Eagle Ford shale formation. And what about the ocean of shale gas being pulled out of the ground?

Domestic oil production will continue to grow unfettered during Obama's 2nd term. By 2030, U.S. domestic oil production is expected to rise to 10 million barrels per day. The President is doing nothing to impede or slow this progress from occurring.

Great word salad...yum yum!  NOW refer again to the chart showing the differences in oil and gas produced on state and private land as opposed to what President Obama has allowed.  He simply uses regulations and delays in permitting to achieve his goal of "Skyrocketing Energy Prices".  Which hurts the low and middle income people the most.  You know, those he lies about helping.

You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you in the face. I am sorry if the FACTS I presented were too complicated for you to understand.

Here's some more information which is, from what you've said, above your head but for the others.

Key Findings of the Report:
•“All of the increased production from FY2007 to FY2012 took place on non-federal lands…”
•For natural gas production in the U.S. since 2007 “…production on federal lands (onshore and offshore) fell by about 33% and production on non-federal lands grew by 40%.”
•Because of declines in oil production on federal lands in FY2011 and FY2012, production is now below FY2007 production levels.
•The average daily production of natural gas on federal lands decreased by 8% from FY2011 to FY2012 and by 23% from FY2008 to FY2012.
•The average time to process an Application for Permits to Drill (APD) on federal land increased 41% from 2006 to 2011, from 218 days in 2006 to 307 in 2011.
•“A more efficient permitting process may be an added incentive for the industry to invest in developing federal resources, which may allow for some oil and gas to come on stream sooner, but in general, the regulatory framework for developing resources on federal lands will likely remain more involved and time-consuming than that on private land.”

Progressives are sooo easy!  But fun!
http://energycommerce.house.gov/brand/new-report-chronicles-oil-and-gas-production-federal-lands-declining-under-obamas-watch

What is fun is watching wingnuts who waste their time trying to prove "facts" they do not even understand. I'm living "rent free" in your mind on this issue. You didn't read the report, all you did was copy and paste the executive summary. LOL!

The "federal lands" in the report are all located either in the Alaska National Wildlife Reguge (ANWR) or the central and western Gulf of Mexico. If Mitt Romney were president, he would also be sensitive about leasing and drilling in the Gulf (after the Macondo well blowout) and up in ANWR. Your arguments are silly, as they usually are.