• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama: "Drilling on Public Lands has Not Decreased"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Another Obama lie, he told more than one that debate. Media narrative last time was calling Romney a liar, will the same folks call Obama a liar this time?

No, they will not. Facts and truth are perceptions in the eye of the beholder. Bias overrules reason.
 
Nintendesert said:
So as soon as Obama came into office we were capable of drilling and expanding production? 😕

I'm not a big expert on oil drilling so not sure how many years in advance the industry needs to get rolling to raise production, unless it's just a purely administrative rule problem and the President can simply give a blessing and they pump more oil. 😕
Click to expand...

DanK: Nintendesert is the reason drilling on public lands has decreased.
Nintendesert: I am not in politics and have no involvement in the oil industry.
DanK: Oh, so now you want to take credit for the increase in drilling since 2008?
 
Jaskalas said:
Another Obama lie, he told more than one that debate. Media narrative last time was calling Romney a liar, will the same folks call Obama a liar this time?

No, they will not. Facts and truth are perceptions in the eye of the beholder. Bias overrules reason.
Click to expand...
Unless you have data contradicting that presented here (as well as by fact checkers last night), it seems you're confused about the difference between "truth" and "lie".
 
monovillage said:
He said drilling, not production. When it's a weasel (such as Obama) talking you need to pay attention to all the weasel words.
Click to expand...

Actually, leases. Romney's point is to future oil production on federal land. That's why he pushed Obama on that point last night and Obama tried to deflect by turning the subject to production.
 
FerrelGeek said:
Actually, leases. Romney's point is to future oil production on federal land. That's why he pushed Obama on that point last night and Obama tried to deflect by turning the subject to production.
Click to expand...

And the leases argument, as was pointed out in the debate, would be a disingenuous argument to make, as many of the leases were just being held and not actually be exploited by the companies holding said leases, so the federal government was in the process of taking back idle leases and re-leasing where applicable.

And Romney did argue production as well:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-says-oil-production-down-14-percent-ye/
 
Last edited:
FerrelGeek said:
Actually, leases. Romney's point is to future oil production on federal land. That's why he pushed Obama on that point last night and Obama tried to deflect by turning the subject to production.
Click to expand...
Obama responded that those leases were not being used, that the companies holding them were just sitting on them, and that therefore the leases were revoked so they could be offered to other companies who would use them. Assuming this is true, what's wrong this approach? It seems a perfectly sensible, forward-looking approach to me. Couple that with the fact that production has indeed increased since Obama took office, and it seems to me Romney's accusations are misleading to put it mildly. Do you disagree?
 
Right wing arguments come down to word parsing and ignoring evidence. How is half the country falling for this crap? Well I guess half the country still believe in creationism, so that might explain it. Good thing there will always be ignorant people, the GOP would not exist without them.
 
Any drilling and subsequent product from public lands should be done on a contracted cost plus fee basis and put directly into the US energy system with a small percentage going into energy R&D with Manhattan Project emphasis. The results licensed free for congested use, but at a charge to foreign markets priced to eliminate the hold the ME has on the west. Our clever politicians aren't.
 
I am in the oil industry. Production=/= drilling leases sold under bush are still coming on line, just as the democrats said, from first lease to production does take some, I am involved in a few steps of that process.

The industry has slowed significltly in the last 2 years. There are less leases being sold. Most of the increase has been on privite land in places like North Dakota and Penn. Even ND and PA are slowing significantly. You are looking at another huge layoff by our industry soon, if things do not pick up.

It kills me to see that all of you belive that every consrvitive is some welfare redneck idiot and all the democrats are smart science beliving etc. In reality each party has more than its share of partisin hacks, idiots and smart people.
 
Bowfinger said:
Obama responded that those leases were not being used, that the companies holding them were just sitting on them, and that therefore the leases were revoked so they could be offered to other companies who would use them. Assuming this is true, what's wrong this approach? It seems a perfectly sensible, forward-looking approach to me. Couple that with the fact that production has indeed increased since Obama took office, and it seems to me Romney's accusations are misleading to put it mildly. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

i do agree a bit with the time limits on getting the leases producing, but the Obama EPA has been killing many companies plans to drill and produce, then the loose the lease and the .gov gets to resell it to make their numbers look good, and they love to screw another oil company.

sell lease to oil company
refuse to issue some permits
oil company looses lease
sell again
repeat....

the fact that production has increased is because of old leases coming online, and people opening up wells they were sitting on. also, private land and mineral rights. one of the issues with the "use it or loose it" system is infrastructre. Sometimes the pipelines can not handle more production. They will wait for other wells to fall off peak and then start producing the wells they have ready to go.
 
Last edited:
Hayabusa Rider said:
Any drilling and subsequent product from public lands should be done on a contracted cost plus fee basis and put directly into the US energy system with a small percentage going into energy R&D with Manhattan Project emphasis. The results licensed free for congested use, but at a charge to foreign markets priced to eliminate the hold the ME has on the west. Our clever politicians aren't.
Click to expand...

The only way to nullify the ME is to totally withdraw from the international oil market. I don't think that's doable from a domestic production standpoint long term.

We really need to focus on greater efficiency of use, particularly in transportation where we're burning most of it. If we can reduce the overall domestic demand without substantially harming the economy we might be able to source everything domestically on a sustainable basis.
 
Last edited:
monovillage said:
He said drilling, not production. When it's a weasel (such as Obama) talking you need to pay attention to all the weasel words.
Click to expand...

yes even the weasels in this thread don't know the difference and want to spin it.

the question was DRILLING ON PUBLIC LAND

not production on private land.
 
Bowfinger said:
Obama responded that those leases were not being used, that the companies holding them were just sitting on them, and that therefore the leases were revoked so they could be offered to other companies who would use them. Assuming this is true, what's wrong this approach? It seems a perfectly sensible, forward-looking approach to me. Couple that with the fact that production has indeed increased since Obama took office, and it seems to me Romney's accusations are misleading to put it mildly. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

and you fell for that?
 
herm0016 said:
the Obama EPA has been killing many companies plans to drill and produce
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence of this? I'm honestly curious what regulations or types of regulations from the EPA you are talking about. Some restrictions do make sense, but it seems that you are implying that they are excessive in some fashion.
 
MovingTarget said:
Do you have any evidence of this? I'm honestly curious what regulations or types of regulations from the EPA you are talking about. Some restrictions do make sense, but it seems that you are implying that they are excessive in some fashion.
Click to expand...

its not the regulations that are the issue, its the regulators. We need some regulation. they charge millions to issue permits, then deny one of them to keep you from exercising your lease.

here is one of the most costly examples: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/25/energy-america-oil-drilling-denial/
 
Last edited:
herm0016 said:
i do agree a bit with the time limits on getting the leases producing, but the Obama EPA has been killing many companies plans to drill and produce, then the loose the lease and the .gov gets to resell it to make their numbers look good, and they love to screw another oil company.

sell lease to oil company
refuse to issue some permits
oil company looses lease
sell again
repeat....

the fact that production has increased is because of old leases coming online, and people opening up wells they were sitting on. also, private land and mineral rights. one of the issues with the "use it or loose it" system is infrastructre. Sometimes the pipelines can not handle more production. They will wait for other wells to fall off peak and then start producing the wells they have ready to go.
Click to expand...
Interesting, thank you for a responsive comment. I'd be interested in seeing more detail about what the EPA has done and why.
 
OutHouse said:
and you fell for that?
Click to expand...
You have evidence to the contrary? Oh wait, all you ever offer is emotional assertions about what you feel to be true, never offering any evidence to support those feelings. Disregard.

(Hint: my "Assuming this is true ..." is an open indication that I have not validated what follows, and am open to factual information confirming or refuting it. "Factual information" being the key phrase, of course, not partisan feelings.)
 
Agent11 said:
The point of allowing them to drill on federal land is to MAKE OIL SO WE ARE ENERGY INDEPENDENT. NOT SIT ON IT AND SPECULATE.

Simple.
Click to expand...

The U.S. will never be energy independent no matter what the politicians say. That godsend oil drilling in North Dakota that you hear about all the time produces a whopping 600k barrels right now and will top about around 1.3 million in a few years. Those wells decline 80% within the first year. It is basically making up for declining Alaskan production which makes it a wash. Tar sands produce 1.7 million barrels a day right now but will top out at 3.7 million in 10 years. And that doesn't even include the terrible EROI that those two have. Deep water drilling in gulf may help but isn't going to come close to what we need. It just isn't going to cut it. America uses a whopping 18.5 million barrels a day!

What does America export? That's right - gasoline. We actually exported more than we imported last year. Bring all the oil you want down to Texas and watch that gas sail away. We may be able to become independent in electricity production, but when it comes to transportation, not any time soon.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top