Posted by Tina
The President’s support for drilling in Brazil was very positive, “We want to be one of your best customers!” Hmmm…no lectures about the dangers to the environment…no preaching about turning to alternatives…no admonitions that it would be better to get our energy from seaweed or the latest,..spinach!
Yes, President Obama’s attitude toward America’s energy producers is very different. The attitudes of his EPA and environmental supporters is downright negative. American producers, already highly regulated, are threatened by the EPA with even stronger, and more costly, environmental rules. American oil producers are attacked for making obscene profits, when in reality the margin of profit is quite low compared to other producers. Some think oil companies should pay higher taxes to pay for alternative technology experiments. Oil is a natural substance but has been labeled “dirty” by the very extreme elements of the environmental movement. (Demonization is a favored tactic of the left.)
The (two faced?) President brags that oil production is up. I think he’s fudging with statistics and taking credit where others should be given the nod. Most of the increased oil production in America since his election has been on private lands where the President has no control and where his policies have no effect. (He and the EPA are working on that, however) His attitude from the start, from declaring ANWR off limits to shutting down the Gulf, from derailing the pipeline and closing areas of the West that Bush had opened to drilling offshore on the coast, has been very negative on American oil production.
Some information:
Citing publicly available federal data, the House Natural Resources Committee noted these figures:
Oil and natural gas production on federal lands is down by more than 40 percent compared to 10 years ago.
Under the Obama administration, 2010 had the lowest number of onshore leases issued since 1984.
The Obama administration held only one offshore lease sale in 2011.
Despite the Obama administration’s restrictive policies for oil and gas production on federal lands, overall production still increased thanks to the pro-energy policies in states like North Dakota.
People have been flocking to North Dakota looking for work. Is it any wonder given the millions of Americans now out of work:
In April, the U-6, the BLS measure of un- and under employment, what I call disemployment, was unchanged at 14.5%. The components of this are the unemployed 12.500 million (a decrease of 169,000 from March, seasonally adjusted), involuntary part-time workers 7.853 million (an increase of 181,000, also seasonally adjusted), and the marginally attached 2.363 million (an increase of 11,000, seasonally unadjusted). Taken together, the U-6 represents 22.716 million Americans.
The BLS measure of those it defines out of the labor force (its undercount) is the category Not in Labor Force Want a Job Now (unadjusted). In April, this increased 287,000 from 6.041 million to 6.328 million. If we add this to what the U-6 rate represents (minus the overlap of the marginally attached which is part of both figures), we can come up with a more realistic BLS based number for disemployment: 26.681 million.
How many jobs could be created for Americans if the President adopted the same attitude for American oil that he displayed when speaking in Brazil?
There’s yet another study out pointing to tens of thousands of new jobs that would be created by returning oil and natural gas activity in the Gulf of Mexico to where it was before last year’s federal ban on deepwater drilling.
The specific jobs number is 230,000 in 2012 – contained in this week’s IHS report that identifies a job-restricting gap between what industry is willing and able to do but can’t due to a regulatory process the report’s authors say has “almost ground to a halt.” IHS:
“Safely restoring oil and natural gas exploration and development levels in the US Gulf of Mexico is potentially one of the most significant sources of new jobs over the next two years and could help sustain a nascent trend of rising US oil production and lower crude oil imports. Failure to do so would have a major toll in jobs lost and lower energy security.”
In addition to jobs, IHS says resurgent oil and gas development in the Gulf would generate:
More than $44 billion in economic growth
Nearly $12 billion in tax and royalty revenues to state and federal treasuries
Production of more than 400,000 barrels of oil per day, or nearly 150 million barrels per year – five times the size of the administration’s recent release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
The IHS study says job and economic benefits “will not materialize under the current track – the ‘Slow Recovery’ scenario” now being pursued by the administration. The study found the median number of days an exploration plan is pending prior to government approval has grown from a historical norm of 36 days to 131 days.
Jobs…Americans could sure use some good jobs. The latest Gallup report on unemployment has not been encouraging.
Look for Obama to announce a plan (wink wink) for increased oil production prior to the election.
A simple solution to his politically crafted ruse would be to elect Mitt Romney, a man that knows how to support and encourage American oil producers and all of America’s businesses.
Tina: Thanks for addressing one of my issues of interest and great concern. The actions of Obama and his administration makes absolutely no sense to me. What possible reason could he have to deny the production of the very tool that would help to bring OUR economy back while bending over backwards to assist other nations by spending money we dont have to buy the very same resource.
Instead of oil and natural gas reserves spread out all over this country lets replace them with warehouses full of food. Enough food to feed every person in the US for the next two hundred years, but instead of releasing that food more warehouses are built both here and in other countries. The cost of food has risen because the supplies are not available to consumers and the demand is huge. People are hungry, but growing regulations prevent the release and distribution.
Sound familiar? Isnt that what Mao and other communist and socialist dictators did to control the people? This scenario is repeated over and over from the English and Scots starving the Irish during the potato famine to the atrocities in Germany and other countries on every continent.
Doesnt matter what the resource is, food, oil, water, etc. Theyre used as a tool of control and power. Instead of a nation governed by the people the people have become reliant on their leaders for their survival.
This country has a natural resource right under our feet and off of our coast that could improve the quality of every life right now and for centuries to come. If this leader wont do what needs to be done its time to find someone who will.