The Obama administration is patting itself on the back for decreased oil imports. They declare, “We’re relying less on imported oil for a number of reasons, not least that production is up here in the United States.”
But what they don’t mention is that oil imports are down in significant part because consumption is down considerably because of the Great Recession.
Think of the 12.8 million unemployed Americans who no longer need to drive to work. Think of all of the airplane trips that haven’t occurred because American families can’t afford vacations anymore. Think of all the moving vans that haven’t been filled, because Americans can’t sell their houses.
Production is up slightly, but quite moderately compared to the levels of the 1990s. That’s why Obama’s team is bragging, “In fact, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years.” The production of 2003-2004 isn’t really the highest bar to clear.
It is good news that domestic production is increasing, but that is occurring in spite of Obama’s policies, not because of them. They’ve slowed the approval of gas and oil exploration permits to a crawl, haven’t demonstrated that they will support fracking in the long term, still murmur about mandating CO2 emission rules through the EPA, and halted the Keystone Pipeline. The United States has not built a new oil refinery since 1976. There is an effort to build a new one in South Dakota, but Obama’s green allies have held up the process in court for years. It will take four years to build and the hope is that construction can begin by 2013.
At least Obama can take credit for getting our dependence on foreign oil moving in the right direction, right? No, actually, the reduction started in 2006: “U.S. dependence on imported oil has dramatically declined since peaking in 2005.”
So yesterday in New Hampshire, Obama’s plan to deal with high gas prices is to take away tax incentives for oil companies, tax provisions that permit them to deduct a portion of sales to cover capital investment, expense certain drilling and development costs, income tax credits for the costs of “qualified enhanced-oil-recovery” methods. In other words, all of these tax incentives make it easier and cheaper for oil companies to do their jobs – drill and refine oil. Obama wants to make activities like “drilling and development” more expensive… as a response to high gas prices.
It’s amazing he wasn’t booed off the stage yesterday.
Clinton likes to embrace all things XL.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(Looking at the graph). So?...production fell, all through the George W. Bush years and has started to rise in the past few years? Interesting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnly to dim wits like you. Oil and NGL (natural gas liquids) have risen in production the past few years due to the boom in shale production. A method that Barry and Co would desperately like to shut down. Give them a few years and via the EPA they will.
For a history buff you’re amazingly un-informed. Par for the course for leftists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy on earth would he be booed off the stage by people who believe "we" are giving oil companies $4 billion dollars that's "our" money?
If you're dumb enough to believe that any money a company (or individual, for that matter) earns which is leftover after paying taxes is "your money", you're probably not bright enough to figure out that raising taxes on anything makes that thing cost you more!
The fact that oil companies are the 2nd largest source of revenue to the federal government would also be lost on the typical Obama follower/fool.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor a minute there, I thought I was on Planet Gore!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProduction has risen on private holdings, fallen precipitously on Federal lands.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFunny how Jim doesn't include oil company profits over the same time frame as they have risen throughout the entire time frame. I have no problem with a company making profits and enriching their shareholders by why should the rest of us subsidize the mostly wealthy benefiting by these profits? They would still make a good profit without us subsidizing them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot only does Jim leave out profits, but there is another glaring omission on that graph: oil exports. For the first time in over 60 years, refined oil exports (i.e. gasoline) are exceeding domestic consumption.
So what will the completed 2nd Keystone XL pipeline accomplish? Lower prices at home because of more availability? Not at all. It will result in higher profits for oil companies being able to increase exports.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo? Why is it bad that oil companies make a profit? Are the only noble companies those that need taxpayer bailouts like GM or those that get loans and then go bankrupt like Solondro?
Oil exports have gone up because very smart people have figured out how to produce more refined product out of refineries, in spite of no new refineries being built in decades.
The XL pipeline would reduce oil prices by taking out some of the risk premium that is built into oil prices, and thus gasoline prices. By having a stable and politically risk free source of several hundred thousand barrels of oil a day going into the biggest oil user in the world (USA), the effect of an oil shut off from the Persian Gulf would be lessened, and thus the risk premium lowered.
Plus it lessens the wealth transfer from the USA to terrible foreign countries like Venezuela, Saudi, Angola, etc, and transfer the money instead to Canada, a very good country, who spends a good deal of it back on American products.
But then Barry and Chu (did you know he won a Nobel prize too?) really don’t want anything but expensive gasoline for the US – you can’t drive people out of their cars and onto buses and trains unless gas is expensive. Barry is also intrinsically against anything that would really help the US, unless he’s getting a campaign bribe from the group benefiting, so that plus the need to pander to the environmental banner groups (who do nothing for actual conservation efforts like protect land, they just hold up signs and banners), spelled the end of the XL.
Personally, since the only thing Barry can veto is the international portion of it, I’d have built it right to the boarder, then another one on this side, and just have a bunch of trucks cross the 100 feet from one pipeline to the other. They could all it Barry’s Gap – equal in uselessness as the fool it would be named after.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse