The Institute for Energy Research is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets.

About IER
Latest Analysis
December 10, 2010

Who needs domestic oil production? We can just get more from OPEC

December 10, 2010
Print Friendly
Facebook

One of the sad truths about the Obama administration is the indifference they have for producing energy domestically.

The administration has given us another piece of evidence of their hostility toward energy production. On page 69 of a new proposed drilling rule, the administration argues that we don’t need to worry that their permitorium will reduce oil production in the Gulf (and destroy good paying jobs) because we can always get more oil from the oil dictators at OPEC:

It’s a sad state of affairs when our government halts domestic oil production and tells us to just buy oil from OPEC. Will the Obama administration ever get serious about creating jobs in America?


View Comments

27 Responses to “Who needs domestic oil production? We can just get more from OPEC”

  1. Anonymous on

    For those that are just waking up go read the book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” by Dinesh D’Souza in his book he produces a logical reason for why these types of regulations and hindrances are happening. And yes these are impeachable offenses because the oath of office for the President is the same as any common soldier to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and “domestic” and that includes any president that intends to destroy it. And if you read Obama’s books on the Dreams “From” His Father and the “Audacity of Hope” he clearly says that he sympathized with the Communist Radical movements of the sixties and now he has entrenched his administration with a lot of those he followed. These are facts that can not be changed.

    If any president in History that deserves to be impeached this president has proven by his actions that he is it.

    Reply
      • Anonymous on

        Maybe if you had read the book Roots of Obama’s Rage as I have you would know. But by your reply you show your ignorance or inability to debate the facts that are stated in my post.

        Reply
        • Anonymous on

          I wouldn’t waste my time reading it; I actually read things that have real literary value. Instead of offering evidence of Obama’s transgressions, all you are doing is pointing to a politically motivated book that was thoroughly debunked by Media Matters. http://mediamatters.org/research/201010040030

          Calling anything in your post a ‘fact’ is a stretch of the imagination, but, with your extremist views, I wouldn’t expect you to think differently. Debating politics requires doing so in a responsible manner, without the use of semantics.

          I asked you to specifically state what actions Obama has taken or supported that run contrary to the Constitution. That is a quite reasonable request, and your inability to answer the question (and instead attack me [ad hominem much?]) offers more evidence of the weakness of your argument.

          Reply
          • Anonymous on

            how about forcing bp to put aside money for the spill??i don’t think that was lawful-he just decided to do it–what about taking over gm or the banks–where is that in the constitution?? he is classless ( ex. the police acted stupidly,i won etc) clueless (ex. how long did it take him to even go to the oil spill, siding with the ny mosque) socialist ( how much is money is enough-also see takeover of banks and car companies) partisan (terrorist taking republicans) i can’t wait for 2012–hopefully we can elect a man into the office

          • Anonymous on

            Well, let me refute you. Obama asked BP to set up the fund- ASKED, not forced.

            http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/obama-to-ask-bp-to-set-up-fund-for-gulf-of-mexico-oil-spill-victims/story-e6frg90x-1225879412534

            The lending of money to major industry is common in recessions in all first world countries. Obama is not the first to sign a bill to lend money to an auto manufacturer (Reagan lent to Chrysler), nor will he be the last. Instead of merely offering the money as a grant or loan, Congress (not Obama) negotiated an interest in GM as collateral. You asked where that was in the Constitution- it is in Article One, where the duties of Congress are enumerated, specifically the authority to regulate interstate commerce. But, I am guessing you don’t know the Constitution that well, considering that you also complained about a mosque being built on private land.

            The FDIC was formed to, as one of it’s primary functions, take over banks in the event that their collapse might damage the economy. It allows for an orderly transfer of the banks’ assets to new banks, and protects the consumer in the process.

            Obama is allowed to be partisan, just like any other Democrat or any Republican. (It was ‘hostage-taking Republicans, BTW- I prefer ‘Party of No’ myself) He is a member of a party, and yes, he may think differently than you do, but he has that right. That makes him no less of a man. He is also not a socialist, and your use of that word to describe his policies is not appropriate.

            Also, the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects the right of the mosque to be built. Obama said this, and by far a majority of Americans think this way. Is it in good taste to build it there? No, but it is their right to do it.

    • Anonymous on

      That depends on what you consider “Deep Water” 5′ or 5,000′. And there is a halting of offshore drilling when this administration uses/allows the BP spill to intentionally harm the environment by stopping local attempts to stop the oil that did make it to the surface from getting to the beaches. Remember this administration believes that they need crisis to push legislation that would otherwise not see the light of day in passage. Just look at how they handled the recent tax increase debates (lack thereof), they waited until the last minute to make crisis out of something that was public knowledge since 2001/2003 when most of the politicians created this debacle. If the Dems had not insisted in 2001/2003 these taxes would have been permanent.

      But this President sees the regulatory agencies as a way to legislate by proxy he is shutting down our ability to create our own energy because of his ingrained hatred of Capitalistic successes, its wealth, he wants to take what little wealth left in this country so that we can not “steal” resources from the rest of the world… It his lifes work to restrain Capitalism by choking off those countries that rely on it, he is out to save the world from who? (rhetorical) His books tell all.

      Reply
      • Anonymous on

        Every administration in memory has manufactured crises, it’s part of politics. The American people don’t seem to care very much unless there’s a problem. That is not Obama’s (or Bush’s) fault, that is our fault for not taking a more active role in discussing our nation’s issues in a responsible way. Also, EVERY President uses the Executive branch and its agencies to regulate- that is their function.

        And, honestly, it doesn’t matter if we are getting the oil offshore or not. The only reason that OSD is so popular is the lack of actual oversight- it’s easy to hide transgressions in the middle of the ocean. There are 33 million acres of federal land in the USA (not counting OSD) that oil companies have leased that are sitting idle. This moratorium will not affect our production in a significant manner, as the onshore production has been and will continue to be ramped up to meet demand.

        I didn’t expect to hear ‘the governments should have been allowed to clean up the oil’ from a conservative. In my eye, the responsibility for the cleanup lies squarely on the shoulders of BP and no other entity. The thought of my tax dollars going to help a corporation fix their reckless mistake is appalling to me, and logic would dictate that the conservative viewpoint would be the same. Which it would be, if the President weren’t a Democrat.

        Reply
        • Anonymous on

          Well when the state of Louisiana wanted to use barges with suction trucks to get things moving the Obama EPA stopped the operation and said that they had to use skimmers instead that were not in place and were inefficient. They used excuses like life jackets and sea worthiness etc. It was clear to many that the EPA was doing the Bidding of those that wanted a crisis to justify the shut down of the offshore drilling in the Gulf.

          What is amazing is that when you follow the money trail you find that BP via George Soros donated substantial sums to Obama’s presidential campaign. I believe that the environment is to be protected so that mankind can prosper, if you don’t have clean water or air you can not survive because your sources are contaminated.

          Just look at how China’s environment is so polluted that no matter what they ship out of country as exports could be considered biological warfare. Their largest river is so polluted by their factories that even the ingredients that they use to make food with are highly toxic to dogs and cats… They have all the money they need to fix it since we borrow money from them. Their problem is that they are trying to beat the US at Capitalism that they are doing what we went through 30 years ago and they want your tax dollars to fix the problem.

          Is this the Democratic National Socialism/ State Capitalism that Progressives want? Did it work for Hitler? Moussolini? And how many poeple will they have to murder to get what they want. Remember not all people in the Nazi Death Camps were Jews, they were Catholics and politcal adversaries of the Dictator. Is that what those that follow Media Matters and other Progressive operatives like to listen to.

          One thing to remember is that to know how to defeat an opponent you have to know your opponents weaknesses and you can’t know those unless you study and read about him. If you are unwilling to read opposing opinion then you are not smart enough to deal with the truth when it reveals itself. Which group do you want to be in the SS Stormtroopers that blindly followed orders and killed villagers in WWII that had no weapons but merely were part of the wrong culture. Or do you want to be with the group that protects and teaches others that we all have a stake in helping each other to be all that God wants you to be…

          Reply
          • Anonymous on

            Look man, I can tell you mean well, and times are tough for everyone. But, the thing is, you’ve somehow fallen for this stereotype that all liberals are such-and-such. Can you even name one Democrat you like, or have you convinced yourselves that we are all evil socialists out to destroy the country? I can name several Republicans I respect, and several policies I agree with. I don’t think they are evil- I think they enable greedy people sometimes, but that’s how they make their donations.

            Assuming that I am blindly following Obama, the Democrats, or the whole of the liberal philosophy is another mistake. I’m a pro-life, gun rights, fiscally conservative blue dog Democrat. I believe strongly in defense as well.

            Suggesting that Obama wanted the spill to get worse is kinda, well, silly, don’t you think? Do you really think that someone who wants to be re-elected would want that? The EPA did halt clean up with those barges for a short time to ensure they complied with regulations, but that was the EPA, and not Obama. Most of these EPA regulations are outdated, and could use better administration, yes, but that is not Obama’s fault- there is a lack of oversight and a lack of funding. The fact is that the oil spill has ended up far less catastrophic than it could have been, and instead of being pleased it wasn’t worse, you’re trying to find fault in someone that is not responsible. Blaming a President for everything is ridiculous- disasters happen and they often expose weaknesses in systems.

            I am more than willing to read well thought out and factually based opposing opinion. I will not read a book that has been independently and by progressive assessed to be a pack of lies and quite selective in the facts it chooses to illuminate by numerous sources. I think you are too entrenched in your divisive ways; however, holding conservative Republican leaders (and authors, media figures) accountable for misstatements and wrong action would go a lot further for the purposes of the party than reading extremist propaganda.

            As for the book, I’m going to guess (wrongly, I hope) you heard about it on Glenn Beck- and I pity anyone considering watching that extremist. The man still claims Obama isn’t an American!

            We (Americans, blue and red, purple, whatever) are really not that far away from each other on most things. It’s just that too many things are politicized and people want a bogeyman so badly that the other side, our fellow Americans, have become enemies instead of neighbors. I think it is sad, and I wish that you, along with anyone else that is stubbornly loyal to a party, would instead become stubbornly loyal to America again; that includes the America that believes differently than you do.

    • Anonymous on

      It is not just “Deepwater” and the new regulations do not take into account the difference between oil rigs and production platforms in several ways. Quite frankly this administration does not know the difference between the two, and neither does virtually ALL media and especially the pundits.

      For instance, Freeport McMoran, has not yet been allowed to develop a Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas find (which ExxonMobil chickened out on) in 75 feet of water. McMoRan did actually drill the exploratory well to make the find, but rarely are these drilled to produce from. Drilling needs to commence to produce the lease.

      Reply
    • admin on

      Who are you accusing of lying? If you read the post, you know that the post didn’t say that Obama was halting domestic production. However, the Obama administration is essentially halting new exploration in the Gulf, in both the shallow and deep water.

      Reply
  2. Connie Schendzielos on

    Oil drilled off of our shores does not “belong” to us, it is put into the OPEC pool and purchased by everyone who participates. This is all nonsense and yet another spin that is false, used to instill fear and anger.

    Reply
    • Anonymous on

      How in the world do you come to such a conclusion? While oil is traded worldwide, different refineries are configured for different grades of crude oil. Different types of crude oil are priced differently, as well as refined differently.

      Reply
  3. Anonymous on

    “It’s a sad state of affairs when our government halts domestic oil production”

    I realize you guys often do not like to be bothered by facts, but in 2010, despite the efforts to make deep water drilling safer, the U.S. actually INCREASED crude oil production compared to 2009. 2009 was also an increase over 2008. All that happened under a DEM Congress and DEM White House. Again, far from your claim that the government halted domestic oil production, it actually increased.

    Reply
    • Anonymous on

      Fatmouses is correct. US production went up because of the Bakken shale oil production, additional liquids produced through hydraulic fracturing, as well as a bump from OCS production in the GOM. That is because leasing and exploration was held prior to the Administration stopping exploration. As most understand, energy development is a very long term matter. The results today are the consequence of yesterday’s actions. The emphatic point is that their policies have stopped the planting of the corn that will yield next year’s crop. At that, EIA is quite clear. GOM production will be down over 250,000 barrels next year solely because of the Administration’s actions stopping exploration and new production from moving forward. All of the numbers are slipping from the federal sources. Federal government energy policies amount to salting the ground for future energy growth. The bright spots….new gas supplies, shale oil, etc., are all on private and state lands where federal policies have not yet insinuated themselves.

      Reply
      • Anonymous on

        “Fatmouses is correct.”

        Thanks IER! Fatmouses takes a bow… In response, most of your comments are also correct. However, the fact is that the assertions that the “government halts domestic oil production” or that the administration is “stopping exploration and new production from moving forward” are absurd. The claim that they have stopped the seed corn is also absurd. According to Baker Hughes, there are 1,739 rigs poking holes in the U.S. today, UP 404 since last year at this time (30% increase in one year). There are nearly as many drilling rigs operating in the U.S. than in all other nations combined. We had higher rig counts in 2010 than any year since 1987 except 206, 2007 and 2008. Considering that the new rigs cover broader areas with advanced horizontal abilities, each rig now does the work that we used to get from many. Compared to the early 1990s, when we had a big jump due to the first Iraq war, we now have twice as many rigs active and those rigs cover a much broader area.

        When you take the politics and rhetoric out of the equation, the facts are just the facts. There has been little or no impact on drilling or production in the U.S. based on politics over the past 30 years. It is all price driven.

        Reply
        • Anonymous on

          Since the discussion had everything to do with leasing on federal lands….the roughly 2.5 billion acres of subsurface mineral estate in the US (an area larger than the land mass of the US itself), it should be apparent to Fatmouse that it was the administration’s virtual shutdown of leasing for exploration and possible development and production that was being referenced. Obviously it was not.
          The Obama Administration has leased less federal land and waters for exploration and production than any in the last 30 years. Despite holding enormous resource potential in unsearched areas, about 98% of the federal offshore lands remain unleased. For the onshore, it is 96+%. That means that when it comes to providing energy for American consumers, the US offers up 2% of its waters, and 4% of its land. Any success in increased production in the US is happening not because of the Administration, but despite it. That is why all the natural gas discoveries that have produced a gas “miracle” in the US are occurring on private and state lands. The federal government has contributed virtually nothing to the new gas discoveries, and is in fact (via the EPA as well as the Department of Interior) attempting to federalize state control of water in order to stop hydraulic fracturing, which would kill the Bakken, Eagle Ford, and all of the new shale gas discoveries. While economics does indeed drive energy production, artificial government restraints on access to lands owned by US taxpayers plays a huge part in US energy policy. Withholding supplies of energy makes other supplies more economic.

          Reply
  4. Anonymous on

    “about 98% of the federal offshore lands remain unleased. For the onshore, it is 96+%.”

    Interesting stat. I had not seen that before. How different are those numbers in relation to previous years?

    Outside of the gulf, most of the off-shore areas have been off-limits for decades. I don’t think you can pin that to any political ideology. The most vehement protesters of off-shore drilling on my coast are the beach landowners, fishing companies, and tourist companies. And nobody would ever call them a bunch of liberals (except when they are pushing for taxpayers to pay for beach nourishment).

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)

Back to top