In 2011, oil production on federally-controlled lands -- lands under presidential control -- decreased by 275,000 barrels per day.

While President Obama's claim that domestic oil production has increased during each of the four years he has been in office is correct, both the CRS report U.S. Oil Imports and Exports and data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) show that domestic oil production increased at a similar rate during 2004 to 2008, the last four years of the George W. Bush administration. In other words, the increase in domestic oil production under President Obama is, in reality, a continuation of a trend which began under President Bush.

In addition, the President of the United States - any President of the United States - can only control oil and gas exploration and production on lands and offshore areas owned and controlled by the federal government. According to U.S. Oil Imports and Exports, 96% of the increase in domestic oil production since 2007 has taken place on privately owned, nonfederal lands, thus making it oil and gas production in which Presidents Obama and Bush had little or no role.

According to the EIA report Fossil Fuels Produced from Federal and Indian Lands, 2003-2011, only 31.8% of all domestic oil produced in 2011 came from federal lands under the president's control. The 31.8% of oil and gas produced on federal lands in 2011 was actually below the nine-year average of 33.4%, the EIA report shows.

In reality, reports the EIA, 68.2% of the increase in U.S. oil and gas production in 2011 came from state and privately-owned lands not under the president's control. While oil production on state and privately-owned lands increased by almost 150 million barrels from 2010 to 2011, production on federally-owned lands during 2011 actually decreased by 14% or 83 million barrels from a nine-year high reached in 2010.

The CRS report U.S. Oil Imports and Export, confirms that in 2011, oil production on federally-controlled lands -- lands under presidential control -- decreased by 275,000 barrels per day.

READ MORE

The Tonya Harding approach to energy

Remember Tonya Harding?

She became notorious after her ex-husband, Jeff Gillooly, conspired with Shawn Eckhardt and Shane Stant to physically assault her skating competitor Nancy Kerrigan at a practice session during the 1994 U.S. Figure Skating Championships.

According to Daniel Kish (Senior VP for Policy, Institute for Energy Research) the President, himself, has pushed for higher energy prices...and what we have now is the Tonya Harding approach to energy!

The REAL reason we don't get more miles-per-gallon in our cars in the United States

Yes: another thing to be "pissed off" about!

First high gas prices, now water

A shocking new report about the nation's crumbling drinking water system says that Americans should expect their bills to double or triple to cover repairs just to keep their faucets pouring. That means adding up to $900 a year more for water, nearly equal the amount of the newly extended payroll tax cut.

Fixing and expanding underground drinking water systems will cost over $1 trillion in the next 25 years and users will get socked with the bill, according to the American Water Works Association.

More bad news: U.S. water bills to triple

We all know what happens when you raid an emergency stash without a good reason...

The release makes little sense for American markets. Crude and gasoline inventories are above average, and crude and gasoline prices have been trending down for weeks, despite the loss of Libyan oil, which markets have already adjusted to. The SPR was intended to be used for supply emergencies. There is no supply emergency.

Obama to Dump 30M Barrels of Oil From Strategic Reserves

I guess Obama thinks his re-election is all the reason he needs to endager our country (because, why stop now)...

Gas prices

Do you want the bad news first or the bad news?

From InstaPundit - Gas Is Going To $5 A Gallon, Consumer Spending Is Dead, And House Prices Will Fall Another 20%...

Is this a $1.2 billion dollar whim? Or is Obama planning to get rid of your cars?

The new focus on biking and walking represents a turnaround from the administration of President George W Bush. Mary Peters, transportation secretary under Bush, dismissed biking paths and trails as projects that "really are not transportation," saying they had no place in federal transportation policy.

In March, Mr Obama's transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, announced a policy "sea change" that gives biking and walking projects the same importance as automobiles in transportation planning and the selection of projects for federal money.

Obama administration spends $1.2 billion on cycling and walking initiatives

From Russia With Love, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

Video Footage Shows Soviets Plugging Gas Leak With Controlled Nuke Explosion

The world is not going to run short of energy as soon as feared and it's not getting hotter, it's getting cooler!

But if you think that'll stop the Obama administration from its Big Government power grab, think again.

Energy crisis is postponed as new gas rescues the world

BTW: What happened to global warming?

All over the world, there's been record cold spells!

Montana ... Idaho ... Austria ... U.S.

Gore has been criticized for not publicly debating his position since the release of his 2006 Oscar-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

In what organizers said was a rarity, Gore took half a dozen questions from journalists, including one from Phelim McAleer, an Irish filmmaker who asked Gore to address nine errors in his film identified by a British court in 2007.

Gore responded that the court ruling supported the showing of his film in British schools. When McAleer tried to debate further, his microphone was cut off by the moderators.

The Drudge Report's title: Man has microphone cut off after asking about 'errors' in Gore film...

Obama's energy plan: Higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill's provisions take effect in 2012

Are you prepared to live without gasoline, diesel, kerosene, jet fuel, pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and heating oil? Can you afford electricity, coal, natural gas at a cost more than 100% increase per household, over what you are paying now? That is exactly what we will do if the Waxman-Markey Bill (Cap and Trade) if written in its present form is passed. This is not an exaggeration or a pessimistic opinion, but the honest truth. Obama admits it in his campaign to wean the U.S. off of Crude Oil Petroleum products. The intent is to go "Cold Turkey" by making Crude Oil Products beyond affordability by every American homeowner. The Tax Cost on the Oil Refineries and Chemical Plants ability to produce the products would be more than consumers to afford to purchase the product. Remember just last year when gasoline prices were $4.00 plus. That will be nothing compared to the effects of this bill.

Obama's Energy Plan: Mandated Scarcity in the Richest Country in the World

Why Democrats want you to be poor

Del Beccaro: Democrats Want You Poor
Written by CA Political News on July 11, 2009, 12:31 PM

Just How Poor Do the Democrat Leaders Want You To Be?

by Thomas G. Del Beccaro, www.politicalvanguard.com, 7/9/09

Are you feeling better off today than you were six months ago? Perhaps more importantly, do you think you will be better off six months or six years from now?

Quite frankly, I dont see how you can possibly think you will be more prosperous in the years to come because it is rather apparent that the Democrats want us all to be poorer.

Why do I say that? Let me count the ways:

1. Obama and Pelosi are trying to share your wealth. Remember when Obama told Joe the Plumber that I think when you spread the wealth around, its good for everybody." Actually, its not good for everybody indeed it is worse for almost everybody. Spreading the wealth is the reverse of capitalism - capitalism requires that capital be aggregated so that entrepreneurs can invest it and start businesses which employ people. Without that capital formation, economies languish and people wind up poorer over time, i.e. check out the history of centralized economic systems like socialism, fascism and communism. Casting history aside, Obama is promising to raise taxes on the rich to pay for government all of which will result in a lower standard of living for us all.

2. Obama & Nancy are letting gas prices rise. Remember how the Media pounded President Bush relentlessly when oil and gas prices rose? Well, Crude Oil prices have doubled this year and the Media has nearly gone silent. Obama and Pelosi have too. Why? Because they want you to live in their alternative energy world at a price. The higher costs of that energy will weaken the economy long term which, in turn, reduces your standard of living.

3. Socialized Health Care Is Coming. Obama and Nancy want the government to make many of your health decisions just as they are deciding what type of cars GM can build and you can buy. The history of government run health care is a history of rationed care. All of which means that you will not have the choices you have now, i.e. your standard of living will be lower.

4. Capping your Future Wealth. Cap & trade is coming to a recession near you. Amidst what Obama says is the worst economy since the Great Depression, Obama is increasing the costs for employers around the country in the name of environmentalism. The problem, of course, is that the higher the cost of doing business the less jobs there are for people. Fewer jobs mean a prolonged recession which means a lower standard of living.

5. The Debt of Millenium. Obama is running up our debt like no one ever imagined from 48% of the overall GDP to over 80%. Someone has to pay for that someday. The combined effect of that debt and the taxes necessary to retire that debt mean a weaker economy over time and a lower standard of living.

Of course, there are many more tricks up Obamas sleeve that will reduce our future economic prospects. Those are just a few. All of them and more will reduce our economic prospects for years on end. Of course, we could just chalk that up to bad economics but we know better. There is little doubt that Obama and the Democrat leaders believe that Americans are too greedy. They want us to cut back in the name of the environment, social justice and equality. That is their motivation. We know Milton Friedman taught us that "A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither." We can add that they will get a lower standard of living as well.

Obama policy: Save gas, not people!

Obama's CAFE Standards Will Kill More Americans Than Iraq War

Experts: Obama biofuel policy boosts world hunger

Oil substitute could double number of people who don't have enough to eat

--------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 20, 2009
9:47 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The Obama administration's policy of producing ethanol as a renewable fuel substitute for gasoline will add to the number of people in Third World countries who are chronically hungry, according to energy experts.

Read more

Gas: The difference between Democrats & Republicans

Democrats, including Barack Obama, support increasing taxes and regulatory costs (environmental) on energy producers and consumers (you), limiting exploration for new oil and natural-gas supplies, and mandating conservation. Liberals like Obama have long argued for higher gas prices to force conservation and reduce emissions. The only concern he has expressed recently is that prices have not gone up gradually and that the sudden spike has hit Americans hard.

Republicans, by contrast, favor lower oil and gas prices. Last week, they wanted to offer an amendment to the oil-speculator bill that would allow states to open up areas at least 50 miles off their shores for oil and gas exploration.

Read the whole thing!

Who Is Really Responsible For The High Prices You Pay For Gasoline?

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Monday, May 12, 2008 4:20 PM PT

For the last 28 years, Democrats in Congress and a few Republicans have again and again opposed our drilling for oil in Alaska's ANWR area when we knew it contained at least 10 billion barrels of oil we could be using now.

• For the past 31 years, Congress repeatedly prevented us from building any new oil refineries that we now badly need.

• More recently, congressional Democrats defeated and discouraged any bill that would let us drill in the deep sea 100 miles out. However, it's somehow OK for China to drill there.

• As a further indictment of our Congress, since the 1980s it has continually stopped all building of nuclear power plants while France, Germany and, yes, Japan, plus 12 other major nations, did build plants and now get 20% to 80% of their energy from their wise and safe nuclear plant investments.

• From 1990 to 2000, U.S. crude oil demand rapidly accelerated by 7.41 quadrillion BTUs, according to Department of Energy data. And our rate of foreign oil dependency dramatically increased while our domestic oil production steadily declined.

Under the eight Clinton years alone, U.S. oil production declined 1,349,000 barrels per day, or 19%, while our foreign imports increased 3,574,000 barrels per day, or 45%.

During this time, President Clinton vetoed ANWR drilling bills that would have clearly made Alaska our No. 1 state in the production of our own vitally needed oil supply, not only for all Americans but also for national defense emergencies.

So were Democrats and members of Congress together merely short-sighted, with only a few having any real business experience?

Or were they just ignorant about economics ­ the fact that the law of supply and demand determines the price of all commodities such as oil, steel, copper and lumber?

Or were they simply and utterly irresponsible and incompetent in their actions that led us to become dangerously dependent on increasing oil imports from foreign countries?

We think it was "all of the above."

The unintended consequence of the Congress members' poor judgment and meddling micromanagement of U.S. energy policy is that they actually hurt most the very people they always profess to be able to help ­ the average American consumer, lower-income workers and those in the inner city who can't afford an extra $100 a month to drive to and from their jobs.

Democrats kowtowed to the wishes of their environmental supporters over the basic needs of 300 million American citizens.

It is a national disgrace that all they now know how to do is relentlessly criticize, complain and condemn. They always attempt to blame, investigate and scapegoat someone else, in this case U.S. oil companies, when Congress is the true villain of ineptness for constantly blocking and obstructing every effort for us to become more productive and less dependent on foreign oil.

Do those now in Congress really think Middle America's voters are so gullible that they will believe that its latest best and brightest answer to increasing our supply of oil and gas is to slap a 25% windfall penalty tax on oil companies and remove all other incentives for oil companies to drill and explore for oil?

The right time to release oil from, or stop adding to, our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is not now. That will do nothing to increase our ongoing oil supply needs and will have limited affect on oil prices while increasing our national security risks.

Only after we first announce to the world a bold new change in our policy by proclaiming that we intend to begin drilling in ANWR and selected outer sea areas, plus adopt new conservation programs, will the release of oil from our reserves have a major impact on breaking the price of oil.

If our congressional leadership can't muster the courage to begin reversing past mistakes now and allow our companies to drill in ANWR and off-limits offshore areas, and build essential refineries and safe nuclear power plants, what will an even-more-discredited Congress do in 2009, 2010 and 2011, when millions of new city dwellers in China and India will be driving the cars their countries are now producing, thereby materially increasing their already huge demand for oil and gas?

It's wake-up time for America. Maybe we should investigate the blame-throwing investigators in Congress.

Gas boycott anyone?

I have run my own businesses for a number of years. I am well aware of the difficulty in making a profit, year after year, often with many large competitors and suppliers sometimes seeming to have our economic health in their hands. However, facts are facts. So for those who are understandably frustrated, a few comments:

A "barrel" of crude is 42 gallons. If 42 gallons costs $100., then refiners such as Exxon-Mobil have to refine it, transport it, advertise it, market it, deliver it, sell it to service stations (who must pay rent, help, insurance, etc.) and, everyone must make a profit out of the residual.

$100./42 gallons = $2.38 cost per gallon of crude. Now, a gallon of crude does not result in a gallon of gas. Refining consists largely of "cracking," which is the process of fractional distillation that separates the components of crude: gasoline, light fuel oil, heavier oils, grease, paraffin, asphalt, wastes etc. So, if you erroneously assume that a gallon of crude could result in a gallon of gasoline, there is less than one dollar spread, from crude cost to retail sale. And more than 50 cents of the retail gallon of gasoline is tax. The governments keep more of the money than does Exxon-Mobil, and the gas station combined! (And then, Exxon-Mobil has to pay the corporate income tax, on the residual otherwise known as profit.)

Therefore, using the optimistically unrealistic assumptions above, refining, transport, marketing, retailing, etc., is done with less than 50 cents per gallon. That includes refiner profits, gas station profits, and all retail expenses, that come out of that less than half a buck.

The real question is, "How do they do it so cheaply?" Well, in part, the expenses have been kept low by mergers, to enable economies of scale. Exxon-Mobil is the largest industrial corporation on earth, measured by revenue. Of course, when times are good, they make high profits; that is how they stay in business. If you have a few billion spare dollars, or lots of friends, why not chip in and buy the darn company, if it is so outrageously profitable. (2007 profit on sales was 10%.) Subtract federal (35%) and state corporate income tax, for net after taxes of 6.5%. The portion that is declared as dividends, and distributed to stockholders, will be reduced by the stockholder's federal tax.

Why not check their annual report, and see how high the profit, i.e., the return on investment is? Note the billions of dollars invested. Maybe sell one's own business, and buy Exxon stock?

As some of you have pointed out, the problem is OPEC, and congress. OPEC is a cartel. Tell your friends that a cartel in the US would be illegal, in violation of anti-trust law. It is a collusive organization, the sole purpose of which is to increase prices by restricting supply. Short of war, the only answer is to increase the supply, which will cause them to lower their prices to compete, or lose business. A good start would be to drill on the Pacific Coast, in ANWR, and in the Gulf of Mexico, near where Communist China is now pumping.

The price of fuel is high because the tree huggers, Pelosi and Reid, and the rest of the Dumocrat leadership will not allow increases in American crude production. If we could do so, it would increase high paying jobs, reduce our balance of payments deficit, strengthen the dollar, increase tax revenues, reduce the Cah-lee-FOR-nya state budget deficits, and lower the price of gasoline, and all products that depend on petroleum, which is most.

It would also reduce the incentive to make ethanol, which would enable lower food prices. Doritos and milk would be more affordable, and corn tortillas in Mexico would be more affordable as well.

Is that enough reason to drill offshore and in ANWR?

~~Robert Gismondi (Reseda, California)

P.S. Petroleum, especially Diesel fuel, is used heavily in the manufacture of ethanol. Think about it.

PPS: I do not defend ExxonMobil. But, I defend free enterprise. Too bad they do not have some in OPEC. And too bad the libs in Congress only believe in it for themselves. Remember the exemption from the federal minimum wage for American Samoa, because Pelosi has a constituent with business holdings there: Starkist Tuna. Pelosi does "not want tuna with good taste"--she wants tuna packed for less than the minimum wage. Click here for the details.