Oil Production On Federal Lands

Romney and Obama got into an early confrontation over oilproduction of Federal land. Let's go to a rush excerpt to set the scene:

President Obama insisted that oil production has been up and that the oil companies have been granted permits to drill but refuse to do so. Governor Romney, though, pointed out that the government is not granting many permits to oil companies, particularly on federal land. 

"The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy. So here's what I've done since I've been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years," President Obama said. Natural gas production is the highest it's been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment. But what I've also said is we can't just produce traditional source of energy. We've got to look to the future. That's why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars." 

Governor Romney shot back, saying: "Oil production is is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands, and in federal waters."

As to oil production, Romney is literally correct about oil production - per Politifact, oil production on Federal land is down 14% in 2011 after rising 15% in 2010 and 12% in 2009. Whether one year rather than three makes a trend is a matter for the oil experts.

On permits, it seems that the approval rate for new permits has fallen under Obama, but by less than 50%. This is CNN:

Romney's claim that Obama's administration has "cut the number of permits and licenses in half" for federal lands is also not on the mark.

True, there has been a significant drop -- one tied, in part, to the unprecedented Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Yet the actual numbers of permits and licenses haven't been "cut ... in half." As mentioned above (and including data from part of the Bush administration), there has been a 42% decrease in leases and 37% decrease in drilling permits -- not 50%, as Romney implied.

Even the Institute for Energy Research acknowledged that "this decrease isn't a result of President Obama's policies exclusively, but it is the result of decades and policies that have systematically reduced energy production on federal lands."

 

Comments

[Melinda Romanoff]

No Oil, No Time, Any Where.

That doesn't look like "BANANA" but it's close enough for me.

[Melinda Romanoff]

And I am done for tonight with the Chicago Treatment.

[Dublindave]

Thanks to Candy Crowley for her excellent moderating tonight..... Can't decide if which was more memorable..."Acts of terror" or "binders filled with women". Still, watching Romney's deer in the headlights look as he got slammed by both Crowley and Obama was priceless. Romney's five sons will have to live with the fact that a Negro humiliated their father in front of the entire country tonight.

[hit and run]

Awww.
Can't decide if which was more memorable..."Acts of terror" or

See next thread Duda.
(you're gonna need to get a job)

[Laff trac]

"Thanks to Candy Crowley for her excellent moderating "

Deadbeatdave = comedy gold!!!

[hit and run]

"Can't decide if which was more memorable..."Acts of terror" or"

Should be italicized (based on the hit and run styleguide) as Duda's own words.

[Dublindave]

I'm not sure I will be needing a job after all....after that disastrous moment in the debate where the moderator had to fact check romney....oh man the look of panic in his eyes.....brilliant!!!!!

[LLF]

"watching CNN...their initial "scientific poll" had obama winning the debate 46%-39%...but then the fun really started...

CNN POLL POST DEBATE BREAKDOWN!!!

Romney wins strong leader over obama 48% to obama 45%

who attacked more? 49% obozo -35% Romney...

who would do a better job on the economy? 58% Romney 40% Obozo

Who would do a better job on health car? 49% Romney - 46% Obama

Who would better handle Taxes? 51% Romney 44% Obama

Who would better handle the deficit??? 59% Romney 36% Obama
John King CNN just said if these numbers don't dramatically change Romney wins the election!!!! "

FR LUN

[Danube of Thought]

May I be the first to call Mitt Romney "Mr. President?"

Wa-HOOO! Wa-HOOO!

[hit and run]

after that disastrous moment in the debate

Heh. You sure were noticeably absent after the first debate. The debate where no spin could possibly have saved Obama's performance.

Now we have a debate where spin is possible. And, big surprise you show up at 198 RPM.

Shocking.

[PD]

Romney's five sons will have to live with the fact that a Negro humiliated their father in front of the entire country tonight.

Why does it matter that it was a Negro?

Oh, I get it. You're a racist, trying to pretend that Romney's a racist.

[PD]

May I be the first to call Mitt Romney "Mr. President?"

Better check the exit polls first to get the true numbers.

[Threadkiller]

Oddly enough Danube, one of the town hall questioners called Mitt "President Romney".

[PD]

Oddly enough Danube, one of the town hall questioners called Mitt "President Romney".

Maybe that's why Obama called *her* by the wrong name? Payback!

[dee]

did he say "new" permits and licenses or just "permits and licenses", there is a difference.

[steve]

Why is it so important to drill on federal lands when private lands hold a huge amount of newly recoverable oil and gas?

Point being with increasing consumption due to immigration, the US has to be concerned about running out of oil resources. Don't use it all so quickly.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Point being with increasing consumption due to immigration, the US has to be concerned about running out of oil resources. Don't use it all so quickly.--

Somewhere there's an old phonograph missing its broken record.

--Thanks to Candy Crowley for her excellent moderating tonight..... Can't decide if which was more memorable..."Acts of terror" or "binders filled with women". Still, watching Romney's deer in the headlights look as he got slammed by both Crowley and Obama was priceless.--

Somewhere there's a child missing its Irish bongo monkey.

[steve]

Point remains. If we are running out of recoverable oil on private lands and need to drill on federal lands, that means we have used up a large pct of total recoverable reserves in the US. What with immigration increasing our population and consumption of oil we might run out of oil sooner than we think.

[PD]

Point doesn't remain because your premise is flawed. Are we "running out"? Well, yes, in the sense that it's a finite resource. No, in the sense that we're not close, and we keep improving E&P technology, which continutes to push the run-out point further out.

[steve]

"... No, in the sense that we're not close, and we keep improving E&P technology, which continutes to push the run-out point further out. ..."

if E&P tech, whatever that is, is improving so much and giving us access to so much new oil, again my original question. Why the need to explore on federal lands? Isn't there plenty of oil to recover from private holdings?

[Greg Q]

"As mentioned above (and including data from part of the Bush administration), there has been a 42% decrease in leases and 37% decrease in drilling permits -- not 50%, as Romney implied."

"Fact check" fail. Clearly the person who wrote this has never taken a science lab class, and has no understanding of the concept of "precision". "Half" doesn't say 50%, it says "more or less 50%". 42% is close to 50% (1/2) than it is to 33% (1/3).

Could / should Romney have said "roughly half"? Sure. But what he said was accurate to within the precision with which he said it.

[Jon Johnson]

Okay. Oil production on federal land was up in 2009 & 2010. But what did Obama have to do with that? Nothing. It takes years for oil policy on federal lands to result in any increase in production. It was the policies of prior presidents that are responsible for these increases in oil production. Though you may want to blame Bush for the decline in 2011. Right?

[PD]

E&P = exploration and production

Why drill on federal land? Why would you *not*? You develop the sources you have.

There are private parklands, too. So I guess we should close down the national parks?

[cathyf]

Just a small note here about Obama's assertion that the low oil prices that prevailed when he was inaugurated were a result of the perilous state of the economy:

This is not, in fact, crazy talk. In a depression, prices go down, because as wealth is destroyed, demand dries up. Or, a more specific example, if everybody is out of work, then nobody NEEDS to drive to work, and nobody has any money to buy gas!

The Great Depression started when the money supply contracted by 1/3, and the raising of bank reserve requirements in 1937 caused a crash in 37-38 that was larger than the crash of 29. In 2008 there were serious questions about what the heck the size of the money supply was, with velocity clearly dropping as banking contracted massively. There are still pretty serious questions, because every day the probabilities change that the Euro will continue to be a first-world currency. If the Europeans f*** up badly enough, the supply of {Dollars,Yen,Euros,SFrancs} will drop precipitously. If they pull something reasonable out of the hat, then all the money everybody has been printing is going to be an inflationary ton of bricks. (How's THAT for mixed metaphors?)

We all understand that a stock market crash is usually a bad thing. Well, a commodity crash is also a bad thing. Depending on the money-supply mechanics that get you to where you get to, high prices can be good or bad, and low prices can be good or bad. If the economy is booming and wealth is being created at a breakneck pace, then the demand for gasoline will go up, and since the elasticity of gasoline demand is very low, the price will have to go up a lot to ration out the gasoline to the most highly valued of many high valued uses. If the economy is in the toilet and we are all getting poorer, they will have to cut gas prices to clear out the supply.

But, anyway, it's important to understand that gas prices have been going up recently because of the way the Fed has been printing money, and are a CAUSE of us all getting poorer. But if Romney is elected, and he really succeeds in getting us back on the wealth-producing track, then gas prices will go up as an EFFECT of us all getting richer.