Time to spank "Big Oil" again

76 replies [Last post]
Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010

Well Gas has hit and stayed around $4 a gallon and the Politicians in DC are sounding the war drums.

Once again it's Big Oil's fault. I mean someone has to take the fall right?

I consider the political theater in DC sort of like a shell game. The real reasons keep being shuffled
around in faster circles so maybe you won't look to hard to find them. Obama has said loudly and quiet often that
under his administration more oil has been produced since 2003.

"In fact, last year, America’s oil production reached its highest level since 2003," President Obama

Well that's not really true. All of the oil being produced in that statement is from oil permits from the Bush administration.
Obama is either blaming Bush or taking credit for Bush policies. I really wished he would make up his mind.

Facts are oil production under Obama has DROPPED 43% from the all time high and Gulf oil production has dropped
to an all time low. The permit process has slowed to a crawl under Sunstein the Regulatory czar.

We keep hearing about the Subsidies given out to the Oil Companies most are not factual at all.

Fact 1. The total Tax breaks given to oil Companies is $2.4 Billion dollars not $21 billion. The other $18 billion is for Nuclear not Oil.
Interesting fact: Tax breaks for Ethanol production is $2.8 Billion dollars.

Fact 2. The US tax code has allowed corporate tax payers the ability to recover costs and to be taxed only on net income.
These are part of what politicians are calling "Subsidies".

Here are just a few more:

"Intangible Drilling Costs – Companies which engage purely in energy exploration and discovery can recover their costs related to exploration at tax time at a rate of 100%. This lessens the burden on energy providers for the number of “dry holes” which may be found in the process. Integrated companies (i.e. “big oil”) can recover these exploration costs at 70%. Not a subsidy.

Domestic Manufacturer’s Deduction (Section 199) – A deduction (not a credit) equal to 9% of income earned from manufacturing, producing, growing or extracting in the United States, is available to every single taxpayer who qualifies in the U.S. The oil and gas industry, and only the oil and gas industry, is limited to a 6% deduction.

Percentage Depletion – The percentage depletion deduction is a cost recovery method that allows taxpayers to recover their lease investment in a mineral interest through a percentage of gross income from a well. This depletion method is not available to companies that produce oil as well as refine and market it (i.e. “Big Oil”.) This is available to all extractive industries (gold, iron, clay, etc) in the US and is in no way unique to the oil and gas industry."
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/03/oil-company-subsidies-clarified/

Fact checking MSNBC:
http://www.atr.org/files/files/051111ATR_factchecking_cenk(1).pdf

“It’s estimated that every year the United States Government gives approximately 4 billion dollars in tax subsidies to oil and gas companies.”

Fact: Unlike other sources of energy—wind, solar, ethanol, etc—the government does not give oil and natural gas producers any grants or loan guarantees, nor does it impose any consumption mandates. Since oil and natural gas companies receive none of the above actual subsidies, Uygur targets deductions these companies can write off on their income statement:

Subsidy?: Allowing a company to keep its own money is not a subsidy. The government taking money from Mr. Uygur and giving it to me is a subsidy, I have no claim on that money. Allowing Uygur to keep his own money, by employing a tax credit or deduction, is not a subsidy.

Uygur: “If I got $4 billion a year in subsidies, I’d be pretty good in that sport to. I wouldn’t have to work very hard at all.”

Fact: Since 2008 Congress has spent $65 billion funding renewable projects. Even after receiving enormous taxpayer subsidizes; these forms of energy are anything but ubiquitous. Again, the $4 billion Ugyur calls a subsidy is anything but—the government doesn’t spend a single dollar facilitating oil and natural gas production.

Uygur: “Meanwhile, we all know that these companies are pulling in absurd profits. Last year alone, the top five oil and gas companies earned a total of $77.4 billion in profits.”

Fact: Implicit in this statement is the sentiment that oil and natural gas companies are not “paying their fair share,” and gaming the system to achieve profits. This could not be farther from the truth: paying nearly $100 million a day in income taxes—and $300 billion in total income taxes between 2004-2008—the oil and natural gas industry tax expenses averages 48 percent, compared to 28 percent for other S&P Industrial companies. This number does not include an additional $60 billion in non-income taxes or $350 in excise taxes paid on petroleum products.

So the political demagogy has begun. These same politicians that scrambled for the TV cameras to shed a tear over the burden of the "Middle Class" is at it again.

They really want to help? Well here's an idea for them. Let the Oil Company's drill for oil. Let them explore areas that the GOVERNMENT has placed off limits. Let's produce and develop our Natural Gas fields. Then and only then should we sink Billions in Obama's "Green" energy initiatives.

One other thing that can do to help the "Middle Class".. Windfall profit taxes. That's right I said it.

The $0.40- $0.60 cents per gallon the Government earns while doing nothing to bring that gas to market is a real windfall profit not the $0.07 per gallon the Oil Company's earn. So they want to help.
Lower Taxes on the gas.

It's Washington that's addicted to oil. Just like they are addicted to Tobacco. It's all money for them to spend on their little pet projects for the votes they get in return.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Senate blocks GOP bill to expand offshore drilling

"By a vote of 42 to 57, the Senate on Wednesday voted down a Republican bill designed to expand offshore oil drilling by requiring the Obama administration to speed up decisions on drilling permits."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20064047-503544.html

But...but..but Obama has told us:

"One area where we have focused our efforts since the start of the administration – long before this current spike – is increasing responsible domestic energy production – including oil and gas. In fact, oil production last year rose to its highest level since 2003. From 2008 to 2010, oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf increased more than a third – from 446 million barrels in 2008 to an more than 600 million barrels of estimated production in 2010." President Obama

Fact is only ONE new well has been drilled since the Gulf BP spill and up to 6 well platforms have left the Gulf for Brazil. Oil production capacity we have LOST and will not return for years if ever.

Don't listen to what he says. Watch what he does.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Oil subsidies

Observerofu is lying once again, this time about the cost of subsidies to the oil companies.

The true cost of the subsidies is $44 Billion dollars over the next ten years. LINK

Funny how a "libertarian" such as Observerofu is in favor of enormous subsidies to oil companies.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Bacon, What's Your Take On

why fundy Repubs are always trumpeting for more drilling? This is one issue that has confounded me since I moved back to the US after an extended period away. I confess I am at a loss why drill baby drill is a rallying cry for for 'true' conservatives. Is it because its the biggest slap you can take at environmentalism? Verily, I say unto you, I don't get it.

Braves winning again, kinda, sorta...if you call beating the Pirates winning.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Hey Ninja noticed you like watching the Braves on TV

Like to go to any of the Games? Do you drive or take the Bus?
Like the Night games? How about that Jumbotron?

Well you can't do any of that unless we have a secure source of energy ninja my naive friend.

Oil is that secure source. It's plentiful, easy to obtain relatively speaking and we have it here in abundance in the good ole US of A.

I guess they can put a windmill out in center field for ya if it makes you feeeeel better.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
OOFU No I don't

watch TV. I catch the Braves updates on my iPhone or on the radio, both of which I charge with solar panels! I do go to at least one Braves game a year, but I usually carpool or hitchhike. Night baseball is a conspiracy of the ad companies to zap our brains with marketing messages during prime time. Be a purist--demand a return to day games just like at the time the Constitution was written!

It just seems subsidizing oil drilling in the US goes against market principles--getting stuff from the cheapest source assuming equal or good-enough quality. I know some believe there is a security issue involved, but that too goes against the capitalist notion of trade making friends of enemies.

Go Brooks Conrad!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
" the capitalist notion of

" the capitalist notion of trade making friends of enemies."

Well maybe not friends but interested in our welfare as suppliers or customers, kinda like China.

ptcjenn
ptcjenn's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/24/2006
.

.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
ptcjenn welcome to the debate

Do you have any data on the pollution rate of say the big 5 oil companies vs. say any other industry or are you just adding to the vilification of an industry that Liberals have targeted to point you away from the real issue?

Oh the issue Government. Government that adds billions of dollars in operating cost without ever actually producing one drop.

btw- According to Orange Beach "The Beach Facts"
"We do continue to see tar balls washing ashore from time to time. However, it varies from day to day and from one location to another. Clean-up crews are still monitoring and cleaning the beaches as needed. Many of our visitors never see a single tar ball during their visit."

Go enjoy. I am in Gulf Shores even as we speak. The Weather is perfect and the fishing is fine. The Gulf Shrimp are as tasty as ever.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Funny how What I said gets turned around

The argument from the Progressive caucus was that they get $21 Billion per year. Now it's $4.4 Billion per year. Well no not really. The actual TAX BREAKS are only $2.4 Billion as stated and are industry specific. The remaining $2 billion is TAX BREAKS that every Corporation receives for expendables and assets allocation.

Heck Bacon I even get those tax breaks and I am not even .01% of their earnings.

So the argument is The $2.4 Billion they receive in TAX BREAKS. A TAX BREAK is not a subsidy. To call it such is dishonest at best deceitful at worse and shows the continuing ignorance of the gullible masses such as yourself.

If you pay Federal Taxes, do you deduct the Mortgage interest on your house? Is that a Subsidy/handout to you are is it a TAX BREAK?

btw- Ethanol gets real subsidies. They too receive the Energy Industry specific TAX BREAKS, as well as, Corporate TAX BREAKS BUT they also receive taxpayer funds to the tune of $2.8 Billion dollars annually. Now bacon that's a subsidy.

"Proposals by the corn ethanol industry to have taxpayers subsidize construction of huge pipelines and specialized gasoline pumps and car engines designed to use large amounts of its product could cost taxpayers more than $9 billion"

"Venture-backed Range Fuels will receive up to $76 million in funding from the Department of Energy"

On and on and on and on. State by State by State.

This from that hard right winged CNN Money.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/26/news/economy/oil_tax_breaks_obama/index....

These are "Your" Subsidies bacon. Even they say they are TAX BREAKS and not subsidies.

Another easy round for OoU.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Breathtakingly ignorant
Observerofu wrote:

A TAX BREAK is not a subsidy. DERP!

Breathtakingly ignorant.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Don't be so hard on yourself your're after all a progressive

and can't help it, not much is really expected of you anyway bless your heart. I wouldn't call you "Breathtakingly" Ignorant. Just "Typically" ignorant for a Progressive.

Tax break is a slang term referring to any item which reduces tax, including any tax exemption, tax deduction, or tax credit.

sub·si·dy [ súbssədee ]
money given by government: a grant or gift of money from a government to a private company, organization, or charity to help it to function.

Use your much touted Secondary education and explain to us how a Tax Break is a Subsidy bacon?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
A Fountain of Disinformation
Observerofu wrote:

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
A Tax Break is not a subsidy.

What color is the sky on your planet?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Observation Bacon

Let's get out of the corporate welfare business, when we get out of the social welfare business, let's do it all at the same time.

Neo-capitalists are in bed with the government, big oil is no different than union driven GM, aka special interests.

None of it is the role of government.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
PTCO agreed

All taxpayer funded welfare to businesses need to end. Then a re-vamping of the Tax code to lower Corporate taxes so that businesses can invest in their business.

United States
Combined Corporate Income Tax Rate: 39.21%
Current rate in place since: 2008
2010 forecasted GDP growth: +3.3%

Japan just lowered theirs so the US is now the highest in the World.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
I see your are misquoting me again bacon

but that's nothing new.

Come on it shouldn't be too hard for someone who touts his Secondary education to be above all others. I know you spent a lot of time in Sociology but surly they taught you English as well.

Why do you think Tax breaks are the same as Subsidies?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
"your are misquoting me"?

Obviously, English is not your first language.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Can you answer the question or not?

Just wondering since you are doing everything to avoid it.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
You never answered mine!

You never answered my question.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
What you mean the color of my sky?

Seriously? You really think that is a serious question?
You came out with stating that I was lying.

Chris P. Bacon wrote:

Observerofu is lying once again, this time about the cost of subsidies to the oil companies.

The true cost of the subsidies is $44 Billion dollars over the next ten years. LINK

Funny how a "libertarian" such as Observerofu is in favor of enormous subsidies to oil companies.

I have definitively proven otherwise and you want to argue about the color of the sky? Are you sure your're not Bonkers?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Blatantly false OOU

"In fact, last year, America’s oil production reached its highest level since 2003," President Obama... Well that's not really true. "

Yes it is true.

"Facts are oil production under Obama has DROPPED 43% from the all time high..."

This is a blatantly false statement. Your 43% drop from peak oil production, which was back in 1981 or so, happened under Reagan, Bush 41 and 43, and Clinton.

Oil production has increased under Obama.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Jeff C & Oil Production

Jeff, I believe whatever increase in oil production we have experienced in the last 3 yrs is due to sucess by private industry in developing sucessful technical techniques to recover oil from shale and nothing to do with administration policy.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
AHG - Oil

People on this blog keep insisting that Obama's policies are somehow hindering production even though oil production is up during his administration. When new Gulf production was temporarily suspended, the oil companies drilled more land wells. The number of land rigs is now a record 1847, 312 rigs (20.3%) higher than last year and new Gulf leases have resumed.

North American Rotary Rig Counts

OOU wrote, "Facts are oil production under Obama has DROPPED 43% from the all time high..."

This is completely false. Oil production peaked in 1980 and then declined under every President except Obama. It's a political attack on Obama, completely false, and constantly spread by talk radio and FOX even though they know it's lie.

Obama's policies have not hurt the oil companies or oil production. They've already got 42 million acres currently leased and not in production. Let them drill if they want to.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Jeff

there is nothing wrong with a lie about President Obama, as the above article said about the oil.
He only gets discredits and NO credits!

Now, if he were a republican, like Reagan say, everything good that happens is his doing and everything that is bad is done by the democrats in some crooked way!

I resent this type of judgement as I am an Independent voter and sometimes even I have voted for the person people are criticizing, whether the President be democrat or republican.

The republicans won't need much more of this type of dishonesty for that party to disintegrate completely.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Blatantly correct Jeff

Obama was stating HIS polices have increased oil production. Tell me Jeff just what are those policies? How many NEW oil drilling permits have been approved under Cass and Obama? How many in the Gulf? What was the oil production capacity before Obama and what is the oil production capacity now?

Let's see just how honest you can be.

http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=22...

"On March 8, 2011 the EIA published new projections that show a decline in total U.S. crude oil production of 110,000 barrels per day in 2011 and 130,000 barrels per day in 2012."

"Once again, the Obama Administration is attempting to take credit for actions they had nothing to do with. The strong production in the Gulf was due to leases issued in 1996-2000 under the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act – long before President Obama took office.
The Obama Administration’s actions, such as imposing a de facto moratorium, are causing energy production to decline in the Gulf of Mexico. EIA shows a 300,000 barrel per day decline in current Gulf production and a projected Gulf decline of over 150 million barrels of oil in 2012.
"

...or 43% production reduction. Facts really are stubborn things.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Some serious derp there, Observerofu the Liar
Observerofu wrote:

Obama was stating HIS polices have increased oil production. Tell me Jeff just what are those policies? How many NEW oil drilling permits have been approved under Cass and Obama? How many in the Gulf? What was the oil production capacity before Obama and what is the oil production capacity now?

Let's see just how honest you can be.

http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=22...

"On March 8, 2011 the EIA published new projections that show a decline in total U.S. crude oil production of 110,000 barrels per day in 2011 and 130,000 barrels per day in 2012."

He's a lot more honest that YOU will ever be, but that's simply because you are an intellectually dishonest lying son of a witch.

Great link you have there, full of DERP. President Obama notes that the United States produces two percent of the world's oil, and your DERP congressman sez that if you include COAL, we gots lots of energy.

HOW MANY AUTOMOBILES RUN ON COAL TODAY, DERPWAGON?

JeffC was talking about CURRENT oil production but you want to change the subject to FUTURE oil production because that's what slack-jawed mouthbreathing knuckle-dragging documented liars such as yourself excel at.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Wow bacon great analisis

where did you learn that great debating technique? Oh yeah right Sociology class.
I noted you failed yo dispute anything that I said just a verbal smear.

If you can't hack the verbal sparing bacon maybe you need to go back to the kiddie pool.

btw- oh so smart one. Oil production predictions runs on a 2 year cycle. Ever heard of speculation? Just what do you think they might be speculating on?
Here is a hint for ya. It's not CURRENT production dummy it's future production. So since you wanted to enter the arena why don't you answer for Jeff.

What was the Oil production in the Gulf PRIOR to Obama taking office and since you want to talk current what is it now? Is it higher or lower?

Derp back at cha.

Oh btw I still noticed you have not enlightened us poor smucks on how Tax Breaks are the same as Subsidies.

I await in breathless anticipation of your pithy repartee.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
You are sadly mistaken, Observerofu the Liar

Your "analisis" (sic) is faulty.

You labor under the assumption that I am here to "debate" you. Let me assure you I am replying to your posts solely to point out your more egregious lies and you utter lack of intellectual honesty.

I find it counterproductive to engage in what you call "debate", given your inability to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Really bacon lets see to prove a lie one would have

to at least provide evidence of same. Just your "say so" will not suffice.

Also to call one a liar one would have to be at best marginally honest themselves. How many statements have you made lately that have proven to be false. I think it's up to 6 now. I will have the list ready shortly.

Let's see there is that one that the Small Business Administration counts businesses as high as 1500 employees when it's really 150.
Then the one that most of the 9-11 families were for the Cordoba project, which was false, also part of that was that most Americans were for it, as well, which was also false and there's more. A lot more.

So bacon what was it I said above that is false? This should be easy for you since I am such a liar and at best delusional since I can not differentiate fact vs. opinion.

Come on bacon man up quit your crying and prove to all that I am lying. What have I said is false?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
From FT: interesting

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8698ae80-4503-11e0-80e7-00144feab49a.html#axzz...

US oil production last year rose to its highest level in almost a decade, thanks to an increase in the use of “unconventional” extraction techniques .

As a result, analysts believe the US was the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009, and is on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Absolutely correct Dmom

who was responsible for it?

Was it Obama as he implied or was it the Market and private industry?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Politically speaking:

The buck stops at Obama's door. . But of course it's your opinion that Obama can be credited with nothing. Oh well.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
No..No..Dmom

I just used his own words. He implied oil production was up under his administration due to his policies.
Like I asked Jeff just what where those policies is all. If Obama did in fact help i would indeed praise him.
You see Dmom I am not a shrill for the republican party, unlike you and bacon are for the democrat party. They both stink on ice as far as I am concerned.
I am more focus on America and what is right for it. Obama and the other Progressives simply are not.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Oou

The operative word: implied. Have a great day!

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
How honest I can be OOU?

U.S. field production of crude oil at the end of 2008, a month before Bush left office, was 4,950 thousand barrels per day. 2009 production was 5,361 tb/d. 2010 production was 5,512 tb/d.

Production fell every year under Bush for a net loss of 15% of domestic oil production.

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil

Since 2009, the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service has approved the sale of 448 tracts, 198 of them in deepwater. The number of land rigs has increased over 20% under Obama to a record 1847 rigs. Gulf oil production is temporarily down following the largest oil spill in the history of the world, but total domestic oil production is up.

If I may move on to the most irritating part of your screed, where you wrote:

"Fact: Implicit in this statement is the sentiment that oil and natural gas companies are not “paying their fair share,” and gaming the system to achieve profits. This could not be farther from the truth: paying nearly $100 million a day in income taxes—and $300 billion in total income taxes between 2004-2008—the oil and natural gas industry tax expenses averages 48 percent, compared to 28 percent for other S&P Industrial companies.".

This statement is technically true and utter oil company propaganda. All of those income taxes are paid to foreign governments. Then they deduct that from their US income tax bill. With all of their loopholes, the major oil companies do not pay any US income tax. None. They get refunds.

ExxonMobile does not pay any income tax to the US at all. Forbes analyzed their financial statement from 2009. Here's what Forbes says:

"What the financial statement says is that ExxonMobil, in 2009, after a handful of deferrals, recorded a total U.S. income tax benefit (i.e., a refund) of $46 million. Next to this, it shows total non-U.S. income taxes of $15.165 billion."

Exxon Says It Does Pay U.S. Income Taxes

Although Chevron claimed a 43% tax rate, that's all foreign taxes too. Chevron pays no US income tax either. They got a $19 million refund.

Tax bills for 5 corporate giants

The average tax bill in the US is about $8000/family. 5750 families paid their income taxes to Exxon, 2375 families paid their income taxes to Chevron. In April, ExxonMobil reported a first-quarter profit of $10.7 billion, a 69 percent jump from the year before..

Yes. Take away their subsidies and tax them.

Have a great Memorial Day!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff I will address the EIA report

tomorrow. Suffice it to say oil production is down and down by a lot. The AEO2011 report is out and clearly shows that oil production is down.
Here is a short except in their executive summary.

"Off shore oil production in [the 2011 forecast] is lower than in [the 2010 forecast] throughout most of the projection period [through 2035] because of expected delays in near-term projects, in part as a result of drilling moratoria and in part due to the change in lease sales expected in the Pacific and Atlantic outer continental shelf (OCS), as well as increased uncertainty about future investment in off shore production. [AEO2011 Preview, p. 8. Emphasis added.]"

So the honest answer is due to this administrations moves or lack there of in having a coherent energy policy oil production has dropped.

btw- from your source of info a little perspective is needed.

"Exxon Mobil counts everything — not just federal income taxes, but also local property taxes, state taxes, gasoline taxes and payroll taxes. The Center for American Progress (CAP) and other analysts count only the company’s federal corporate income taxes."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-much-do-oil-companies...

Now let's talk about these subsidies? I will ask you the same question bacon is avoiding.

Is a tax break a subsidy?

Now if you answer that one without the political backspin if you want to assert that the Oil companies do not deserve to get tax breaks then on that argument we can have a discussion. You would be wrong but a debate can be had.

btw On oil companies not paying taxes you might want to look at this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-much-do-oil-companies...

According to the government’s own Energy Information Administration, from 2004 to 2008, 27 American oil and gas companies – which actually make up under half the total oil and gas production in the U.S. – paid almost $150 billion in U.S. income taxes.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Oil production is down

Where does this total lie come from? It's not the AEO2011 report or the executive summary you quoted since that excerpt is about offshore oil production only, not oil production as a whole and the AEO2011 report is done by.....wait for it....the EIA itself and is a forecast into the future. The EIA report for right NOW has already very clearly stated with facts that oil production is NOT down and higher than it has been in years.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Observerofu the Liar's twin errors
NUK_1 wrote:

Where does this total lie come from? It's not the AEO2011 report or the executive summary you quoted since that excerpt is about offshore oil production only, not oil production as a whole and the AEO2011 report is done by.....wait for it....the EIA itself and is a forecast into the future. The EIA report for right NOW has already very clearly stated with facts that oil production is NOT down and higher than it has been in years.

So here we see Observerofu the Liar's two disconnects.

1. OVERALL US oil production is UP but OFFSHORE oil production is down slightly Observerofu the Liar cherry picks the OFFSHORE figure and erroneously claims it as the OVERALL figure. When confronted with absolute proof of his error, the craven coward Observerofu the Liar attempts to bluster his way out.

2. Erroneously conflating predicted results with actual results Once again, Observerofu the Liar attempts to fob off a prediction as a "fact". You'll recall he did the same thing last year when he used a failed prediction to "prove" that food inflation was very high last year (in reality, it was at a near-record lows).

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Perhaps OofU should change

Perhaps OofU should change the headline to read

Quote:

Time to spank "Big OofU" again

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
The twin disbelievers and apologist in charge

for Obama the EIA report is clear in it's findings.

"Off shore oil production in [the 2011 forecast] is lower than in [the 2010 forecast] throughout most of the projection period [through 2035] because of expected delays in near-term projects, in part as a result of drilling moratoria and in part due to the change in lease sales expected in the Pacific and Atlantic outer continental shelf (OCS), as well as increased uncertainty about future investment in off shore production. [AEO2011 Preview, p. 8. Emphasis added.]"

If either of you went to the report of the Summary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-much-do-oil-companies...

You would have seen the charts for the oil production both current and future. Clearly both show a reduction and a lower expectation for future output. Further digging would have revealed the difference between what the EIA calls "Technically" recoverable and actual reserves and production. Like all Government agencies double speak is abundant.

Here is an excellent breakdown of the report:
http://petroleumtruthreport.blogspot.com/2011/01/eia-annual-energy-outlo...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mNo875JmvJs/TR9LNsJyPsI/AAAAAAAAIc4/tGgR2wXTIQ...

"A year after the tragic April 20, 2010, explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig, the federal government is still slowing new offshore oil and gas exploration and production. As a result, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects a decline of 240,000 barrels per day in oil production from the Gulf of Mexico this year. That represents billions of dollars in potential revenue that could help close the federal deficit. "
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba743

Now what about that statement screams I am lying? You two have talked a good game why don't you try to actually argue that I am incorrect instead of just discounting the mounting evidence.I have given at least three different sources.

I made these points:

Point #1: President Obama said: "In fact, last year, America’s oil production reached its highest level since 2003," thus attempting to take credit for the increased production. Now this would mean his Energy policies where the factor for this increase. I have asked Bacon, Dmom, Jeff and now Nuk what were those polices or was it NOT the policies of the Federal Government but the increased production from PRIVATE lands.

Point #2: I stated that oil production is down 43% from the all time high under this administration. Now taking the statement made above by President Obama he implied under his leadership oil production has never been higher.
Now even Jeff admitted that I was correct that oil production is down by that amount. So what was it I said that was incorrect or as you call it a lie? The charts at the end of this post also state the same.

Point #3: Tax breaks are not Subsides
Bacon argued I was wrong but as of yet failed to explain how they are the same and Jeff argued that subsides should end for Oil Companies. Still waiting for that clarification.

Point #4: Government takes a bigger profit from Oil while doing nothing to bring that oil to market then does the Oil companies themselves.
Government takes anywhere from $0.40 - 0.60 per gallon to the Oil company's $0.07 per gallon. What about this is a lie?

Those where the 4 points I made in the original post.

Nuk just disagreed but provided no links to back up his claim and Bacon did his usual smear job without arguing any of the points even going back to last year to an old argument that has been proven false again. Thanks bacon for reminding me I need to add that one to my list as well.

All this being said you two teamed up and I believe also said inflation was not happening. How did that turn out for you?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Observerofu the Liar
Observerofu wrote:

for Obama the EIA report is clear in it's findings.

"Off shore oil production in [the 2011 forecast] is lower than in [the 2010 forecast] throughout most of the projection period [through 2035] ----- (snip)

If either of you went to the report of the Summary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-much-do-oil-companies...

You would have seen the charts for the oil production both current and future. LINK DOES NOT SHOW THAT, OBSERVEROFU THE LIAR

Clearly both show a reduction and a lower expectation for future output. (snip)

Now what about that statement screams I am lying? You two have talked a good game why don't you try to actually argue that I am incorrect instead of just discounting the mounting evidence.I have given at least three different sources.

You're trying to castigate President Obama for events that haven't happened yet. Intellectually dishonest.

NONE of your "three sources" back up your lie:

Observerofu wrote:

Facts are oil production under Obama has DROPPED 43% from the all time high and Gulf oil production has dropped to an all time low.

Still waiting for you to apologize for the above LIE.

Observerofu wrote:

All this being said you two teamed up and I believe also said inflation was not happening. How did that turn out for you?

Very well, all things considered. I notice you are trying to use 2011 data to back up your 2010 lie. Intellectually dishonest once again.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
You do make it easy
Chris P. Bacon wrote:

You would have seen the charts for the oil production both current and future. LINK DOES NOT SHOW THAT, OBSERVEROFU THE LIAR

http://petroleumtruthreport.blogspot.com/2011/01/eia-annual-energy-outlo...

Figure #2 EIA AEO2011 stats and Figure #7 42% ANNUAL DECLINE IN PRODUCTION STATS

Chris P. Bacon wrote:

You're trying to castigate President Obama for events that haven't happened yet. Intellectually dishonest.

It's his POLICIES that are hurting the Energy market. It's his POLICIES that want to decrease US production while spending billions on "Green" energy whatever that is. His decisions TODAY affect the Market tomorrow bacon. His own statements that under HIS PLAN ENERGY RATES WOULD NECESSARILY SKYROCKET that is the issue.

Chris P. Bacon]
NONE of your "three sources" back up your lie:
[quote=Observerofu
wrote:

Facts are oil production under Obama has DROPPED 43% from the all time high and Gulf oil production has dropped to an all time low.

Just gave it again bacon prove it's a lie. The report clearly shows a 42-43% reduction in production from the all time high. See figure #7 stats CLEARLY show the decline.

Chris P. Bacon wrote:
Observerofu wrote:

All this being said you two teamed up and I believe also said inflation was not happening. How did that turn out for you?

Very well, all things considered. I notice you are trying to use 2011 data to back up your 2010 lie. Intellectually dishonest once again.

Is that why you created the Topic 2011 INFLATION CHALLENGE to discuss 2010 inflation bacon?

Like I said you make it too easy

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Observer: Give it up

The charts clearly show that oil production has RISEN to 43% of its all time from the 1960's under Obama after years and years of declining and lower production. If you can't see that and how what you posted is totally fabricated and wrong, there's no sense in having a discussion. There has been NO DECLINE in oil production as of right now. Instead, there's been an increase.

How an INCREASE in oil production gets called a "decrease" or "drop" is something to take up with your 3rd grade math teacher who obviously let you down years ago. That's like politicians saying "well, we're only going to spend 10% more than last year instead of 15% more, so that's a cut in spending!"

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Nuk never

as long as there are gullible libertarian wannabes who wish to ride to the defense of progressives on their white horse.

I still have not seen you present one piece of evidence to refute anything nuk. You are about as bad as bacon. Just saying it is so doesn't really make it so.

I gave you three different reactions to the report but all you can say is I can't read a chart. Well here is one tell me nuk what it says.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mNo875JmvJs/TR9K6TLv07I/AAAAAAAAIcw/zVEmXNz1F6...

Tell me how this chart according to you is actually a 43% INCREASE in production under Obama and what has Obama done to bring about that magical increase?

"The EIA AEO 2011 report features a 14% increase in U.S. crude oil and lease condensate production from 2011 to 2020 (Figure 8) despite an 8 percent decline in production over the past decade and a 44% decrease since the 1970 U.S. production peak (Figure 9)."

Nuk here again I back up what I state care to do the same?

btw- on that other issue you are still wrong and invite you to explore that subject again anytime.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Oil again OOU

I believe I have pinpointed the problem. You cannot read. None of your references actually say what you claim they say.

The Washington Post story you cited to refute my statement that Exxon and Chevron did not pay US income taxes in 2009 actually says Exxon had "net federal income tax credit of $156 million in 2009". That's a refund.

Your chart, for which you claim is proof of the 42% decline in oil production:

"The report clearly shows a 42-43% reduction in production from the all time high. See figure #7 stats CLEARLY show the decline."

is actually a chart of four companies pumping from a single field, not US production, and it is for shale natural gas, not oil.

I also question your statement that, "27 American oil and gas companies – which actually make up under half the total oil and gas production in the U.S. – paid almost $150 billion in U.S. income taxes."

I don't think so. Here's an article about oil company US income taxes in 2010:

"The 41 U.S. oil and gas companies that break out their federal taxes said they paid Uncle Sam $5.7 billion in 2010, more than any other industry, according to data compiled by Compustat. Exxon alone paid $1.3 billion. The industry's federal tax bill would rise 70 percent without the subsidies, but it would remain highly profitable: Oil companies' combined pre-tax profits could hit $200 billion this year."

With gas costs high, Obama to speed oil production

41 companies paid 5.7 billion in taxes on about $200 billion dollars in profit.

That's a 2.8% tax rate.

Take away their subsidies and tax credits. Make them pay taxes.

But it's such a nice Memorial Day!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff you missed the very next paragraph

"Cohen highlighted “total taxes and duties to the U.S. government” of $9.8 billion in 2010. But only $1.3 billion of that went to federal income taxes, the company said in SEC disclosures used by CAP."

Playing bacon I see and cherrypicking the info.

Here is more info for you not from what the Whitehouse puts out I know but credible never the less.

"Oil Company Profits and Tax Collections: Does the U.S. Need a New Windfall Profits Tax?"

Before rushing to create a new federal tax, lawmakers should ask two questions:

(1) Do oil companies currently pay too little in taxes compared to profits?
(2) What was the effect of the last windfall profits tax enacted in 1980?

The answer to the first question is that over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy.

These figures do not include local property taxes, state sales and severance taxes and on-shore royalty payments.

The answer to the second question, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), is that the 1980s windfall profits tax depressed the domestic production and extraction industry and furthered our dependence on foreign sources of oil.1

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html

Granted from 2005 but I think nothing has changed don't you?

If you won't accept 2005 data how about 2010.

Oil Industry Taxes: A Cash Cow For Government

by Scott A. Hodge

Special Report No. 183

Key Findings

• Data from the Energy Information Administration show that governments in the U.S. and abroad are hugely dependent upon the direct and indirect taxes paid by the largest consolidated oil companies, and that between 1981 and 2008 these tax pay­ments exceeded corporate profits by 40 percent.

• Between 1981 and 2008, the oil industry paid more than $388 billion to the federal and state governments in corporate income taxes, but they paid almost twice that amount, $683 billion, to foreign governments.

• Profits and income tax payments mirror the price of oil. In 1998 when the price was low, the industry paid just $733 million in federal and state income taxes. In 2006, with the real price of oil averaging over $63 per barrel, the industry paid a record $37 billion in corporate income taxes.

• Excise tax collections have grown steadily. Between 1981 and 2008, $1.1 trillion was collected in excise and sales taxes on petroleum products. In 1999 governments collected $59 billion, more than twice the industry's net profits that year.

• In severance, property and so-called windfall profit taxes, the industry paid more than $472 billion between 1981 and 2008.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/26555.html

So oil companies don't pay taxes Jeff? Really?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
You're counting what OOU?

"Between 1981 and 2008, $1.1 trillion was collected in excise and sales taxes on petroleum products."

You're counting sales taxes on gasoline that people pay when they pump gas as taxes paid by the oil companies? Well, I disagree.

However, my postings concerned two inaccurate statements you made in your initial blog.

You stated: "Facts are oil production under Obama has DROPPED 43% from the all time high."

Then you quoted President Obama "In fact, last year, America’s oil production reached its highest level since 2003," and claimed that his statement was not true.

Here is the US Energy Information Administration's data listing the total monthly US production of crude oil. It's not Gulf oil production only, although Gulf oil is included. It's not your four companies drilling for shale natural gas. It is the total US crude oil production.

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil

Has total US oil production increased under Obama or has it decreased by 43% as you said?

Has total US oil production reached its highest level since 2003 as President Obama said or not?

As you said to me, "Let's see just how honest you can be."

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff your question is a Non sequitur

My point was which you ignored was that Obama was taking CREDIT for the increased oil production I asked you what policies of his that generated that production increase? You have not addressed that as of yet.

He was getting hammered over his "policies" handling the moratorium on production in the gulf when he made the statement thus implying it was he that was responsible, was he? I will still send you to this:

"Hornbeck's company is a billion-dollar player in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. But with drilling in the Gulf essentially at a standstill, Hornbeck must look elsewhere for business.
"We are the second-largest marine operator in the Gulf deep water, and we are actively pursuing other countries and moving our equipment out of the Gulf because of the administration's actions," Hornbeck said.

http://www.wdsu.com/news/26628049/detail.html#ixzz1Nsy2TaL9

Production on private lands have indeed gone up Jeff but that was not my point what role does the Government play in oil production? Answer NONE they regulate but produce nothing.

"According to projections made by the Energy Information Administration in April 2010, the Gulf of Mexico should have produced 1.84 million barrels of oil a day in the fourth quarter of 2010. Instead, according to the most recent EIA estimate, due to the Obama permitorium, the Gulf only produced 1.59 million barrels. That is 250,000 barrels a day in lost production. Overall, since Obama instituted his drilling moratorium, oil production from the Gulf is down more than 10%.

So what did Obama do Jeff increase or decrease oil production?
Jeff from Aug 10 to Apr 11 production has now increased and the steady decline has stopped, but what did Obama do to stop the decline. That is the question.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Observerofu the Liar
Observerofu wrote:

My point was which you ignored was that Obama was taking CREDIT for the increased oil production I asked you what policies of his that generated that production increase? You have not addressed that as of yet.

Observerofu wrote:

Obama has said loudly and quiet often that under his administration more oil has been produced since 2003.
"In fact, last year, America’s oil production reached its highest level since 2003," President Obama

Well that's not really true.

The only thing "not really true" are your claims.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well bacon your opinion is like every other opinion

they're like butt holes everyone has them and usually full of crap. Yours is no different. Just a little fuller is all.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Observerofu the Liar
Observerofu wrote:

they're like butt holes everyone has them and usually full of crap. Yours is no different. Just a little fuller is all.

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
No but I kissed yo momma with it

See I can do momma jokes too.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
I give up OOU

non se•qui•tur

1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

You flatly stated that:

"Facts are oil production under Obama has DROPPED 43% from the all time high."

Then you quoted President Obama "In fact, last year, America’s oil production reached its highest level since 2003," and claimed that his statement was not true.

I showed you documented production figures and asked if either of these statements were true. It really seems to me that my query followed logically from what preceded it.

So much so that you refused to admit that both of your assertions were incorrect.

Conservatives constantly proclaim the factual logic of their positions while claiming that liberals are all emotional positions. Liberals look at your factual logic and point out that you've just made up a "fact" to bash political opponents and the "facts" only derive from ideology.

Real, documented, actual facts seem to be totally irrelevant.

But I did enjoy sparring with you on this superb Memorial Day. I spent most of the day with my chainsaw and rebuilding my deck and table crushed in last week's storm. Finished it all up in time to fire up the grill. Thank God for all our veterans who gave so much so that I could sit on my deck tonight in peace with friends, a free citizen in the greatest country that ever existed. God bless everyone of them and their families. And to all the vets, thank you very, very, much.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
JeffC: Agree

Waste of time discussing anything with someone who makes up "facts" that are easily proven to be completely fabricated and then will never admit to being 100% wrong. There are much better things to do in life than argue with that mentality. When you said the problem was "you can't read," you nailed it.

I disagree with Obama and progressives on most issues completely, but the hard right that is so blinded with their hatred and crazy obsession over Obama couldn't shoot fish in a barrel their aim is so bent. Instead of focusing on real issues that are definitely subject to serious scrutiny and disagreement, they have to make up all kinds of BS on EVERY issue to some how demonize Obama. OBAMA!!! PROGRESSIVES!! OBAMA!!!......it gets really old.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Nuk must be hard

to be so right. Simply stated you are wrong. Unlike you and bacon I am not going to ask you to admit it nor call you a liar.
You have the right to your opinion as I do mine.
You have not proven your point nor refuted mine. What is so hard to understand that simply SAYING someone is wrong does not make it so. If you believe I am wrong then show me. You have not presented one paragraph, one chart one anything other then just saying it's so.

You do however cherry pick sentences then focus on them like laser beams completely ignoring the context or even the entirety of the post.

And then there is this:

NUK_1 wrote:

The charts clearly show that oil production has RISEN to 43% of its all time from the 1960's under Obama after years and years of declining and lower production.

Really should I ask you to prove that one. I think I will. Prove it. Show the charts make your case.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
SIGH......

OK, this is the 3rd time I've had to tell you the relevant facts, charts and links have already been posted here that totally refute your claims on oil production and clearly show after years and years of declining production, it's now at its highest level since 2003 and has INCREASED since Obama took over, not "dropped" or "declined":

Here's the most obvious:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=m

Here's another:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8698ae80-4503-11e0-80e7-00144feab49a.html#axzz...

There isn't a need to re-post what has already been on here for a few days right in this same discussion for all to read for most people, but I did anyway. You either understand it or not. Happy now?

maximus
maximus's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/03/2007
Obumble's policies had nothing to do with that, NUK

The charts that you linked show production starting to turn up at the end of 2008. And the EIA is still forecasting a decline in 2011 and 2012 in U.S. oil production - as would be expected.

The other link that you posted states that "US oil production last year rose to its highest level in almost a decade, thanks to an increase in the use of “unconventional” extraction techniques ." I guess obamao was responsible for the new extraction techniques.?

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Maximus: Of course it didn't

It's not Obama's credit or previous Prezbo's discredit on oil production for the rise since Obama got elected...that's not the point to anyone except the blind Obama-haters who were totally mute while W/Repubs/Dems ran the country into the ground and now want to "get serious" about a rational energy policy and engage in something they know nothing about, i.e. "long-term thinking."

DRILL DRILL DRILL is an asinine policy that only the party not in control of 2 of the 3 branches would even consider. The whole Florida economy that is based on tourism would be in total jeopardy by now if Jeb Bush hadn't stood up to his brother and fellow Repubs when they were all gung-ho about offshore drilling less than a mile off the near-pristine Gulf Coast beaches in Florida. Oh well....I guess then you could go to Destin and stay for about $50 a night oceanside with that great "plan."

The US energy policy that rewards some (stupid ethanol program, agribusiness handouts, oil company giveaways, anything with "green" connotations) is a total fail and not based on anything resembling common sense.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
and yet Nuk you failed to get the point

Obama seeming to take credit for that bump was the point. You failed simply to grasp that.

Thanks for finally admitting it.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff you have to completely ignore the entire posting

to get where you are right now. Nuk and bacon do this all the time it is not unusual for them. Maybe I do need to talk to you guys like recalcitrant 3rd graders.

I laid out 4 points. Not a single point in not factual. I have asked you guys to tell me what is not factual. Now you have taken a single sentence when it was not a single thought.

The entire point was this:

Observerofu wrote:

Obama has said loudly and quiet often that
under his administration more oil has been produced since 2003.

"In fact, last year, America’s oil production reached its highest level since 2003," President Obama

Well that's not really true. All of the oil being produced in that statement is from oil permits from the Bush administration.
Obama is either blaming Bush or taking credit for Bush policies. I really wished he would make up his mind.

Facts are oil production under Obama has DROPPED 43% from the all time high and Gulf oil production has dropped
to an all time low. The permit process has slowed to a crawl under Sunstein the Regulatory czar.

Now maybe the operative word that confuses you is "under". I did not mean that Obama has caused the 43% dropped but I did mean that Obama is incorrect if he is implying that his policies have INCREASED oil production like his statement implies.

Oil production is down 43% from the all time high. Is that not factual?

Observerofu wrote:

I made these points:

Point #1: President Obama said: "In fact, last year, America’s oil production reached its highest level since 2003," thus attempting to take credit for the increased production. Now this would mean his Energy policies where the factor for this increase. I have asked Bacon, Dmom, Jeff and now Nuk what were those polices or was it NOT the policies of the Federal Government but the increased production from PRIVATE lands.

Point #2: I stated that oil production is down 43% from the all time high under this administration. Now taking the statement made above by President Obama he implied under his leadership oil production has never been higher.
Now even Jeff admitted that I was correct that oil production is down by that amount. So what was it I said that was incorrect or as you call it a lie? The charts at the end of this post also state the same.

Point #3: Tax breaks are not Subsides
Bacon argued I was wrong but as of yet failed to explain how they are the same and Jeff argued that subsides should end for Oil Companies. Still waiting for that clarification.

Point #4: Government takes a bigger profit from Oil while doing nothing to bring that oil to market then does the Oil companies themselves.
Government takes anywhere from $0.40 - 0.60 per gallon to the Oil company's $0.07 per gallon. What about this is a lie?

Those where the 4 points I made in the original post.

Now Jeff this is where I asked you to be honest. Meaning leave out the ideological liberal talking points. Nuk tends to lock in on one statement without taking the entire post into account or even in context. You however I have found to be a little more open. I'm I wrong?

What about the 4 points above is inaccurate? Remember those first two sentences are not separate, the thought is continuous. So taking them apart trying to assign meaning without the other is disingenuous.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Parse it however you want OOU

You flatly stated that: "Facts are oil production under Obama has DROPPED 43% from the all time high."

You quoted President Obama "In fact, last year, America’s oil production reached its highest level since 2003," and then you claimed that his statement was not true.

By now, everybody reading this blog knows that both of your statements are provably false.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well not everyone Jeff

but I expected better from you. Sorry I was wrong.

Because the quote was his and so is that fact both are accurate and verifiable. To provide political cover you guys will do anything and yet you still left out the entire comment. You chose just those two, here was the entire comment in context:

"I consider the political theater in DC sort of like a shell game. The real reasons keep being shuffled
around in faster circles so maybe you won't look to hard to find them. Obama has said loudly and quiet often that
under his administration more oil has been produced since 2003.

"In fact, last year, America’s oil production reached its highest level since 2003," President Obama

Well that's not really true. All of the oil being produced in that statement is from oil permits from the Bush administration.
Obama is either blaming Bush or taking credit for Bush policies. I really wished he would make up his mind.

Facts are oil production under Obama has DROPPED 43% from the all time high and Gulf oil production has dropped
to an all time low. The permit process has slowed to a crawl under Sunstein the Regulatory czar."

You can take anything out of context looks like bacon has taught you well.

Now granted I admitted the "under" was what was throwing you off. But if Obama wants credit for raising oil production when he didn't then he gets the downside too doesn't he? The Gulf oil production was UNDER Obama and HIS policies have decreased production. That was the point and Jeff you know that.

btw- God wants you to kill yourself

The Bible clearly states:
"Judas went out and hanged himself" and it states "Go thou and do likewise" or was that out of context it's all so confusing.

Ok you win Obama's new mantra is Drill baby drill.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
So be it OOU

U.S. field production of crude oil at the end of 2008 was 4,950 thousand barrels per day. In 2010 production was 5,512 thousand barrels per day.

If you cannot grasp that 5,512 is a larger number than 4,950 and therefore your statements were incorrect, what more is there to say?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff like nuk you missed the point.

I never said oil production was down ACROSS THE BOARD. The decrease up until 08 was 43% BUT due to some very innovated PRIVATE production techniques oil production saw a rise.

This is where guys jump on a sentence but miss the overall point. Obama was taking credit for that rise, or at least he was allowing the MSM to give him credit for that. That is why I said that's not really true. Government had nothing to do with it and that Jeff WAS THE POINT.

I guess I should and could have been clearer I thought I was, however the fact remains Government had no hand in the production increase it did however have a hand in production decrease in the Gulf AND it still is. That was the point.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
OOU

Please drop this one as you have been summarily proven wrong. You may easily and accurately criticize Mr Obama on many fronts, but oil production levels are not among them.

Get over it.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Mike thank you for your opinion

please forgive me if I tell you what you may do with it.

I don't suppose you remember anything about the moratorium on oil production in the Gulf do you? So I think I can criticize President Obama on his lack of an energy plan very well.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
OOU

You are most welcome.

Your choice of what to do/say is your option, just don't be upset if I ignore it.

We agree that there he has no energy plan, budget, Mideast strategy, compassion for fallen soldiers, and the list goes on. Sadly, our mainstream media criticized Sarah Palin for inexperience when Hillary Clinton continues to outshine this empty suit.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
On this we agree

nuff said

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Oil production...again

JeffC has already posted the links direct from the EIA ...what's to discuss?
It clearly shows to everyone without total bias and inability to read a chart that US oil production in 2010 was at the highest level in YEARS.

Your statement that "Facts are oil production under Obama has DROPPED 43% from the all time high..." is a gross distortion since oil production for many years has dropped since it's high in the late 1960's until Obama was elected. US oil production has RISEN since, not DROPPED. That is indisputable and I don't see how anyone can not understand that, it's really simple.

As far as your bogus claim cribbed from a PREDICTION(in March 2010) of very high food inflation that you tried(and failed repeatedly)to say was the PRESENT food inflation rate in the Fall of 2010...hasn't that been done to death? Just admit you were wrong and move on from it.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Thanks fellas

Love how neither of you can actually refute the info. Once again Nuk you have to imply meanings not stated to what I said.

Yep food inflation is not happening according to Nuk and Bacon..\

Both of you are hopeless.

NinaLynn
NinaLynn's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2005
Not sure......

Not sure where to start a new topic so I popped in here if that's okay.
I would like to just say something.Today being Memorial Day,I am deeply saddened to see that not one of my neighbors has the Great American Flag blowing in the breeze at their homes. Come on people,be proud to be an American & show your pride!

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Nina Lynn & Old Glory

Of course it's ok to pop in anywhere about Old Glory! Sorry you don't have any neighbors who display Old Glory but if it will make you feel better, know that there are some of us who display Old Glory 24X7X360. And before all the nit-pickers chime in, it is an all-weather nylon flag, under a photo-cell controlled light. Good for you to be disappointed--I'm sure your flag is flying high!

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Old Glory

Actually, the original "Old Glory," never had 48 or 50 stars, and was really a rebel and yankee thing.

The military used to remove the flag in inclement weather. The process never seemed to end, but that was intended, I think, to really show devotion to a flag---which in turn meant patriotism to a country.

I am not sure if making the flag out of weather proof material negates the real reason for the handling of it!

Seems like that would be like showing a film of A MILITARY FUNERAL INSTEAD OF ONE FOR EACH DEATH!

Frankly, I would prefer it if we quickly took excellent care of our current wounded instead of flying flags, riding motorcycles, having parades, and just BS'in all of the time.

Make the government get it done, and if you are a TEA or a republican, or a Libertarian and want nothing from the government---do it yourself!

The "Pressure" needed on those in charge has been weak.
The stupidity by the Army at Arlington for so, so long gives an idea of how we really feel about such things, other than to talk about it.

I am Pressuring and pretty much being ignored or put off. We want the wars but not the hospital costs nor the pensions to pay.

I heard President Bush, alongside Lance Armstrong, today say that he didn't feel guilty at all about the deaths as they were volunteers! And, he had to make the decisions.
It was a stupid bike ride with wounded "volunteers."

NinaLynn
NinaLynn's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2005
AtHomeGym

Thanks for your comment,glad you have our flag flying :o).We have one near the house,24x7x365 and for Memorial Day,the 4th of July and Veterans Day,I line the front walk with flags as well. ...some forget that Thanksgiving is a day when we pause to give thanks for the things we have and Memorial Day is a day when we pause to give thanks to the people who fought for the things we have. Enjoy your week!

NinaLynn
NinaLynn's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2005
At Home..

Oh and thanks for letting me just "pop" in here.......

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Ethanol & Teabaggers

I am not reading all of this but my post is: Would all the Teabaggers please put the AG subsidies for this effort on the table? It is driving up food prices to use perfectly good grains in this manner. It is saving 10% off the oil imports? Finally, I do not have a 2-cycle chainsaw, blower or trimmer that is not clogged w/ gunk from this mixture. I know it Hits Home for your base but do the right thing a let Cargill & ADM fight in the free market.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Progressives love to talk about Oil Subsidies but....

what about the real subsidies that are being handed out to Solar, Wind and Geothermal?

Millions, most of which, have gone up in smoke over Obama's "Green Dream" are being handed out, given away, doled out, what ever term you want to use SUBSIDIZED is the real term, to so called "Green" projects.

Despite the fact that "Green" energy only accounts for less then 2% of our total energy needs in this Country.

"Obama to tout green energy 'investments' at solar facility employing 5 workers, relying on $54 million in taxpayer subsidies"
http://www.npri.org/publications/pub_detail.asp?id=896

btw- Mark was correct in his comments. Jeff and NUk need to revisit their efforts...

"Leases on federal lands in the American West are down 44%, permits are down 39% and wells are also down by 39%, when comparing 2007/8 levels to 2009/10 levels. "

This was what Mark was saying and the EIA report clearly showed that. You guys were wrong.

"Specifically the new EIA report shows:

Fossil fuel (coal, oil, and natural gas) production on Federal and Indian lands is the lowest in the 9 years EIA reports data and is 6 percent less than in fiscal year 2010.

Crude oil and lease condensate production on Federal and Indian lands is 13 percent lower than in fiscal year 2010.

Natural gas production on Federal and Indian lands is the lowest in the 9 years that EIA reports data and is 10 percent lower than in fiscal year 2010.

Natural gas plant liquids production on Federal and Indian lands is 3 percent lower than in fiscal year 2010.

Coal production on Federal and Indian lands is the lowest in the 9 years of data that EIA reported and is 2 percent lower than in fiscal year 2010."

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/03/15/fossil-fuel-product...

Recent Comments