Posts
by Jeremy pugh
(Mississippi)
Click here to post comments.
Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How?
Simply click here to return to Oil Rig Employment.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Mar 3, Floor hand derrick hand
Feb 15, 6th generation drillship experienced 2nd engineer
by Kuznetsov Volodymyr
(Odessa, Ukraine)
There is an experience on DP2, DP3 6th gen. drillship "Saipem12000". There are all nesessary certifications and unlimited license of 2nd engineer.
How can I apply for above mentioned position?
We Are the American People, Mr. President
Normally, we don’t bother with blog posts from the Center for American Progress on oil issues because, to borrow from an old saying, there’s no point in fact-checking someone who puts out propaganda by the barrel. But since this post yesterday sought to “debunk” our “claims,” let’s have a look at CAP’s. Warning: These point/counterpoint, counter/counterpoint things can get a little long.
From CAP:
CLAIM: “More domestic production is critical to putting downward pressure on gasoline prices — supply matters.” – Jack Gerard, American Petroleum Institute President and CEO, March 26, 2012
TRUTH: To test whether more U.S. domestic production would lower gasoline prices, the Associated Press just completed an exhaustive analysis of 36 years of monthly U.S. oil production and gasolin... more »
Update: The U.S. Senate failed to reach the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and the motion failed 51-47. (29 Mar 2012)
Today the Senate will vote to advance S.2204 sponsored by Sen. Menendez (D-NJ). This bill will raise taxes on major integrated oil and natural gas companies to subsidize other forms of energy and will do absolutely nothing to lower gasoline prices.
A new poll conducted by Harris Interactive, from March 9-13 of registered voters nationwide, found that 76% of voters believe that increasing energy taxes could increase consumer costs on a wide variety of products, including higher gasoline prices.
American voters overwhelming oppose higher taxes!
Additionally, this bill claims to end alleged “subsidies” for a handful of oil and natural gas companies. However, nothi... more »
The Marshall Institute’s William O’Keefe has a must-read on Fuel Fix for folks puzzled by the recent AP analysis that discounted the effect of domestic drilling on global crude pricing, which is the key component (76 percent) in fuel costs.
Remember, the AP said its statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted, gasoline prices found no correlation between the level of production from U.S. wells and prices at the pump.
O’Keefe:
“The AP attempts to use a disconnected statistic, domestic production, to make an erroneous correlation to counter arguments in favor of more U.S. exploration and development. In doing so, the wire service offers the public a political statement in place of objective analysis.”
O’Keefe continues:
“To begin with, domestic oil prod... more »
Earlier this week, API hosted a conference call with bloggers to discuss rising gasoline prices and to correct misinformation about the factors that figure into the prices Americans pay at the pump. API Chief Economist John Felmy explained that crude oil costs account for 76 percent of the prices Americans pay for gasoline. Although crude oil is a global commodity, Felmy said that the United States is not powerless in dealing with global markets because, in fact, “we’re energy rich and have lots of options.”
In his opening statement, Felmy called for the United States to help put downward pressure on fuel price:
“America’s oil and natural gas companies believe a preemptive surrender to the global marketplace and world events is absolutely the wrong policy…Although the president re... more »
Why did energy supporters in the U.S. Senate stand aside to allow consideration of legislation they oppose – raising taxes on America’s oil and natural gas companies? After all, there were more than enough votes to keep the proposal from coming to the floor.
Simple, in politics you choose the fights you think you can win, and Senate opponents of higher energy taxes feel like they’ve got the American people behind them.
Here’s why. A spate of surveys shows that strong majorities of Americans favor more production of oil and natural gas here at home. Both Gallup and Rasmussen have new polls showing Americans support construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from neighbor and ally Canada. Another Rasmussen survey indicates 2-1 suppo... more »
Blogger Conference Call – Gas Prices
Earlier this week, API hosted a conference call with bloggers to discuss rising gasoline prices and to correct misinformation about the factors that figure into the prices Americans pay at the pump. API Chief Economist John Felmy explained that crude oil costs account for 76 percent of the prices Americans pay for gasoline. Although crude oil is a global commodity, Felmy said that the United States is not powerless in dealing with global markets because, in fact, “we’re energy rich and have lots of options.”
In his opening statement, Felmy called for the United States to help put downward pressure on fuel price:
“America’s oil and natural gas companies believe a preemptive surrender to the global marketplace and world events is absolutely the wrong policy…Although the president repeatedly talks of very limited U.S. resources, it’s just not so. Although his rhetoric suggests that he only sees the effect of global markets resulting from decreasing demand through efficiency and conservation strategies, we think there’s a greater effect that producing more oil could have. Markets are driven by expectations, and it’s time the United States began sending the markets the message that America’s serious about developing its ample resources to help exert downward pressure on fuel price.”
Felmy also explained that increasing taxes on oil and natural gas companies could have the opposite effect and actually increase prices at the pump. “I have never understood arithmetic that tells you, you raise an industry’s cost of producing the fuel and it’s going to lower prices,” he said.
For more information, I encourage you to take a look at our new gas prices website, GasPricesExplained.org, and read through the full transcript below. If you still have questions about gas prices, leave a comment on this post or submit your question on Energy Answered.
API Blogger Conference Call on Gas Prices - 03.26.12
Yes, Supply Matters
U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer is worried about the impact of the potential loss of Iranian oil on the global crude market. Reuters reports:
The United States should do more to encourage Saudi Arabia to boost its oil production to make up for lost Iranian oil, Senator Charles Schumer said on Sunday, urging renewed diplomacy as a way to ease the run-up in oil prices. … A public promise from Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, to pump oil at its full capacity would calm oil markets as well as gasoline prices, Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Without saying so directly, Schumer’s point is that, yeah, supply matters. Global markets respond positively and negatively to ups and downs in supply – hence Schumer’s push for the Saudis to boost output.
He’s not alone. The administration believes in the power of supply, too. That’s why it released oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve last year during the Libyan crisis. There’s talk of another SPR release now, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says.
It would be great if the United States had its own oil supply options, if America could reach a point where our supply and our energy future were more secure. How about a future where we don’t have to ask others to boost their production, where we’re not presenting ourselves as eager customers for others’ oil – as the president did last year in Brazil:
“We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”
Wait! We do have supply options. They start with building the Keystone XL pipeline and strengthening the energy relationship we have with our friend and neighbor Canada. We can increase access to federal lands, onshore and offshore, and get permitting in the Gulf of Mexico back to where it was a couple of years ago. We can continue developing biofuels and other energy technologies.
Put them all together and we could see 100 percent of our liquid fuel needs met domestically and from Canada. Not 50 years from now or 25. By 2024. And research says we’ll see new jobs, economic growth and increased revenues to government along the way.
But it starts with ending the drill-anywhere-but-here mindset that is keeping our resources on the shelf and the United States beholden to global energy politics.
It includes rejecting the view that 1 million barrels of oil per day from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is irrelevant because it won’t come online for 10 years – which has helped block ANWR development for more than a decade.
It means discarding the false premise that the United States lacks the resources to exercise greater control over the supply equation.
The President’s Almost None-Of-The-Above Energy Approach
The president spoke about energy again Thursday, saying his all-sources strategy will ensure a prosperous future:
“If we’re going to avoid being at the mercy of these world events, we’ve got to have a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy.”
The president is right: A sustained strategy that uses all of America’s energy sources is the key to U.S. energy security. API President and CEO Jack Gerard:
“More oil and gas development here at home would benefit the nation. It would increase the security of our energy supplies, create jobs, boost revenue tour government and help put downward pressure on prices at the pump.”
Ah, but the president’s so-called all-of-the-above strategy actually appears to be an almost-none-of-the-above strategy. In a speech in Florida, he dismissed calls for increased domestic oil drilling:
“You know there are no quick fixes to this problem, and you know we can’t just drill our way to lower prices.”
And:
“Anybody who tells you we can drill our way out of this problem doesn’t know what they’re talking about — or just isn’t telling you the truth.”
This administration is talking a big game on energy – even claiming credit for domestic oil and natural gas production increases that stem from decisions made long before it came into office. Indeed, those gains have come in spite of the president’s policies, not because of them. And his rhetoric on drilling suggests ignorance or disdain for analysis that shows, yes, we could see 100 percent of our liquid fuel needs met with North American sources of oil by 2024.
Gerard:
“The administration is restricting where oil and natural gas development may occur, leasing less often, shortening lease terms, going slow on permit approvals and increasing or threatening to increase industry’s development costs through higher taxes, higher royalty fees, higher minimum lease bids and more regulations.”
More Gerard:
“Keeping 85 percent of our offshore areas off limits – per the administration’s latest offshore energy plan – is not a prescription for increased oil and natural gas production. Decreasing oil and gas leasing in the Rockies by 70 percent is not generating jobs and more affordable energy that America’s workers and consumers need. Having 10 federal agencies planning more regulation of hydraulic fracturing … is not keeping affordable supplies of gas flowing to generate electricity, heat homes and supply chemical plants. Rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline is not increasing American access to affordable, secure energy.”
Current energy conditions, globally and domestically, are pulling the veil away from the president’s do-little energy policies. You can’t reject the Keystone XL pipeline, for example, then say the United States is at the mercy of the volatility in global energy markets. You can’t keep U.S. energy on federal lands and offshore off limits and say you’re for increased domestic oil and natural gas production. You can’t say yours is an all-of-the-above strategy when you’re denying multiple opportunities to industries that supply the majority of the energy we currently use.
Gerard:
“The administration’s own projections tell us that we’re still going to rely on oil and natural gas for nearly 60 percent of our energy for the next quarter century. We’re either going to produce that oil and gas in the U.S. with the added benefits of creating over a million new American jobs, strengthening our national security and generating more revenue for our government, or we’re going to depend more on resources from less stable parts of the world.”
Yes, Supply Matters
U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer is worried about the impact of the potential loss of Iranian oil on the global crude market. Reuters reports:
The United States should do more to encourage Saudi Arabia to boost its oil production to make up for lost Iranian oil, Senator Charles Schumer said on Sunday, urging renewed diplomacy as a way to ease the run-up in oil prices. … A public promise from Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, to pump oil at its full capacity would calm oil markets as well as gasoline prices, Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Without saying so directly, Schumer’s point is that, yeah, supply matters. Global markets respond positively and negatively to ups and downs in supply – hence Schumer’s push for the Saudis to boost output.
He’s not alone. The administration believes in the power of supply, too. That’s why it released oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve last year during the Libyan crisis. There’s talk of another SPR release now, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says.
It would be great if the United States had its own oil supply options, if America could reach a point where our supply and our energy future were more secure. How about a future where we don’t have to ask others to boost their production, where we’re not presenting ourselves as eager customers for others’ oil – as the president did last year in Brazil:
“We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”
Wait! We do have supply options. They start with building the Keystone XL pipeline and strengthening the energy relationship we have with our friend and neighbor Canada. We can increase access to federal lands, onshore and offshore, and get permitting in the Gulf of Mexico back to where it was a couple of years ago. We can continue developing biofuels and other energy technologies.
Put them all together and we could see 100 percent of our liquid fuel needs met domestically and from Canada. Not 50 years from now or 25. By 2024. And research says we’ll see new jobs, economic growth and increased revenues to government along the way.
But it starts with ending the drill-anywhere-but-here mindset that is keeping our resources on the shelf and the United States beholden to global energy politics.
It includes rejecting the view that 1 million barrels of oil per day from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is irrelevant because it won’t come online for 10 years – which has helped block ANWR development for more than a decade.
It means discarding the false premise that the United States lacks the resources to exercise greater control over the supply equation.
Oil Prices and Market Signals
From Politico:
"New York Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer wants Saudi Arabia to pledge to make up for any missing Iranian supplies, and he wants them to do it now, rather than waiting until summer. 'A public commitment will cause the price of oil to drop right away,' he said Tuesday."
Senator Schumer is correct, oil markets are forward looking and a public commitment to development matters. But rather than Saudi Arabia, let’s look at what the U.S. is signaling.
Continued reduced production on Federal areas in the Gulf of Mexico.87% of our offshore acreage being placed off-limits.Federal permits lagging in offshore areas.Federal permits lagging in onshore areas.A million barrels a day from ANWR languishing for decades.The U.S. blocking upwards of 800,000 barrels a day from Canada.A plan for increasing taxes on U.S. exploration and development, and when you tax something, what do you get? Less of it.And three years worth of delays and obstructions of oil and natural gas development in the U.S.It is great that Senator Schumer wants Saudi Arabia to send a signal to the market, as the chart here shows, signals do matter, but perhaps a better signal to the market would be that the U.S. is going to do everything we can to help ourselves. We are not powerless, unless we choose to be.
Apr 1, looking for work in the offshore catering world
by stephen trotter
(portsmouth ,hampshire , uk)
Oil Supply – Yes We Can
Opponents of increased domestic oil production like to portray the U.S. as being helpless in the face of worldwide events. This argument sometimes takes this form:
… with only 2% of the world’s oil reserves, we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices – not when consume 20% of the world’s oil.
Which we dealt with here, and sometimes like this:
…oil prices are dictated by the vast world market, of which U.S. production is just a small fraction.
or this:
This notion that a politician can wave a magic wand and impact the 90-million-barrel-a-day global oil market is preposterous…
While it is good to see supply and demand being mentioned when discussing oil, the U.S. is hardly a feeble little victim unable to affect the market.
In 2010, according to the EIA, the world produced about 87 million barrels of oil today, with 22 countries producing over a million barrels a day. Let’s look at the top producers:
So even if you consider 11.16% to be a “small fraction” it is also happens to be the third-largest fraction. We are a major-player in the market and our decisions can have an impact. As the Washington Post put it:
Because oil products are so essential to companies and motorists, incremental changes in the supply-and-demand balance have a relatively large effect on prices.
And right now the market is tight:
…because a series of crises has shaved oil production or boosted demand worldwide. Together they add up to a difference of about 1 million barrels a day in the global oil balance.
So to make an impact the U.S. doesn’t need to supply the entire market, but do our part to fill the gap, but instead the market sees projections that Gulf of Mexico production on Federal areas will be down 530,000 barrels a day this year.
The market sees 87% of our offshore acreage off-limits, it sees see Federal permits lagging in the areas we are allowed to develop in, both offshore and onshore. It sees a million barrels a day from ANWR sitting on the sidelines, and it sees the U.S. blocking upwards of 800,000 barrels a day from Canada.
The market sees that the U.S. could secure 100% of its liquid fuel needs by 2024.
And the market sees us taking a pass.
So when you hear folks say that we are helpless on the supply side and have to rely solely on reducing demand tell them that you want a true all-of-the-above energy strategy with both increased production AND increased efficiency. Otherwise the portrait of the U.S. as being rudderless in a stormy energy sea may prove to be self-fulfilling prophecy.
Feb 15, Roustabout
by Anthony Adjei
(Ghana-West Africa)
Click here to post comments.
Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How?
Simply click here to return to Oil Rig Employment.
Feb 2, ROUSTABOUT WANTED
by eric
(italy-rome)
I already got my opito certicate for roustabout and still loocking for the job.
can someone can direct me in some hiring drilling company in uk or in italy?
thanks
Raising Energy Taxes – The Wrong Approach
Update: The U.S. Senate failed to reach the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and the motion failed 51-47. (29 Mar 2012)
Today the Senate will vote to advance S.2204 sponsored by Sen. Menendez (D-NJ). This bill will raise taxes on major integrated oil and natural gas companies to subsidize other forms of energy and will do absolutely nothing to lower gasoline prices.
A new poll conducted by Harris Interactive, from March 9-13 of registered voters nationwide, found that 76% of voters believe that increasing energy taxes could increase consumer costs on a wide variety of products, including higher gasoline prices.
American voters overwhelming oppose higher taxes!
Additionally, this bill claims to end alleged “subsidies” for a handful of oil and natural gas companies. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The U.S. oil and natural gas industry does not receive “subsidized” payments from the government to produce oil and gas. In fact, the Wall Street Journal editorial board states “the truth is that this industry is subsidizing the government.” The US oil and natural gas industry on average pays over $86 million every day to the federal government in taxes, rents, royalties and lease payments.
U.S. oil and natural gas companies pay considerably more of its profits in taxes than the average manufacturing company. In fact, in 2010, the industry paid more in total taxes than any other industry sector while averaging a 41% effective tax rate. Also in 2010, oil and natural gas companies directly contributed over $470 billion to the U.S. economy in spending, wages, and dividends – more than half the size of the 2009 federal stimulus package ($787 billion) – only this stimulus didn’t require an act of Congress.
Below are more details on the specific negative effects of the tax provisions that are included in the Menendez bill:
Dual Capacity/Foreign Tax Credit denial: API’s one pager discussing how this will make American companies uncompetitive abroad is here and there are more in-depth studies on this topic here, here and here. Despite rhetoric, the provision they seek to modify ironically is a more stringent rule on taxpayers like the oil and gas industry that has, for the last 3 decades, ensured abuses do not occur. The foreign tax credit can only be used to offset foreign income taxes paid and not any other payment. Without this foreign tax credit, which has been in place since 1918, US-based companies would be substantially disadvantaged when trying to develop foreign opportunities. Specifically, companies would face the cost of double taxation on foreign operations, while their competitors would only be taxed once.Sec. 199 repeal: Section 199 is available to every single domestic manufacturer and extractive industry that qualifies and is in no way unique to the oil and gas industry. As seen here, the oil and gas industry is already penalized with respect to others as we receive a 6% deduction on income from qualified activities; everyone else receives a 9% deduction. This provision was put into place in the American Jobs Creation Act in 2004 to create and keep jobs in the U.S. – exactly what we are doing. We support 9.2 million jobs in the U.S. and contribute to 7.7% of GDP. By removing this provision from just a handful of companies it sends the message a job in the oil and gas industry is not as “valuable” as a job at Starbucks or the New York Times (both of whom get 199 at 9%). Studies have shown repealing Sec. 199 (and IDC below) for the entire industry could put 165,000 direct/indirect jobs at risk by 2020.Repeal of drilling cost deduction (IDCs): Just like the R&D deduction (comparison here) our companies can deduct costs associated with the labor and construction of a well. As you can see in this one-pager, these costs, typically 60-80% of the cost of a well, are simply cost recovery with respect to timing – there is no credit or government subsidy here. Cost recovery allows us to put that money back into projects, technology and high wages. The average upstream wage is approx $98,000/yr. This provision is not unique to the Code and could compromise thousands of jobs and billions of dollars worth of capital – in fact, this repeal along with (Sec. 199 above) could compromise 10% of America’s oil and gas production capacity by 2017.Percentage depletion: The major integrated US oil and gas companies (the target of this amendment) are not eligible for percentage depletion and have not been for over 30 years. IPAA has more on how this affects independent producers.Repeal of tertiary injectant deduction: The U.S. is a mature oil producing region but still contains many viable fields whose lives are extended through the use of tertiary injectants. These efforts secure additional U.S. production and enable many production companies to remain in business. Changing how these costs are recovered could force producers to shut in older fields and significantly impact local economies. This deduction supports using carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery projects, one of the primary methods by which carbon dioxide is currently stored to prevent its release into the atmosphere.Without unfair and punitive tax increases and unnecessary new regulations - we could create 1 million more new jobs in just seven years and increase revenue to the government by $127 billion by 2020. By 2030, this program of development could boost government revenue by $800 billion and increase daily production of oil and natural gas by 10 million barrels. Add to this more imports from Canada and increased domestic bio-fuel use and we could within 15 years have the capability to secure all of our liquid fuels from North American sources.
America’s oil and natural gas companies are owned by tens of millions of Americans. More than 29 percent of shares are held in mutual funds; 27 percent are held in pension funds; 23 percent are owned by individual investors; 14 percent are held in IRAs. Five percent are held by institutions and only 1.5 percent of industry shares are owned by corporate management. Raising taxes on America’s energy producers, businesses, and retirement plans is the wrong approach to rebuilding our economy. Therefore, these tax increases are nothing more than a billion dollar tax increase on America’s oil and natural gas industry, our employees, and our nation’s retirees.
Energy Works in Virginia
For the state of Virginia, the oil and natural gas industry currently means:
More than 128,000 statewide jobs provided or supported – with an average salary of $57,281 for non-gas station oil and natural gas employees.$6.5 billion contributed to state labor income.$11.6 billion contributed to the state’s economy.With sensible energy development and sound tax policies, here’s what the oil and natural gas industry could mean to Virginia:
3,606 additional jobs created by 201516,401 additional jobs created by 2020An average of $77.7 million of new, additional revenue generated by the industry directly to the state every year through 2030. That’s enough to cover more than half of Virginia’s general fund contribution for the University of Virginia every year, without using additional taxpayer dollars.Energy works in Virginia, with the men and women of the oil and natural gas industry playing a critical role in that state’s economy. See more, here.
Fact Checking the Administration’s Fact Checker
White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer put up a blog post last week, fact-checking his boss’ all-of-the-above energy strategy – perhaps because others have found the president’s energy assertions are more myth than fact, that he’s really offering an almost-none-of-the-above approach. Let’s review the White House’s defense.
Pfeiffer:
“The fact is, oil is bought and sold in a world market. And just like last year, the biggest thing that’s causing the price of oil to rise right now is instability in the Middle East.”
This important acknowledgement – echoed by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke – accurately depicts the reality that crude oil is a global commodity whose pricing is affected by global events. Keep that in mind as we continue.
Pfeiffer:
“The truth is that there is no silver bullet to address rising gas prices in the short term, but there are steps we can take to ensure the American people don’t fall victim to skyrocketing gas prices over the long term.”
History suggests that just as global crude markets are affected by unrest and uncertainty that could restrict supply, they also can be affected by developments that expand supply. That’s what happened in the summer of 2008:
So, yes, supply matters – even the prospect of increased supply can have impact. So then the question is: What can the United States do to have more effect over crude oil supply, which, as nearly everyone agrees, is key to what happens at the pump?
We could approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring upwards of 800,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada. We could endorse a federal offshore drilling plan that actually includes new areas for development, to increase domestic supply. We could open access on federal lands that currently are off limits. Studies indicate a tiny piece of the vast Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), for example, could deliver 1 million barrels or more per day.
Unfortunately, the administration has said no the Keystone XL, no to a more robust offshore drilling plan and no to fully developing our onshore resources in ANWR, the Rockies and other areas. While the administration says it’s for greater domestic oil and natural gas production, it’s actually doing little to foster that and in a number of cases is blocking it.
Pfeiffer:
“Since 2008, U.S. oil and natural gas production has increased each year, while imports of foreign oil have decreased. In 2011, U.S. crude oil production reached its highest level in 8 years, increasing by an estimated 110,000 barrels per day over 2010 levels to 5.59 million barrels per day. U.S. natural gas production grew in 2011 – the largest year-over-year volumetric increase in history – and easily eclipsed the previous all-time production record set in 1973. Even if you fail to give the Obama Administration the credit it deserves in helping to expand this production, any notion that production has been blocked or slowed, doesn’t square with the facts.”
Actually, the notion that the administration has blocked or slowed oil and natural gas domestic production is well-supported by fact:
There has been a “systematic decline” of energy production on federal lands in the West in the past two years, according to a study by EIS Solutions released in January. According to Bureau of Land Management data, the number of new federal oil and gas leases is down 44 percent, while the number of new drilling permits and the number of new wells drilled both are down 39 percent.According to the Energy Information Administration, federal production in the Gulf of Mexico is estimated to be down 21 percent from 2010 – falling from 1.55 million barrels per day to 1.32 mb/d last year to an estimated 1.23 mb/d this year.Ten federal agencies currently are looking at more regulation of hydraulic fracturing, threatening the catalyst to the current natural gas revolution.So, another question: If overall domestic production has increased while production on western federal lands and in the Gulf has decreased, what does that mean? It means the increases are coming from areas not under federal control – that domestic output is increasing despite the administration’s policies, not because of them.
Pfeiffer:
“We believe an all-of-the-above approach doesn’t need to come at-any-cost. That is why just as we make available more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources, the Obama Administration continues to study the feasibility of exploration, development, and production in other areas.”
Here we have some statistical flim-flammery. While the administration has made available for development 75 percent of federal offshore resources that meet the government’s definition of undiscovered but technically recoverable resources, these areas only account for 13 percent of the United States’ total offshore acreage. That’s how a 75 turns into an “F” on development.
Pfeiffer:
“As you can see, the claims and the facts just don’t add up.”
The White House’s problem is the facts do add up. We’re looking at a 21 percent decline in Gulf production and a trajectory on federal lands that’s heading down. It’s an administration that says one thing on energy and does something else – sending mixed messages to Americans and global energy markets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)