Thursday, April 12, 2012

Fact-Check on Fuel Subsidies

Update: The author has changed the article, without noting so. Original article here. The new article suffers from many the same problems in that it fails to note that the majority of the money involved is through government efforts to lower prices in developing countries.  As the IEA notes ending this support will shift "the burden of high prices from government budgets to individual consumers…" and that “…low-income households are likely to be disproportionately affected by the removal…”

We see a lot of false arguments about “subsidies” for the oil and natural gas industry, but this tweet caught us by surprise:

First, as we have to explain every time, the oil and gas industries don’t get tax credits (which reduce taxes dollar for dollar) or grants from the government. They get tax deductions for business investments that will generate tax revenues in the future. Unlike the case of credits or grants, the government will still be paid the full amount of tax owed on their operations.  Which means the taxpayer is getting every dollar that’s owed.

So their false subsidies argument is just old nonsense, but that $1,360 figure, that’s some new nonsense. How do they figure? Well, clicking through gives us this chart:

And these words:

Every year fossil fuels get six times as much money in subsidies from the U.S. government — i.e. you, the taxpayer — than renewable energy.

$409 billion in “subsidies” from the U.S. government?  Really?  Maybe we can use that new (apparently to them) product called “Google” to check it out.

Search one gets us the presentation this chart was pulled from and then search two the IEA study from which the numbers were drawn: “The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $409 billion in 2010…” So now we see that the $409 billion is the worldwide number, not just for the U.S.

For the U.S. we do another search leading to an OECD report that the IEA contributed to. At both the U.S. State and Federal levels, fossil fuel subsidies, as defined by the OECD, clock in at $15.4 billion. Since our Grist reporter uses government singular we can presume that he means the Federal government so we can take the State stuff off removing $2.8 billion, leaving us with $12.5 billion – or about 3% of our reporters’ estimate – or to use Grist’s methodology, $41.67 for every American. But wait, there’s more!

The article continues:

Here’s an idea: Instead of giving all that money to fossil fuel companies who are currently posting record profits, why not simply send each and every U.S. citizen a check for that amount?

But even that $12.5 billion is not all going to fossil fuel companies. A little over $4 billion of it is going for Federal government research and development, $3.45 billion goes to support low-income individuals, and $923 million goes to farmers with another $1 billion going to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  So now we are down to about $3.3 billion – or about $11 for every American. And even then, it is in the form of tax deductions that all US companies get – it does not represent money given to fossil fuel companies, example here.

Three searches, all the facts. The folks at Grist should try it some time.


View the original article here

The President’s Energy Statements: Myth and Fact

Fact-checking the president’s energy rhetoric: See API’s new point-by-point look at some of the energy assertions the president has made in his State of the Union address and other public statements. For example:

President: “I’m directing my administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas reserves.”

Fact: The administration is defining the status quo as progress. The resources identified are restricted to areas in the Gulf of Mexico and the Alaska OCS that have already been leased and where the industry is already active. In fact, the administration’s latest plan for offshore development scales back on the previous plan by removing the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and areas in the Atlantic. The 75 percent number is deceiving because it includes only the areas we have already explored.

More on that, here.

Here’s another one from the myth/fact guide, on U.S. oil reserves:

President: “But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough.”

Fact: This is wrong. The U.S. is home to three times the amount of reserves as Saudi Arabia. The “2 percent” number is misleading at best. “Reserves” is a technical term that refers to oil that drilling has proven to be available. According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, our “recoverable” conventional oil resources are nearly six times that. And our unconventional oil resources are close to six times larger than our conventional oil resources.

Nevertheless, the administration and opponents of domestic energy development continued to use the misleading “2 percent” number. Companies believe in the long-term potential of U.S. oil development. That’s why they are willing to invest many billions of dollars in new projects here at home.

More on reserves, here.

Other items in the guide include setting the record straight on current domestic oil and natural gas production, imports, natural gas development, the genesis of hydraulic fracturing and the administration’s energy tax hike proposals. Worth a read.

Energy Myths and Facts


View the original article here

The President’s Actions, and Rising Prices

Is President Obama the “anti-energy” president, as former Gov. Pete Du Pont argues in an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal (sub. required)? Certainly, in the areas that matter most – oil and natural gas development – a case can be made from the infographic below that the president’s policies haven’t helped.

Administration Oil Strategy Contributes to Price Increases

By “matters most” we mean the sources that current supply more than 60 percent of the energy we use – and which will continue to supply nearly 60 percent of the energy we use for the next quarter century, according to the Energy Information Administration.

That’s not knocking other energy forms, because we need them all. It’s recognizing this energy reality: Our economy runs on oil and natural gas – and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

In that context the president and his team should acknowledge that energy reality – by protecting and enhancing the energy sources that play the leading role supporting our economy. Here, this president and his administration often appear to be doing the opposite.

As the graphic shows, the president basically is pursuing an off-oil policy: delaying or canceling development on federal areas onshore and offshore, proposing punitive tax increases on America’s energy producers, threatening new layers of unnecessary regulation and rejecting key components like the Keystone XL pipeline. The president claims credit for oil and gas production (that belongs to others), while pursuing policies that actually put a drag on future oil and gas development, potentially jeopardizing America’s overall security.

Meanwhile, as the lines at the base of the graphic show, prices for crude oil have risen steadily since 2009, boosting costs for gasoline and diesel.


View the original article here

Mar 7, drilling

i have over twelve years experience in the oil and gas secto up to the leve of head operatoni as solids control engineer ,mud conditioning, asistant driller etc . now i have my supervisor IWCF and want to go into full drilling as a supervisor

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.



View the original article here

To the President’s Ear on Energy

As the president hits the road to talk about energy, he should first listen to what the American people are saying, reflected in two new polls this week.

Start with a Harris Interactive survey that shows 76 percent of voters believe increasing taxes on oil and natural gas companies could cost them more at the fuel pump. For a president who continues to talk about hiking taxes on energy companies that should be a big red flag.

Americans who’re getting slammed by higher fuel costs appear to sense that increasing energy taxes would drive up energy producers’ costs, which – as the Congressional Research Service found last year – could decrease exploration, development and production while elevating prices.

Other details from the Harris poll of 1,009 respondents:

81 percent believe more U.S. oil and natural gas development could reduce gasoline prices.90 percent believe a pro-energy development strategy could lead to more U.S. jobs.84 percent believe increasing domestic oil and gas production could enhance our energy security.64 percent believe some in Washington are intentionally delaying domestic oil and natural gas development, potentially hurting the economy and leading to higher consumer energy costs.

Clearly, those are slam-dunk numbers on energy policies the president and his administration have been talking about a lot – while keeping 87 percent of America’s offshore areas off limits, while overseeing declines in Gulf of Mexico production and while presiding over a downward trajectory in leasing and permitting on federal lands.

Then there’s the Pew Research Center’s latest findings, that as fuel prices rise, so does Americans’ support for more oil and natural gas production:

“… support for allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters, which plummeted during the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, has recovered to pre-spill levels. Nearly two-thirds (65%) favor allowing increased offshore drilling, up from 57% a year ago and 44% in June 2010, during the Gulf spill.”

That last stat is worth underscoring. While Americans’ support for a variety of energy policies – from improved fuel efficiency to more federal support for mass transit systems – is pretty much where it has been, public support for more offshore oil and natural gas drilling has increased significantly. Pew finds that twice as many Americans (65 percent) support increased offshore drilling as those who oppose more drilling (31 percent).

Again, the Pew poll suggests growing numbers of Americans believe that increasing domestic supplies of oil and natural gas can put downward pressure on the price of crude oil, which accounts for 76 percent of the cost of what they pay at the pump. So, while the president continues to talk as though little can be done about fuel prices, U.S. consumers who’re being punished at the pump aren’t buying it.

A couple of other tidbits from Pew:

Of American voters who know something about hydraulic fracturing and energy from shale, 52 percent are in favor compared to 35 percent opposed. Among independents, support is actually a little stronger than the overall number, 54 percent to 35 percent.Awareness of fracking and producing natural gas from shale is mixed, but Pew found that 63 percent of those surveyed had heard something about the process.

One more note about Pew’s survey. The poll finding that Pew chose to highlight in its public announcement – Americans’ top energy priority – stems from a glaringly false choice foisted on the 1,503 sampled adults who were forced to choose one top priority between alternative sources (wind, solar, hydrogen technology) and expanded oil, natural gas and coal production. Those aren’t mutually exclusive options.

We commend the 5 percent of respondents who selected “both” even though the Pew folks didn’t offer it as a choice, as well as the 4 percent who didn’t know or refused to answer – perhaps, like us, frustrated that some continue to pit energy sources against each other when the truth is America needs all energy options to build a secure future.


View the original article here

Graphically Speaking: Investment Climate Matters

Normally, we don’t bother with blog posts from the Center for American Progress on oil issues because, to borrow from an old saying,...


View the original article here

Mar 7, Translator, teacher to Radio Operator.

by Maximiliano Lagden Cavalcanti
(Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)

Firstly, I would like to congratulate you for the effort of affording us fledglings of offshore with the valuable infomation of your site.

With that said what I would like to know from you is; what do you think my chances are in being able to enter at an entry level position as radio operator once I have pre-qualified for the position with the three basic courses here in Brazil; HUET, CBSP which translated means Basic Safety & Prevention Course, plus the Radio Operator basic course. In addition to that I have 18 year of Language Teaching experience to small and large groups in corporate enviroment, as well as inumerous jobs for technical and sworn affidavit translations, also suffice experience in simultaneous spoken translation (Portuguese to and from English).

With the advent of the discoveries of large blocks of exploration fields (UDW) here in MacaƩ-Campos basin, I see a great oportunity to continue with what I have done for the past 18 years, when onshore, and expand into a new field of business, offshore, in a position co-related to communication which is in essence what I develop.

In conclusion, I appreciate your experience to enrich us all with your knowledge and leave you my gratitude.

Maximiliano Lagden Cavalcanti

Language Teacher, Translator, Interpreter and hopefuly soon one more offshore Radio Operator.

maximiliano.cavalcanti@gmail.com

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, South America

YOU NEED TO CONTACT THE VARIOUS OIL COMPANY OR OPERATORS AND ALSO THE VARIOUS DRILLING COMPANIES DIRECTLY


View the original article here

Mar 7, Radio operator job wanted

by Joel Danielson
(Mesa Az)

My name is Joel Danielson, I just got released after 4 years honorable service from the Marine Corps. I have experience with HF VHF UHF and UHF SATCOM. I have been to both Iraq and Afghanistan, I can operate under intense circumstances and with few resources at my disposal. How would I become a civilian Radio Operator?

Click here to post comments.

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How?
Simply click here to return to Rig Radio Operators.



View the original article here

Working Through the Tax Hike Spin

With the U.S. Senate getting ready to debate proposals that would raise taxes on American energy companies, the White House blog spins:

"Instead of subsidizing the fossil fuels of the last century by giving away $4 billion of taxpayer money each year to oil companies that are more profitable than ever, we should be investing in a clean energy future—especially when gas prices are high and drivers, whose budgets are already stretched thin, are feeling the pain at the pump."

In reverse order, taking on the White House’s points:

Yesterday’s energy – We thought the administration had shelved this rhetoric, but it’s back – despite government data showing that oil and natural gas not only is today’s energy, it’s tomorrow’s as well. According to the Energy Information Administration more than 55 percent of our energy will be supplied by oil and gas in 2035.

Subsidies/taxpayer money giveaways – Here the blog is inaccurate, and it matters. The oil and natural gas industry receives zero targeted subsidies from government, period. It uses tax deductions generally available to U.S. business. A deduction is not a subsidy. See here, and here.

API Tax Policy Manager Stephen Comstock, who spoke with reporters on a conference call Monday:

“Some bad ideas never seem to go away, which may explain why the U.S. Senate is again scheduled to vote on a proposal to single out the U.S. oil and natural gas industry for billions of dollars in tax increases.  And some are even suggesting that repealing ordinary business tax provisions for our industry is part of the answer to high gasoline prices. Let’s be clear: This proposal is not about addressing gasoline prices.  Higher taxes will not result in lower fuel prices.  In fact, a recent Congressional Research Service analysis concludes that actions like this could increase fuel prices.”

Whether the president believes the CRS isn’t as important, politically, as this: The American people believe it – 76 percent telling a recent Harris Interactive survey that they think raising taxes on oil and natural gas companies could end up costing them more at the pump.

More from Comstock:

“Other supporters of this proposal will point at company profits and claim that their proposal will ensure our industry ‘pays its fair share.’  Singling out five companies for higher taxes is not about fairness.  When did being profitable become a dirty word?  The owners of those companies – the people who benefit from those profits – are the people who own shares in those companies, in their 401(k)s, IRAs, pension plans and other accounts.”

Energy tax facts cited by Comstock:

The oil and natural gas industry delivers $86 million a day to the U.S. treasury in taxes, rental payments, royalties and other production fees – more than $30 billion a year. More is delivered to state and local governments.The industry pays more in taxes than any other industry, and its effective tax rate is substantially higher than the average for the other S&P Industrials – 41 percent versus 26 percent.A study by Wood Mackenzie found that the right policies in place, allowing the industry to produce more oil and natural gas at home, could increase cumulative government revenue by $150 billion by 2025. Comstock:

“Had those policies been in place over the last few years, it would already be reflected in additional government revenues.  We would not have lost an estimated $5 billion from slower development in the Gulf of Mexico, for example.”

Raising taxes, Comstock said, would show an initial rise in government revenues, which would fall after about five years, and 20 years from now the country could face a cumulative $65 billion shortfall. There could be lost jobs and energy production in less than 10 years.

There’s a better idea: Let America’s oil and natural gas companies find and develop more American energy. Comstock:

“There’s a simple answer to getting more government revenue from the oil and natural gas industry – allow us to produce more of the energy our nation and our economy will need for decades to come right here at home.  Not only will this create jobs and generate government revenue, it will send a strong signal to energy markets that could put downward pressure on fuel prices.”


View the original article here

Feb 9, Dieselmechanic

by Faan van der walt
(South Africa)

I want to work on the oilrigs for many years now, but no one can help me,
I am a dieselmechanic with 26 years of experience on mclains drill riggs, heavy earthmoving equipment, bells, trucks, jackhammers and any other machinery.

Please, can you help me with that.

My email adress is 0765569280@vodamail.co.za


View the original article here

The Folly of Anti-Trade Thinking

In his State of the Union message last month, President Obama staked out the administration’s position on trade, citing new deals with a number of countries around the world and the quest for new trade opportunities:

“We’re also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements we signed into law, we’re on track to meet that goal ahead of schedule. And soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.  … I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products.”

Some in Congress apparently didn’t get the memo about new markets for American products. There’s an effort afoot to restrict exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas – including a bill that would compel the Interior Department to issue drilling leases for public lands only to those who would keep the gas in the United States and another that would block the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from approving LNG export terminals through 2025. While the legislative prospects for both are uncertain, they suggest a misunderstanding of trade and the global marketplace.

Energy Secretary Stephen Chu gets it, refusing to be drawn into the “keep in America” wave during a congressional hearing this week:

“Certainly, we don't want to see natural gas prices rise dramatically, [but] there's a flip side we have to consider that it does create American jobs, and if prices are kept moderate it does bring money to United States.”

Besides being poor economics, such restrictions send the wrong message to the entrepreneurs and risk-takers who drive much of the economic growth in this country – specifically that the value of their enterprise could be arbitrarily undermined. Energy, Technology, & Policy blogger Lex Hochner:

“We should also consider the individuals and companies that pioneered the technological revolution that unlocked all of this shale gas in the first place.  They have accomplished nothing short of a natural revolution.  Why?  Because they believed that a free market price awaited their product.  It is a dangerous signal to send hard-working and creative business leaders that the government may at any time step in to destroy the value of their work product.”

Just for argument’s sake, let’s suppose the same thinking was applied to other U.S. exports. For example, what if U.S. agricultural products were restricted to this country, what would that mean? Answer: Lots of unhappy farmers and a gut-punch to the U.S. balance of trade ledger, which in 2011 tallied more than $137 billion in agricultural exports.

Like other marketable commodities, natural gas shouldn’t be artificially and arbitrarily walled off from potential buyers. U.S. grain exports equal jobs and income for American farmers. Likewise, natural gas exports would support American energy jobs and boost the country’s trade balance – even as greater production (enabled by the potential for export) would provide more revenue to governments.


View the original article here

A Paucity of Scarcity

Steve Maley calls it The Big Energy Lie, the continued use of reserve estimates by those who want to end the use of hydrocarbons in the United States.  Maley explains:

"Reserves have been around 10 years of production ever since I can remember. That’s because energy companies measure their success by their ability to 'replace production' – that is, if they produce a million barrels, they need to replace it with a million barrels of reserves. It’s like a current inventory.  Or like a checking account. Imagine if you had $3,000 in your checking account. If you spend $1,000 per month, does that mean you will run out of money in 3 months? Only if you stop working. And only if you have no other assets."

To illustrate Maley’s example let’s look at EIA’s estimates for natural gas reserves and consumption from now till 2035.

You will notice steady consumption, and yet reserves actually grow.  Why?  Because current consumption is drawing from current production, while “reserves” as an industry term of art are drawing from a much larger supply.  From the EIA:

Notice two things, the addition of a zero to y-axis, and the steady growth since 2000, with an adjustment for this year.  In short it doesn’t matter what our “reserves” are, in the long run, because they don’t measure all of the resources available for exploration.  When you take those into account:

"EIA estimates that there are 2,214 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas that is technically recoverable in the United States.  Of the total, an estimated 273 Tcf are proved reserves, which includes 60 Tcf of shale gas.  At the rate of U.S. natural gas consumption in 2010 of about 24 Tcf per year, 2,214 Tcf of natural gas is enough to last about 92 years."

So 92 years worth of natural gas is technically recoverable using, and this is the important part, today’s technology.  That’s right, we are sitting on 92 years worth of natural gas even with no new discoveries and no new technologies.  So when you see folks say that we might only have a 10 year supply of natural gas or that we need to raise energy taxes to fund immediate adoption of alternative fuels they are … I almost said lying, but really, it is mostly just ignorance.  Though occasionally, it’s politics.  Though you see that most often with oil, not natural gas, as we saw, again, with President Obama this week:

"As a country that has 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, but uses 20 percent of the world's oil -- I'm going to repeat that -- we've got 2 percent of the world oil reserves; we use 20 percent."

Let’s look at those reserves for a bit, in red, with yearly U.S. production in blue:

Again, yearly production steady, reserves go up.  For more, let’s go to the Congressional Research Service with a handy pyramid form:

So, as of 2010, we had 155 billion barrels of oil that were technically recoverable using 2010 technology. Going back to the previous chart, this equals about 70 years of production in the United States.   Not to mention the fact that we don’t have a very good idea about the resources that  87% of our offshore areas contain, because they are off-limits.

So no, we don’t have to jack up energy taxes to pay for an immediate switch to alternative fuels. The Energy Information Administration projects that in 2035 the U.S. will continue to meet over 56% of its demand through oil and gas. While alternatives fuels are important, moving forward we will need a true all of the above strategy, and the industry is doing its part. In fact 1 of every 5 dollars spent on renewables in 2000-2010 came from the oil and gas industry.

As U.S. government numbers show, the U.S. is an energy rich nation.  The only scarcity we have when it comes to energy is in the honesty hydrocarbon opponents bring to the debate.


View the original article here

Administration’s Energy Proposals: Less Than Meets the Eye

With a nod to H.L. Mencken, who made art out of presidential punditry nearly a century ago, the current president’s election-year energy campaign is rife with “balder and dash.” Consider two recent administration pronouncements – to allow offshore seismic testing and to expedite permitting for drilling on federal lands – each of which amount to quite a bit less than meets the eye.

Let’s look at the second one first. In North Dakota to see an energy boom in progress, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar pledged a new effort to speed up federal onshore permitting:

“…Salazar touted new automated tracking systems for managing lease sales and monitoring applications to drill wells on public lands that could pare processing time down to 60 days from nearly 300 now.”

Certainly, reducing the time it takes to process a federal permit application from nearly a year to two months is a positive step. Just as certain, it helps the administration sidestep the question of why operators currently have to wait up to a year to get a permit. Or maybe it doesn’t.

A study of Bureau of Land Management records showed there has been a slowdown in new leases, permits and wells drilled on BLM lands as a result of federal land energy policy. Declines in those categories were nearly twice as great on federal lands, compared to non-federal lands in western states. So, while the administration might be credited with moving to fix a problem, it’s a problem the administration has fostered. And more needs to be done. API Upstream Director Erik Milito:

“Today’s announcement sounds promising, but we would suggest additional reforms are needed. We support any system that will ensure efficiency and a clear, consistent application process. Most important, the administration needs to streamline the multi-year timeframe for environmental reviews and open additional areas for responsible energy development.”

Then there’s this: The U.S. Chamber’s Sean Hackbarth notes a flip-flop in the administration’s new zeal for expediting onshore permits:

“Improving the permitting process is never a bad thing. … However, what the department is touting is not a new innovation. The program they dug out is the same one they’ve been trying to eliminate the last three years.”

Hackbarth then links to the administration’s past four budget requests, each of which asked for repeal of the program it now touts:

“The Interior Department is taking credit for a program they have consistently tried to shut down, similar to taking credit for increased oil production that resulted not from its own policies, but, rather, from those implemented by previous administrations.”

Balder. Now the dash.

Last week the administration said it would allow seismic testing for oil and natural gas along parts of the East Coast, suggesting it supports more offshore development. Yet, the White House has banned lease sales in the Atlantic for at least the next five years – meaning seismic research there has no ultimate purpose. Milito:

“This is political rhetoric to make it appear the administration is doing something on gas prices, but in reality it is little more than an empty gesture. The administration’s announcement does not put us on track to produce more of our own energy, and it does not make up for three years of failed energy policy. It continues the pattern of delaying U.S. oil and gas development and supplies until well into the future.”

Bottom line: Beware of election-year flourishes and fan dances. This administration has a nearly four-year record of actions amounting to an off-oil policy – one that’s terribly inconvenient as Americans grapple with higher fuel costs. Hence, the need to look busy on energy – summoning another Mencken aphorism: “flap and doodle.”


View the original article here

Feb 2, looking for a job as aroustabout in offshore rigg

by sreejith
(trissur,kerala,india)

i have all the certificates and a valid passport. i ready to work any where in the world.please help me

View the original article here

The President’s Fuzzy Energy Future

Yesterday President Obama gave a campaign speech centered around energy policy.  In it he said:

“There’s a problem with a strategy that only relies on drilling and that is, America uses more than 20 percent of the world’s oil.  If we drilled every square inch of this country -- so we went to your house and we went to the National Mall and we put up those rigs everywhere -- we’d still have only 2 percent of the world’s known oil reserves.  Let’s say we miss something -- maybe it’s 3 percent instead of two.  We’re using 20; we have two.  Now, you don’t need to be getting an excellent education at Prince George’s Community College to know that we’ve got a math problem here.  I help out Sasha occasionally with her math homework and I know that if you’ve got two and you’ve got 20, there’s a gap.  (Laughter.)  There’s a gap, right?”

No actually, the president needs to go back to school here, there isn’t a gap, because he is talking about “reserves” when the measurement that matters is “resources.” In simple terms, the president is pointing out the oil we have in our “checking account” while ignoring the larger amounts available in our “savings account” and overlooking our ability to deposit more oil in to those accounts in the future – more on that here.  Also, who exactly is calling for a strategy that “only relies on drilling?”  Not us and not any and not any of the presidential candidates.

"So if we don’t develop other sources of energy, if we don’t develop the technology to use less energy to make our economy more energy-efficient, then we will always be dependent on foreign countries for our energy needs."

No actually, we could have a 100 percent secure supply of liquid fuels by 2024 with the right policies in place, instead we have had three years worth of delays and obstructions when it comes to oil and natural gas development in the United States.

"And that means every time there’s instability in the Middle East, which is the main thing that’s driving oil prices up right now -- it’s the same thing that was driving oil prices up last year -- every time that happens, every time that there’s unrest, any time that there’s concern about a conflict, suddenly, oil futures shoot up, you’re going to feel it at the pump.  It will happen every single time."

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that: “…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.”  Right now the U.S. is down 530,000 barrels a day in the Gulf, has delayed 1 million barrels of oil a day from ANWR for decades, and continues to block Canadian oil from the market.  So no, we aren’t helpless, we just aren’t helping ourselves.

"So we can’t have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in the past.  We need an energy strategy for the future -- an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy."

Absolutely, and America’s oil and natural gas companies get this because they are first and foremost, energy companies.  In fact, 1 of every 5 dollars spent on renewables in 2000-2010 came from the oil and gas industry.  But as we work on new fuels it is important to keep in mind that the Energy Information Administration projects that in 2035 the United States will continue to meet over 56 percentof its demand through oil and gas – even with significant gains in efficiency and growth of alternatives.  Our current policies put our oil supply like this in the future.

When with expanded domestic production and without sacrificing any environmental protections we could look like this:

But instead of forward looking policies we get polemics:

“The question – there’s a question before Congress I want everybody to know about.  The question is whether or not we should keep giving $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry.  The oil industry has been subsidized by you, the taxpayer, for about a hundred years – 100 years.  One hundred years, a century.  So some of the same folks who are complaining about biofuels getting subsidies, or wind or solar energy getting subsidies, or electric cars and advanced batteries getting subsidies to help get them off the ground, these same folks – when you say, why are we still giving subsidies to the oil industry – ‘well, no, we need those.’”

Actually the oil industry receives no subsidies.  Here is chart* from EIA data:

And the industry does not get tax credits (which reduce taxes dollar for dollar) or grants from the government.  They get tax deductions for business investments that will generate tax revenues in the future.  Unlike the case of credits or grants, the government will still be paid the full amount of tax owed on our operations.  Which means the taxpayer is getting every dollar they are owed.  What the president is proposing to do is to front load the tax collection, so any increases in current collections come at the expense of future taxpayers.

"[Congress] can bet -- they can place their bets on the energy of the past, or they can place their bets on America’s future -- on American workers, American ingenuity, American technology, American science, American-made energy, American efficiency, American productivity.   We can bet on America and our own capacity to solve this problem.  That’s the choice we face.  That’s what’s at stake right now."

Oil and natural gas, according the governments’ own energy experts will be a large part of our energy future:

And our industry is all about American jobs, American ingenuity, American technology, American science, American-made energy, American efficiency and American productivity.  We do have a choice.  Have a look:

*You will notice on the chart a tiny sliver of four million dollars a year for natural gas. This credit refers to the “The Tax Credit and Deduction for Clean-Fuel, Alternative Fuel, and Electric Vehicles” which is a credit for individual consumers not the industry.


View the original article here