Rough draft, but has good info..

See Facts - Obama And Oil - Are his claims really true?

See The Decision To Drill For More Oil And Gas - And The Super High Cost Of Current, Ill-considered Decisions.


Obama (falsely) takes credit for highest production

    We were much higher in the '70's and '80's.
    The increase was due to new technology (frakking) and states


     Keystone pipeline
     Offshore drilling (when court ruled against moratorium went into slow mode)
     Federal land production down 40%


do both, a both/and, create green energy advancements and meet our practical needs now.  Through royalties finance clean energy research.

Goal:  increase US energy production in a rational, practical manner that is efficient.

This is what Romney will do.


Obama is attempting to diffuse disquiet over his anti-energy policies by embracing the opposition through inconsequential and empty promises.

"Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy," Obama said. "Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right – eight years. Not only that – last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years."  Obama, of course, failed to mention that his administration can’t actually take any credit for the increase. (Facts - Obama And Oil)

The vast majority of America’s new oil and gas production is happening on private lands in states like North Dakota, Alaska and Texas.

Citing publicly available federal data, the House Natural Resources Committee noted these figures:

•Oil and natural gas production on federal lands is down by more than 40 percent compared to 10 years ago.
•Under the Obama administration, 2010 had the lowest number of onshore leases issued since 1984.
•The Obama administration held only one offshore lease sale in 2011.

Despite the Obama administration’s restrictive policies for oil and gas production on federal lands, overall production still increased thanks to the pro-energy policies in states like North Dakota.

Last week (November, 2011) the Obama administration proposed a modest expansion of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico in its first concessions on offshore production since last year's Deepwater Horizon spill. The five-year plan would, however, keep Atlantic and Pacific sites off-limits in order to avoid a controversial decision before the 2012 election.

As we continue our endless debate on whether we should have more Outer Continental Shelf development and where, all our neighbors have chosen to proceed. Cuba, Mexico, the Bahamas, Canada and Russia are all moving ahead on offshore development adjacent to our borders.

According to the Department of the Interior, our offshore areas hold more than 86 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Arctic Ocean alone is projected to hold 20% of the world's undiscovered oil and gas. Yes, opening up regions in the Arctic and the Gulf of Mexico to leases is a positive step, but it does not nearly go far enough.

If we refuse to produce more of our energy resources, we will lose significant opportunities to rebuild our economy and restore our international competitiveness. But that's not the only looming consequence. Less obvious, but just as real, are the environmental impact that may still result even if we refuse to boost offshore production.

Like it or not, development is now under way in waters all around us. Mexico is advancing on a deepwater well only 22 miles from U.S. waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Before year's end, Cuba is scheduled to drill 60 miles from Key West, and the Bahamas are proceeding with leases not much farther away. Canada is actively drilling projects not far from Maine's coastline and proceeding towards development in the Beaufort Sea, just east of Alaskan waters. Along Alaska's western boundary, Russia is aggressively moving into the Arctic Ocean, with exploration at the very edge of the boundary of Alaskan waters.

In a few years, the U.S. could wind up in a regrettable position—exposed to all of the risks of offshore development but with no control and none of the rewards. Imagine that foreign development is not done to our standards and a spill occurs. Neither geology nor ocean currents will respect our national boundaries. In some areas, like the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, the only way we will have oil-spill response capabilities in place or within a reasonable distance is if we are pursuing our own offshore development.  (Lisa Murkowski, good article:  Obama's Oil Abdication, Cuba, Mexico, the Bahamas, Canada and Russia are all moving ahead on projects adjacent to our borders.)

Each of those nations has weighed the economic benefits of offshore production against the potential environmental risks. All five have decided it is in their best interest to proceed
“In the last week (may, 2011), House Republicans passed three bipartisan bills that will create 1.2 million jobs, triple American offshore oil production and generate $840 million in revenue – support H.R. 1777,

Streamline refinery permitting process...

We need not a reactive stance, but a proactive stance....
policies that encourage rapid lease development while emphasizing the highest safety standards
not much of an increase, happens naturally, but he claims credit for it - what did he actually do?


Due to fracking and improved methods of accessing oil, production will naturally increase, about 25% by 2016.  The goal is to reduce our oil dependence from 50% of our current usage by 10% per year (which means we increase our production by 20% per year, until our production climbs to 100% of consumption.

Measures per year and hold accountable. 


A mere thirty years ago, 28% of the oil consumed in the United States was imported. Today nearly 60% of the oil utilized and consumed in the United States is imported from other countries (temporarily declined because of the recession).


18.8 billion barrels a day, 2011 (not our record high)That means the U.S. supplies 48.6% of its consumption while it imports 51.4% of consumption


While there has been a small uptick in production in the past few years, U.S. crude oil production reached its peak in 1970 at nearly 10 million barrels a day. We now produce less than 6 million barrels of crude a day—less than two-thirds as much as at the peak.  See graph: US Field Production Of Crude Oil. or Total Oil Production (graph) . Refinery capacity not even back to 1980's level. (Graph):
mainly due to “unconventional extraction techniques,
The revival of U.S. production has been made possible by a rush of small and mid-sized companies into onshore regions such as the Bakken shale in North Dakota, the Permian Basin in west Texas and the Eagle Ford shale in south Texas. Much of the increased U.S. production has also come from new technological abilities to tap oil trapped in shale formations, most notably in North Dakota.


Early 2011:  "So any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite, but it doesn't match up with reality." So declared President Obama Friday with the practiced firmness of voice and direct look into the teleprompter that signals to veterans of the Obama watch that the chief executive has strayed far from the truth.

In May of 2010, Obama's secretary of the interior, Ken Salazar, issued a six-month moratorium order for drilling on the outer continental shelf. When the courts struck down that illegal order, Team Obama switched to a slow-roll strategy, demanding new permits for exploration, and accomplished the same thing as a moratorium.


The federal government estimates Arctic Ocean outer continental shelf reserves at 26.6 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 130 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Diminished production on Alaska's North Slope has lowered flow in the trans-Alaska pipeline to less than a third of its capacity.

Lead time in developing an area such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska will require a lead time of ten years. 

For most green energy to be cost justified, there will be a lead time of 5 to ten years and then it could be limited.  Nuclear power has a ten year lead time..measures to mitigate global warming, such as a carbon tax or carbon emissions trading, may favor the economics of nuclear power.thus increased the power cost to 8.4¢/kW·h   cut to 1/2 the time....nuclear power plants
produced 20.9% of the electric power generated during 2003 in the U.S.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/02/05/2014285/shell-hopes-to-drill-this-summer.html#storylink=cpy

Facts - Obama And Oil - Are his claims really true?