Archive for the ‘Energy Science and Policy’ Category

Is Yoko Ono smarter than a 4th grader?

January 14, 2013

First up: Yoko Ono and friends…

‘Fracking kills’: Yoko Ono joins star-studded cast fighting against hydraulic natural gas drilling in upstate New York

John Lennon’s son Sean Lennon, actress Debra Winger, songstress Natalie Merchant and “The Avengers” actor Mark Ruffalo have also spoken out in opposition to the extraction process criticized for potentially contaminating water supplies and damaging the environment.

Published: Friday, January 11, 2013

ALBANY — Hydrofracking is not the most glamorous of issues but the gritty subject is bringing a lot of glitz to the state Capitol.

Yoko Ono, the widow of ex-Beatle John Lennon, and son Sean Lennon became the latest celebrities to visit Albany Friday to press for a ban on the controversial natural gas drilling.

“Fracking kills,” Ono said at a press conference with other drilling opponents. “And it doesn’t just kill us, it kills the land, nature and eventually the whole world.”


NY Daily News

Now it’s the 4th graders’ turn…

Fourth-graders have concluded fracking’s bad

By Steve Israel
Published: 2:00 AM – 01/13/13
If it were up to nearly four dozen future voters at a Middletown elementary school, fracking would be banned in New York — and the rest of the world.

Just listen to what those fourth-graders at Maple Hill Elementary School have to say about the controversial natural gas extraction method of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking:

“It could cause methane explosions, poison water and kill people. It killed cattle,” says 9-year-old Philip Gazer.

“Sometimes, because of fracking, earthquakes could happen,” says 9-year-old Sagnik Chakraborty, citing minor earthquakes in Ohio apparently caused by the underground injection of fracking waste.

Bottom line for the fourth-graders in the classes of Mary Hayes and Patricia McGorry?

“We don’t want to be poisoned by fracking,” says 11-year-old Nancy Jaime.




There you have it.  Yoko Ono is either not smarter than a 4th grader or she has a strong desire to spend winters freezing in the dark.    The wellhead price for natural gas in the US is currently in the range of $3.00 to $3.50/mcf.

The shale boom is the single biggest reason why natural gas prices are so low in the USA compared to most of the rest of the world…

Without fracking, there would be no shale boom and US natural gas prices could be $8/mcf or higher.


Election Day 2012: An ill wind blew and the fat man sang!

November 8, 2012

This post of Anthony’s inspired to compose this graphical illustration of how “an ill wind blew and the fat man sang”…

Figure 1. Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy Storm Track Map (NOAA/NWS), President Obama & Gov. Christie (Washington Post), Fox News Exit Poll (WUWT), RCP Poll Average (Real Clear Politics) and Sandy’s landfall (CIMSS/Univ. Wisconsin-Madison/NASA/NOAA via WUWT).

Acting like the president for four days out of the last four years turned the tide… And a good Envirostatist never lets a “serious crisis to go to waste”…

America’s Choice 2012

Climate change is back on the table
By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney November 7, 2012

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Climate change is once again a hot topic in the Untied States.

Hurricane Sandy brought the issue back into the spotlight just days before the presidential election. Pundits were quick to note the irony of a massive superstorm striking after three presidential debates that didn’t mention climate change once.

After the storm, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg evoked the issue again, pointing to climate change specifically in an unexpected, last-minute endorsement of President Obama.

And if there was any lingering doubt about the issue being back in the limelight, the president dispelled it Tuesday night by mentioning global warming in his acceptance speech alongside other priorities like budget and tax reform.

“We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet,” he said.


CNN Money

Never minding the fact that extra-tropical cyclone Sandy was anything but unprecedented; nor was it the new normal, the storm and President Obama’s appearance of competence were apparently enough to sway about 3% of the electorate. So, no doubt, Mr. Obama and his merry band of Envirostatists will be repeating this page from their playbook…


Election Day 2012: An ill wind blew and the fat man sang!

“North American energy independence by 2020”

August 29, 2012

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently released an outline of his plan to achieve “North American energy independence” by 2020.    While the white paper (1) is short on specific details, it does contain quite a few good ideas and some supporting documentation.   For anyone interested in a business plan approach to energy policy, it’s well worth reading.  Rather than focus on the details of the plan, I thought it would be an interesting exercise to see if “North American energy independence by 2020” was even technically possible.  If it’s not technically possible, then it’s not really relevant whether or not it would be economically advisable or politically achievable.   Since North America is already pretty well has the capacity to be energy independent in terms of coal, natural gas, uranium and electricity generation, I’m only going to look at oil and natural gas liquids.

So, without any further prologue, I’m going to jump right into some numbers. 

Can we “get there from here”?

According to the American Petroleum Institute (2) the current estimate of undiscovered technically recoverable Federal resources (UTRR-Fed) of crude oil currently stands at 116.3 billion barrels.  

Figure 1. U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Federal Resources (American Petroleum Institute).

The UTRR-Fed are concentrated in areas close to existing exploration and exploitation infrastructure.  The Gulf of Mexico, Alaska and the Lower 48 States comprise 88% of the UTRR-Fed.

Region Offshore/Onshore Billions of Barrels of Crude Oil % Cum. %
Gulf of Mexico Offshore 44.9 39% 39%
Alaska Offshore 26.6 23% 61%
Alaska Onshore 18.8 16% 78%
Lower 48 Onshore 11.7 10% 88%
Pacific Offshore 10.5 9% 97%
Atlantic Offshore 3.8 3% 100%
Total   116.3 100%  

There is no reason that these potential resources could not be exploited within the next few decades if the U.S. government adopted regulatory policies geared toward exploitation. 

If industry converted the UTRR-Fed into proved developed producing reserves of crude oil over the next 25 years, this is what might happen to U.S. domestic crude oil production:

Figure 2. Potential exploitation scenario for the UTRR-Fed.

I think that it is technically possible that US crude oil and natural gas liquid production could reach 14.4 million BOPD by 2028 and peak at 15.7 million BOPD by 2032. If U.S. demand remained in the 18-20 million BOPD range, the United States could come very close to being self-sufficient in crude oil. I also took the liberty of including 73 billion barrels of Green River Oil Shale production from 2022-2100 (more on this later).

Canada expects to double its oil production by 2030 (3).  Assuming that Canada’s domestic consumption remains stable and the U.S. remains Canada’s primary export market, Canadian imports could also be expected to double by 2030.  While Mexican oil production is currently in decline and Pemex is one of the most poorly managed national oil companies (NOC) in the world, Mexico has huge potential in the area of undiscovered resources (4).  Mexico does have the potential to stabilize its current production levels.  If Canada doubles its production by 2030 and continues to increase its production through the end of this century and Mexico stabilizes at roughly its current levels, this is what U.S. domestic production plus Canadian and Mexican imports might look like:

Figure 3. U.S. UTRR-Fed plus Canadian and Mexican imports.

Based on these numbers, North American energy independence could be achieved by 2027.

116 billion barrels of ”undiscovered technically recoverable oil” is equal to about 16 years worth of current US consumption. However, past history shows us that gov’t agencies always grossly underestimate what the oil industry will find and produce. Alaska’s North Slope has already produced 16 billion barrels of petroleum liquids. Currently developed areas will ultimately produce a total of about 30 billion barrels. The government’s original forecast for the North Slope’s total production was 10 billion barrels. The current USGS estimate for undiscovered oil in the Bakken play of Montana & North Dakota is 25 times larger than the same agency’s 1995 estimate. In 1987, the MMS undiscovered resource estimate for the Gulf of Mexico was 9 billion barrels. Today it is 45 billion barrels (2).

The MMS increased the estimate of undiscovered oil in the Gulf of Mexico from 9 billion barrels in 1987 to the current 45 billion barrels because we discovered a helluva a lot more than 9 billion barrels in the Gulf over the last 20 years. Almost all of the large US fields discovered since 1988 were discovered in the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico. In 1988, it was unclear whether or not the deepwater plays would prove to be economic.The largest field in the Gulf of Mexico, Shell’s Mars Field, was discovered in 1989. Prior to this discovery, no one thought that economically viable Miocene-aged or older reservoirs existed in deepwater. Mars has produced 1 billion barrels of oil and 1.25 TCF of natural gas since coming on line in 1996. It is currently producing over 100,000 barrels of oil per day. Dozens of Mars-class fields have been discovered over the last 20 years… Most of those have only barely come on line over the last 5 years.

The most significant play in the Gulf of Mexico, the Lower Tertiary, wasn’t even a figment of anyone’s imagination in 1988. These are massive discoveries – BP’s recently discovered Tiber Field on Keathly Canyon Block 102 is estimated to contain 3-6 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Several recently discovered fields are expected to come on line at more than 100,000 bbl/day. This play is still in its infancy.

Based on the gov’t’s track record, the estimated 116 billion barrels of undiscovered oil under Federal lands is more likely to be 680 billion barrels. That’s close to 100 years worth of current US consumption – And that’s just the undiscovered oil under Federal mineral leases.

When you factor in shale oil (kerogen) plays, the numbers become staggering.   The Green River formation oil shale has more than 1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil just in the Piceance Basin of Colorado.

  • There are at least 1.8 trillion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil in just the Green River formation (DOE).
  • Oil shale deposits like the Green River formation (technically a marl) are currently economic at sustained oil prices of $54/bbl, possibly as low as $35/bbl (DOE).

In my hypothetical production forecast, I projected Green River oil shale production to reach 15 million BOPD by 2096.  Am I being overly optimistic in projecting more than 15 million barrels per day (BOPD) of production from oil shales by 2100?  Shell estimates that they could be producing 500,000 barrels per day from the Picenance Basin with a very small footprint using an in situ recovery process (5):

Technical Viability and Commercial Readiness (pp 18-24)

Shell has tested its in-situ process at a very small scale on Shell’s private holdings in the Piceance Basin. The energy yield of the extracted liquid and gas is equal to that predicted by the standardized assay test.13 The heating energy required for this process equals about one-sixth the energy value of the extracted product. These tests have indicated that the process may be technically and economically viable.

This approach requires no subsurface mining and thus may be capable of achieving high resource recovery in the deepest and thickest portions of the U.S. oil shale resource. Most important, the Shell in-situ process can be implemented without the massive disturbance to land that would be caused by the only other method capable of high energy/resource recovery—namely, deep surface mining combined with surface retorting. The footprint of this approach is exceptionally small. When applied to the thickest oil shale deposits of the Piceance Basin, drilling in about 150 acres per year could support sustained production of a half-million barrels of oil per day and 500 billion cubic feet per year of natural gas.


Once oil shale development reaches the production growth stage, how fast and how large the industry grows will depend on the economic competitiveness of shale derived oil with other liquid fuels and on how the issues raised in Chapter Five are ultimately resolved. If long lead-time activities are started in the prior stage, the first follow-on commercial operations could begin production within four years. Counting from the start of the production growth stage and assuming that 200,000 barrels per day of increased production capacity can be added each year, total production would reach 1 million barrels per day in seven years, 2 million barrels per day in 12 years, and 3 million barrels in 17 years.

Assuming a 12-yr lead time to reach the production growth stage, it will take ~30 years to reach 3 million barrels per day. If production continued to grow at a rate of 1 million BOPD every 5 years… Oil shale production from just the Piceance Basin could reach 15 million BOPD by the end of this century.

The hydrocarbon characteristics of the the oil shales of the Green River formation in the Piceance Basin are superior to those of the Athabasca oil sands. The hydrocarbon areal density is about 13 times that of the Athabasca deposits. The Green River hydrocarbons are not technically “oil;” it’s a form of kerogen. But, for or refining purposes, it’s oil. It will be booked as oil, just like the Athabasca tar sand oil is. It’s a high-grade refinery feedstock…

“Kerogen can be converted to superior quality jet fuel, #2 diesel, and other high value by-products.”

Canada is currently producing ~ 1 million barrels of oil per day from Athabasca oil sand deposits. They expect to increase that to 2 million barrels per day over the next decade. The Green River oil shale deposits in the Piceance basin could easily outperform Athabasca within a decade and with a much smaller environmental footprint.

Athabasca oil sands are currently economically competitive with the OPEC basket. Green River formation oil shales are superior, by a wide margin, to Athabasca oil sands. The Green River oil shales would yield 100,000 bbl of 38° API sweet refinery feed per 160,000 tons of ore & overburden. Athabasca oil sands yield 100,000 bbl of 34° sweet refinery feed per 430,000 tons of ore & overburden. The unconventional oil is actually very light and very sweet; the OPEC Basket is actually heavier (32.7° API).

Athabasca is economically competitive now. Green River could be economically competitive now.  The only obstacles to US energy security are environmental terrorists activists and the U.S. government.

“Peak Oil,” if it exists, won’t be reached for hundreds of years if the U.S. government would just get out of the way.  About 80% of the most prospective Green River deposits are under Federal leases.  The Obama administration effectively blocked exploitation of the Green River oil shale earlier this year.

Does Policy Matter?

Bad policy certainly matters.  “One bipartisan policy tradition is to deny Americans the use of our own resources” (6):

Figure 4. Bad Policy Matters.

The Obama administration’s energy policy has been disastrous as it relates to oil production.  While it is true that U.S. domestic oil production has been rising over the last few years, all of the growth has come from onshore plays in Texas and North Dakota:

Figure 5. Comparison of daily oil production rates: Federal Gulf of Mexico, Texas and North Dakota (EIA).

Some of the Texas (less than 1%) and North Dakota (~11%) production is from Federal leases.  I downloaded the onshore Federal lease production data for Texas and North Dakota from Office of Natural Resource Revenue (ONRR) and subtracted the minuscule Federal lease production from the State and private lease production in those two States. I added that to theFederal Gulf of Mexico production (the GOM is the Big Kahuna of Federal lease oil production):

Figure 6. State and private lease production in Texas and North Dakota vs. Federal lease production in the Gulf of Mexico, North Dakota and Texas.

All of the net growth in US domestic oil production since 2009 has come from State and private leases in Texas and North Dakota.

Since President Obama took office, Federal lease oil production in the GOM, TX and ND has declined by 79 million barrels per year; while State and private lease production in TX & ND has grown by 205 million barrels per year.  The decline in Gulf of Mexico has occurred during a period of high oil prices and is directly attributable to the unlawful drilling moratorium and “permitorium” imposed in the wake of the Macondo blowout and oil spill.  Drilling permits that once took 30 days to be approved now take more than 300 days.  Even relatively simple things like the approval of development plan (DOCD) revisions are being drawn out to nearly 300 days.  The average delays for independent oil companies are currently 1.4 years on the shelf and almost 2 years in deepwater (7):

Figure 7. Average Gulf of Mexico permit delays (Quest Offsore Resources).

Between the “permitorium” and high product prices, many of the best, most capable drilling rigs have been moved overseas.  Once we manage to get permits approved, the delays in obtaining a rig can be almost as long as the permit delays were.  In this “dynamic regulatory environment,” wells can’t be drilled quickly enough to compensate for decline rates, much less to increase production.


(1) Romney for President, Inc. 2012. “The Romney Plan for a Stronger Middle Class: Energy Independence.”

(2) American Petroleum Institute. 2012. “Energizing America: Facts for Addressing Energy Policy.”

(3) CBC News. 2012. Canadian oil production to double by 2030, industry predicts.

(4) Talwani, Manik. 2011. “Oil and Gas in Mexico: Geology, Production Rates and Reserves.” James Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

(5) Bartis, James T. 2005. “Oil shale development in the United States : prospects and policy issues.” RAND Corporation.

(6)  Ford, Harold.  2011.  “Washington vs. Energy Security.”  The Wall Street Journal.

(7) Quest Offshore.  2o11. “The State of the Offshore U.S. Oil and Gas Industry.”

EIA. US Crude Oil & Petroleum Liquids Consumption

EIA. US Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production

EIA. US Crude Oil and Natural Gas Condensate Production

The “Toxic Twenty”: Keeping America’s Lights On

August 10, 2012

The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is out with their latest “Toxic Twenty” list…

The NRDC’s report is standard green claptrap.   Kentucky led the Toxic Twenty, “emitting nearly 40.6 million pounds of harmful chemicals” in 2010.  

That’s like 20,000 tons in just one year!  I guess we better shutter Kentucky’s 72 GWh of electricity generation.

The first thing that crossed my mind was the fact that the “Toxic Twenty” looked a lot like a list of the nation’s top electricity generating States…

In typical “green fashion” the NRDC casually dismisses this fact, noting that “in 2010, these same states accounted for just 62% of electricity generation.” It boggles the mind. 40% of the States generated more than 60% of the electricity.

Here’s a comparison of April 2010 electricity generation for the “Green Thirty” vs. the “Toxic Twenty”…

If you back out hydroelectric generation, the ratio grows to 68% to 32%.  Since the NRDC are probably not fond of dams, I doubt they’d really count that as green electricity.

Here in Texas, we have a saying for groups like the NRDC: “Y’all can freeze in the dark for all we care.”

More “Fracking” Nonsense About Earthquakes

August 8, 2012

Figure 1) Junk science journalism at its best. Wastewater injection wells hydraulic fracturing (AKA fracking) are not the same thing.

Are the science journalists ignorant of science? Or are they intentionally misleading the public?

Earthquakes triggered by fluids injected deep underground, such as during the controversial practice of fracking, may be more common than previously thought, a new study suggests.


“Utilities ponder battery storage as solar soars”… Price tag > $400/kWh

July 31, 2012

Utilities ponder battery storage as solar soars
George Leopold
7/9/2012 10:48 PM EDT

SAN FRANCISCO – Growing electricity generation from by solar and wind energy is flowing into California’s electrical grid, forcing utilities here to begin integrating energy storage technologies into their systems as they seek to offset the peak midday energy generating capacity of these “intermittent renewables” with peak late afternoon energy usage.


While next-generation battery technologies like lithium ion remain too expensive for utilities, Mark Rawson, senior project manager for Sacramento’s Municipal Utility District, said technologies like zinc bromine are approaching the $400/kWh price point utilities need to begin widespread deployment of the storage technology.


EE Times

$400/kWh???  At 12¢/kWh, it would take 3333.33 hours to pay for a 1 kWh zinc/bromine battery.

Will a 1kWh zinc/bromine battery last long enough to pay for itself at 12¢/kWh?

You are here:  Home    Zinc Bromine Battery (ZBB) Technology Description

ZBB Demo

Demo Participants

Micro Grid Demo

Project Participants
Contact Us

Related Links:


Zinc Bromine Battery (ZBB)

Technology Description

The zinc/bromine battery is very different in concept and design from more traditional batteries such as the lead/acid battery. The battery is based on the reaction between two commonly available chemicals, zinc and bromine.

The zinc/bromine battery can be repeatedly fully discharged without any damage to the battery and has a life of at least one thousand five hundred charge/discharge cycles. This battery is ideally suited in applications that require deep cycle and long cycle life energy storage. The zinc/bromine battery is predominately made with low cost, recyclable plastics and manufactured with techniques suitable for mass production and at low production costs.

The battery consists of a zinc negative electrode and a bromine positive electrode separated by a microporous separator. An aqueous solution of zinc/bromide is circulated through the two compartments of the cell from two separate reservoirs. The electrolyte stream in contact with the positive electrode contains bromine which is maintained at the desired concentration by equilibrating with a bromine storage medium. The bromine storage medium is immiscible with an aqueous solution containing zinc bromide. All battery components are made from a bromine inert plastic.

Unlike the lead acid and most other batteries, the zinc/bromine battery uses electrodes that cannot and do not take part in the reactions but merely serve as substrates for the reactions. There is therefore no loss of performance, as in most rechargeable batteries, from repeated cycling causing electrode material deterioration. When the zinc/bromine battery is completely discharged all the metal zinc plated on the negative electrodes is dissolved in the electrolyte and again produced the next time the battery is charged. In the fully discharged state the zinc/bromine battery can be left indefinitely.

The zinc/bromine battery offers 2 to 3 times the energy density (75 to 85 watt-hours per kilogram) with associated size and weight savings over present lead/acid batteries. The power characteristics of the battery can be modified, for selected applications. Therefore, the zinc/bromine battery has operational capabilities which make it extremely useful as a multi-purpose energy storage option.

Back to Top

“The zinc/bromine battery can be repeatedly fully discharged without any damage to the battery and has a life of at least one thousand five hundred charge/discharge cycles.”

With a 1,500 charge/discharge cycles, the break-even electricity rate for a $400/kWh zinc/bromine battery is 27¢/kWh.  I’m currently paying about 9¢/kWh (retail).

27¢/kWh sounds a lot like…

“Ten Reasons Why Fracking is (not) Doomed”

July 30, 2012

I ran across a really funny story on Real Clear Energy last Friday…

Once you get past all of the nonsense about fracking polluting groundwater and global warming hysteria, the article really gets “interesting.”


How Green Was My Bankruptcy? “Roadmap for Solar Energy Development on Public Lands” Edition

July 26, 2012

The agency has already approved 17 large-scale solar energy projects on public lands that are expected to produce nearly 6,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 1.8 million homes. The department estimated the resource potential of the newly identified development zones at 23,700 megawatts, enough to power seven million homes, by 2030.

Wow! 23,700 megawatts! That’s a lot of megawatts! Right?


How Green Was My Bankruptcy?

May 4, 2012

My apologies to the memories of the late Richard Llewellyn and late John Ford; but I just had to borrow their title for this post. This paragraph from a 2010 Telegraph article really says it all…

Its 500,000 photovoltaic panels will generate 30 megawatts of electricity, enough, in the popular measurement, to power 9,000 homes. It is costing about $250 million to build, significantly less than a gas, coal or nuclear power station, which can easily exceed $1 billion. And it represents a sea-change in America’s energy business.

America has been notoriously devoted to hydrocarbon fuels. Big Oil, Big Coal and big Texan hats in the White House were seen by the rest of the world to be keeping it so, whatever the global interest. Oil barons funnelled money to scientists ready to pour doubt on the science of climate change, and conservative Republicans led the charge to pour scorn on those such as the former Democrat vice-president Al Gore who were urging Americans to rethink where their energy was coming from.


President Obama’s Dishonest Clean Energy Campaign Ad

January 20, 2012

19 January 2012

Obama clean energy ad airing in Va.

A new ad from President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign that touts his energy and ethics record began airing in Virginia this week even as Republican blasted him over a decision to reject a permit for a proposed oil pipeline from Canada.

The 30-second spot (see below) makes a case that Obama’s policies have promoted clean energy jobs and reduced the nation’s dependence on foreign oil while enduring unfounded attacks funded by wealthy energy industry officials.



This campaign ad is nothing but a pack of lies.

Lie #1

Lie #1: “Secretive oil billionaires attacking President Obama”… The Koch brothers have been anything but secretive in their attacks on President Obama.

Lie #2

Lie #2: The ad implies that President Obama has created 2.7 million “clean energy industry” jobs.

The 2.7 million figure is purportedly cited from a Brookings report. The report said that there currently are 2.7 million jobs in America that “produce goods and services with an environmental benefit.”

The clean economy, which employs some 2.7 million workers, encompasses a signifi cant number of jobs in establishments spread across a diverse group of industries. (Page 4)

The report says that the “clean economy establishments added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010.” So… Obama didn’t even “create” half a million “clean energy jobs.” He didn’t even create half a million clean economy jobs.    The Brookings report refers to “clean economy” not “clean energy” jobs. The vast majority of the “clean economy” jobs are not in energy… And almost all of those jobs were created before Obama took office.

More than 82% of the “clean economy” jobs listed in the report have nothing to do with energy production…

Waste Management & Treatment … 386,116 … 14%
Public Mass Transit … 350,547 … 13%
Conservation … 314,983 … 12%
Energy Saving Building Materials … 161,896 … 6%
Regulation & Compliance … 141,890 … 5%
Professional Environmental Services … 141,046 … 5%
Organic Food & Farming … 129,956 … 5%
Recycling & Reuse … 129,252 … 5%
Green Consumer Products … 77,264 … 3%
Green Building Materials … 76,577 … 3%
HVAC … 73,600 … 3%
Sustainable Forestry Products … 61,054 … 2%
Recycled Content Products … 59,712 … 2%
Green Architecture … 56,190 … 2%
Air & Water Purification … 24,930 … 1%
Green Chemical Products … 22,622 … 1%
Total … 2,207,635 … 82%


Lie #3

Lie #3: The ad implies that President Obama somehow played a role in the increase in US domestic oil production over the last few years… That is beyond ridiculous!  The plays and prospects from which the production growth was derived were worked up, leased, drilled and plumbed-up for production over the last decade or more. The effects of Obama’s disastrous anti-drilling policies won’t show up in production data for quite some time.

Obama’s anti-drilling policies began in 2009 and were ramped up in 2010. This is either the most amazingly arrogant lie to ever come out of this jackass’ mouth or an example of incredible ignorance of the oil & gas industry and energy in general.

The increase in US oil production has come from two main sources:

1) Shale plays like the Bakken.

The Bakken shale play has mostly been developed on private property. Very little of the shale plays have been developed on Federal lands – And the Obama administration has actively sought to further restrict development on Federal lands. Apart from the EPA, regulation and obstruction of these sorts of plays are mostly in the hands of State gov’ts.

2) Deepwater Gulf of Mexico discoveries.

The deepwater discoveries that have been brought on line over the last three years were discovered long before Obama took office… Many were discovered while Clinton was still in office. Construction and installation of the production facilities began long before Obama took office. On top of that, much of the increase in production was the result of the ongoing recovery from hurricanes Rita (2005), Katrina (2005) and Ike (2008).

Over the last two years, the Obama administration has almost paralyzed operations in the Gulf of Mexico with an unlawful permitorium and has aggressively tried to hamper the shale plays with fraudulent EPA attacks on fracking and unlawful efforts to make BLM lands unavailable

This is all anyone ever needs to know about President Obama’s energy policy…


The Institute for Energy Research has a good post on this subject… LINK