« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Ministry of Truth Begins the ‘Rehabilitation’ of Obama’s Energy Record

We are in a war with high gas prices. We have always been in a war with high gas prices.

What better place to start the correction of history than in the pages of The New York Times:

U.S. Inches Toward Goal of Energy Independence


Taken together, the increasing production and declining consumption have unexpectedly brought the United States markedly closer to a goal that has tantalized presidents since Richard Nixon: independence from foreign energy sources, a milestone that could reconfigure American foreign policy, the economy and more. In 2011, the country imported just 45 percent of the liquid fuels it used, down from a record high of 60 percent in 2005. …

How the country made this turnabout is a story of industry-friendly policies started by President Bush and largely continued by President Obama — many over the objections of environmental advocates — as well as technological advances that have allowed the extraction of oil and gas once considered too difficult and too expensive to reach. But mainly it is a story of the complex economics of energy, which sometimes seems to operate by its own rules of supply and demand.

[Emphasis added. Link may require subscription.]

Winston Smith and the boys over at the Ministry of Truth must really be burning the midnight oil utilizing stored solar energy.

When they start disappearing history down the memory hole, stories like my diary from last week will be a priority: Flashback to 2009: Administration Policies Sought to Discourage ‘Overproduction’ of Oil.

In the interest of bureaucratic efficiency, I’ve assembled a list of other diary entries, dating back to the Campaign of 2008, that document a history of Obama’s hostility to domestic oil and gas production. These, of course, will need to be ‘sanitized’ in order to conform with The New Truth.

9/27/2008: Energy: The “Yes, We Can!” Man Says “No, We Can’t!” . Witness the birth of Obama’s Big Energy Lie™:

During last night’s [Presidential] debate, Candidate Barack Obama perpetuated one of the most pernicious memes of the current energy debate, one that lets the candidate of “Yes, We Can!” wrongly declare “No, We Can’t!” when it comes to energy policy.

The meme: The U.S. consumes 25% of the world’s petroleum, but contains only 3% of the world’s reserves. Therefore, there is no point in trying to drill our way out of our current energy dilemma. Or so the defeatist thinking goes. …

“Oil Reserves” are to “Oil Resources” as “A Bushel of Apples” is to “An Orchard”

12/11/2008: Carol Browner for Energy Czar? Carol Browner?!

1/12/2009: Shades of 1984: Socialist International Expunges Carol Browner’s Links to Group: Officially, the job was the head of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy. Efforts to institute a Cap-and-Trade system came to naught. Ms. Browner left the Administration in 2011 after assuming a prominent role in the Deepwater Horizon response.

1/27/2009: Obama Remarks Re: Energy and the Environment

Recap:

ENERGY DO’s: CAFE standards, high tire pressure, cute light bulbs, insulation (how long to pay that back?), investing in new green jobs (whatever those are), emphasis on the proven science of Climate Change

ENERGY DON’Ts: Domestic oil, gas and coal, nuclear energy, ANWR, OCS, acting like a grownup

$4.00/gallon gasoline is in your future, it’s just that this time, more than half of it will be tax.

[I got it right, except for the last part... Ed.]

2/18/2009: Rookie Energy Secretary Neglects to Read His Own Job Description : “Nobel-laureate Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu did not realize that lobbying OPEC on matters like price and production levels falls under his purview.”

2/26/2009: So you thought $4.00 was a lot for a gallon of gas??

As I said, we may disagree whether the industry ‘deserves’ favorable tax treatment, but it would be asinine to think that by ‘reforming’ tax policy you’re going to enhance domestic energy security. This is a measure to punish oil and gas, but you my friends are going to share the pain.

[Of the proposals mentioned in the diary, the tax changes are still on the table. Royalty and rental rates on Federal leases have been "reformed" (i.e., raised). The point of this post is that consumers proved they would pay $4.00/gallon for gas in 2008; with gas around $2.00/gallon at the time, it was too big a target for the government to resist.]

3/1/2009: What is a gallon of gasoline worth? In which Obama’s Budget Director Peter Orzsag admits that the President’s Cap-and-Trade proposal would inevitably make carbon-based energy more expensive for all consumers.

3/5/2009: Tim Geithner Makes a Pair of Scary Statements “‘We don’t believe it makes sense to significantly subsidize the production and use of sources of energy (like oil and gas) that are dramatically going to add to our climate change (problem). We don’t think that’s good economic policy and we think changing those incentives [i.e., raising energy prices across the board] is good for the country,’ Geithner told the Senate Finance Committee…”

3/17/2009: Mr. Obama: Why Do I Feel Like There’s a Target on My Back? Obama’s increased taxes on oil and gas would have mainly affected the “independent” tier of companies that drill 90% of domestic wells.

4/20/2009: The Let’s-Hogtie-the-American-Economy-and-Throw-It-In-the-Ditch Act of 2009 The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES),

…”contains all the expected Lefty prescriptions for dealing with Energy Security and Climate Change: green jobs, rebates, CAFE standards, Cap’n’Trade, and – get this – carbon tariffs. There is concern from some quarters that it creates an individual right to sue companies, based on ‘harm’, or the expectation of harm, from Global Warming. What it does not do is deal with real concerns about energy security or supply while we transition to the Brave New World: there is no mention of nuclear power generation or an increased role for natural gas.”


5/8/2009: White House Declares Jihad on Domestic Oil and Gas

All bloviating about “Energy Independence” aside, the White House’s new budget proves that the main goal vis a vis the domestic energy industry is to maximize the extraction of tax dollars. The inevitable result will be the permanent crippling of the industry and the loss of millions of jobs. In the meantime, say goodbye to whatever shot at Energy Security that the U.S. ever had.

I’ve also heard a couple of times recently from high-ranking Dept of Interior officials (namely Sec. Ken Salazar and MMS official Chris Oynes [who would be subsequently fired as one of the scapegoats in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster]) that the government is looking at royalty schemes that would increase its direct take in mineral revenue. Higher royalty rates generally make exploration less attractive from the oil company’s perspective.

Even if Our Energy Future is one of gumdrops, rainbow unicorns and Magic Windmills, it ain’t going to happen tomorrow, babe. Or in 10 years. The grownups in the room must realize that there is a role for fossil fuels (which, together with nukes and non-P.C. renewables account for 99.5% of current energy use), even if it is only to bridge the gap to that new future.

Ooops. There’s the problem. There are no grownups in the room.

7/10/2009: Mr. Obama, Tear Down That Wall! Reprint of a letter to President Obama from 20 public policy groups. Excerpt:

Taken separately, each of these events has cost the American people millions of units of usable energy, and potentially billions of dollars in lost wages, revenues and royalties. Taken together, they represent critical points along a troubling arc of activity that, more often than not, has appeared to rise and fall in favor of narrow special interests, and against those whose quality of life and living standards depend on reasonable access to affordable and secure energy. The United States cannot meet your goal, Mr. President, of reducing our dependence on foreign oil,” if we refuse to allow our people to work toward producing more of it here ourselves.

Executive bans may be lifted, and congressional ones may have lapsed. But make no mistake: a de facto ban on more than 1.2 billion acres of energy-rich submerged land remains very much in place. And its consequences are every bit as severe as those associated with its statutory predecessors. The United States needs to end its embargo against its own oil supplies—both in policy, and in practice.

5/27/2010: MMS Chief Out: ‘Heckuva Job, Lizzie!’  It was clear from the résumés of the political appointees in the Minerals Management Service that at the outset the Administration had no serious interest in oil and gas; the MMS was to be one of the flagship agencies in the new Green Energy future, as it reinvented itself to promote Offshore Wind! Then a little unpleasantness known as the Deepwater Horizon disaster intruded:

In today’s press conference, President Obama claimed to know nothing of MMS Director Liz Birnbaum’s sudden departure. Whatever. Let’s consider Liz’s qualifications to be the head of the agency charged with regulating rigs like the Deepwater Horizon and 30% of domestic oil production.

Brown/Harvard Law? Check. Environmental lawyer? Check. Environmental policy wonk? Check. Experienced with oil and gas technology?

< chirp … chirp … >

Liz’s bio … is chock-full of counseling, coordinating, legislating and advocating, but very little doing. I posit that Ms. Birnbaum would not know an oil well if she fell into one.

Under Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the Minerals Management Service became an instrument by which the Administration advances its Green Energy/Green Jobs vision. The MMS Cape Wind and other renewable projects were the way to really get noticed within the agency. Oil and gas were so … so, over.

Other MMS top management resumes can be found here. [Link no longer active. - Ed.] Note that the emphasis is heavy on environmental activism, light on oil and gas experience.

_________________________________________________________________

The notion that Obama has done anything “industry friendly” during his term in office is simply absurd. All of the oil production gains came from two places: the deepwater offshore, and on private lands onshore, under state jurisdiction. The big deepwater fields were leased, drilled and sanctioned during the Clinton and Bush II administrations — those fields take too long to develop to help out in the short term, remember?

That’s just a selection from the RedState 3.0 archive. Most of the articles above were original “member diaries” written by my alter ego ‘Vladimir’, before I was a front-pager. I haven’t yet explored the RS 2.0 archive; I amy do that in the future, if Winston and the boys don’t beat me to it.

Cross-posted at stevemaley.com


COMMENTS

  • renl57

    …was right on cue, in perfect coordination with Obama’s whistle-stop tour on energy–as I pointed out in my own comment on that article. The purpose of the article is to make it seem like Obama’s energy policies are paying off–when in fact the decline in demand for fuels is the direct result of the deep recession and high unemployment we’ve been suffering.

    The NYT always used to be liberal. But now they are as blatant as Moveon.org–nothing but apologists for every liberal politician, Obama included.

  • Tbone

    They deserve to.

  • kipling

    Breitbart put all the Pigford posts in an archive so people could refer back to them and so that newbies could get caught up. Something similar may be useful here, especially since Obama will try to rewrite history.

  • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

    …as descriptive of his energy strategy.

    Of course, this is the Republican mantra going back to 2008.

    It must do well with the focus groups.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      legion

  • rightland1111

    Remember all this talk about the bridge to nowhere? Well, now we have the pipeline to nowhere.

    I wonder if the sheeples will figure out that Obama’s fast track of the Keystone Pipeline does not connect to any energy source because HE lobbied Democratic Senators to vote no on the pipeline.

    Furthermore…this is not about Obama’s supposed green energy ideology…it’s about bankrupting this country. All one has to do is think…yes think. What were his own words in his books? What do his czars think and believe and who did he get his mentoring from. The man hates the USA and wants it to fall apart. The energy is just a means to an end.

    This man says that if energy were cheaper the country would fall apart. Well, at least that is what he said last week. So…what exactly does oil do for us? Plastics, big pharma, gasoline, bi-product that comes from oil, NG. Just about everything that we use today is made from oil. Plastic…oil. So…if oil costs more…so do these products. We all know that we have SUCH high paying jobs that paying $6-8.00 a gallon won’t hurt anyone…right? And…just about every article that you buy is a bi-product of oil…so that goes up. Who needs Bernanke printing more money when Obama won’t even connect up the pipeline…or for that matter drill for more oil?

  • anjinconsulting

    Pretty soon there will be a calamitous hue and cry in the SCUM about disinformation from some nebulous entity when they realize you can’t expunge EVERY record.

  • norris

    The biggest climate problem they have is that people are discovering it is hoax.

  • tnguy

    …gas and other energy prices.

    Nose hair clippings would beat Obama this fall if things don’t improve dramatically. Yet I’m not sure Romney is up to the task.

  • renny

    as people buy gas and pay for electricity every day.

  • pieter

    We all know the truth about where Obama stands per Energy Policy.

    The election is upon us and his past three years speak volumes.

    This is not an issue worthy of discussion. We know the truth and it is inarguably contemptible.

  • johnt

    We have the real thing, and they graduate journalism school! And with no Lugar pistols at their empty heads to lie as they do. A work of love you might say.
    The fools never realize that with power they become mere servants, working at the will and approval of the monster they helped create. But they don’t teach you to think at journalism school, the faculty has forgotten, and in any case lacks scruples.

  • carolina

    I hope they have ‘a clue’ that we are SICK of them. I enjoy seeing them under BO’s bus (even if BO & the lamestream media lie). Surely, by now, everyone knows that BO constantly lies.

  • renl57

    Obama can’t claim he’s serious about “all of the above” after what happened today:

    WASHINGTON ? In a sharp rebuke, a federal judge on Friday reversed a decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to revoke a critical permit for one of the nation?s largest mountaintop removal mining projects.

    The United States District Court judge, Amy Berman Jackson [an Obama appointee!], said that the E.P.A.?s unilateral decision in January 2011 to rescind the waste disposal permit for the Spruce No. 1 mine in Logan County, W.Va., exceeded the agency?s authority and violated federal law. She declared that the permit was now valid, paving the way for a mining project covering 2,278 acres to go forward.

    In taking the rare step of revoking the permit, granted in 2007 by the Bush administration, the E.P.A. said that mining would have done unacceptable damage to rivers, wildlife and communities. The mine, owned by Arch Coal of St. Louis, would have buried hundreds of miles of streams under tons of residue.

    The agency said at the time it was using its authority under the Clean Water Act to rescind a legally issued permit, an action it had taken only twice in 40 years and never for a coal mine.

    Judge Jackson said the action was ?a stunning power for an agency to arrogate to itself? that the law did not support.

    She said that the agency had resorted to ?magical thinking? to justify its action revoking the permit. ?Poof!? she wrote.

    http://tinyurl.com/7yjp9xd

    Obama’s EPA really is out to stop fossil fuel production to Save The Planet ™ from global warming.

    The GOP should hit that issue head on: Are we going to allow a bunch of lefties and environmentalists to throttle the U.S. economy (which they blame for global warming)?

    • Yil

      I don’t know much beyond what you wrote, but you said: “the E.P.A. said that mining would have done unacceptable damage to rivers, wildlife and communities. The mine, owned by Arch Coal of St. Louis, would have buried hundreds of miles of streams under tons of residue.”

      HUNDREDS of MILES of streams? I’m sort of glad the EPA (at least under the Obama administration) thought perhaps dumping tons of residue into streams so it could wash downriver wasn’t the best idea…

      • renl57

        I was quoting what the NYT said the EPA had claimed.

        I don’t know if it’s true.
        But I do know that Congress had defined a PROCESS by which environmental concerns should be addressed.

        They had been addressed. It took a long time for those permits to be approved. The judge ruled that the EPA had no right to arbitrarily intervene in the process just because it didn’t like the outcome.

      • streiff

        the mining company had already received a permit from the appropriate agency,the US Army Corps of Engineers. The EPA stepped in an invalidated it.

        At least do us the courtesy of skim reading the article before commenting. I know reading is a lot of trouble but try it.

  • citizenkh

    about Liz Birnbaum when she was nominated to head MMS. I also tried to warn Landrieu but you can only guess how that was received.