Remember Ripley's old comic strip, "Believe It or Not?" Well, it seems truth can't be believed any longer.
Is what I heard true, that the governor of NJ ordered flags flown at half-mast for the Whitney Houston death? That can't be true, can it? I'm trying to figure out a reason and I can't, at least not a legitimate one. Will, then, cardiac surgeons who've saved hundreds of lives also have flags lowered on their deaths? What about the best teachers? What about former fire fighters and policemen who die, not on duty? And there was talk of this guy running for President? I doubt he would have received my vote before and now certainly he won't if this is reflective of his thinking.
Was a 9-month old baby really shot and killed in Detroit? Some guy, gang-related it's believed, opened up by firing about 40 rounds into a West Side house (Hey, I grew up on the West Side!). Perhaps it's time to start thinking about the death penalty again. I know, I know.... But I can't help but thinking about that 9-month old who won't have a life. And why do I believe that this guy feels no remorse, none at all. By the way, there have already been 48 murders in Detroit this year. And, it seems, Pontiac isn't far behind.
Gas is now $3.53 a gallon in Detroit. It's expected to hit $4.25 or so by April. Is that so, too? I can't believe this stuff. Hey, don't we have a President who has done all he could to stop drilling, to prevent a pipeline, etc.? Isn't he pushing electric cars, you know, the ones I can't afford to buy or, according to an e-mail from a physics friend of mine, operate?
Do educated people really talk this way, even in casual conversations? "I haven't heard nothin' yet." "I haven't went that far yet." These were from two different, allegedly educated people.
Can I believe we've had so many 40-degree days this winter? Today was oh, so beautiful! Is it safe to start thinking we won't get any huge storms this year? I will admit I miss the pretty white stuff and, crazy me, the shoveling. We haven't made a snowman yet this year!
Is it possible the Jeffs' men's basketball team is ranked #2 in the US and the women's team is #1? And, rumor has it, the players still have to go to class and do the work! Yep, that's what I heard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
If Obama has done all he could to stop drilling, there must not be much he could do since domestic oil production is at its highest since 2003.
http://www.good.is/post/drill-baby-drill-fails-american-oil-production-spikes-under-obama-prices-still-soar/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/yes-oil-production-is-booming-under-obama-no-it-hasnt-lowered-gas-prices/2011/08/31/gIQAWv8bsJ_blog.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/10/14/energy-oil-rigs-idUKN1E79D11420111014
Actually, the drilling is all on private land. Public land drilling has all but ceased. And the O Administration is working to cut private drilling. Gee, if he gets re-elected, will he unilaterally try to stop it? After all, the only reason he "compromised" with the Catholics was because it's an election year and he needs their votes. Does anyone believe the original plan as outlined by Sibelius won't come back after Nov?
"Actually, the drilling is all on private land. Public land drilling has all but ceased."
That statement is at least very arguable if not patently false.
I know the argument getting passed around on conservative blogs such as this one:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/18/under-obama-oil-and-gas-production-on-federal-lands-is-down-40/
and industry web sites like this:
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/01/10/interior-department-energy-propaganda-misleading-disingenuous/
However, there is some seriously sloppy thinking going on in these analyses (I actually don't think it is sloppy thinking but intentional deception but that's another story).
Let's start with the graphs on the IER page. A quick look at each of those graphs shows that the amount of federal lease sales has been declining steadily since the Reagan years with the greatest drop during Bush I. Should we say it was both Bushes and Reagan who were working to stop drilling on public lands? No, because that would be sloppy thinking, wouldn't it?
Unfortunately, I can not refute the graph showing offshore lease income but I can safely say that any graph that only shows four years is trying to hide something. Likely it is that 2008 was a huge bonus year as Bush had just lifted the previous Clinton/Bush I moratorium banning federal leasing through the year 2000 off the East Coast, West Coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico (offshore Florida Gulf Coast), and the Northern Aleutian Basin of Alaska. I would love to see the numbers for the years before 2008 but I can not find them anywhere. This graph is highly suspicious.
Now, let's move on to the Heritage Foundation blog. First off, this is the sloppiest piece of "journalism" I have seen since I last looked at the Drudge Report. Nearly the entire thing is cribbed directly from the obviously partisan House Energy Committee page right here:
http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=275080
This committee is run by Doc Hastings (R - WA). Oddly enough, his top 5 contributors are a company involved in offshore production, 3 oil and gas companies (Exxon and Chevron included) and a huge agricultural processing company that is highly dependent on fossil fuel inputs.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009157&cycle=2012
Maybe the Heritage folk ought to shine a bit of a light on his claims instead of simply repeating them as fact but that didn't happen.
"But wait," you say, "The blog on the Heritage site also includes some quotes claiming that the new production is almost all on private lands in North Dakota." That very well may be true but I do find it odd that the blog is quoting another blogger on the same site as if someone typing out a statement on a blog somewhere now makes that a fact. This is a somewhat new development in "journalism" in which we just confirm our arguments with our own previous arguments. Sloppy at best, downright despicable at worst.
So, since the arguments on the Heritage blog (which I have seen cited as some sort of truth on countless pages) are just cribbed from Doc Hastings, let's just analyze the findings on the House Energy Committee page. (continued)
Claim #1 "•Oil and natural gas production on federal lands is down by over 40% compared to ten years ago. Carney does not explain that the vast majority of increased production is occurring on private lands in states such as North Dakota, not on federal lands."
Unfortunately the data on this has been pulled but I think there are a couple of explanations that do not include "Obama shutting down production." First, the production on private lands in North Dakota is because that is where the Bakken Formation is found. I am reasonably sure no one will argue that Obama has anything to do with the fact that the most easily recoverable oil and gas deposits are not found on federal lands. Second, (and once again I wish I could see the raw data) the drop has been 40% over the last 10 years. Obama has only been in office 3 years. I can guarantee that if the 40% drop had been during his administration, that's what the statement would say as it is clear that Rep. Hastings will do whatever it takes to pass off his bad reasoning. When the actual data comes back out, I would love to revisit this.
Claim #3 "The Administration held only one offshore lease sale in 2011. Conducted on December 14th, the Administration narrowly avoided making 2011 the first year since 1953 without an offshore lease sale."
This doesn't even mean anything. The Obama administration canceled 2 lease sales due to environmental concerns and 2 (both in the Cook Inlet) over lack of interest. Personally, I think a measured approach to deepwater drilling is prudent considering the 4.9 million barrels spilled into the Gulf from that little accident we had in 2010. Now, offshore lease sales are back on track after a tweaking to make sure that the companies that buy the leases will actually drill them. (continued)
Claim #2 "Under the Obama Administration, 2010 had the LOWEST number of onshore leases issued since 1984."
This is a classic example of pretending a small change is something significant and failing to look at any other possible reasons for the insignificant change. First, (as I already pointed out above) you can see right from the graph on the IER page that onshore lease sales have been dropping steadily for the last 25 years. In fact, leases issued in 2011 were higher than those in 2003.
Using the data cited by Hastings, the average number of onshore leases issued since 2000 is 2692 with a standard deviation of 777. All of Obama's sales fit right into that range except the outlier of 2010 at only 1308 leases issued. "So," you say, "There's the proof that Obama is shutting down production on federal lands." Unless, what if there were some other explanation? I bet there is.
I happen to work for a state agency that comments on proposed BLM lease sales so I know for a fact that lease sales have continued unabated for years.
http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/oilandgas/leasing.html
But, the number here in Colorado went from 464 in 2007, to 320 in 2008, and then way down to 83 in 2009. It must be Obama!! Au contraire mon frere!
In 2007/2008, Colorado's state government, along with many other neighboring states, was implementing their own oil and gas regulations. Look up Colorado HB1298 for reference. The O&G industry knew that new regulations were coming so they tried to get as many leases as possible approved prior to their implementation. Thus, they had filled their need for leases prior to 2009. Other states that showed significant drops in leases issued were Wyoming, New Mexico, Nevada and Utah as each instituted stricter state regulations on drilling.
Additionally, labor costs in these states began to climb as oil and gas workers overwhelmed local areas and caused housing shortages. That is a big part of why the current boom in North Dakota is happening ... low labor costs along with easily extractable resources.
In conclusion, the facts that I have seen simply do not support the statements made by Rep. Hastings and repeated by many others. If you have other places besides those I cited making these claims, I would love to see them.
As an aside, I would also like to take this moment to thank you for teaching me the value of questioning status quo thought and using facts to make my arguments. Somehow I did manage to get around the bad teachers at MHS and come out with what I feel was a great education thanks to you and a (very) few others.
Post a Comment