Part 2: Obama Claims Oil is Part of On-going Energy Policy

• Read Part 1:

President Obama is fond of saying that this nation has 2 percent of the world's population, yet we use 20 percent of its oil. This is a misleading statement if there ever was one! 

According to an article by Gary DeMar published March 19, "President Barack Obama is Lying about American Oil Reserves," the U.S. has more than 22 billion barrels of "proved reserves" (what companies are currently extracting.).

This doesn't count untapped supplies, which include at least 87 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf; about 24 billion barrels in shale deposits; up to 12 billion barrels in ANWAR, and the massive Green River Formation in Wyoming, which is said to contain a stunning 1.4 trillion barrels of oil shale.    

President Obama has also proclaimed time and time that under his administration, oil production has increased. Once again truth rears its ugly head.  

The drilling that is taking place is mostly on state-owned land, not on federal land. Permits granted by the Department of Interior for current drilling sites were issued under the Clinton and Bush administrations. These wells now constitute the producing oil wells whose production Obama is taking credit for.

Last year on federal land, gas producation was down by 6 percent; drilling was down by 11 percent.

Feeling heat over the escalating price of gasoline and realizing how the high cost of gas could derail his re-election, President Obama embarked on an Energy Tour during the week of March 19.

As reported March 22, Obama showed up in Cushing, Okla., which is the starting site of the southern leg of the Keystone Pipeline project, for a staged presentation designed to convince the public that there was room for oil and gas development in his renewable fuels Energy Policy.  

As documented in the following news report:

"CUSHING, Oklahoma (Reuters) - Standing in front of a row of pipes, President Barack Obama pledged on Thursday, March 22, to accelerate approval of the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline, seeking to deflect criticism that his rejection of the full project helped drive up gasoline prices." 

What President Obama approved in Cushing was the segment going from mid-Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico. What Obama failed to mention is that building the southern leg of the pipeline needed no federal permission. It was a done deal and was unstoppable by President Obama.  

What does require President Obama's approval is about a 50-yard portion or that segment of the Keystone XL pipeline which crosses the Canadian/US international border that would transport oil from Alberta, Canada, to the oil refineries in the gulf.   

Might President Obama's staged Oklahoma presentation been expedited by a Gallop poll released on the same day?

According to Gallop: “A solid majority of Americans think the U.S. government should approve of building the Keystone XL pipeline . . . Fifty-seven percent of those polled say the government should approve the pipeline. Eighty-one percent of Republicans, 51 percent of independents, and even a plurality of Democrats agree that the pipeline should be approved."

The mainstream media was all too ready to assist President Obama in misleading the American people. As a reliable mouth piece for the Obama administration since his election in 2008, headlines the day after proclaimed that Obama had approved the Keystone Pipeline, when in reality it was the Southern portion needing no government approval.

Our own Democrat U.S. Senator, Dick Durbin, predictably entered the fray over high gas prices March 25. Durban wants to punish big oil companies for high gas prices by pulling $4 billion in federal subsidies when the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act (co-sponsored by Durbin) goes before Congress. Durbin claims that the legislation would help families save money at the pump. 

But are government subsidies exclusive only to oil and gas companies? Definitely not! Why should oil and gas companies be treated differently then, let's say, General Electric? If General Electric were denied the government subsidies it receives would refrigerators cost less? 

What about demanding of Governor Pat Quinn to reduce high gas taxes that our elected politicians deem are essential to fixing and repairing Illinois roads? 

Gasoline taxes are targeted to pay for improving roads, but who knows what the money collected is really being used for, as all monies received are dumped into the General Fund right next to lottery receipts. 

Despite the back and forth rhetoric, the following article explains why cutting government subsidies to oil and gas companies would have little effect on gas prices: http://www.propublica.org/article/despite-rhetoric-cutting-oil-subsidie

Part 3:  Really!  No 'silver bullet' to lower gas prices? (Drilling as the Silver Bullet)