After biden regime cancels oil leasing for the next two years, WaPo publishes a total pro-Dem, anti-oil propaganda piece

The last couple of days have been very...informative.  I previously posted here and here about the biden regime's determination to reduce U.S. oil and gas production, by canceling oil "lease offerings" that are required by federal law to be offered--and which had been held twice a year for the last 20 years.

Just so we're clear, the Constitution says a president-- even a fake president--isn't allowed to violate U.S. law.  But of course Dem presidents routinely do that--and get away with it, because the Dems know how to shop the judiciary to find a judge that will give them the ruling they want, by raising clouds of verbiage that are used to support the desired ruling.

So now I'd like to show you how people like the world's second-richest man--Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post--are all in on supporting reducing U.S. oil production.

The stated reason, not surprisngly, is "climate change," and I'll get to that Narrative in a minute.  For now let's take a look at an article from yesterday's WaPo titled "Biden pulls 3 offshore oil lease sales, curbing new drilling this year."

Seems innocuous enough, eh?  But here's the propaganda, by Anna Phillips:

First this quote from environmental communist Diane Hoskins:

“We cannot drill our way out of high gas prices, and it would take years or decades for any new leases to begin producing.”

If you're over 30 that should sound familiar, cuz that's exactly what the socialist Obama repeatedly claimed from 2007 to Jan of 2017: "We simply cannot drill our way to energy independence," he majestically intoned.  And every single Mainstream Media outlet dutifully repeated His Excellency's majestically-intoned horseshit. 

If Obozo had paid attention in highschool and college instead of being stoned most of the time, he should have learned about an "iron law of economics" called the law of supply and demand.  It says that when the supply of anything falls short of the demand, prices...you fill in the blank.

If you said "prices fall," have another toke, go back to playing Minecraft and don't bother the adults, even though you think they're stupid.  (And yes, some are.  They're called "Democrats.")

As everyone should know, when supply of something falls short of demand, prices rise.  And if it's something we really NEED instead of something that's just entertainment or fluff, the price rises a LOT.

Question is, do you need oil?

If you live in New York City or inside the DC beltway you may think oil isn't a big deal.  "Oh sure," the elites say, "a few deplorable peasants in those big western states (like Iowa or something) haven't switched to those faaaabulous electric cars that all the cool Hollywood types are driving.  Yeah, it's crazy.  For some reason the deplorables are still driving those old gasoline-powered things.  They complain EVs don't have enough range, or take a couple of hours to re-charge, or--the really silly one: that they can't find charging stations!  Isn't that silly, cuz in DC they're everywhere, right?  Which means they're everywhere in every other state too, right?  (Yeah, I know DC isn't a state but we Dems have been trying to make it one, and sooner or later we'll succeed--even if we have to get a judge to order it.)

"What's that?  Trucks?  What about trucks?  Oh, you mean the big rigs.  Well yes, I suppose they aren't quite all electric yet.  But I mean, trucks only have to make the run from the warehouse to my local Whole Foods, which can't be more than a few miles, so why should $6.50 diesel fuel bother me, eh?"

You can't reason with people like this.  They ride multi-billion-dollar subways instead of driving, and have literally no idea how far the things they eat and use travel to get to their local store, nor do they care, since most of the elites make far more than the rest of us.  Besides, Joe tells 'em inflation is good, so they believe it.  Cuz he's duh preznit.

Now let's return to the second part of Diane Hoskins bullshit:  She claims halting leasing will have no effect because "it would take years or decades for any new leases to begin producing.”

Wait...that sounds SO familiar.  Oh yeah, Hilliary and the Mainstream Media constantly repeated that,  using it to counter Sarah Palin's recommendation to "drill, baby, drill."  "That's silly," said Hilly, "it would take decades for any new leases to begin producing."  And certainly the industry agrees that it takes an average of 8 years for an offshore prospect to reach significant production (if the lease contains commercial amounts of oil).  But of course if we drilled today, then even if it takes 8 years (NOT decades) to reach significant production ) in 8 years that oil would add to domestic production.

Gosh, Obama's reign of error only lasted 8 years, eh?  Though it did seem far longer.

Conversely, if the regime refuses to offer to lease--without imposing endless rules that make any prospect unviable--any oil there is will NEVER be produced, eh? 

Which of course is what the Dems want.

Hoskins again:

“Big Oil is using anything they can find to try to extend the life of a dying fossil fuel industry. They are lying when they say they need more leases.”

That's the ticket, comrade: accuse the industry of lying (in addition to being greedy).  Get Americans to believe oil, gas and coal are bad and they'll support the Dem plan to strike those from our sources of energy, replacing 'em with "green" energy like windmills and solar.   Tell ya what, cupcake: Try running just one state--say, Michigan--on wind and solar for just one full year, without importing any type of energy from another state, and let us know how well that works for ya.

Better yet, try that with Virginia and Maryland--the states that supply DC with natural gas and electricity.  Yeah, that's a great idea.

So does comrade Hoskins have any factual basis for her claim that oil companies "are lying when they say they need more leases"?  Here's how the Post's "reporter" supports that:

Of the 11 lease sales planned under the current program, seven have been held successfully. Interior held one more in November, auctioning off 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico in the largest offshore oil and gas lease sale in the nation’s history. Only a fraction of those leases sold, and a federal judge later threw them out, citing a flawed environmental analysis completed during the Trump administration.

Notice the totally expected slap at Trump.  The Post won't tell you that the alleged "flawed environmental analysis" was the exact same one used during emperor Obama's reign.  Was it flawed then too?  In that case how can you single out Trump for blame?  Oh, that's right--Dem propaganda.

Now about that claim that "only a fraction of those leases sold."  It's absolutely true that only a fraction of the tracts in ANY lease offering attract bids, and the Post's "reporter" uses this to imply that oil companies don't really need or want new leases being offered.  The Post's reporter either doesn't know or won't mention the reason only a fraction of the tracts in ANY lease offering attract bids: oil companies are only interested in bidding to lease tracts that have been found (by means of costly seismic studies) to contain a potentially-oil-trapping "structure."   Since the leases are quite small--less than a square 3 miles on a side--statistically only about one tract out of 100 has an identified structure, so only bidding on those leases is reasonable. 

The Post's "reporter" again:

Conservationists argue that offshore oil and gas production accounts for a relatively small percentage of the nation’s overall supply."

Really?  Define "small."  If you're not in the oil business you almost certainly have no idea what percentage of oil produced in the U.S. comes from the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska.  But then not one American in a hundred has any idea--say, within 20 percent--how much oil the U.S. uses every day.  So let's start there:  Write down your guess as to how many "barrels" of oil Americans consume every day.  Then to see the figure for last year, use your mouse to highlight the area between the brackets below.

 [19.75 million barrels per DAY ]

Just for comparison, in 2021 total U.S. production was 16.58 million barrels per day.  Meaning we had to import over three MILLION barrels every day.

Say, what do ya suppose importing that much oil costs, eh?  Well oil is about $105 per barrel today, meaning we're paying some other nations a cosy $315 MILLION every DAY for oil.  And yet Bezos and Diane Hoskins and "reporter" Anna Phillips want to reduce U.S. production even more, increasing the amount we'll have to pay to oil-exporting nations like Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Now, about 3 years ago production from the Gulf of Mexico was 2 million barrels per day, so competent people can easily see what percentage that is of total daily U.S. consumption--and that the amount of oil produced in the Gulf is worth roughly $200 MILLION per DAY.

But to Hoskins and WaPo propagandist Phillips this is nothing.  Literally, they want to scrap it all.

Interestingly, production in the Gulf has since fallen to about 1.7 million barrels per day due to normal "depletion" of the fields (i.e. as you remove oil, the reservoir rocks understandably yield less oil per day).  Democrats regard that as a win, since less oil means less CO2, which means less global warming excuse me: "climate change."

Wait...if we simply use imported oil to replace lost domestic production, how is less CO2 being produced?

"Shut up, you Erf Hater!  Don't ask stuff like dat!  You jus' wanna kill all dem cute puppies an' kittez!

In fact, according to our own gruberment, as of February of this year we were even importing 586,000 barrels of crude oil per day--in addition to another half-million barrels of "refined product"--from...wait for it...Russia!  Meaning that when biden ordered a halt to imports of Russian oil, we had to scramble to find a new source willing to sell to us.

In a tight world market, how do you do that?  Wait, I thought the U.S. had made a deal to buy 800,000 barrels per day of oil from our friends in Canada.  Admittedly we'd still be paying the same cost as before, but at least we wouldn't be funding what the Cool Kidz in the regime are calling our most awful, scary enemy, eh?  So what happened to that deal, eh?

Oh, yeah: Biden issued an "ORDER" cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline on his first damn DAY in office.  Cool, eh?  And yet the Media all agree that Democrat policies have had NOTHING to do with higher prices.  What utter bullshit.

A Democrat propaganda cesspool called "Politifact" claimed to "debunk" this by saying--literally

• The amount of oil being imported today from Russia has reached a record level, and it does roughly equal the transport capacity of the now-cancelled Keystone XL pipeline. [BUT...]

• However, the pipeline would first need to be built, meaning it couldn’t solve today’s demand needs, and it’s hardly assured that the Canadian production that would feed the pipeline would have risen by 800,000 barrels a day beyond today’s production, or that this entire amount would be sold to the U.S.

Love that the "debunk" claim starts with "However, the pipeline would first need to be built..."  Obviously, but how does that bear on the claim that the line would have carried enough oil to match what we've been importing from Russia?  Also, that it "couldn't solve today's problems."  Really?  If biden hadn't cancelled the project it would have been finished by now.

See all the coordinated horseshit they're throwing out, all designed to do the same thing: to prevent Americans from blaming biden and his Dem handlers for any of the dumb-ass decisions they've made, designed to kill U.S. oil production and prevent easy imports from Canada?

Eh, I'm done for today.  I don't have any kids, so you stupid Democrats can freeze in the dark for all I care.  I'm sorry for mothers who say they can't find baby formula.  Duh preznit say dat bees caused by ...um..."supply-chain problems."  Obviously not mom's or dad's fault.  Unless you voted Democrat, or acquiesced in the stolen election.  But you should really try waking up.  Hopefully while we still have a shred of a country left, before the Dems have totally destroyed it.

If you keep voting for corrupt dumbshits, don't be surprised that you get corrupt, dumb-ass policies.

===

In case the Post scrubs their classic propaganda piece, here's a link to the same article in another paper.