pres debate #2 (Page 10)

It is up from when he took office in 2008. 

2008 - 3.3 quadrillion

2009 - 3.7 quadrillion

2010 - 4.3 quadrillion

2011 - 3.7 quadrillion.

According to this article it is mainly down because of the reduction in application approvals due to Deep Water disaster in the Gulf.

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/10/17/obama-v-romney-who%E2%80%99s-right-on-oil-production/

Got this off of a VERY quick google.  Don't have the time to jump around more to verify.

This is probably the closest anyone will get to it. If you look oil was up double digits his first 2 years until the Deepwater disaster. Officially, it is down, but there's a good reason for that.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/16/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-oil-production-down-14-percent-ye/

There is a substantial amount of economic theory out there on the length of time it takes to fully recover from a major financial crisis. That's why I have said the economy will continue to suck all through the next 4 years, regardless of who wins in November.

Thanks Josh for this and to everyone else who provided links or info on this topic.

First I have to say my understanding or impression of what has transpired since Obama took office on this topic isn't as I thought.

It looks like if the question was it down in 2011 over the prior year or two the answer is yes, however it looks like the production in 2011 was higher than in 2008 or 2007 for Federal land including Indian Reservations.

Permits on the other hand are down.

Both of these were affected by the Oil Spill in 2010 in the Gulf. After spending more time than I should, I feel pretty comfortable in saying that both were correct and both were wrong on this topic.

The biggest point against Obama on the oil issue are he had the DOJ go after the fracking <sp> in South Dakota, one state with good employment #'s and his refusal to get the Canada Pipe Line approved.

Again thanks for the input, I feel somewhat less ignorant on the issue than I was prior to everyone's input.

See, this is another problem in our country. How many people do you think sat down and looked up the info? I would guess you and 1% of the other people. The rest either believe Romney or Obama. It's sad.

OBAMNEY 2012!

But that is the point... they both lie if that is what you want to say. I don't really know what to call it. But when you hear a politician throw out a stat, you can just tell by the phrasing it is "partly" true. Just like any stat, the Devil is in the details and it depends...

It's just spin, and you have to take all of it with a grain of salt. You just know that what ever it is they say, even if they can back it up with a "factual number", that it is the most rosy way of looking at that data and drawing the best conclusion for the one saying it. Usually it is not really true... like these number... the number may be true, but in the greater context it isn't as rosy as stated because they just grabbed an outlier.

What blows my mind is that politicians, and their spin supporters in the media can even point at one side doing it when they are just as guilty.... I mean if they throw something out, all they have to say is.. OK, here is what Romney is talking about and here is the rest of the context and this is why it looks that way. But what did Obama say... that's not true, that's a lie, that's false. No more so that what you say Mr. President. And after he gets his but kicked all they can claim is that Romney lied... and then what is the strategy for the next debate... whenever Romney says something... just keep saying he is lying. And then the spin media cherry pick quotes to prove themselves, and a incompetent moderator chooses one little thing to fact check when she herself was wrong.