We’ve been “drill baby drill”ing for 15 years now
by Kevin Reed
If you’re one of the people who understand that today the USA is drilling more oil domestically than it was in 2019, and that the US has been steadily increasing the volume of domestic oil production since 2010, then you’re also likely painfully aware that at least half the US citizenry is unaware of these two simple facts.
These are not “political” spins; they are simple, verifiable facts. They are the reality of US oil production between the late 2000s and 2025.
The increase in production runs through at least four presidents - two conservatives, and two liberals, which makes it exactly 50/50 and bipartisan. (Fracking research support goes back into Clinton’s era as well, and pro-oil policy obviously back through Bush and Reagan, though not applicable to fracking specifically).
GW Bush included a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempting hydraulic fracturing (fracking) from key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, while also encouraging US energy independence. This removed regulatory requirements around fracking in its early stages.
Barak Obama adopted an “all of the above” energy approach, and fracking for natural gas grew exponentially, along with oil This is where you can see oil production increase sharply in the US, around 2010.
Trump continued drilling, and Biden continued drilling. The result is a steady increase in production since 2010 as you can see here:
The sharp drop you see around 2020 is the demand drop-off during the COVID-19 pandemic. As soon as refineries came back online after pandemic restrictions, a process that takes months, production continued its upward trend. Today the USA is the leading oil producer in the world.
Yet we’ve all heard Trump say Biden waged “a war on oil,” which you’ll then hear lots of people repeat. But if we’re drilling more today than ever before, and the USA is the leading producer of oil, then it’s hard to see just how this “war” is playing out. It becomes a matter of observable fact vs rhetoric without evidence. This is how you can determine what’s accurate on most topics where information is readily available to you, by following evidence from reliable sources first, before you listen to any politician. Or, by verifying from independent sources after you hear them tell you something.
I was wondering what the “war on oil,” entailed, since it’s obviously not about US oil production. Turns out it’s a combination of these things:
Keystone pipeline cancellation
Freezing leases on federal lands
Tighter regulations
Recognition of carbon has a climate change impact
Focus on renewable energy
Opposition to trillions in fossil fuel subsidies
Strategic oil preserve drawdowns
Paris agreement
Delays in permit approvals
Biden is raising gas prices for some reason
Each of those items makes sense when a person takes the time to research the reality of climate change, or just the simple recognition, say, that the oil from the Keyston pipeline was going to be exported anyway, and that oil prices fluctuate in the global market in response to dozens of daily fluctuating factors. (OilPrice.com is a good resource to see daily fluctuation factors.)
The people who think “drill baby drill” is something to get excited about are clearly not doing even the most basic personal research into these topics. Instead, they listen to a celebrity politician first and never follow up with their own inquiries from reliable sources.
Therefore, they are clearly being controlled. If you can tell someone something, and have them believe it without any verification, then you have power over those people.
A way to not be controlled is to learn about things on your own from proven, reliable sources that are across disciplines, funding sources, geography, and structure (private, gov, edu, non-profit, etc). Then, as you form views based on observable evidence, you look for politicians that support the things that are verifiable, and who are open to changing views based on new evidence.
If more people did that, then any politician making a claim not supported by evidence would fall flat on their face, paving the way for more effective policy and less dangerous political times.
