U.S. oil production

Status
Not open for further replies.
And think about how much more we could produce now and in the future if more of Alaska, and coastal waters, were opened up. And without the deep water embargo after the BP spill.
 
Originally Posted By: wallyuwl
And think about how much more we could produce now and in the future if more of Alaska, and coastal waters, were opened up. And without the deep water embargo after the BP spill.


+1 or a pipeline from Canada which has somehow disappeared...
 
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: wallyuwl
And think about how much more we could produce now and in the future if more of Alaska, and coastal waters, were opened up. And without the deep water embargo after the BP spill.


+1 or a pipeline from Canada which has somehow disappeared...


It will reappear........... In Vancouver. In four years. Like magic.
 
Long article in the Omaha, Nebraska newspaper quoted the Governor as saying: this would have been resolved if congress had stayed out of it. The pipeline builder had agreed to correct the design and route issues..... then congress tried to make a political football out of it and force it down our throats......so the pipeline interests held off to see what happened. With the rejection now complete, they are rapidly making corrections and it seems construction is likely to begin in a year.

It will NOT go west through the Canadian mountains.... opposition is intense there.
 
Pumping more is not the answer..we already gobble up 25% of the world's energy with only 5% of people. People that want us to pump more, use more, and hammer Speculators are missing the point.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Pumping more is not the answer..we already gobble up 25% of the world's energy with only 5% of people. People that want us to pump more, use more, and hammer Speculators are missing the point.

Then what is the point? Use less energy in the name of global fairness?
 
I'm starting to agree with Tempest on oil...

Use it all up now, and get back to horse and buggies.
 
Excdept with how large and spead-out modern society is, horse and buggy would NOT work.

When the world runs out of readily-accesible oil, you will start to see a massive drop in world population, due to starvation.

You cannot produce and transport the amount of food needed to feed the world today without petroleum power....you simply can't.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Pumping more is not the answer..we already gobble up 25% of the world's energy with only 5% of people. People that want us to pump more, use more, and hammer Speculators are missing the point.


And alot of the worlds population produce nothing other than babies and live in mud huts.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Al
Pumping more is not the answer..we already gobble up 25% of the world's energy with only 5% of people. People that want us to pump more, use more, and hammer Speculators are missing the point.

Then what is the point? Use less energy in the name of global fairness?
Not really about Global Fairness" its about common sense. There is no way our [censored] of energy is sustainable. Look at where our unsustainable debt and our lack of any type of common sense policy that makes this Country a sustainable entity going forward.


Much of the world's developing economies (that actually produce things) will be competing for energy and be able to afford more while we can afford less. But I digress. We will keep gobbling til there is nothing to gobble.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Look at where our unsustainable debt


And who created that debt and reduced this country's oil supply in the name of forcing consumption of alternative energies NOT developed or cost effective?
 
Originally Posted By: Al
We will keep gobbling til there is nothing to gobble.


People will take a dump in their drinking water supply if it is convenient. The most convenient thing is to do nothing and pump more.

The issue is that if one entity does it unilaterally, it hurts, because there are ten others willing to just do what is convenient and cheapest. Im not talking from a central planning point of view or anything, but rather from a worldwide usage point of view.
 
Originally Posted By: addyguy
Excdept with how large and spead-out modern society is, horse and buggy would NOT work.

When the world runs out of readily-accesible oil, you will start to see a massive drop in world population, due to starvation.

You cannot produce and transport the amount of food needed to feed the world today without petroleum power....you simply can't.

If that is the case, then you would agree that chasing the "green energy" panacea is a huge waste of time and material?

This is a highly simplistic view of how the world works and shows a lack of understand of markets. Just a few decades ago, "experts" were claiming that the max population of the world was 2 billion and there would be starvations, higher prices for commodities, blah, blah...just as you predict. Obviously, they were wrong.

If the market is allowed to work, and fossil fuels actually begin to run out, then they will become more expensive and other alternatives will become more affordable and replace them. This is the history of mankind, when allowed by their overseers.

And remember, the supply of oil is largely dictated by the arbitrary actions of a few in governments, not the individual people that makeup the market.

Natural gas prices have plunged as of late due to new drilling techniques, which has greatly increased supply of a purportedly finite resources. The lesson of the story:

Drill baby drill works!
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

The issue is that if one entity does it unilaterally, it hurts, because there are ten others willing to just do what is convenient and cheapest. Im not talking from a central planning point of view or anything, but rather from a worldwide usage point of view.


Not central planning? Anything other than a free market determining what is used and what a price for something will be is central planning. Sin taxes, subsidies...all central planning.

The question you need to ask is WHY fossil fuel is cheaper and WHY would a group of people intentionally use something that cost more and put themselves at a disadvantage that will reduce their standard of living?

COST and PRICE are two different things. Price is the amount of money that comes out of your pocket when you buy something. COST is the amount of labor, energy and material that is used to bring that something to you. Subsidizing the PRICE of something does NOT reduce the COST of something.

And this is precisely why sin-taxes and subsidies are so destructive. They mask the real COST of items so as to bring about an arbitrary result that a few in government deem more important than the people at large.
 
Cool, so the COST of the middle east fleet should be included in the PRICE of Gas to better help the market to determine the worthiness of alternatives.

We're making progress.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Cool, so the COST of the middle east fleet should be included in the PRICE of Gas to better help the market to determine the worthiness of alternatives.

We're making progress.

Can you show me something that demonstrates how much this should be? And do you assume that there would be no fleet there without oil?

Also, what is the military cost of ensuring the free flow of rare earths and other materials necessary for "alternatives".

If you go from protecting oil to protecting batteries, what is the cost savings?

I look forward to the info.
 
North Dakota is now the #2 state in domestic crude production, having displaced Alaska. One third of the gas is being flared, like the old days, because the means to collect it and store it cannot keep up.

It will be tough for North Dakota to catch Texas, as crude production in Texas is increasing.

They expect to be able to tap and extract the crude from the vast shale formations that originally filled the Arkansas oil fields, now mostly played out. No doubt Texas and Oklahoma will be looking to do the same thing.

Drill baby drill does indeed work. There are likely vast amounts of recoverable crude and natural gas left in this country.

Reasonable conservation and agressive energy production can make us self sufficient, and in a relatively short time span.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top