Toronto Escorts

The U.S. is about to be the world’s top crude oil producer

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
The worm has turned....

The U.S. is about to be the world’s top crude oil producer. Guess who didn’t see it coming.

The authoritative International Energy Agency announced on Monday that the United States will overtake Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest crude oil producer in five years .

To celebrate this once-unimaginable news, how about taking a trip down memory lane? The date is May 5, 2011. Diarmuid O’Connell, then the vice president of business development for Tesla, Elon Musk’s electric-car outfit, is testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

“As a nation, we have arrived at a place where we no longer control our own destiny,” O’Connell warned. “We find ourselves overwhelmingly dependent on a dwindling natural resource controlled by inimical foreign actors, under conditions of increasing competition. Oil . . . is now the source of our greatest vulnerability in terms of both national and economic security.”

“The facts are clear,” he continued. America’s growing importation of oil from unstable parts of the globe required Congress to be “proactive” and subsidize alternative technologies such as his company’s electric vehicles: “While one might argue (as some do) that policies such as the increase of domestic production (‘Drill, Baby, Drill’) can improve the basic equation of supply and demand in the short run, such measures are pitifully marginal in the global scheme,” O’Connell added. Etc., etc., etc.

O’Connell’s speech has not aged well, though it summarized what many right-thinking people believed at the time.

Actually, his jeremiad was already foreseeably wrong when he presented it: In North Dakota and Texas, far from Silicon Valley or Capitol Hill, the shale oil boom was underway. U.S. domestic production was edging higher: It averaged 5.6 million barrels per day in 2011, hit 9.8 million per day by the end of 2017, and will rise to 12.1 million by 2023, the IEA projects.

Rather than being at the mercy of foreign potentates, the United States may now be the world’s “swing” producer of crude. American independent producers, nimbler than the state-owned behemoths of the Middle East and Europe, can increase or decrease output rapidly in response to changing market signals.

We’re not at zero net imports — probably a meaningless goal in any case, given that crude oil is a fungible commodity — but booming domestic production gives Washington “strategic weapons once unthinkable,” according to a recent New York Times analysis. “The United States and its allies now have a supply cushion at a time when political turmoil in Venezuela, Libya and Nigeria is threatening to interrupt flows to markets.”

During his 2006 “addicted to oil” State of the Union address , President George W. Bush bemoaned imports from unstable parts of the world and called for replacing 75 percent of Middle East oil imports by 2025. Well, in 2017, the U.S. imported approximately half as much oil from the Persian Gulf as it did in 2000; not too shabby. Overall, net imports accounted for 38 percent of U.S. consumption in November, down from 66 percent in 2007. The annual U.S. trade balance in fossil fuels improved by $233 billion as a result, according to the Wall Street Journal.

There are lessons here, beyond the obvious need for healthy skepticism about expert pronouncements, especially when the expert in question is talking his or her own book, as Tesla’s subsidy-seeking executive was in 2011.

Energy pessimists were right that less dependence on foreign oil, and the vagaries of the OPEC-manipulated global market, could be achieved through technological innovation; what they failed to grasp was that the very oil-price volatility that concerned them so much created a huge incentive for innovation in the oil patch.

Domestic crude production was not inherently “limited,” as O’Connell told Congress in 2011, it just needed a better mouse trap. Fracking was it.

Entrepreneurs broke the oil-import addiction, even though the main thing they intended to do was get rich.

The government policies — mandatory ethanol use in motor fuels; higher gas-mileage standards for cars — established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which a Democratic Congress passed, the Republican Bush signed, and most Americans soon forgot, played a far smaller role.

This in no way changes the fact that fossil-fuel consumption poses serious risks to the environment, but that is a separate issue, which advocates have often combined with energy security for political reasons. Henceforth, environmentalists should make the case for reducing fossil-fuel use on its own green merits, rather than in tough-guy national-security terms.

That case can, indeed, be made, but the strongest version involves higher fuel taxes and other direct incentives to conserve, not wasteful subsidies to government-selected producers such as Tesla, or Iowa’s corn ethanol agro-industrial complex.

As for energy independence: It turns out we can drill our way there. The facts are clear.
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
This article likely coincided with the opening of CERA week in Houston. It’s almost tradition to dump on EV’s at CERA week, but I can say from personal experience (I went in 2010) that US domestic production was predicted to fulfill domestic demand for years, predictions made well before 2011. In 2011 the US became a net exporter for refined product. And EV’s WILL reduce global demand for refined product, so the Tesla guy wasn’t completely wrong. Trivia - the chairmen of Shell and Total Petroleum both own and drive EV’s. Of course for crude: there are still two problems - transport and the current price for crude. Still need above the current $60 for a lot of fracking operations to make economic sense. A lot of the newer production is light sweet which will be exported since many refineries (eg Gulf Coast) process heavier forms. So the US needs to upgrade pipeline capacity to get to water and upgrade terminals to ship to Asia as well as to Europe.

Canada could also become more self sufficient but of course we need East West pipelines.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
The worm has turned....

The U.S. is about to be the world’s top crude oil producer. Guess who didn’t see it coming.

The authoritative International Energy Agency announced on Monday that the United States will overtake Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest crude oil producer in five years .

To celebrate this once-unimaginable news, how about taking a trip down memory lane? The date is May 5, 2011. Diarmuid O’Connell, then the vice president of business development for Tesla, Elon Musk’s electric-car outfit, is testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

“As a nation, we have arrived at a place where we no longer control our own destiny,” O’Connell warned. “We find ourselves overwhelmingly dependent on a dwindling natural resource controlled by inimical foreign actors, under conditions of increasing competition. Oil . . . is now the source of our greatest vulnerability in terms of both national and economic security.”

“The facts are clear,” he continued. America’s growing importation of oil from unstable parts of the globe required Congress to be “proactive” and subsidize alternative technologies such as his company’s electric vehicles: “While one might argue (as some do) that policies such as the increase of domestic production (‘Drill, Baby, Drill’) can improve the basic equation of supply and demand in the short run, such measures are pitifully marginal in the global scheme,” O’Connell added. Etc., etc., etc.

O’Connell’s speech has not aged well, though it summarized what many right-thinking people believed at the time.

Actually, his jeremiad was already foreseeably wrong when he presented it: In North Dakota and Texas, far from Silicon Valley or Capitol Hill, the shale oil boom was underway. U.S. domestic production was edging higher: It averaged 5.6 million barrels per day in 2011, hit 9.8 million per day by the end of 2017, and will rise to 12.1 million by 2023, the IEA projects.

Rather than being at the mercy of foreign potentates, the United States may now be the world’s “swing” producer of crude. American independent producers, nimbler than the state-owned behemoths of the Middle East and Europe, can increase or decrease output rapidly in response to changing market signals.

We’re not at zero net imports — probably a meaningless goal in any case, given that crude oil is a fungible commodity — but booming domestic production gives Washington “strategic weapons once unthinkable,” according to a recent New York Times analysis. “The United States and its allies now have a supply cushion at a time when political turmoil in Venezuela, Libya and Nigeria is threatening to interrupt flows to markets.”

During his 2006 “addicted to oil” State of the Union address , President George W. Bush bemoaned imports from unstable parts of the world and called for replacing 75 percent of Middle East oil imports by 2025. Well, in 2017, the U.S. imported approximately half as much oil from the Persian Gulf as it did in 2000; not too shabby. Overall, net imports accounted for 38 percent of U.S. consumption in November, down from 66 percent in 2007. The annual U.S. trade balance in fossil fuels improved by $233 billion as a result, according to the Wall Street Journal.

There are lessons here, beyond the obvious need for healthy skepticism about expert pronouncements, especially when the expert in question is talking his or her own book, as Tesla’s subsidy-seeking executive was in 2011.

Energy pessimists were right that less dependence on foreign oil, and the vagaries of the OPEC-manipulated global market, could be achieved through technological innovation; what they failed to grasp was that the very oil-price volatility that concerned them so much created a huge incentive for innovation in the oil patch.

Domestic crude production was not inherently “limited,” as O’Connell told Congress in 2011, it just needed a better mouse trap. Fracking was it.

Entrepreneurs broke the oil-import addiction, even though the main thing they intended to do was get rich.

The government policies — mandatory ethanol use in motor fuels; higher gas-mileage standards for cars — established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which a Democratic Congress passed, the Republican Bush signed, and most Americans soon forgot, played a far smaller role.

This in no way changes the fact that fossil-fuel consumption poses serious risks to the environment, but that is a separate issue, which advocates have often combined with energy security for political reasons. Henceforth, environmentalists should make the case for reducing fossil-fuel use on its own green merits, rather than in tough-guy national-security terms.

That case can, indeed, be made, but the strongest version involves higher fuel taxes and other direct incentives to conserve, not wasteful subsidies to government-selected producers such as Tesla, or Iowa’s corn ethanol agro-industrial complex.

As for energy independence: It turns out we can drill our way there. The facts are clear.
I wonder why USA is pumping so fast. Why not leave some of the oil in the ground for future security.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,159
2,151
113
I wonder why USA is pumping so fast. Why not leave some of the oil in the ground for future security.
Revenge on the middle east perhaps ?

The reality is that the hundreds (thousands ?) of US oil companies can increase their profits by drilling / pumping more.
They are not overly interested in conservation for the future.
I believe Trump gave them the permitting green light to produce whatever volume they can
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,760
17,578
113
Revenge on the middle east perhaps ?

The reality is that the hundreds (thousands ?) of US oil companies can increase their profits by drilling / pumping more.
They are not overly interested in conservation for the future.
I believe Trump gave them the permitting green light to produce whatever volume they can
Interesting to compare US resource use with Norway.
This Country Has Set Aside Almost $200,000 for Each of Its 5 Million Citizens
http://time.com/money/4949545/norway-wealth-fund-reaches-1-trillion/
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I wonder why USA is pumping so fast. Why not leave some of the oil in the ground for future security.
Money. There is plenty of oil.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Money. There is plenty of oil.
Why not purchase oil from ME while the $US is still high (it is only paper). The oil in USA is not an infinite resource.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,159
2,151
113
Why not purchase oil from ME while the $US is still high (it is only paper). The oil in USA is not an infinite resource.
Because it costs more due to transportation costs.
The added bonus is that less money works its way into the hands of nutjob terrorists.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,159
2,151
113
Yes we know you have a wet dream for anything state controlled.
If you had clue one about the history or structure of the US oil industry you would know that is never going to happen in the US (or Canada)

This Country Has Set Aside Almost $200,000 for Each of Its 5 Million Citizens
& the US oil industry has paid out a far great amount in dividends over its history & the capital gains are even larger.
Hey guess what ? that is money in the pockets of shareholders, rather than money the government holds & will spend as they see fit.

Perhaps you may wish to calculate the historical tax revenues US governments (Federal state) have reaped from the US oil industry
Lots revenue for roads, hospitals & schools over the past 150 years
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,760
17,578
113
Yes we know you have a wet dream for anything state controlled.
If you had clue one about the history or structure of the US oil industry you would know that is never going to happen in the US (or Canada)



& the US oil industry has paid out a far great amount in dividends over its history & the capital gains are even larger.
Hey guess what ? that is money in the pockets of shareholders, rather than money the government holds & will spend as they see fit.

Perhaps you may wish to calculate the historical tax revenues US governments (Federal state) have reaped from the US oil industry
Lots revenue for roads, hospitals & schools over the past 150 years
Sure, why don't you compare how much the US has spent/saved from oil revenues vs Norway and tell us which was the better system.
I'm sure you'll come up with an unbiased take on why the US's method is much better then Norway, which now has $200,000 per citizen tucked away in a fund for the state.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Sure, why don't you compare how much the US has spent/saved from oil revenues vs Norway and tell us which was the better system.
I'm sure you'll come up with an unbiased take on why the US's method is much better then Norway, which now has $200,000 per citizen tucked away in a fund for the state.
What has Canada done?
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
What has Canada done?
It doesn't matter OTB,... some place on earth has done it better,... even if the place is about the size of Toronto,... and with about the same population.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,159
2,151
113
Sure, why don't you compare how much the US has spent/saved from oil revenues vs Norway and tell us which was the better system.
I'm sure you'll come up with an unbiased take on why the US's method is much better then Norway, which now has $200,000 per citizen tucked away in a fund for the state.
I just did
Can you not read?

Let me elborate
The economic benefits of the US oil industry to the US economy & its citizens vs that of Norway?

That is not even close
Norway is a rounding error vs the wealth the US industry has produced over its history
The Americans invented the oil industry,
Imagine if it had been govt run from the start
1. The auto industry would not have flourished in the early part of the 20th century & changed the way of the world
2. There would not have been enough oil to defeat the Nazis/ Japan
3. The US economic boom of the second half of the 20th century would not been anywhere near as strong
4. The innovations and technical expertise developed by the industry would be decades behind as the us oil industry is extremely competitive & competition drives innovation
5. You would be paying $10 / liter for gas


The US oil industry has been for 150 years a cash flow machine, which was able to invest truly staggering amounts of capital in drilling, refining , distribution, scientific research & infrastructure all over the world,
They took risks & created wealth
The economic benefits from the millions of of jobs the US oil industry has created world wide is staggering.
the dividends paid out the US oil industry & reinvested in to the US & world economy over the history is also staggering.

No way in hell a govt run industry would have taken the risks, invested capital or paid out dividends like that.

And you say the Norweign model is best?
The model where the gov hordes the cash & tells the citizens they have $20,000 each, but can't touch it ?

That comparison is not even close
 

Polaris

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2007
3,076
58
48
hornyville
And you say the Norweign model is best?
The model where the gov hordes the cash & tells the citizens they have $20,000 each, but can't touch it ?

That comparison is not even close
It is also grossly stating the Norway model by the usual leftist posters.

After all, in our very own Ontario, every single person is in debt by the same amount basically.

We ain`t dead yet.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
It is also grossly stating the Norway model by the usual leftist posters.

After all, in our very own Ontario, every single person is in debt by the same amount basically.

We ain`t dead yet.
It is actually $200,000 per man, women and child in Norway.

I think most people would agree that it is better to have a large fund for public spending instead of a massive debt for future generations to pay.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,760
17,578
113
I just did
Can you not read?

Let me elborate
The economic benefits of the US oil industry to the US economy & its citizens vs that of Norway?

That is not even close
Norway is a rounding error vs the wealth the US industry has produced over its history
The Americans invented the oil industry,
Imagine if it had been govt run from the start
1. The auto industry would not have flourished in the early part of the 20th century & changed the way of the world
2. There would not have been enough oil to defeat the Nazis/ Japan
3. The US economic boom of the second half of the 20th century would not been anywhere near as strong
4. The innovations and technical expertise developed by the industry would be decades behind as the us oil industry is extremely competitive & competition drives innovation
5. You would be paying $10 / liter for gas


The US oil industry has been for 150 years a cash flow machine, which was able to invest truly staggering amounts of capital in drilling, refining , distribution, scientific research & infrastructure all over the world,
They took risks & created wealth
The economic benefits from the millions of of jobs the US oil industry has created world wide is staggering.
the dividends paid out the US oil industry & reinvested in to the US & world economy over the history is also staggering.

No way in hell a govt run industry would have taken the risks, invested capital or paid out dividends like that.

And you say the Norweign model is best?
The model where the gov hordes the cash & tells the citizens they have $20,000 each, but can't touch it ?

That comparison is not even close
Would you like to do a comparison on infrastructure, health and social investments and debt as a comparison?
Do you really think the US would come out better?

(unless you're arguing that the US is doing better for having the biggest and most expensive army ever, you're going to lose that argument too)
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,159
2,151
113
Would you like to do a comparison on infrastructure, health and social investments and debt as a comparison?
Do you really think the US would come out better?

(unless you're arguing that the US is doing better for having the biggest and most expensive army ever, you're going to lose that argument too)
You are unbelievably clueless
If you understood what was written, you would have realized how much the WORLD has benefited by the risk taking & wealth generation by the US oil industry
Risk taking which would be totally inappropriate for a government to undertake with tax payers capital.

Norway has generated a lot of wealth on a per capita basis, however that is nowhere as impressive when you consider there are only 5 million people.

The US oil industry has generated far more wealth on an absolute basis & if you were to include the value created from re-investment of dividends in the US economy and tax dollars remitted to the government, the per capita basis would still massively exceed Norway's .

The absolute dollar figure that US has invested in hospitals, infrastructure & social programs again, makes Norway's investment look like a rounding error

The debt?
That is the cost of the US deciding they want the worlds most powerful military & the US deciding they wanted to act as the world policeman for the last century.
That is a completely different issue.

Sources of funding i.e. state controlled industry vs taxation of privately controlled industry is a different question relative to the question of how those funds are used.

Your problem is you start with the uses and then decide you can spend more immediately via government controlled industry.
You do this without regard for the huge advantage the private sector has in generating massive excess economic development and advancing technology in the pursuit of profit.


Norway's oil wealth is primarily undersea.
There is no way in hell the Norwegian government would have been able to independently develop the technology to drill deep sea wells.

Private non-government firms developed this technology & they had to take a lot of risks

Now pay attention
Had the US oil industry been government controlled from the start, Norway's oil would sill be trapped inaccessible under the North Sea
The value of Norway sovereign fund would be dependant on the size of the herring catch from year to year & a mere fraction of today's infrastructure, health and social investments would exist in Norway.

The depth of your thinking is extremely shallow and is driven by ideals rather than true understanding, logic and rational evaluation.
i.e. you are a fool
 
Last edited:
Toronto Escorts