• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. to Be World’s Top Oil Producer in 5 Years

jimbo said:
It pays to look at Keystone. The line was proposed in 2005, the extension in 2008. Canada and some states have already approved the project. Obama put it in hold till after 2013. There is no guarantee that it will ever be built.

If the US doesn't get the pipeline, the line will be built to the ocean to load ships carrying crude to China. No environmental worries, no permit issues, no US jobs or fuel.

The pipeline is a win win for everyone. The US gets the refining, Canada gets the oil revenue, the world and the US get the oil. The obstacle is the environmentalists and the alternate fuel crowd. Bringing cheaper oil to the world and US markets dooms the alternate energy market, already underwater in terms of competitiveness.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in principle but I disagree with people who would hold the position that to have green energy we must have less oil. Oil is primarily for cars. Electric cars require massive upgrades in electrical capacity. Focusing on creating individual capacity to generate their own electricity to bridge the gap from both sides is the more sensible approach IMHO. I would love to get off the electrical grid or have it there only in bad weather weeks as a backup, but the prices are too outrageous. At best you would not even break even going solar individually so there is no way society as a whole will in the next 100 years.
 
Fisher said:
I agree with you in principle but I disagree with people who would hold the position that to have green energy we must have less oil. Oil is primarily for cars. Electric cars require massive upgrades in electrical capacity. Focusing on creating individual capacity to generate their own electricity to bridge the gap from both sides is the more sensible approach IMHO. I would love to get off the electrical grid or have it there only in bad weather weeks as a backup, but the prices are too outrageous. At best you would not even break even going solar individually so there is no way society as a whole will in the next 100 years.
Click to expand...

an average american home, ~1500 sqft, with one layer of solar panels on it can produce 4x more electricity than it needs.
 
i think it's great that we're producing more oil. the problem is that oil is finite and fungible, and China and India are developing middle classes. when they start buying Buicks, we could put the entire Rocky mountain range in the blender and there still won't be enough oil.

we should drill what we have while transitioning to something else, using electric as an intermediate fuel.
 
rocket88 said:
Actually, if the pipeline is built, it still goes on a boat to China, it's just that it's refined first.

And if the price gets low enough, it'll run dry. They won't be going after the tar sands if the price goes lower than is profitable for them.
Click to expand...

You are partially correct, in fact, possibly mostly correct. Some of the oil will be exported elsewhere. This is not a bad thing as the US will get the jobs, the taxes, the environmental control, which is generally better than in other countries. Some of the oil will stay in the US. I don't know the percentages, but it does not matter. One of the current arguments against opening up US oil production is that we are now in a world market. I don't understand this concept as the supply needs to keep up with market, regardless of the source of market.

If the world production of oil, and by extension the US and North American production brings the price down to the point that some methods of production go off line why is this a bad thing? Either the production of shale and tar will keep pace, or an equilibrium will be reached at a price lower than without the shale and sand oil.
 
jimbo said:
You are partially correct, in fact, possibly mostly correct. Some of the oil will be exported elsewhere. This is not a bad thing as the US will get the jobs, the taxes, the environmental control, which is generally better than in other countries. Some of the oil will stay in the US. I don't know the percentages, but it does not matter. One of the current arguments against opening up US oil production is that we are now in a world market. I don't understand this concept as the supply needs to keep up with market, regardless of the source of market.

If the world production of oil, and by extension the US and North American production brings the price down to the point that some methods of production go off line why is this a bad thing? Either the production of shale and tar will keep pace, or an equilibrium will be reached at a price lower than without the shale and sand oil.
Click to expand...

the argument you mentioned is funded mainly by those who want to keep the price of oil high. also known as the oil companies. it's better for their profit margins if oil is a more valuable/rare commodity, much like how diamond production is restricted by the de beers cartel which opposes increased diamond production for the same reason.
 
UtahBill said:
why refine more than we need? it isn't like we are going to become any more an exporter of oil or refined products than we already are...
Click to expand...

why produce more energy, which we can use for ourselves and we can sell? i don't know, why produce anything. why not just go back to living in caves.
 
roflpublican said:
why produce more energy, which we can use for ourselves and we can sell? i don't know, why produce anything. why not just go back to living in caves.
Click to expand...

Crude oil stores and ships a lot easier and safer than refined products.....
My comment is about refining, yours is about half past stupid....:2razz:
 
UtahBill said:
Crude oil stores and ships a lot easier and safer than refined products.....
My comment is about refining, yours is about half past stupid....:2razz:
Click to expand...

we dont have nearly the refining capacity to keep up with our potential for production. you should do a little math with regard to that. it takes much longer to build refineries than to increase production.
 
Helix said:
i think it's great that we're producing more oil. the problem is that oil is finite and fungible, and China and India are developing middle classes. when they start buying Buicks, we could put the entire Rocky mountain range in the blender and there still won't be enough oil.

we should drill what we have while transitioning to something else, using electric as an intermediate fuel.
Click to expand...

The question of just how finite the carbon energy supply is subject to debate and has been ongoing for decades. Bottom line is that as improved production methods and rising prices come into play, the number changes. I grew up in Colorado. 65 years ago it was known that the area around Rifle was awash with shale oil. The problem was that it was not cost effective to extract. In addition, there is a growing contingent that is coming to believe that our whole concept of the origin of oil is flawed. How did fossils get 10,000 feet down? No evidence of plate turnover anywhere near that. I expect that we will learn a lot in the future.

I would agree that experimentation with other sources of energy is a good thing. However, subsidizing non competitive sources is not. Let them stand on their own.
Do you realize that of a typical 20 gallon fill up, approximately 10 dollars goes to the cost of the alcohol? Solar and wind energy are similarly subsidized.
BTW, electricity is not a fuel. There are no electricity wells or mines anywhere, electricity is at best only a method of moving energy from one point to another. That it does well. The energy mus be produced from another source.
 
jimbo said:
The question of just how finite the carbon energy supply is subject to debate and has been ongoing for decades. Bottom line is that as improved production methods and rising prices come into play, the number changes. I grew up in Colorado. 65 years ago it was known that the area around Rifle was awash with shale oil. The problem was that it was not cost effective to extract. In addition, there is a growing contingent that is coming to believe that our whole concept of the origin of oil is flawed. How did fossils get 10,000 feet down? No evidence of plate turnover anywhere near that. I expect that we will learn a lot in the future.

I would agree that experimentation with other sources of energy is a good thing. However, subsidizing non competitive sources is not. Let them stand on their own.
Do you realize that of a typical 20 gallon fill up, approximately 10 dollars goes to the cost of the alcohol? Solar and wind energy are similarly subsidized.
BTW, electricity is not a fuel. There are no electricity wells or mines anywhere, electricity is at best only a method of moving energy from one point to another. That it does well. The energy mus be produced from another source.
Click to expand...

unlimited abiotic oil is exceptionally unlikely.

as for subsidizing emerging technology, energy is a national security issue. so, while it's entirely proper for the market to play a significant role, the issue is too critically important for us to wait for an alternate solution to become economically competitive before it is innovated. our grid should be considered both private and public infrastructure, and should be developed as such. on the innovation side, I'd prefer a NASA-type program to organize the public and private components. it's my opinion that we should set a moonshot date for an alternate transportation energy model. with adequate resources, it could be done in two to three decades, and the technology would be exportable. if we focused, we could effectively make America not only the world's bread basket, but also the world's leader in energy technology. I think that's an intelligent and worthy goal.
 
roflpublican said:
the argument you mentioned is funded mainly by those who want to keep the price of oil high. also known as the oil companies. it's better for their profit margins if oil is a more valuable/rare commodity, much like how diamond production is restricted by the de beers cartel which opposes increased diamond production for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think that the argument is more likely perpetuated by those who consider carbon energy to be a flawed source. Why would an oil company or companies go to the trouble of purchasing leases, develop test wells, apply for permits developing new technologies, if they had no intention of exploiting the source? In the case of Keystone, the companies have over a billion dollars of pipe already purchased. Said purchases based on the expectation that the line will be built. All that is lost if it is not. It is the Obama administration, through the DOE and Environmental, that are not issuing permits. While any industry would like the price of their goods to remain high, that advantage is no advantage if the industry is not permitted to exploit the anomaly.
 
jimbo said:
Actually, I think that the argument is more likely perpetuated by those who consider carbon energy to be a flawed source. Why would an oil company or companies go to the trouble of purchasing leases, develop test wells, apply for permits developing new technologies, if they had no intention of exploiting the source? In the case of Keystone, the companies have over a billion dollars of pipe already purchased. Said purchases based on the expectation that the line will be built. All that is lost if it is not. It is the Obama administration, through the DOE and Environmental, that are not issuing permits. While any industry would like the price of their goods to remain high, that advantage is no advantage if the industry is not permitted to exploit the anomaly.
Click to expand...

have you seen the profits of oil companies since obama was elected? records every quarter. i'd say the policy is working great for them. they're exploiting the anomaly all right, the anomaly of no permits helping drive the price up :D.
 
Helix said:
unlimited abiotic oil is exceptionally unlikely.

as for subsidizing emerging technology, energy is a national security issue. so, while it's entirely proper for the market to play a significant role, the issue is too critically important for us to wait for an alternate solution to become economically competitive before it is innovated. our grid should be considered both private and public infrastructure, and should be developed as such. on the innovation side, I'd prefer a NASA-type program to organize the public and private components. it's my opinion that we should set a moonshot date for an alternate transportation energy model. with adequate resources, it could be done in two to three decades, and the technology would be exportable. if we focused, we could effectively make America not only the world's bread basket, but also the world's leader in energy technology. I think that's an intelligent and worthy goal.
Click to expand...

Based on what I have read, I would agree that fossil fuel is the norm, however, there are still questions remaining. In my lifetime, it does not matter. There is more than enough carbon fuel to last the country for at least decades. Some say centuries. If national security is the issue, the immediate fix is to make ourselves energy independent, and that can be done most quickly and cheaply by focusing research on carbon. Not to say that research into other sources should not be done, and base research is one thing the government might do well. Are you aware that there is a huge amount of unexplained energy in the universe? Perhaps government expenditures should go that way. Once the basic research is done, why not make it free and available and let market forces develop the end product. Both sides doing what they do best.

At present, the focus seems to be the shove it down our throats approach. Alcohol is mandated, and the cost of alcohol is near twice the price of gasoline. Not to mention the effect of using food for fuel on the price of food. Solar and wind are heavily subsidized, and the subsidy is not research oriented, but geared toward the retail market to make them competitive. There have been comments by those in the administration that 10 buck gasoline is a good thing as that would make alternates cost competitive. Not to me.
 
jimbo said:
Based on what I have read, I would agree that fossil fuel is the norm, however, there are still questions remaining. In my lifetime, it does not matter. There is more than enough carbon fuel to last the country for at least decades. Some say centuries. If national security is the issue, the immediate fix is to make ourselves energy independent, and that can be done most quickly and cheaply by focusing research on carbon. Not to say that research into other sources should not be done, and base research is one thing the government might do well. Are you aware that there is a huge amount of unexplained energy in the universe? Perhaps government expenditures should go that way. Once the basic research is done, why not make it free and available and let market forces develop the end product. Both sides doing what they do best.

At present, the focus seems to be the shove it down our throats approach. Alcohol is mandated, and the cost of alcohol is near twice the price of gasoline. Not to mention the effect of using food for fuel on the price of food. Solar and wind are heavily subsidized, and the subsidy is not research oriented, but geared toward the retail market to make them competitive. There have been comments by those in the administration that 10 buck gasoline is a good thing as that would make alternates cost competitive. Not to me.
Click to expand...

100 years of natural gas for current US usage
200-500 of coal depending on who you ask, but no less
oil for 222 if we had to stop importing tommorow. but coal can be converted, and natural gas is a good substitute in many ways. 1.442 trillion/18,000,000/365
not to mention enough farmland to feed our people and grow our energy in ethanol indefinitely.
and enough desert to cover 1/10th of nevada in solar panels and meet our energy needs indefinitely
etc.
 
Last edited:
the US produces about 5 mb/day but consumes 18 mb/day of oil

do the math

The article is based upon Hollywood Fantasy

The only way the US can improve its energy budget and self sufficiency is to go along the same road as nations such as GErmany who are moving away from fossil fuels and nuclear and heading towards a renewable/sustainanle energy future. And the technology is available and proven
 
Last edited:
roflpublican said:
have you seen the profits of oil companies since obama was elected? records every quarter. i'd say the policy is working great for them. they're exploiting the anomaly all right, the anomaly of no permits helping drive the price up :D.
Click to expand...

I don't give one damn about what somebody else makes. I care about what is costs to fill my tank, fill my belly, and heat my house. Everything else come in in second place. Neither do I have much class envy. If I think that if someone else is making more than me and I care, I would strive to emulate them, not attempt to drag them down to my level.

If you want to get in on some of these record profits, buy stock. It is available. Of course, you run the risk of losing your capital, just like a business does if they make a miscalculation.
 
jimbo said:
You are partially correct, in fact, possibly mostly correct. Some of the oil will be exported elsewhere. This is not a bad thing as the US will get the jobs, the taxes, the environmental control, which is generally better than in other countries. Some of the oil will stay in the US. I don't know the percentages, but it does not matter. One of the current arguments against opening up US oil production is that we are now in a world market. I don't understand this concept as the supply needs to keep up with market, regardless of the source of market.

If the world production of oil, and by extension the US and North American production brings the price down to the point that some methods of production go off line why is this a bad thing? Either the production of shale and tar will keep pace, or an equilibrium will be reached at a price lower than without the shale and sand oil.
Click to expand...

The problem with the sands going offline is that will significantly reduce traffic in the pipeline, and then we've got a giant boondoggle running right down the middle of the country. Because of the expense of getting the oil out of the sands and shale, if that goes offline we're back to importing it all from other countries.

I'm not saying "don't use these sources" or anything silly like that. Just that these are all things to consider. Energy independence isn't going to come at $2.00/gallon, so we need to consider that as well. Are we better off with cheap oil that's all imported, or are we better off paying a little bit more so that we can be more energy independent?
 
jimbo said:
QUOTE=roflpublican;1061141079]have you seen the profits of oil companies since obama was elected? records every quarter. i'd say the policy is working great for them. they're exploiting the anomaly all right, the anomaly of no permits helping drive the price up :D.
Click to expand...

I don't give one damn about what somebody else makes. I care about what is costs to fill my tank, bill my belly, and heat my house. Everything else come in in second place. .[/QUOTE]

Prepare to tighten your belt

The USA makes up about 5% of the total global population and yet consumes about 1/3 of the worlds resources and produces about 30% of the worlds waste and pollution.

Its unsustainable and greed based immorality

Grow up or leave this planet and live on another planet
 
jimbo said:
I don't give one damn about what somebody else makes. I care about what is costs to fill my tank, fill my belly, and heat my house. Everything else come in in second place. Neither do I have much class envy. If I think that if someone else is making more than me and I care, I would strive to emulate them, not attempt to drag them down to my level.

If you want to get in on some of these record profits, buy stock. It is available. Of course, you run the risk of losing your capital, just like a business does if they make a miscalculation.
Click to expand...

mate my point was the supply restriction scheme is working. but you can pretend that means i care about what they make. what i care about is the reality that supply is being restricted for the benefit of someones profit margin and that affects me. you don't have to take that seriously, and you can deny the truth of what i said and proved, but it won't change the reality.
 
jimbo said:
Based on what I have read, I would agree that fossil fuel is the norm, however, there are still questions remaining. In my lifetime, it does not matter. There is more than enough carbon fuel to last the country for at least decades. Some say centuries. If national security is the issue, the immediate fix is to make ourselves energy independent, and that can be done most quickly and cheaply by focusing research on carbon. Not to say that research into other sources should not be done, and base research is one thing the government might do well. Are you aware that there is a huge amount of unexplained energy in the universe? Perhaps government expenditures should go that way. Once the basic research is done, why not make it free and available and let market forces develop the end product. Both sides doing what they do best.

At present, the focus seems to be the shove it down our throats approach. Alcohol is mandated, and the cost of alcohol is near twice the price of gasoline. Not to mention the effect of using food for fuel on the price of food. Solar and wind are heavily subsidized, and the subsidy is not research oriented, but geared toward the retail market to make them competitive. There have been comments by those in the administration that 10 buck gasoline is a good thing as that would make alternates cost competitive. Not to me.
Click to expand...

i tend to doubt that we have centuries of fossil fuels left even if we could freeze current consumption where it is right now. when the majority of China and India start buying gasoline powered cars, we are going to have a real problem. unless the earth is a malted milk ball with a crude oil center, there simply isn't going to be enough. not to mention that burning carbon is a very environmentally costly way to power everything. the atmosphere can only absorb so much of it before it starts becoming a real problem. it's not just melting ice; increasing global temperatures can supercharge storms, tornadoes, and all sorts of other weather disturbances.

i agree with you about ethanol. while it's an alternative, it's a poor one. a better path forward would be to transition from oil to electric to whatever we innovate next. i love gasoline automobiles, but i really dislike all of the economic, geopolitical, and environmental consequences.
 
rocket88 said:
The problem with the sands going offline is that will significantly reduce traffic in the pipeline, and then we've got a giant boondoggle running right down the middle of the country. Because of the expense of getting the oil out of the sands and shale, if that goes offline we're back to importing it all from other countries.

I'm not saying "don't use these sources" or anything silly like that. Just that these are all things to consider. Energy independence isn't going to come at $2.00/gallon, so we need to consider that as well. Are we better off with cheap oil that's all imported, or are we better off paying a little bit more so that we can be more energy independent?
Click to expand...

The boondoggle as I understand it comes at the expense of private capital. As far as I know, no government money is being spent. If the pipeline becomes non viable economically, it will get torn down and the sagebrush will return.

Simply put, energy independence comes when we produce the same or more than we use, regardless of the price. The problem comes when we are importing oil from foreign countries when we are sitting atop large resources going unexploited and using non economical sources subsidized by the government.
 
Klown said:
the US produces about 5 mb/day but consumes 18 mb/day of oil

do the math

The article is based upon Hollywood Fantasy

The only way the US can improve its energy budget and self sufficiency is to go along the same road as nations such as GErmany who are moving away from fossil fuels and nuclear and heading towards a renewable/sustainanle energy future. And the technology is available and proven
Click to expand...

The problem with this argument. Germany is not the US and is does not have enough carbon energy resources to satisfy its immediate and future needs. One proposal I have heard is to use natural gas (in Germany) as a storage system. That would not be necessary in the US. We just dig a hole and gas comes out. Likewise nuclear. We have plenty of fuel for both. The nuclear is a separate argument, and the lack of interest is largely due to discounting the advancement of safety concerns. Even so, government should not subsidize nuclear any more than alcohol.

The way to energy self sufficiency, assuming your shortfall number is correct is to increase the supply by 13 mb. Do the math.
 
jimbo said:
The problem with this argument. Germany is not the US and is does not have enough carbon energy resources to satisfy its immediate and future needs. One proposal I have heard is to use natural gas (in Germany) as a storage system. That would not be necessary in the US. We just dig a hole and gas comes out. Likewise nuclear. We have plenty of fuel for both. The nuclear is a separate argument, and the lack of interest is largely due to discounting the advancement of safety concerns. Even so, government should not subsidize nuclear any more than alcohol.

The way to energy self sufficiency, assuming your shortfall number is correct is to increase the supply by 13 mb. Do the math.
Click to expand...

Well the US currently does the math on a daily basis and imports 13 million barrels of oil every day to meet its domestic consumption.

Speaking of consumption.

The USA makes up about 5% of the total global human population, but consumes about 1/3 of the worlds resources and produces about 30% of the worlds waste and pollution.

It looks like the average US citizen is living well beyond its means - a life of waste, decadence and inward looking selfishness. These are the things the people of the US shoudl look at first - look in the mirror. Stop using military actions against other nations that havent attacked you so that you can access their resources on behalf of your corporate masters.

Since the end WW2 the USA has attacked 37 nations that has resulted in over 24 million civilian deaths.
 
Klown said:
Well the US currently does the math on a daily basis and imports 13 million barrels of oil every day to meet its domestic consumption.

Speaking of consumption.

The USA makes up about 5% of the total global human population, but consumes about 1/3 of the worlds resources and produces about 30% of the worlds waste and pollution.

It looks like the average US citizen is living well beyond its means - a life of waste, decadence and inward looking selfishness. These are the things the people of the US shoudl look at first - look in the mirror. Stop using military actions against other nations that havent attacked you so that you can access their resources on behalf of your corporate masters.

Since the end WW2 the USA has attacked 37 nations that has resulted in over 24 million civilian deaths.
Click to expand...

Aside from your first statement, which I addressed above (produce 13 million barrels more oil per day), the remainder has nothing to do with the OP. Start a thread, or threads, I'll participate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom