• 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

Being happy we can produce more oil is like being happy you can buy more crack. I'll never understand the right wing hatred for cleaner energy sources which are available to us.
 
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.

How do you intend to produce an additional 13 mb/day to add to your current 5 mb/day - just to meet your domestic consumption?

(Incidentally the Saudis are currently producing 10 mb/day - good luck with the Hollywood Fantasy future)
 
Being happy we can produce more oil is like being happy you can buy more crack. I'll never understand the right wing hatred for cleaner energy sources which are available to us.

There is no hatred toward them. That is a mischaracterization. Your conservative adversaries simply acknowledge their relative economic non-viability as long as oil remains the cheaper alternative.
 
There is no hatred toward them. That is a mischaracterization. Your conservative adversaries simply acknowledge their relative economic non-viability as long as oil remains the cheaper alternative.

Cheaper alternative, yes, meth is also cheaper than coke. Which one would you like to engage in first?
 
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I would bet the US gov't would approve new refineries being built if the builder of said refinery pledged to only sell to America. I'm not very well read in on the regulations, market, etc but it sounds sensible. Anyone know a reason why that wouldn't work?
 
Being happy we can produce more oil is like being happy you can buy more crack. I'll never understand the right wing hatred for cleaner energy sources which are available to us.

Crack will never be a problem for me since I have no desire to partake. So to with alcohol, wind, and solar energy. I would take issue with the crack market if each time I purchased aspirin I was forced to pay for crack for someone else. I'd be even more pissed if someone demanded that I take crack just because they believed in it.

Understand, I have no problem with you purchasing an automobile that is only capable of running on alcohol, or a home with a windmill on top. I just don't want to pay for your windmill, crack, or alcohol
 
Being happy we can produce more oil is like being happy you can buy more crack. I'll never understand the right wing hatred for cleaner energy sources which are available to us.

Its a strange Psychopathy isnt it.

I suspect that even if you provide them with a totally FREE energy alternative they would still reject it and prefer to burn coal, oil and gas

THe level of socio-psychopathic neurosis and tribal based hatred is astonishing - especially in the USA where the level of propaganda and general ignorance is so intense
 
Cheaper alternative, yes, meth is also cheaper than coke. Which one would you like to engage in first?

:lamo What TF sort of comparison is that?

apples_oranges1.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I would bet the US gov't would approve new refineries being built if the builder of said refinery pledged to only sell to America. I'm not very well read in on the regulations, market, etc but it sounds sensible. Anyone know a reason why that wouldn't work?

So will the government guarantee to buy from this refinery all that it can supply at any price?

Or will the price be fixed.

Because if it is not, then the refinery could sell all it can produce at hugely inflated prices, whereas normally, it can only sell at prices that the market will bare.

And if it is a set price, what happens if the price of oil goes up or down drastically? Does the price the government will pay change as well?

What if the price the government is prepared to pay no longer allows the refinery to make a profit? Will the government start subsidizing it?

It all sounds a little bit too much like central government planning to me.

I understand your point - but I say leave it to the free market.
 
Last edited:
How do you intend to produce an additional 13 mb/day to add to your current 5 mb/day - just to meet your domestic consumption?

(Incidentally the Saudis are currently producing 10 mb/day - good luck with the Hollywood Fantasy future)

Build refineries, drill holes. Pull natural gas out of the ground.
 
I suspect that even if you provide them with a totally FREE energy alternative they would still reject it and prefer to burn coal, oil and gas.

Jesus Christ. You guys have lost it. You have no economic sense whatsoever, do you? Any FREE energy alternative would have an EROEI of infinity, since it's free. People (not just conservative people) will happily take whatever is cheapest.

THe level of socio-psychopathic neurosis and tribal based hatred is astonishing - especially in the USA where the level of propaganda and general ignorance is so intense

What TF is "socio-psychopathic neurosis?" Trying to suddenly be a psychiatrist, are we?
 
Actually this 5 year prediction makes sense.

Jeb Bush will be elected in 4 years, so he'll have a busy first year drilling for oil.
 
So will the government guarantee to buy from this refinery all that it can supply at any price?

Or will the price be fixed.

Because if it is not, then the refinery could sell all it can produce at hugely inflated prices, whereas normally, it can only sell at prices that the market will bare.

And if it is a set price, what happens if the price of oil goes up or down drastically? Does the price the government will pay change as well?

What if the price the government is prepared to pay no longer allows the refinery to make a profit? Will the government start subsidizing it?

It all sounds a little bit too much like central government planning to me.

I understand your point - but I say leave it to the free market.

Look, I'm not going to claim to know a lot about this subject because I don't. My point was that the gov't apparently isn't granting permits for new refineries and that maybe they would if said refinery pledged to sell to America only. There's nothing big gov't or central gov't about that. It's merely the gov't giving out a permit that they already give out to existing refineries anyway. I'm not proposing our gov't force them to sell X amount of barrels to them at a certain price or anything like that. They could still sell it on the open market. It just wouldn't be sold to foreign countries.
 
My point went over your head? Am I supposed to be shocked by that?

It didn't go over my head, I fully comprehended it as imbecilic. You compared oil vs. alternatives to meth vs. coke. Meth and coke are obviously both worth avoiding at all costs, whereas without oil or an equivalent alternative (which does not exist) our entire global economy collapses.
 
Look, I'm not going to claim to know a lot about this subject because I don't. My point was that the gov't apparently isn't granting permits for new refineries and that maybe they would if said refinery pledged to sell to America only. There's nothing big gov't or central gov't about that. It's merely the gov't giving out a permit that they already give out to existing refineries anyway. I'm not proposing our gov't force them to sell X amount of barrels to them at a certain price or anything like that. They could still sell it on the open market. It just wouldn't be sold to foreign countries.

Similarly, I would like to see a few states join together to create quasi-public corporations to build refineries to sell only in their states at or near cost which would put pressure on big oil to stop manufacturing supply shortages to run prices up.
 
Similarly, I would like to see a few states join together to create quasi-public corporations to build refineries to sell only in their states at or near cost which would put pressure on big oil to stop manufacturing supply shortages to run prices up.

I'm just delving into this topic so I don't know enough about this to really comment. Sounds good in theory though.
 
Similarly, I would like to see a few states join together to create quasi-public corporations to build refineries to sell only in their states at or near cost which would put pressure on big oil to stop manufacturing supply shortages to run prices up.

i wish. but that's socialism. cant be having that in 'merica, home of the poor and the people who ride their
xxxxxx.jpg
's to caymans and back to hide their trillions
 
It didn't go over my head, I fully comprehended it as imbecilic. You compared oil vs. alternatives to meth vs. coke. Meth and coke are obviously both worth avoiding at all costs, whereas without oil or an equivalent alternative (which does not exist) our entire global economy collapses.

No, I compared the false premise that we shouldn't engage in healthier living because it's expensive to another false premise that we shouldn't engage in healthier living because it's expensive. A coke bottle is literally more expensive than a meth hit. So which would you rather have?
 
i wish. but that's socialism. cant be having that in 'merica, home of the poor and the people who ride their
View attachment 67137907
's to caymans and back to hide their trillions

Except it is not. The states wouldn't own the corporation, just start and fund it as a non-profit and then get their money back from the economic development loan :) Strawparty Socialism ain't socialism :)
 
Except it is not. The states wouldn't own the corporation, just start and fund it as a non-profit and then get their money back from the economic development loan :) Strawparty Socialism ain't socialism :)

that's massively interventionalist on behalf of the government. but i support the idea completely even if you dont agree with my characterization of it.
 
that's massively interventionalist on behalf of the government. but i support the idea completely even if you dont agree with my characterization of it.

I have no problem with state owned business enterprises whatsoever. Local governments have been known to create special non-profits they control to do things that the local government legally cannot do, especially when it comes to buying and rehabilitation of decaying property and reselling it as part of economic development.
 
Look, I'm not going to claim to know a lot about this subject because I don't. My point was that the gov't apparently isn't granting permits for new refineries and that maybe they would if said refinery pledged to sell to America only. There's nothing big gov't or central gov't about that. It's merely the gov't giving out a permit that they already give out to existing refineries anyway. I'm not proposing our gov't force them to sell X amount of barrels to them at a certain price or anything like that. They could still sell it on the open market. It just wouldn't be sold to foreign countries.

So a government limits who a company can sell it's products to - including those in other friendly countries - and that is not 'big government' to you?

Well, it is to me.

Or at least, too big for my tastes.
 
We will arguably become a competitor for the top producer (not that we have ever been a minority producer), and perhaps we can overtake Saudi Arabia it depends on a variety of things not the least of which is the long term viability of shale reserves of which the easiest are being accessed right now and which have a quick burn rate. But we will almost certainly not become self-sufficient, even when you include an influx of Canadian crude, but we can contribute to the stability of global prices, increase domestic employment, and reap large returns.
 
No, I compared the false premise that we shouldn't engage in healthier living because it's expensive to another false premise that we shouldn't engage in healthier living because it's expensive. A coke bottle is literally more expensive than a meth hit. So which would you rather have?

:shock: :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom