So much for "peak oil"

[brenthutch 388]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-may-soon-become-worlds-top-oil-producer

U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons is on track to rise 7 percent this year to an average of 10.9 million barrels per day. This will be the fourth straight year of crude increases and the biggest single-year gain since 1951.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-may-soon-become-worlds-top-oil-producer

U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons is on track to rise 7 percent this year to an average of 10.9 million barrels per day. This will be the fourth straight year of crude increases and the biggest single-year gain since 1951.

Wow, Obama is Da Man!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

It’s important to note that most big boosts in production, according to experts, follow years of earlier exploration and drilling -- efforts begun under the policies of prior administrations. By the same token, Obama’s actions in office should have an impact in the years to come.

"I don't think Obama can claim a lot of credit for production levels now, and I'm not even sure that Bush can," said Hakes, the author of A Declaration of Energy Independence, which looks at energy policy from President Harry S. Truman to President George W. Bush. "If you're going to go back — who should get the credit — I might be able to find something that Nixon did."

The recent expansion of hydrofracking — using pressurized fluid to get gas or oil out of rock formations — came about over decades.

"That's why attaching production things to any particular administration is a very, very tricky business, and probably best handled in books rather than in articles," Hakes said. "There are just too many factors."

So, Obama certainly shouldn’t be claiming full credit for increases in oil production on private land — but neither should supporters of Bush.

Quote

Our ruling

So: Did the United States produce 14 percent less oil on its public lands last year? Yes.

But there’s nuance in the number. Production under Obama was hobbled due to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, making a one-year figure subject to cherry-picking. And it’s not at all clear that the president in charge when the oil is taken out of the ground deserves full credit or blame; years of prior policies on exploration and drilling had an impact.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[kallend 1,635]

Hey, if Romney can claim credit for kids in MA having top test scores based on policies enacted 10 years before he became governor (he did this just last night), then Obama can claim credit for this.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

Quote

Hey, if Romney can claim credit for kids in MA having top test scores based on policies enacted 10 years before he became governor (he did this just last night), then Obama can claim credit for this.

I am a bit confused. Is not the increased of hydrocarbon a bad thing? Let me get this straight. If Bush promotes coal, natural gas, and domestic oil; it is a bad thing. But if BO does the same thing it is a good thing? I guess that co2 knows that emissions are republican or democratic.

Let me just ask Bill and Kallend; can you explain why record increased production of carbon based energy is good if it is under a democratic administration, but if it is a Republican it is bad?

[BIGUN 1,062]

Quote

can you explain why record increased production of carbon based energy is good if it is under a democratic administration, but if it is a Republican it is bad?

Republicans do it for the evil of money. Democrats do it for the sake of the nation.

Try to keep up.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

can you explain why record increased production of carbon based energy is good if it is under a democratic administration, but if it is a Republican it is bad?

Republicans do it for the evil of money. Democrats do it for the sake of the nation.

Try to keep up.

Money isn't evil. Greed is. Try to keep up.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-may-soon-become-worlds-top-oil-producer

U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons is on track to rise 7 percent this year to an average of 10.9 million barrels per day. This will be the fourth straight year of crude increases and the biggest single-year gain since 1951.

You do understand that if the US produces a greater percentage of a smaller total we can still be experiencing peak oil and be a world leader in oil production.

[rushmc 18]

and be a world leader in oil production.

[brenthutch 388]

Quote

Quote

Quote

can you explain why record increased production of carbon based energy is good if it is under a democratic administration, but if it is a Republican it is bad?

Republicans do it for the evil of money. Democrats do it for the sake of the nation.

Try to keep up.

Money isn't evil. Greed is. Try to keep up.

Well lets just outlaw greed.

[brenthutch 388]

You do understand that if the US produces a greater percentage of a smaller total we can still be experiencing peak oil and be a world leader in oil production.

[SkyDekker 1,130]

Quote

You do understand that if the US produces a greater percentage of a smaller total we can still be experiencing peak oil and be a world leader in oil production.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That is a mighty big IF.

But the IF is definitely there, which makes the snarky title of this thread pretty idiotic.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You do understand that if the US produces a greater percentage of a smaller total we can still be experiencing peak oil and be a world leader in oil production.

the increase in US production is real - it looks to come close or possibly pass the Saudis in the near future. Whether or not this is a good thing (fracking is primary driver) is a different matter. If the result is a substantial reduction in available clean water and no improvement in our efficiency, then the answer is no.

[Opie 0]

Quote

Quote

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-may-soon-become-worlds-top-oil-producer

U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons is on track to rise 7 percent this year to an average of 10.9 million barrels per day. This will be the fourth straight year of crude increases and the biggest single-year gain since 1951.

You do understand that if the US produces a greater percentage of a smaller total we can still be experiencing peak oil and be a world leader in oil production.

Don't come in here trying to use logic and common sense, you'll just leave shaking your head!

[brenthutch 388]

And if it creates jobs (like in North Dakota with an unemployment rate of 3%) and lowers energy costs, (like cheap natural gas) you would agree with me that it is a very good thing.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-may-soon-become-worlds-top-oil-producer

U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons is on track to rise 7 percent this year to an average of 10.9 million barrels per day. This will be the fourth straight year of crude increases and the biggest single-year gain since 1951.

There is a difference between producing X amount of oil and producing X amount of easy oil.

Much of today's oil gains come from far more difficult and costly areas such as Alberta's tar sands. These are energy intensive as well.


Its no different than Farber producing artificial oil from coal for Germany in the 1940s, but cost x8 more than oil exports.


Cheers!
Shc

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Alberta's tar sands

There is no Tar in the Oil Sands. Will you Fabian Socialists back east ever get this through your skulls.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And if it creates jobs (like in North Dakota with an unemployment rate of 3%) and lowers energy costs, (like cheap natural gas) you would agree with me that it is a very good thing.

we know it has done both of these in the short term. But the long term is still the focus. Personally I view efficiency gains and draining the oil of our pseudo enemies as much more important. Those would be permanent improvements, whereas having a drunken, inflationary party on N Dakota lands for a decade may just leave us hungover and pregnant with a toxin mess.

[brenthutch 388]

Quote

Quote

And if it creates jobs (like in North Dakota with an unemployment rate of 3%) and lowers energy costs, (like cheap natural gas) you would agree with me that it is a very good thing.

we know it has done both of these in the short term. But the long term is still the focus. Personally I view efficiency gains and draining the oil of our pseudo enemies as much more important. Those would be permanent improvements, whereas having a drunken, inflationary party on N Dakota lands for a decade may just leave us hungover and pregnant with a toxin mess.

I will grant your point. What I don’t understand is why Kalland, is suddenly for the exploitation of tar sands and fracking. I do believe his exact words were "Wow, Obama is Da Man!" So please explain to me why.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I will grant your point. What I don’t understand is why Kalland, is suddenly for the exploitation of tar sands and fracking. I do believe his exact words were "Wow, Obama is Da Man!" So please explain to me why.

his bolding should make it pretty clear why.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

is suddenly for the exploitation of tar sands

There is no Tar in the Oil Sands. Bitumen != Tar.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[brenthutch 388]

Break it down for me, I am not that bright. Please explain to me how when Obama increased hydrocarbon based energy, it is good but when Bush did it is was bad. Are you claiming that the planet knows the difference between bad co2 (republican) and good co2 (democrat)?

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Those would be permanent improvements, whereas having a drunken, inflationary party on N Dakota lands for a decade may just leave us hungover and pregnant with a toxin mess.

I love a good metaphor.

Nice one.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

Quote

Quote

Those would be permanent improvements, whereas having a drunken, inflationary party on N Dakota lands for a decade may just leave us hungover and pregnant with a toxin mess.

I love a good metaphor.

Nice one.

So....., kallend, are you for or are you again the oil and gas increases under the Obama administration? You did say that because of the increase of liquid hydrocarbons that Obama is "The man" (your words) Please break it down for me.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Quote

Alberta's tar sands

There is no Tar in the Oil Sands. Will you Fabian Socialists back east ever get this through your skulls.

Fabian Socialists LOL