US predicted to become #1 Producer of Oil. (and that aint some poltical claim)

Here is some news that reflects a topic that was bandied about in the election and claimed by the GOP as "their" topic...and that the other guys were going to screw it up.

Not So according to the International Energy Association. In fact its interesting that this prediction was made after the election.

If you like the idea of energy independence from the Middle East this would be great news. Let the Chinese and Indians deal with the fundamentalists who threaten the world.

very interesting analysis: http://www.latimes.com/business/mon...cer-saudi-arabia-iea-20121112,0,6181922.story

 

Personally, I actually liked the idea that were we saving all our oil and let the rest of the world use up theirs. Seemed to me that was going to give us a nice strategic advantage in the future. I actually think we should build up our ability to use and refine our own oil but then continue to use foreign oil as long as it suits our needs once our ability to use ours quickly was established.

Sadly, China and India do not effectively use their position to cause good changes in behavior.

 

OK now I've heard the joke of the millenium . You guy DON'T have the resources to pull it off and even if you do it won't be cost effective and it will last for hours . Do you have any idea of how oil is extracted ? Do some research and then come up with stupid claims . Gun dam with people like earl the US is truly domed to crash and burn .

 

I like that the thought is there and hopefully it does happen. The U.S. really needs a better economy so as a #1 producer of oil that would be a big step for us.

 

It's been in the news. >

 

Oh Earl, how desperate you are to find everything else to talk about but the failures of the left!

 

Rebecca risk of asteroid strikes is also in the news . It's still something that's not going to happen any time soon .

 

He has to find a bright spot to polish up on Obama's turd. In fairness to Obama, he hasn't gone as far to block fracking with his EPA as his base wants him to. We'll see, but I suspect Obama will wind up being the enemy of this energy boom.

 

I love love love seeing the hate filled commentary from the Extremists, that represent the losing side of the election and the hate filled perspective that extremists seem to manifest no matter what part of the world they live in nor what extremist philosophy they represent.

Part of the Romney campaign promises was US energy independence....as if his political "promises" were going to change the world economic situation.

Here an independent source makes the claim. Its been put out before, as Rebecca cited, representing similar perspectives from other experts that follow the industry. Is is based on some level of expertise research from sources that aren't necessarily tied to political parties and certainly don't represent an extremist right wing perspective that turns off majorities of people.

Whether it occurs or not is subject to many different elements that reflect unforeseen events: still it mirrors the political claims of the Romney campaign, it comes from an independent source and in that it reflects positively on an outcome that most would see as favorable it generated these comments from the "hate" extremists:

Apocolypse just fumed in anger.

grpaul just turned the info into a hate attack on the left

O-nation turned it into an attack on Obama.

What is the problem, extremists? Nobody else to kick in the face???

 

What need have I to kick anyone in the face when Obama proves himself to be a master contortionist capable of kicking himself in the face. I simply cited what most non-partisan observers are saying about Obama's stance on US oil production.

In essence, yes we are on the verge of an energy boom. An energy boom that is cleaner than coal, and much dirtier than hydro, solar, and wind. An energy boom that will make us the worlds largest contributor to "global warming gasses". Oil production is up, and the only thing standing in the way of us out producing Saudi Arabia is Obama's EPA. Any gambling folk want to make a wager on whether or not Obama lets our economy thrive?

I would agree with this statement if the cost was not so high to our economy. Shaving 25% off of Obama's energy prices would do wonders for our economy.

 

O-Nation:

Nice going political extremist. You purposefully left out these sentences of the article:

the article ended this way:

The administration is working to strike a balance between energy production and environmental protection. Reasonable policy for most. there will be hiccups as it walks through a path of balance. Anathema to the right wing extremists who have sold their souls to right wing energy producers.

Hey I'm sorry the majority of the nation didn't want to sell its soul to the Koch brothers and some other energy producers rich guys who believe they are better than every one else.

 

I know you didn't expect me to quote the entire article. I thought the parts I did clip in explained the situation nicely. Savaging the president for his policies is like savaging Osama Bin Laden for his.

Lets not try and take Mr. Amendariz's comments as an isolated incident, where he talks about crucifying fractal oil producers to set an example to the rest. Lets have a look at the President's own words where he talks about bankrupting energy companies with the Cap and Trade bill he pushed during the worst economic crisis since the great depression.

[video=youtube;DpTIhyMa-Nw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw[/video]

Lets look at the words of his energy secretary, Steven Chiu who famously said, "“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”.

You put all this together and one thing becomes crystal clear. Cheap energy based on fossil fuels is anathema to the Obama administration.

I'm amazed you would include that quote, which again highlights the partisan zeal Obama's anti-energy administration has put above the American economy.

LoL. The Koch brothers, the primary funders of Nova and several other televised science programs, public education, and scientific research. You are going to have to find a better boogy man. Had you considered George Soros?

You've been bandying about the various meanings you have derived from Obama's election. You seem to think that Obama's popularity with those hooked on government cheese somehow means the majority of Americans embrace all things Obama. Strange, because his healthcare bill is still overwhelmingly unpopular, as are his energy policies (he couldn't get them passed with super majorities in both houses).

Here is what I took away from Obama's reelection. 1) Romney was not as good as he should have been at articulating the conservative message. 2) Obama and the Democratic machine were excellent and playing racially and socially divisive politics, and their fraud/get out the vote machine was second to none.

Note: 51 out of 55 Tea Party Republicans were reelected to their seats. Another Latino Tea Party Republican was added to the Senate.

 

Oh yeah? How about you enlighten us, genius? Domestic oil production in the US has been surging already, do a bit of researching for yourself before you preach it to others...

Well, that is because the govt of India is a spineless band of cocksucking douchebags, they have better things to do, such as scamming the hell out of country.
And China, they don't give a shit about anyone else but themselves. They actually want religiously blind, hateful, anti-US zealot leaders in the ME. It serves their needs. Why do you think they are hand in hand with Iran and Pakistan?

 

Eventually we won't be buying foreign oil. The Middle East will probably turn to Asia to sell. We may not be as concerned about keeping the shipping routes of oil secure, as we don't have as much of a vested interest.

 

Eventually, it will be much wiser to reduce the dependency on fossil fuel and improve the alternatives, like bio fuel or even Hydrogen cells. These alternatives provide almost never ending supply...

 

I don't preach I make the forecasts . I studied geography of the natural resources , I know more then enough about oil reserves , types of oil and the extraction process . Oil independence will never happen unless the US is lead by complete morons ... in fact you know what with Mr. I hate America in charge that might just happen . Now those terrorist Canadians won't get any more funds . The US will still not be the leading producer . Their economy is slowly dieing out so they won't have the cash to pull it off .

Meanwhile China and India will require more oil ergo the KSA and Russia will increase production and leave Amurica in the dust .

 

Actually fossil fuels are anathema to most nations concerned about the increasing threat of climate change. I consider that is a '+' for the world and for the Obama campaign. Most are trying their level best to reduce our reliance on dirty finite fossil fuels and many are reducing pollution where they can in line with kyoto. - President Obama is simply fulfilling his mandate.

 

You are have a tunnel vision. You are not considering two important factors here.. 1) Private Sectors 2) Alternative fuel options..
May be US will not be the leading producer, but it can very well be self sufficient..

 

I like the idea of algae biofuel. There was a study saying we can replace between 17% to 48% of our fuel imports with it. I also support increasing oil production. Imagine, take the money we spend to foreign sources, and instead, put it in our own economy (and create more jobs). Much better.

 

Well, you are half right. Obama is doing what he thinks is his mandate, despite what Earlpearl might try and have you believe by starting this thread. I'll leave you to argue that one with him.

Regarding "most nations" and the use of fossil fuels, you might want to rethink that one. The "Asian century" your misguided PM is hoping for requires China and India to do exactly what they are doing, and that is, buying up fossil fuels and building new coal fire power plants on a daily basis. The US contribution to the world's carbon footprint on a per capita basis has only large because so many of our 300 million people have vehicles and a middle class lifestyle powered by fossil fuel energy.

China, with it's billion plus population, has had most of it's people living in grass huts. As they move to cities and build their growing economy with dirty energy, like they are currently doing, they will not only lead the world in green house gas production, they will also lead the world in green house gas production on a per capita basis, despite the fact more than 50% of their billion plus population still lives in poverty. Wake up man.