Obama's Oil Boom ?

[Navy1960]

The U.S. exported more oil-based fuels than it imported in the first nine months of this year, making it likely that 2011 will be the first time since 1949 that the nation is a net exporter of such goods, primarily diesel
Oil boomlet sweeps U.S. as exports rise


This is GREAT News for our nation and it should send a message to the White House that energy production, regardless of what it is, Oil, Natural Gas, Solar, Wind, Nuclear, etc. makes this nation stronger and less dependent on others and in turn creates jobs. It would seem a simple solution, however if the President as well as many in congress would simply set their respective politics aside and realize that we are "ALL IN" then perhaps later they can fight over the social issues afterwards.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Making this nation stronger and more self reliant is not one of Obama's goals, never has been and never will be. Spending some twenty odd years seated in the front pew of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church and listening to one variation or another of "Its not God bless America! Its God d@mn America!" week after week would be expected to do that to a person.
CNBC's moderators were frothing at the mouth over the Keystone Pipeline this late AM. Unless I miss my guess, most Americans would back the construction of the pipeline at this time in view of America's economic circumstances, based on its promise of 20,000 new jobs and perhaps lowered fuel oil prices. However that's probably not what Obama is going to do, since most Republicans have lined up firmly in back of the pipeline's construction. Obama will first and foremost look to screwing the Republicans, and if necessary the American people, rather than looking after America's best interests, which was what we the people usually elected a president to do in the past.

 

[Dragon]

It's not great news. We haven't been a net oil exporter since 1970, and we're not one now. What we're exporting more of than we import is oil PRODUCTS -- the stuff that comes out of refineries, not oil wells. Makes sense if you think about it: it's cheaper to import the black stuff than the refined stuff, which we can make ourselves. This does NOT mean that U.S. oil production has increased. It is NOT an oil boom.

That we're exporting oil products also means we're importing more oil than we need to be, which is definitely not good news.

Oil is a nonrenewable resource, and the U.S. is long past its oil-production peak. We will never again be a net oil exporter.

 

[BlindBoo]

And just how much refined oil (fuel) products have we been importing anyway?

Refining dirty tar sand from Canada, polluting America so they can sell it somewhere else.

Not much to cheer about. Well unless you own stock in a company that does this and don't live in Texas.

 

[Navy1960]

Based on the actions of several past Presidents and this one , making this nation more self reliant when it comes to it's own energy production has not been high on the agenda. My point is that despite all of that this mini-boom of sorts should provide some incentive to walk down that path finally, regardless of who is in the White House. Both parties have been very lax in their efforts to rid this nation of its need to depend on foreign sources of energy for various reasons, all of them much to the chagrin of our nations citizens. This President should understand that the best way to create jobs is to provide a path for this nation to produce products, goods, energy itself, and in that it will create the much needed jobs they all talk about but do nothing about. My feelings are that if both parties would simply just get out of the way and allow this nation to become a producer again, then perhaps both sides in Washington can debate over more pressing issues after the fact. like for example, Turtle Tunnels, or the Govts' motto.

 

[Nova78]

The U.S. exported more oil-based fuels than it imported in the first nine months of this year, making it likely that 2011 will be the first time since 1949 that the nation is a net exporter of such goods, primarily diesel

A lot of the diesel goes to China,they are in a boom from all the walmart goodies they export,,,,

 

[Dragon]

Based on the actions of several past Presidents and this one , making this nation more self reliant when it comes to it's own energy production has not been high on the agenda. My point is that despite all of that this mini-boom of sorts should provide some incentive to walk down that path finally, regardless of who is in the White House.

But your point is invalid, because we DON'T HAVE a mini-boom.

Look, there's something here you don't seem to understand. There are two steps to getting petroleum into a form that it can be used as a fuel (gasoline, diesel oil, etc.).

1) The petroleum is extracted from its underground deposit.

2) The petroleum is processed in a refinery to purify the various usable products.

What we have is a "mini-boom" in step 2 only. We are NOT pumping more oil out of the ground than we used to; we're merely buying it abroad and then refining it here.

I agree with the goal of energy independence, but we are not going to be able to achieve that as long as out energy economy remains based on petroleum. We simply don't have the oil anymore to do that. The only way we can become energy independent is to base our energy economy on something else.

We can't drill our way to energy independence because there isn't enough oil left in the U.S. to drill.

 

[BlindBoo]

Based on the actions of several past Presidents and this one , making this nation more self reliant when it comes to it's own energy production has not been high on the agenda. My point is that despite all of that this mini-boom of sorts should provide some incentive to walk down that path finally, regardless of who is in the White House.

But your point is invalid, because we DON'T HAVE a mini-boom.

Look, there's something here you don't seem to understand. There are two steps to getting petroleum into a form that it can be used as a fuel (gasoline, diesel oil, etc.).

1) The petroleum is extracted from its underground deposit.

2) The petroleum is processed in a refinery to purify the various usable products.

What we have is a "mini-boom" in step 2 only. We are NOT pumping more oil out of the ground than we used to; we're merely buying it abroad and then refining it here.

I agree with the goal of energy independence, but we are not going to be able to achieve that as long as out energy economy remains based on petroleum. We simply don't have the oil anymore to do that. The only way we can become energy independent is to base our energy economy on something else.

We can't drill our way to energy independence because there isn't enough oil left in the U.S. to drill.

Even if we were producing Oil like were were in the 70's we'd still cover barely half of the demand. But thanks to the Bakken formation we are increasing crude oil production as well. Also with high unemployement rates less Americans are commuting to work so consumption is down too.

Crude Oil Production

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

 

[Navy1960]

Based on the actions of several past Presidents and this one , making this nation more self reliant when it comes to it's own energy production has not been high on the agenda. My point is that despite all of that this mini-boom of sorts should provide some incentive to walk down that path finally, regardless of who is in the White House.

But your point is invalid, because we DON'T HAVE a mini-boom.

Look, there's something here you don't seem to understand. There are two steps to getting petroleum into a form that it can be used as a fuel (gasoline, diesel oil, etc.).

1) The petroleum is extracted from its underground deposit.

2) The petroleum is processed in a refinery to purify the various usable products.

What we have is a "mini-boom" in step 2 only. We are NOT pumping more oil out of the ground than we used to; we're merely buying it abroad and then refining it here.

I agree with the goal of energy independence, but we are not going to be able to achieve that as long as out energy economy remains based on petroleum. We simply don't have the oil anymore to do that. The only way we can become energy independent is to base our energy economy on something else.

We can't drill our way to energy independence because there isn't enough oil left in the U.S. to drill.

So your saying, that to rid ourselves foreign sources of energy and become a net producer of energy from domestic sources, be it from all those I mentioned in my frist posting is invalid? So I take it your not for Solar, Wind, or any number of renewable sources of energy as well? and that you disagree that the production and construction of those sources of energy as well as domestic production does not increase the prospect of jobs ? That is why I said "ALL IN"

My point remains very vaild in that with ALL available energy sources including fossil fuels, it's a win win for this nation. Further, to be a net exporter in anything means you are exporting more than you are importing.

 

[Chris]

It's not great news. We haven't been a net oil exporter since 1970, and we're not one now. What we're exporting more of than we import is oil PRODUCTS -- the stuff that comes out of refineries, not oil wells. Makes sense if you think about it: it's cheaper to import the black stuff than the refined stuff, which we can make ourselves. This does NOT mean that U.S. oil production has increased. It is NOT an oil boom.

That we're exporting oil products also means we're importing more oil than we need to be, which is definitely not good news.

Oil is a nonrenewable resource, and the U.S. is long past its oil-production peak. We will never again be a net oil exporter.

So this is a bogus thread.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Dragon]

We should not be increasing production of fossil fuels. If we do, we will simply delay the unavoidable and necessary shift to renewable energy. Not only that, but we're very near the point when solar power becomes CHEAPER than natural gas or oil (although not coal). It's already a lot cheaper than nuclear power.

Cost of solar energy will match fossil fuel electricity by 2013, claims Solarcentury | Environment | guardian.co.uk

There is also an inexhaustible supply of it. In short, since we are ultimately going to be converting all of our energy production to a mix of renewable power sources (solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and biofuels), and since it will become economically feasible to do so before any new oil sources can come on the market, and since any new oil sources will be more expensive themselves than what we have tapped in the past (as they will require newer, more expensive technologies to extract), there is no reason not to make the decision NOW to go that direction.

Well, I take it back. There is one: the influence of the fossil-fuel industry on the government through lobbies.

But there isn't any GOOD reason.

 

[Mr. H.]

It's not great news. We haven't been a net oil exporter since 1970, and we're not one now. What we're exporting more of than we import is oil PRODUCTS -- the stuff that comes out of refineries, not oil wells. Makes sense if you think about it: it's cheaper to import the black stuff than the refined stuff, which we can make ourselves. This does NOT mean that U.S. oil production has increased. It is NOT an oil boom.

That we're exporting oil products also means we're importing more oil than we need to be, which is definitely not good news.

Oil is a nonrenewable resource, and the U.S. is long past its oil-production peak. We will never again be a net oil exporter.

So this is a bogus thread.

Why am I not surprised?

Because you subscribe to the nonsensical logic of the last 2 sentences of that post.

 

[Navy1960]

We should not be increasing production of fossil fuels. If we do, we will simply delay the unavoidable and necessary shift to renewable energy. Not only that, but we're very near the point when solar power becomes CHEAPER than natural gas or oil (although not coal). It's already a lot cheaper than nuclear power.

Cost of solar energy will match fossil fuel electricity by 2013, claims Solarcentury | Environment | guardian.co.uk

There is also an inexhaustible supply of it. In short, since we are ultimately going to be converting all of our energy production to a mix of renewable power sources (solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and biofuels), and since it will become economically feasible to do so before any new oil sources can come on the market, and since any new oil sources will be more expensive themselves than what we have tapped in the past (as they will require newer, more expensive technologies to extract), there is no reason not to make the decision NOW to go that direction.

Well, I take it back. There is one: the influence of the fossil-fuel industry on the government through lobbies.

But there isn't any GOOD reason.

First let me say, I am not in disagreement with you on renewables, (Solar, wind, etc) in fact some studies suggest that by 2050 Solar will be much cheaper to produce and install than just about any other energy source, and recently a study was conducted by SoCal Edison on 25 projects Solar came in cheaper than Natural gas. That said, to simply dismiss the fact that this nation is dependent on fossil fuels and that a vast majority of it's energy needs come from fossil fuel sources is short sighted. To simply advocate for no expansion of fossil fuel production based on the fact that renewables will eventually take their place does not take the above into account. To convert totally to a system where all ICE's are run on biofuels or hybrids, or for that matter full electric will take time, and my feelings are that to advocate for no production of fossil fuels in that interim period of times does notthing but place limits on this nation thereby making that transition period longer. While we do not disagree that in order for this nation(s) long term energy prodution to be self sustaining it needs to come from a mix of technologies the vast majority of which will come everntually from renewable sources. to exclude any energy sources from that mix makes this nation less competetive, and more dependent on other nations for its energy needs.

I hear a lot from people about the Wal MArt culture, and how we have sold our nation down the river for cheap imports, but if we have the ability to produce energy in this nation to end that culture, and do so in a manner that is not only environmentally friendly but also helpful to this nations long term survival then we should do it as soon as possible. So in the end I fear I must disagree with you on the fossil fuel production part of your posting, even though, we tend to agree on the long term.

 

[auditor0007]

It's not great news. We haven't been a net oil exporter since 1970, and we're not one now. What we're exporting more of than we import is oil PRODUCTS -- the stuff that comes out of refineries, not oil wells. Makes sense if you think about it: it's cheaper to import the black stuff than the refined stuff, which we can make ourselves. This does NOT mean that U.S. oil production has increased. It is NOT an oil boom.

That we're exporting oil products also means we're importing more oil than we need to be, which is definitely not good news.

Oil is a nonrenewable resource, and the U.S. is long past its oil-production peak. We will never again be a net oil exporter.

Never say never. It all depends on whether or not someone can come up with an economically and environmentally safe way to extract oil from shale. If that day ever comes, we could actually become the world's largest oil exporter, or we could be smart and save it all for ourselves.