Skip to main content

Well, we all know that Barack Obama has ceased all domestic oil production.  I'm pretty sure that is what the Right Wing Noise Machine wants their audience to hear.  

The truth is quite different and for the wingnuts, this is probably bad news.

We are within shooting distance of being the world's biggest producer of petroleum in the world.

More after the slick squiggle.

Now, I'm not a fan of oil and I'm sure most Kossacks would agree. We should be moving in giant leaps and bounds to cleaner, renewable sources of energy.  Regardless, this story takes away one of the great Republican bullshit stories this year- that American oil production is falling and it's the President's fault.

Research out todayshows that US crude production is set for its biggest one year gain since 1951.

The Energy Department forecasts that we will produce an average of 11.4 million barrels of liquid hydrocarbon fuels per day this year.  That is just short of the amount the number one producer, Saudi Arabia put out each day.   The forecast says, that in five years, the US could be an exporter of crude oil.

Of course, the down side is a lot of the growth comes from fracking, and other terribly polluting ways of producing crude oil.  With the increase in automobile fuel efficiency, our need for crude oil should drop somewhat as production continues to increase.  

Hopefully this story gets some loud mainstream news play.  Not because reliance of oil from any source is good news for the environment, but because this massive rise in domestic production is good news for the President and it kills yet another bullshit Republican talking point.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for Renewable Fuel (10+ / 0-)

    As much as I like the political implications of this story, I wish it was about a cheap and small battery that could move a car at normal speeds for 300 miles and recharge in 15 minutes.

  •  Honestly... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oxfdblue, FiredUpInCA

    I'd rather develop more domestic crude oil to feed into the existing infrastructure and keep pushing efficiency until renewable energy becomes a larger player, then see the US bite hard into the myth of Clean Coal to try solve the energy problem.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 05:56:39 AM PDT

  •  nonsense! Even with this we head to a disaster (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ex Con

    If this is to imply that we are somehow going to remotely approach oil independence, it's complete nonsense.

    Even at these levels, we only produce about 60% of what we use, and these numbers aren't growing nearly fast enough.

    Take a look at this graph:

    U.S. field production

    Most of this production comes from fracking, and there's lots of evidence those wells produce big for a few years, than rapidly drop off.

    Don't fall for the Oil company meme that we're going to drill baby drill our way out of an oil crises.

    Solar and wind and other Alt-E is our only hope.

    •  This will be used as an excuse to kill solar and (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pollwatcher, letsgetreal, Farkletoo

      wind.
      Even if true, Americans are going to have a rude awakening when they find out there's no such thing as "energy independence" except when it comes to solar and wind.

      Regardless of how much we produce, it will be going on the global market, and demand (plus market manipulation) will set the price.

      If we did have a windfall drop in price, then we could add an extra gas tax to fund a more rapid development of solar and wind power.
      Wall Street wouldn't like that, though.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:14:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The diarist makes clear (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oxfdblue, Final Frame

      that he views this as a stopgap measure, and a counter to the right wing meme of evil Obama shutting down domestic production. As long as we must use oil, I would rather see the money not go to regimes like Saudi Arabia, and others who are not our friends.

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:31:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Indeed he did, but there is a strong implication (0+ / 0-)

        here.  I am not questioning the diarists intention, but I am questioning the wisdom of saying that U.S. oil production will be like Saudi Arabia's.  This will most certainly lead many here to believe that we can become oil independent and that there is not an extremely urgent need to transition to Alt-E yesterday.

    •  Secondary and tertiary recovery techniques (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pollwatcher

      like water flooding, fracking, nitrogen, etc, also tend not to last too long.  As compared to a regular well that can last 50-60 years you might get < 10 years of enhanced oil production.

    •  Yeah- I looked at teh EIA data too, and at best (0+ / 0-)

      I see 6.X million barrels a day. I don't see how the news is coming up with 11million barrels a day.

      Looking at the historical graph, even now, we're still producing 2/3 of what we did back in 1971/1972

      •  Here's the data (0+ / 0-)

        eia.gov shows production was around 10.8 million barrels a day for the first half of 2012.

        There's also a table showing the world's top 15 producers but those figures are for 2011.  

        "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

        by leftreborn on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:45:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So that 10.8 million figure includes Natural Gas (0+ / 0-)

          It includes 'natural gas plant liquid' (I'm not too sure what that is actually). But if you filter down to just crude oil production, it is only 6.X million barrels a day. Whereas Saudi Arabia produces 10 million barrels a day.

          •  Natural Gas isn't the same as Natural Gas Liquids (0+ / 0-)

            and neither one of them is the same as petroleum or crude oil.

            The terminology gets confusing when "oil" is used as a catch-all term for the stuff that comes out of the ground and also when used as a catch-all for a variety of finished products.  In the last year, reports about the US exporting oil weren't untrue.  The devil is in the details.  

            The EIA tracks "Petroleum and Other Liquids" separate from "Natural Gas" which is not a liquid.  However, in the production of natural gas, Natural Gas Liquids form from condensation and they're processed into butane and propane.  The EIA lumps those with other finished products like diesel that are refined from petroleum.  

            The EIA defines petroleum as:
            A broadly defined class of liquid hydrocarbon mixtures. Included are crude oil, lease condensate, unfinished oils, refined products obtained from the processing of crude oil, and natural gas plant liquids.

            So while the US isn't close to producing the same amount of crude oil as Saudi Arabia, it does produce almost as much petroleum, by that definition.  

            "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

            by leftreborn on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:33:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Does this sentence need tweaking? (0+ / 0-)
    The Energy Department forecasts that we will produce an average of 11.4 million barrels of liquid hydrocarbon fuels this year.  That is just short of the amount the number one producer, Saudi Arabia put out each day.
    to me it sounds like it takes a year for the USA to produce as much as SA does in one day (is that what you meant?)
  •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oxfdblue
    More after the slick squiggle.
    That made me LOL

    If at first you don't succeed, vote Teapublicans out and try again. You have to be persistent if you want anything out of life.

    by Final Frame on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:09:18 AM PDT

  •  Technically speaking, the USA *already* is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pollwatcher, sceptical observer

    an (occasional) exporter of crude oil.

    But unless domestic demand goes way, way down in a way not really imaginable, there is no way it will ever be a NET crude oil exporter.

  •  I remember a claim that we were a net exporter (0+ / 0-)

    and then reading that refining oil that we imported was a large party of that export total. I'd love to hear from someone who knows the actual numbers.

    And from what I've read, natural gas production may slow down. The price has supposedly dropped so low that some frackers here in Ar. are shutting down until the price rebounds,

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:20:03 AM PDT

  •  Please fix (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oxfdblue, rja

    From the article:

    ... will average 11.4 million barrels per day next year.
    Thought that number sounded a tad low.

    Either you're wit' us or a Guinness -- Brilliant!

    by Unforgiven on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:28:58 AM PDT

  •  Good to know that we've annexed Canada (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pollwatcher
    The Energy Department forecasts that we will produce an average of 11.4 million barrels of liquid hydrocarbon fuels this year.  That is just short of the amount the number one producer, Saudi Arabia put out each day.   The forecast says, that in five years, the US could be an exporter of crude oil.
    I imagine that if you read the fine print, you'll find that any discussion of the US becoming a next exporter of crude is predicated upon the idea of North American energy independence.  This means that between the US/Canada/Mexico, we will produce 100% of US needs.  US consumption has fallen from 21 MBD to around 19 MBD since the mid 2000s, which means that crude production would have to increase by 7.6 MBD to become an exporting country.

    http://www.economicpopulist.org

    by ManfromMiddletown on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 07:12:21 AM PDT

  •  Note (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pollwatcher

    US crude oil consumption: 18.7 million barrels per day

    Crude oil consumption in Saudi Arabia: 2.5 million barrels a day

    They are in the driver's seat. We pay for the ride.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    by Ex Con on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 07:20:24 AM PDT

  •  At what cost to the environment? (0+ / 0-)

    Water is the essential resource and at this point the US has more clean drinking water than Saudi Arabia. But fossil fuel production and use is endangering that water supply.

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:12:16 AM PDT

  •  Economics 101, the oil/gas reserves..... (0+ / 0-)

    .... newly discovered WEREN"T they have been known for decades, but were not economically accessible at $.25/gal or $1.00/gal or even $2.00/gal.

    But now at $4.00/gal  gas price yes, it finally makes economic sense to go after the reserves.

    But we still HIDE the true cost of accessing these reserves, as the environmental impact and ultimate cost to people's drinking water, and farmer's irrigation water are NOT being included in the calculus.

    It kills me that the easiest way to rebut republican claims on these matters is to simply highlight the true costs to pursuing these additional production sources, and the very real impact on the lives of real Americans.... millions of Americans... in the doing.

    Even the most pin-headed tbagger can understand having their own water supply poisoned, and the massive government programs that will be needed to implement water systems across the country to provide clean drinking water to the millions who today do not need any such measures.

    You'd think they would want the indutry to PAY for all these costs, rather than saddling the taxpayer with the bill in the $100's of billions. Hmmm.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site