Talk about being a half glass empty person, you personify it.

Why do you think that the Federal Reserve will not just buy more US Treasuries to stave off deflation? The US government is borrowing over $40 billion per day to maintain current spending levels.

The Federal Reserve fears deflation as much as they do inflation, therefore they will buy as many treasury bonds as they need to to prevent deflation.

I expect oil to be at least $110 per barrel by the end of 2112.

Phil, if prices fall North Dakota oil will be too expensive. Alberta is in the same boat. All that investment will go to waste.

whynot, our money supply is not what the FED prints, it is what we borrow. If FED prints too much to stave off deflation, then creditors will refuse to lend at low interest rates. That will cause deflation of credit, hitting housing market first which in turn be another ugly depression. It is not easy for FED to keep things in balance. Also, FED is not yet giving out free money. Treasury is borrowing it. When interest payments on existing debt exceeds tax revenue it will cause a problem.

Correction - the US government borrows over $4 billion each and every day of the year to maintain current levels of spending not $40 billion per day. $1.5 trillion divided by 365 = $4,109,589,041 borrowed per day.

Oil is good.

In the first three quarters of 2011, we exported more oil than we imported.

Shale gas finds may add to the trend. Excellent.

Now if we could just get some of the manufacturing jobs back from China...

Recently published studies by the US government actually prove that fracking is linked to poisoned water supplies. That's not just some "lib" thing and it's not funny.

And for the conservative inside you, I suggest you study some geology before an attempt at sarcasm. If reading is too tedious, there are several documentaries you can watch.

And we DO trust our govt studies, don't we?

dadoftim: Your cynicism is wildly misplaced. Apparantly, you haven't been following much about the industry...this isn't exactly breaking news and it's not sci-fi.... really, must EVERYTHING be some kind of conspiracy? Some quick reading would bring you up to speed.

I say we conserve as much oil as we can and let the other countries keep pumping it out. Reason I say this is it won't be long (maybe 10-15 years or so) before Saudi Arabia declares there's only about 10% left in their Ghawar oil field. The price will surely shoot up and the U.S. can export its oil at very high prices and help offset the demand in the U.S.

As for fracking, there's enough info out there to show it does pollute ground water. When someone says they don't care, they will when it pollutes their well or they have to pay more for potable and household water than gasoline.

We have already hit peak oil. World demand (China) is increasing, but output is decreasing, especially middle east oil. North American oil reserves are not sweet crude, but tar sands. Much refining is needed. Much energy (oil) is needed to extract and refine this "dirty" oil into useable petroleum. Tar sands and "fracking" were not economically feasible as long as there was sweet crude. But even this lesser quality oil can only last so long. We are coming to the end of cheap oil. This is actually a blessing in disguise, once we get past the SEVERE pain that real scarcity will visit upon us. No longer will it be economically feasible to ship and truck imports from far flung corners of the globe to your local dollar store. No longer will it be feasible to commute 50 miles to work. Our entire society will reorganize, by necessity, to resemble the layouts pre-automobile. People will have to work within walking / biking distance to workplaces, manufacturing will occur within the USA, and on a regional level - the majority of food production will also return to regional/local production. And we will all be better off for it. But the getting there - its going to be very ugly. Very painful and it will take decades. But it IS coming. Not a matter of if, but when.

I am one of those people that believes if our financial interests are threatened, military action is justified. That is why I was supportive of our playing in the sandbox in the Middle East. BUT, if we are a net exporter of oil, and our two biggest importers of oil are Mexico and Canada, what the hell are we doing in the Middle East?

This is actually a blessing in disguise, once we get past the SEVERE pain that real scarcity will visit upon us. No longer will it be economically feasible to ship and truck imports from far flung corners of the globe to your local dollar store. No longer will it be feasible to commute 50 miles to work. Our entire society will reorganize, by necessity, to resemble the layouts pre-automobile. People will have to work within walking / biking distance to workplaces, manufacturing will occur within the USA, and on a regional level - the majority of food production will also return to regional/local production. And we will all be better off for it. But the getting there - its going to be very ugly. Very painful and it will take decades. But it IS coming. Not a matter of if, but when.

Unless, of course, polywell fusion proves to be viable, making energy very, very cheap (2-5 cents per kilowatt hour). I've read reports that, if the scaling law works out, we could see a commercial reactor by the end of the decade.

Black Swan, baby!

Cheney was quoted as saying something like "if there is just a 2% chance of a terrorist attack it should be investigated"... well, we have 99.9% of the people who actually spend their lives studying the clmate saying that we are causing a problem... a look at the emissions chart show a dramatic increase right around the proliferation of the sources of the gases... there has been a increase in the intensity of storms (global warming... poor name... we're talking about an increase in the energy level in the atmosphere... "warm" is subjective, the level of energy in a system is not)

How is it that we are even having this discussion without the end being "...the revenue from which will be used to remove our reliance on the burning of dead plants and animals to power our civilization."

blog ReadingThinkingAndWriting com

StrengthInNumbers, great points. Oil companies will find the least expensive resources regardless of where they are, whether it's in the Middle East, supported by a government hellbent on war, or in our own backyard where technology has allowed new sources to become economically viable, if we can do so while pacifying ecologists. The idea of bleeding out the hydrocarbons of other countries before coming back to our own resources is not new. We should increase our dependance on domestic natural gas, while making a strong case for fusion, fuel cells, and hydrogen.

As for occassional water contamination, I am sure it occurs, since no one is actually in the well, making sure it is completely encapsulated. It becomes a trade-off, though, as the industry is inherently "dirty", with individuals that are chasing the almighty dollar, drilling in places they do not actually live, so there is not much incentive in making the process cleaner, unless they have to drink the water around the well site themselves.

Tiggle at # 1.12 makes a good point:

"I say we conserve as much oil as we can and let the other countries keep pumping it out"

The only problem is that the oil belongs to the oil companies, not "us", therefore, we have nothing to say about it because it is not "our" oil.

I guess with the US being a net exporter, that pretty much puts the lie to the mantra of "Drill, baby, drill" in order to get cheaper oil. The private oil companies determine the price of oil (with a little help from the market). The oil is theirs, it is not the public's oil, so the results of drilling are determined by what the oil companies want to do with it.

"Drill, baby, drill" is great for the oil companies immediate bottom line, but is detrimental to our long term energy needs.

You have to laugh at the obviousness of big oil addiction.

Trash the economy, make the peasants desperate for work then get them to sign off on major oil projects that have been stopped for decades.

If this country doesn't lay claim to it's own oil and charge the oil companies a tax for using our lands, and selling our oil then Americans are the ones being screwed over and the only ones really benefiting is the big oil corps.

Big oil should be paying down our debts fixing our social security IOU's for the rights to our oil

Climate change is a religion not science. We have not even seen all the climate-gate emails. They take the raw data and streamline it in a process that they don't share with the rest of the scientific world. The number one rule in science is for other scientists to confirm the data using the same modality. The Earth goes through warming periods and cooling periods naturally and CO2 released by humans is not causing warming. 99.9% of scientists do not agree...I don't know where you got that number but I have a feeling it's dark and smells bad.

Your cynicism is wildly misplaced. Apparantly, you haven't been following much about the industry...this isn't exactly breaking news and it's not sci-fi.... really, must EVERYTHING be some kind of conspiracy? Some quick reading would bring you up to speed.

Remember, you're dealing with a segment of the population to whom science is the enemy and for whom ignorance is a badge of pride.

Don't worry, be happy. :-)

The Earth's oil reserves are limited and being depleted daily. Exporting our precious oil at the same time we are buying foreign oil doesn't sound like a good policy in the long term. I would prefer that we use, and not export, our own oil production, and buy foreign oil as needed and available. The main issue should be sustainability, not profits.

"Climate change is a religion not science". I'm sorry sir, but that statement is completely absurd. Religion is a system of beliefs... a belief is a conclusion accepted in the abscence of fact.

So... the worlds most prestigious scientific journals.. all in on a scam? To do what, exactly? Put the world on clean, renewable energy sources... terrible! I remember the last time the world's scientists got together to pull a major scam... actually, sir, I don't.

Check this out from the Christian Science Monitor:

Climate study, funded in part by conservative group, confirms global warming

The latest global warming results confirm those from earlier, independent studies by scientists at NASA and elsewhere that came under fire from skeptics in an episode known as 'climategate.

"fracking," which opponents say can pollute water supplies and cause earthquakes.

Which opponents say?...fracking is utterly damaging to the environment , the water table and water sources. They want to do it in the Hudson valley in NY state and it's looking to mess up the entire Delaware water shed system down into P.A....To give you an example of fracking...imagine you had a sponge (the shale bed) and it was filled with water(the petroleum) then you took a needle full of olive oil(the slurry of crap they use in fracking) and injected it into the sponge to drive all the water out......that's what they want to do and they say it won't contaminate the land?....

Maybe when the Towel Heads realize they've beed beaten at their own game, ther'll all back home. Then we (the FBI, CIA, M6, etc.) can focus on those who stay, sorting out who, and who not is a threat to the US and to the world!

Please don't frack the entire environment into oblivion. I live in Hawaii and you drillers can't come here in search of your "black gold." We pay $4.15 a gallon for unleaded and will pay whatever is necessary and restrict our use to keep you from killing the livelihood of fisherman and we will protect our endangered species. You killed the Gulf and you won't get a shot at our waters---vultures.

sandtrich - Don't worry, I don't believe there is oil beneath volcanic islands. If you drill you would probably hit magma.

No one who reads doesn't know that there are cycles to the climate... but when you dump billions of cubic tons of gases known to trap energy, there will be an effect. The effect expected is the one being observed.. and again... what is the worst that can happen if we pursue renewable energy sources? what is the worst that can happen if you are wrong?

The DoD has adopted climate change as a threat to national security...

The Bipartisan Policy Center has: "

The group of 18 leaders from the natural science, social science, science policy, foreign policy, national security, and environmental communities was convened by the BPC in early 2010. This is the first expert report to address what the federal government should do about research in this area.

The BPC Task Force report argues that managing risk is a central principle of effective climate policy, and emphasizes that climate remediation is no substitute for controlling risk through climate mitigation (i.e., reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) and climate adaptation (i.e., enhancing the resilience of man-made and natural systems to climate changes).

Furthermore, the report emphasizes that it is far too premature to contemplate deployment of any climate remediation technology. However, the Task Force report finds that it is time for the U.S. to undertake a climate remediation research program to understand the risks, costs, and feasibility of these approaches."

The amount of misinformation and outright propaganda on this thread is appalling. Peak oil is a lie. Just when they agree on a date a new field is found, they've been playing that tune since the 70's. We have not passed it, the current agreed date is 2030. No doubt by then the date will be moved out even further.

Fusion is the worlds gold plated buggy whip. It is always next decade. Energy will NOT be free, it takes a lot of technology for something that complicated and that will make it very expensive. By the time they have a true production model solar will be so cheap no one will fund it.

Fuel cells/hydrogen is a joke. Hydrogen is a fuel transport not a source, it must be manufactured and that is not cheap or efficient. Again, by the time we even think about a roll out, batteries will be so advanced that hydrogen will also not be economically feasible. Do we really want to repeat the ethanol debacle? The one possible use for hydrogen would be a grid battery, where excess solar power is used to make hydrogen during the day that is burned at night to run generators. That way, shipping is not necessary.

Solar modules are a winner. It took half a century but they are finally cheap enough to make widespread adoption feasible. American solar companies are not failing because solar is a failure, they are failing because China commoditized them. They are now cheaper than nuclear and will soon not even need federal subsidies.

Nat gas is a winner for electric production and fleet cars/trucks but will likely not catch on as a replacement for gas. Electric cars with more advanced battery technology will replace the ICE car but it will take decades. Compare the first expensive color TV's to what we have now and you'll get the picture, much less expensive and much higher quality/functionality.

Wind will also continue to make inroads. I wouldn't want a turbine in my back yard but if farmers want to pepper their fields with them that's OK by me.

We will not be a net exporter despite drill baby drill, we will be BECAUSE of drill baby drill. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Only and idiot liberal would think we could drill less and produce more.

Finally it is possible man is impacting climate but the issue is how much. The problem is we have no control over the rest of the world so if the impact is large we will have no say in it. The developed world is already on the right track, the third world is what will do us in. Therefore, it would be stupid for us to ruin our economy while China, India, etc., go along their merry way

JK---misinformed?

"NEW YORK (Fortune) -- President Obama will end a 26-year-old offshore
drilling moratorium in Hawaii, saying lawmakers have closed off "vast"
oil reserves that could be tapped to lower record gasoline prices."

It will not be allowed by the Hawaiian people.

Wow..... these posts are making my head ache. Might as well ad to the ache lol

First: I believe we are having a global climatic change. Go step outside. No snow and it's almost Christmas here in Indiana. 20 years ago we would be a$$ deep in the stuff by now. Human or primarily a 100 year cycle. Dont know but we are changing for a fact.

Second: The government DOES get hugh profits from drilling in the form of ORRI basically every bbl pumped pays the Fed's 15 to 17% of the gross from the sale of that vallue before it even hits the refinery.

Third: The property owner also gets up to 12% in the same fashion regardless of who actually owns the leases. Fact.

Fourth: Frac'ing is absolutely positively dangerous and polluting. It works. It makes available a seriously significant amount of previously unavailable oil. Not taking sides here either way but I dont live over a shale oil field. My water is clean, country and tastes great ! Hows that for stick your head in the sand so to speak???

Fifth: Oil use will taper off in the next 10 years. New technology is going to give us 12 to 15 mpg semi tractors (already done, they are just looking for money), new forms of algae will be producing million of gallons of bio crude starting in the next 2 years moving forward, and for anyone actually reading this: there is for a FACT a R&D company that can circulate a hydraulic fluid via design only ! So what you say???? Stop and think.... circulation of a hydraulic fluid with zero outside power source, zero gas, zero diesel, zero electricity. And before you go all sarcastic about perpetual motion, this method actually validates the theory. It is duplicable, runs indefinitely as long as the system is not breached and is in active discussions with more than 9 foreign countries for country wide exclusive electrical generation and the largest major auto and electrical generator mfg in Japan. The only country in the world not interested at all in this technology is the USA. If you think it is impossible, put your money where your mouth is and be prepared to lose it.

Anyway........ have to stop here as I am officially out of fingers on one hand and typing with less on my remaining hand would be difficult.

I don't really care what politicians or bleeding liberals say the fact is oil and gas drilling create thousands of jobs we need the pipeline let's build now the Hell with the crybabies setting on their Butts drawing relief from taxpayers get a job.

The department of defense is giving out funding for the creation of green production techniques for weaponry... the list goes on and on...

blog readingthinkingandwriting com

there is for a FACT a R&D company that can circulate a hydraulic fluid via design only ! So what you say???? Stop and think.... circulation of a hydraulic fluid with zero outside power source, zero gas, zero diesel, zero electricity. And before you go all sarcastic about perpetual motion, this method actually validates the theory. It is duplicable, runs indefinitely as long as the system is not breached and is in active discussions with more than 9 foreign countries for country wide exclusive electrical generation and the largest major auto and electrical generator mfg in Japan. The only country in the world not interested at all in this technology is the USA. If you think it is impossible, put your money where your mouth is and be prepared to lose it.

Links or it isn't real.

"I don't really care what politicians or bleeding liberals say the fact is oil and gas drilling create thousands of jobs "

And we can save money for a future that may not exist. Ladies and gentlemen, you walk into a room, you effect change. To scale... you dump a couple billion cubic tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, that nature would not have.. you effect change.

From the Department of Defense web site:

“One of the investments we're really going to have to think about in the next
several decades is the impact of sea level rise on the Navy's infrastructure,”
Titley said. “That includes our ports and piers in the continental United
States, but we also need to think about bases we use in conjunction with our
partners and allies overseas.”

As an example, Titley mentioned Diego Garcia, a small, low-lying island in
the Indian Ocean that hosts a strategic airfield.

“The observations have shown us that through the 20th century, sea level rose
by an average of two millimeters per year,” Titley said. “So that means over the
course of the century, we had about 20 centimeters, or roughly eight inches, of
sea level rise. The sea level rise we've seen in the first 10 years of the new
century is already 50 percent greater than the average sea level rise in the
20th century.”

Titley explained that as the oceans get warmer, they expand and take up more
space, causing the sea level to rise. In addition, the land-based ice that
already is melting -- including mountain glaciers, the Greenland ice field, and
even the western Antarctic ice sheet -- will add volume to the ocean. He
acknowledged considerable uncertainty over the time line and extent of sea level
rise, but he noted that leading climate scientists believe sea levels could rise
as much as six feet by the end of the century.

“How probable is this?” Titley asked. “I'm not really sure right now, but I
am sure there are significant consequences. We need to make sure, as time goes
by, that we understand it, we have a plan, and we know what it will cost us to
execute that plan."

Titley explained that as the oceans get warmer, they expand and take up more space, causing the sea level to rise. In addition, the land-based ice that already is melting -- including mountain glaciers, the Greenland ice field, and even the western Antarctic ice sheet -- will add volume to the ocean. He acknowledged considerable uncertainty over the time line and extent of sea level rise, but he noted that leading climate scientists believe sea levels could rise as much as six feet by the end of the century.

Question; How do they measure the rising and falling of the ocean floor? Much of which is not reachable by man, what about the undersea volcanoes or the deep sea vents, how much water is lost to them?

Science has all the answers so just post the requested data please, surly they didn't ASSUME the ocean floor is static did they?

there is for a FACT a R&D company that can circulate a hydraulic fluid via design only ! So what you say???? Stop and think.... circulation of a hydraulic fluid with zero outside power source, zero gas, zero diesel, zero electricity. And before you go all sarcastic about perpetual motion, this method actually validates the theory. It is duplicable, runs indefinitely as long as the system is not breached and is in active discussions with more than 9 foreign countries for country wide exclusive electrical generation and the largest major auto and electrical generator mfg in Japan. The only country in the world not interested at all in this technology is the USA.

That's not a "fact" it's a scam. Just because others have fallen for it doesn't mean we should, too.

If you think it is impossible, put your money where your mouth is and be prepared to lose it.

No, I'm not going to put any money in it, supporting scammers is not my thing. But if you want to fall for this scam, be my guest, go ahead and be prepared to lose it.

My takeaway from this article:

Analysts and scientists who study oil production say the trend is accelerating. An energy expert cited by USA Today predicts that the United States' own production could rise to 2.9 billion barrels annually by the end of the decade.

Ok, what is 2.9 Billion divided by 365? 7.94 million. How much does the US currently use PER DAY - almost 20 million. As the economy grows and the population grows, by the end of the decade the usage will be even higher. Hence, if we are producing around 8 million barrels of oil a day, this will still only be about 1/3 of what we use daily, meaning the other 2/3 will still have to be imported. So, the numbers LOOK big and SOUND good, but in reality, we are still screwed.

By the end of the decade, China's economy will be 50% larger than it is now, meaning that their demand for oil will increase about as much. Also, India will have grown by a double-digit percentage too, meaning their demand for oil will be much higher. World population hit 6 billion in 2006. Now, in 2011, it has hit 7 billion. Extrapolating the numbers out, by 2020 the world population will be around 9 billion, so demand for oil EVERYWHERE is going to increase in order to provide food and the other basic services to the world population.

However, just as American oil production did in the 70s, WORLD oil production will peak. In fact, it already has peaked and we are now at the edge about to plummet down the other side. That is why a gallon of gas is $3.30 and won't be going down any time soon. In fact, by the year 2020, don't be surprised if gas is $7.00 a gallon or more. Lower supply plus exponentially increasing demand equals prices beyond anything we have ever seen for anything produced from petroleum, which is basically everything.

By 2020, the great resource wars will have started, culminating in a massive die off of the human species, either from starvation or nuclear war. If it makes you feel better, you can optomistically choose to ignore this outcome, but it will not change it.

Will. The U.S. has 2.6 TRILLION (2,600,000,000,000) barrels of shale oil reserves alone. And that is a conservative estimate. That's a lot of years worth of oil that will not be imported. The future of the U.S. as an oil exporter looks good. The question is, how bad will the environment be?

dadoftim, maybe this might answer your questions.See if it helps.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-2289,00.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/question356.htm

Just read about IBM's 5 in 5 statement. They believe that within 5 years we will be able to be self-generating - in other words, we will be able to supply our individual energy needs in how we live our lives. Now they also predict that within 5 years computers will be able to read our minds, and to the casual observer this might sound nuts, but they have a lot of very smart folks that have forgotten more than most of us know.

I don't think it hurts to take better care of our environment. I also don't think it is in our best interests to turn over our nation to a bunch of environmental kooks.

And here is my problem - there is far too much money invested in "greening", which leads to fibs, lies, misleading, and since we are 100% dependent on "computer models", we don't really know what we don't know.

Hell, our computer models still can't get weather predictions right for 2 or 3 days, how on earth can they tell us what is going to happen with climate (separate from weather for you slow readers) over 5, 10 or 50 years?

So I am all for taking better care of the environment, while we behave like grown ups and not let the screaming nut jobs destroy our nation. Just remember, these same loons told us 40 years ago we were heading towards a global ice age due to man made pollution. Front page news back in the 70's.

@Jack

The estimate of 2.9 billion barrels of oil being produced annually likley includes the contribtion from oil sands and oil shale. However much oil sand there is, the process of extracting oil from it is SLOW and EXPENSIVE, so in terms of production, it will never be able to replace the abundant, high quality sweet crude you can suck right out of the ground, ready to refine.

Even with all of the oil sands in Canada, their daily production is less than 3 million barrels of oil a day. America currently uses 20 million barrels of oil a day.

Also, keep in mind that it takes as much energy, if not MORE, from petroleum to dig the stuff up and then use fresh water and natural gas to boil it, as you get from burning it. So, assuming that oil demand in the US stayed flat at 20 million barrels of oil a day (which is not likely to happen), 2.3 trillion barrels of oil shale would supply the US for 350 years. However, is there a 350 year supply of natural gas and fresh water to produce the stuff? Also, since it is far more expensive to produce and refine, what will happen to the price of a gallon of gasoline when we are depending almost exclusively heavily on oil from sands and shale?

If the oil business in the U.S. is sooooo good and we are quickly getting to be a leader in oil exportation,,,,THEN WHY IS GAS IN OUR PUMPS SO FREAKIN' HIGH??????????????????????

Where did you get that "thirty years' figure, GCV?

Don't forget that India and China are rapidly overtaking the percentage of world consumption from the US. The three countries together are estimated to be consuming over 75% of the world's resources right now with India and China increasing their percentage of consumption ratio. As Brazil moves to expand their manufacturing, mining, etc., their demands for external resources will also be growing. How much longer can the greed of the four countries continue before we have depleted the entire planet. Remember that China is moving into every Middle Eastern, Asian, African, and South American country they can, taking over the mining operations. I believe they are also trying to capture a lot of Australia's natural resources.

Having a healthy, functioning economy is a bad thing?.....effing preposterous!

Wake up.

Preserving oil resources in the US and consuming foreign supplies has been US policy for almost 40 years, since the '70s oil crisis. The government has been doing EXACTLY what you think it hasn't been doing, they're just not vocal about it as it would cause an uproar.

We are still the 3rd largest oil producer in the world, despite the fact that there have been no net-new oil discoveries since about 1973. Almost all of this increase in actually due to better technology exploiting know and previously tapped fields.

In the next two decades, as easy oil dries up, we will start to see the impact of these policies. This is just an early glimpse of how it will roll out.

Oil "dries up"??? Where are you folks getting this stuff?

As soon as you pull the first gallon out of the ground you begin depleting the reserve. Oil doesn't just pump out of the ground forever after it is found. Some wells last a few years and some last 30 or more years.

In 30 years, when the entire world outside the Persian Gulf has exhausted their oil reserves,

They will find new ones.

There's little incentive to actively search for something you're not going to need for decades.

We need to figure out alien tech - pure clean energy. Sorry oil companies...

I'm still paying $3.30/gallon for gas.

lets drill for natural gas.we have ,lets use it its cheaper than oil.competes against oil.less dependent on oil.All good for the USA

@Newtisapig:

Google 'thermonuclear fusion' and the reactors scientists have been working with. They aren't ready for commercial use, but they aren't too far off. Once they are perfected, electricity prices will fall considerably. Electricity will be produced efficiently, cleanly (no CO2 or soot) and no threat of meltdown (see Nuclear Fission).

Also, if scientists could figure out to safely transport the fuel in hydrogen cell cars (so that crash != boom), then I could see electricity from hydrogen / deuterium as the way of the future.

The best part is, it isn't science fiction.

I thought the "drill,baby,drill" mantra was a demand based on our country's becoming self-sufficient in energy production. As a nation we still import almost 50% of our oil...why is it that we're exporting the stuff?. Because its cheaper to ship from the USA to, say, China? I agree...when we run our reserves dry we'll be at the complete mercy of other countries....most notably Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil.

@Newt

Sorry for the double post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

That is what I am talking about.

Wow, imagine that! The oil companies export more oil from the US oil fields than they import from other countries' oil fields. The oil in the US is not "ours" - it belongs to the oil companies who have no vested interest in America.

Wonder what happened to "We need to open up more pristine wilderness areas to drilling, building more roads for oil tankers and equipment into remote areas so that we can use more of our own oil"?

Are big business conservatives ever right - er.. I gues I should say correct - about anything? They simply make up bumper sticker slogans that have no truth in reality, so far from reality that it takes paragraphs to refute them - which is far beyond their interest or attention span.

It's a good thing that we're exporting oil.

The U.S. has 2.6 TRILLION (2,600,000,000,000) barrels of shale oil reserves alone. And that is a conservative estimate. That's a lot of years worth of oil that will not be imported. The future of the U.S. as an oil exporter looks good. The question is, how bad will the environment be? 30 years. LMAO. How about 300?

@Ruken,

Thanks. Interesting...

But have you read about observed alien technology and what people say they have seen at places like Area 51??? If our government has this technology, they should put the key energy parts in private hands so real entrepreneurial development can take place! This energy is truly perfect, clean, no waste, and silent...........

@Jack again. See my response to your identical post in the thread above.

@Newt

If there were a source of cheap, easy to produce energy, this would put the people who mine, drill, and produce fossil fuels out of business. Looking at dirty companies like Enron and Exxon Mobile, if there were a nearly-free alternative to their products, they wouldn't be happy about it.

Of course, there is the possibility that fusion works, but also produces radiation far worse than nuclear fission and could explode if you hit the wrong note on the keyboard. (That was an obscure movie reference BTW. 10 points to whomever can tell me what the movie was.)

Exploitation of natural resources is always good for the economy. It produces jobs and salable goods. More resources on the market encourages competition, lower prices, and production of more "advanced" goods.

The arguments against exploitation are usually environmental, not economic.

"Then on top of that one thing about going to Iraq that's going to help our situation is that they have a huge supply of oil that can be tapped into. So I suspect oil prices will be going down anyway it goes because of the Iraq situation and what we're trying to do here in the United States."

@Jeffrey- that's what people said leading up to the invasion in 2003... right before gas prices exploded. Look up historical gas prices- you will see by 2006 we were paying more than ever before (even adjusted for inflation). Gas prices will not go down.

This is because the story is just supposed to throw out enough headline that the liberal environmentalists can use it to say there is no need for gulf oil drilling or the keystone XL pipline, we're doing fine already with out causing further damage to mother nature.

That being said, I do think it would be a good thing if we pursued better sources of energy for our transportation industry, if for no other reason than to save more crude oil for uses that it is best suited.

Conservation is good. Production is good. Exploration is good.

It's all good.

Merry Christmas.

Right Mark: when in doubt, blame the media for your own ignorance on the subject. This isn't a five part in depth series...it's 5 graphs for gosh sakes...Now it's MSNBC's fault you are too lazy to pick up a newspaper and educate yourself once in awhile??

commonsense:

In your comment, you truly live up to your moniker! Congatulations on the best comment on the thread, and Merry Christmas to you too!

People who follow these things have been saying for some time now that we are exporting more than we are importing.

So thanks for correcting them. :)

"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."

We have became the oil refinery for the world?

Because it's good for oil companies and it's good for the defense industry - as far as the plutocracy is concerned, that's a win-win.

Keystone XL doesn't have a damn thing to do with securing America's energy supply OR creating "20.000 jobs". It's about making it cheaper to pipe crude oil to American refineries to reduce the cost of exporting the oil abroad, and thus FURTHER increase oil industry profits. And if it does in fact create 20,00 jobs (which I find unlikely unless they're assembling it with hand tools), 19,500 of those jobs will disappear 5 minutes after the pipeline is complete. Of course, none of the above considers the further damage we will do to the environment if we use this as one more reason to delay converting our economy to renewable energy - as smarter nations such as China and India are busy doing.

We're not.

We import most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.

Chemack, oil is a fungible resource. As a result, any increase or decrease in production, be that in the Mideast or the Gulf of Mexico, has an effect on the price of gasoline. Since Mideastern oil is the easiest and cheapest to extract, the Mideast basically sets the price.

This document doesn't reference exports AT ALL.

And what is the provenance of this document?

Don't sell corn to China? We produce way more than we need...and stopping exports would just lower incomes to farmers...

it does make sense, I'm 56, before we see in change in Washington and wall street i'll be dead, speculators will run away with any excuse they can to make a buck, gas should right now 2 bucks a gallon, not 3.59 in ct. freak in bull@!$%# all ready, and this is why our food cost are so high, fuel is for heating and we are pay-in 3.00 to 3.25. thieves

How else do you think Exxon reported a 40% increase in profits in this crappy economy. We're all being raped and there's not a thing we can do about it. ALL politicians are in someone's pocket. I'm wondering who's campaign Exxon contributed to?

Somebody should protest this crap.

Oil companies have the right to make a profit.

Nailer: Short sellers actually drive the price down. You should hope that short sellers make a LOT of money on oil.

I assume you're not an experienced investor. No harm, though.

Because no other president prior to Obama was a crook. None of them. Just the current democrat. Stop thinking using Dem and Rep as your only guide. Use the grey matter between your ears to think for a change. It's very liberating.

In case you didn't notice, politics aren't a team sport. It's more like a golf team, you play with a group but you score individually with no help except for some occasional advice. It is also the only game where you keep your own score with the trust of your fellow players and competitors. Sounds to me like Washington.

Don't follow a party blindly, look closely at the individuals in that party and check their score cards once in a while. You might end up very disappointed when you truly see who is playing on your team.

What nonsense. President Obama is promoting green renewable energy and reduced dependence on foreign oil and you accuse him of doing things that will take a 100 year supply of energy and reduce it to 50. Where do you people come up with this crap. I think I know but I won't say it.

Are you saying that the last President - the one that led us into two pointless wars, squandered $3 trillion plus fighting them, cost over 7000 young soldiers their lives, and then blew up the world economy for good measure was a lesser idiot? I think not.

Are you really that naive to think the problems with the economy are because gas is over $3.00 a gallon?

You really need to educate yourself as to what is really going on in the economy and it little or nothing to do with the price of gas.

The price of gas is a noticeable expense when the economy is bad. It is a must have product for most working Americans. You have to pay the price and can't shop around.

Speculators wrecked the economy not big oil. Wall street and their monopoly money wrecked the world economy. They created wealth instead of earning it. While we were living the lie it was still pretty easy to gas up that SUV with 3.00 a gallon gas. If you want gas prices to go down, sell the SUV and buy a small car that gets at least 25 mpg. Now gas will theoretically cost you about 1.50 a gallon.

Compared to the countries of Europe, we still get awfully cheap gas. It's really hurting when you see people giving up on SUVs and returning to more appropriately sized vehicles. That has happened yet.

You are correct, this story is totally misleading since we import approximated half of our oil. There is no surplus to hoard. I think they may be talking about exporting refined products. This story reflects some of the poor quality of journalism on the internet. You can't really trust anything unless it is verified by other sources.

Our "Central Planners" in the Federal govt want that probably.

As far as why we export ... it's called trade. If we keep our oil here, then China can refuse to sell "rare earth" minerals and Russia can refuse to sell palladium, both of which are essential in most high-tech products (rare earth) and catalytic converters (palladium).

Membership in the World Trade Organization prohibits this practice.

Oil companies are businesses. The aim of business is to make money. If you don't make money, then the business folds, does not pay employees, etc. ... i.e. no more jobs provided by that company.

In 1967 I paid 23c a gallon for regular gas. Now it's $3 something. Taking inflation into account, is that really a higher price. Not sure. The Federal Reserve has doubled the money supply every 10 years for the past 30 or so. Guess what that does to prices.

The 2 mandates of the Fed are 1) price stability (read inflation) and 2) full employment. And thru it's monetary policy, apparently to discourage everyone from having a savings account. Unless you like 0.15% (that's not an exact figure, but I think it's in the ballpark.

23c in 1967 dollars is $1.56 in 2011 dollars - for a total inflation of 577.3%. If you then look at it that way, the price of gasoline has doubled relative to inflation. However, remember that, on average a gallon of tax now has $0.48 of taxes and charges added in and we now get more expensive unleaded gas rather than the polluting stuff we used to consume, so the difference isn't quite so great. Nonetheless, the price is more expensive than it was in 1967. But give that we are dealing with a scarce product that is ever more difficult to retrieve, it's not unreasonable.

I remember pay 0.99 back in 1985 for a gallon of gas - the first year I drove seriously. At that point, the prices had fallen considerably from where they had been. That price in 2011 prices would be $2.08. Again, prices have risen relative to inflation, but not unreasonably so given the dynamics of oil in today's world.

I'm just curious why the Federal Reserve (a privately owned bank) has a mandate for price stability and full employment. Why is any one expecting a private bank to take care of price stability or employment? Wells Fargo isn't, Bank of America isn't, Chase isn't, why would the Federal Reserve? Would they even be able to?

If Clinton "porking" an intern caused him to reside over the biggest economic expansion in US history, I think we need to learn his secrets.

You make it sound like poking 21-year-old interns is a bad thing.

Hey Andrew 2852250- Clinton wasn't talking about the sanctity of marriage while he was "porking' the 21 year old intern either, so Newtisapig didn't need to form an opinion.

$3 (or way more here in California) is here to stay. It is unlikely to ever go back down to where it was. In fact, it is those prices that are making a lot of the US gasoline cost-effective.