Well Dayum.... The U.S. to overtake Saudia Arabia Oil Production by 2020

SionSion Moderator, AHH Content Producer, AHH EditorPosts: 19,694 Regulator
U.S. oil output is poised to surpass Saudi Arabia’s in the next decade, making the world’s biggest fuel consumer almost self-reliant and putting it on track to become a net exporter, the International Energy Agency said.

Growing supplies of crude extracted through new technology including hydraulic fracturing of underground rock formations will transform the U.S. into the largest producer for about five years starting about 2020, the Paris-based adviser to 28 nations said today in its annual World Energy Outlook. The U.S. met 83 percent of its energy needs in the first six months of this year, according to the Energy Department in Washington.
“The IEA outlook feeds into the idea of a shift in the center of influence in the world oil market,” said Gareth Lewis-Davies, an analyst at BNP Paribas SA in London. “Given Saudi Arabia is willing to shift production up and down it will retain a large degree of influence, and remain important as a price-influencer.”

Source:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-12/u-s-to-overtake-saudi-arabia-s-oil-production-by-2020-iea-says.html


Replies

  • SionSion Moderator, AHH Content Producer, AHH Editor Posts: 19,694 Regulator
    edited November 2012
    I tried to tell people this back in 2008/2009 LOLOL , don't sleep on the Americans, people didn't realize that Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips & Chevron own some of the biggest oil fields in the world and have enough oil to be pumping oil for a looong time to come. 10 years seems too soon tho, maybe 20 iuno bout a decade....

    Rockefeller would be proud.
    DarcSkies
  • _Menace__Menace_ The Don Posts: 23,378 ✭✭✭✭✭
    as long as Gas goes less than 2$ a gallon....

    a single fuck wont be given
    Lou_CypherWild SelfAggyAF
  • a.manna.mann Posts: 16,801 ✭✭✭✭✭
    the Conservatives will not like this
    it's given Obama credit, even in the slightest form,seeing how this was one of his top talking points

    now THIS comes out........


    SionilledoutKINGEC
  • dalyricalbanditdalyricalbandit Co-Owner Of AllhipHop.com, Super Moderator, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 48,113 Regulator
    _Menace_ wrote: »
    as long as Gas goes less than 2$ a gallon....

    a single fuck wont be given

  • Swiffness!Swiffness! Posts: 7,052 ✭✭✭✭✭
    well well well

    what was that shit niggas was talkin bout obeezy energy policy...?
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,626 Regulator
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    well well well
    what was that shit niggas was talkin bout obeezy energy policy...?
    some of it was overhyped (lease stuff, if i recall correctly), but he DOES want to have it both ways by bitching about the pipeline. but honestly, this is more "what the fuck is the difference between Obama and Romney" stuff

  • pralimspralims The real daddys second cousin of the devils neice that dates the brother of the owner of AHH. Posts: 13,715 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2012
    this was the plan all along. you use other peoples resources while you stack yours...then when thiers is dried up, you can charge them double to use yours.

    i cant wait until they charge china up for gas for the currency manipulation.

    the US will make their money back
    SionAggyAF
  • illedoutilledout Posts: 4,215 ✭✭✭✭✭
    _Menace_ wrote: »
    as long as Gas goes less than 2$ a gallon....

    a single fuck wont be given

  • GreenCapitalist90GreenCapitalist90 Posts: 845 ✭✭✭✭✭
    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-myth-of-energy-independence-why-we-cant-drill-our-way-to-oil-autonomy/252812/
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-wont-energy-independent-even-154500330.html

    Let's not act like this changes anything. Those are optimistic projections at best and renewable energy is still the way to go based on eco-logical and efficiency reasons alone. We'll see what happens, but don't expect gas to get any cheaper. I won't even get into the dirty mess that natural gas is.
    cainvelasquez
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Don't believe the hype Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2012
    janklow wrote: »
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    well well well
    what was that shit niggas was talkin bout obeezy energy policy...?
    some of it was overhyped (lease stuff, if i recall correctly), but he DOES want to have it both ways by bitching about the pipeline. but honestly, this is more "what the fuck is the difference between Obama and Romney" stuff

    I'm thinking it's a matter of doing it right. Obama was never against the pipeline. He was against rushing the job and not looking at the environmental impact vs any other gain. Part of the route was already approved by that point. Still it's always been about energy diversification and lowering the impact to our environment while increasing our energy independence.

    With that said, part of Romney's strategy was to adopt all of Obama's positions in order to create a "what is the difference" argument to confuse voters. It was evident in the first debate when he switched up all of his positions and claimed agreement on most things even when that wasn't the case weeks before.
    t_m_a_c_f_a_n73088
  • t_m_a_c_f_a_n73088t_m_a_c_f_a_n73088 Posts: 8,491 ✭✭✭✭✭
    a.mann wrote: »
    the Conservatives will not like this
    it's given Obama credit, even in the slightest form,seeing how this was one of his top talking points

    now THIS comes out........


    Lol republicans continuing to take losses out here. Remember when romney said drilling is down and the pipeline in canada and blah blah blah. Yea now what?
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,626 Regulator
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I'm thinking it's a matter of doing it right. Obama was never against the pipeline. He was against rushing the job and not looking at the environmental impact vs any other gain. Part of the route was already approved by that point. Still it's always been about energy diversification and lowering the impact to our environment while increasing our energy independence.
    well, first off, i think Obama = Romney, so if Romney wants the pipeline, Obama must. but he's got to throw a bone to a constituency that doesn't want the pipeline, period. Romney doesn't.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    With that said, part of Romney's strategy was to adopt all of Obama's positions in order to create a "what is the difference" argument to confuse voters. It was evident in the first debate when he switched up all of his positions and claimed agreement on most things even when that wasn't the case weeks before.
    ...unless you think his strategy was to sell himself as more conservative to THAT base and those more Obama-style positions were his positions. moot point now, i suppose.
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Don't believe the hype Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2012
    janklow wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I'm thinking it's a matter of doing it right. Obama was never against the pipeline. He was against rushing the job and not looking at the environmental impact vs any other gain. Part of the route was already approved by that point. Still it's always been about energy diversification and lowering the impact to our environment while increasing our energy independence.
    well, first off, i think Obama = Romney, so if Romney wants the pipeline, Obama must. but he's got to throw a bone to a constituency that doesn't want the pipeline, period. Romney doesn't.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    With that said, part of Romney's strategy was to adopt all of Obama's positions in order to create a "what is the difference" argument to confuse voters. It was evident in the first debate when he switched up all of his positions and claimed agreement on most things even when that wasn't the case weeks before.
    ...unless you think his strategy was to sell himself as more conservative to THAT base and those more Obama-style positions were his positions. moot point now, i suppose.

    Obama never said he didn't want the pipeline, he said he didn't want it rushed. So proving why you don't want something while saying you do but x,y, and z has to be looked at first isn't the same. Knowing Obama's concern for the environment in other cases would tell me that he had genuine concern for the environment in this case. The ultra conservative policies that he attempted to pass as governor and his business concerns tell me that his his conservative views are the real Romney especially being that he couldn't honestly support his new found liberal ways. Also it was proven that he lied or didn't know shit about the so called liberal policies that he suddenly supported in the debate portion of his election strategy.
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,626 Regulator
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Obama never said he didn't want the pipeline, he said he didn't want it rushed.
    okay, again, i said a) both Obama and Romney want the pipeline, which makes sense because they're the same guy, and b) Obama's constituency contains people who are not Obama AND who don't want the pipeline, period, and they're voters he's got to appease here and there. unless you're claiming that Obama does not want the pipeline or hasn't decided one way or the other, i'm not sure you're disagreeing with me.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    The ultra conservative policies that he attempted to pass as governor and his business concerns tell me that his his conservative views are the real Romney especially being that he couldn't honestly support his new found liberal ways.
    Romney also signed off on a mysteriously similar healthcare bill and an assault weapon ban. how "ultra-conservative" do you expect me to believe he is?
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Don't believe the hype Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2012
    janklow wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Obama never said he didn't want the pipeline, he said he didn't want it rushed.
    okay, again, i said a) both Obama and Romney want the pipeline, which makes sense because they're the same guy, and b) Obama's constituency contains people who are not Obama AND who don't want the pipeline, period, and they're voters he's got to appease here and there. unless you're claiming that Obama does not want the pipeline or hasn't decided one way or the other, i'm not sure you're disagreeing with me.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    The ultra conservative policies that he attempted to pass as governor and his business concerns tell me that his his conservative views are the real Romney especially being that he couldn't honestly support his new found liberal ways.
    Romney also signed off on a mysteriously similar healthcare bill and an assault weapon ban. how "ultra-conservative" do you expect me to believe he is?

    Saying that they are the same guy is far more reaching then saying that they both wanted the same thing but with very different approaches on getting it. I'm wondering how he's pandering to a constituency that doesn't want the pipeline when he said he does. I'm also wondering how denying a portion for environmental concerns is pandering for people who don't want it no matter what. Also, they may both want something, but it's how they go about it that sets these men apart. Republicans don't want regulation which is the key aspect of this argument, so that had no concerns with environmental impact studies and potential route changes. He also didn't want the issue of the pipeline tied to the debt ceiling negotiations which Republicans tried. I don't recall Romney's position on that.

    That health plan has always been lambasted as being a conservative one. So while that portion is not ultra conservative, it is still conservative in it's origins. Obama added many progressive measures like a national option in the market place (just making it national is a progressive move against conservative states rights advocates). He also increased medicaid, banned caps, forced Insurance companies to allocated 85% and issue reimbursements if they do not. There are far more things on that list that he did not get trough the legislature that can be considered ultra conservative. I'm wondering if Romney signed that assault ban to pander openly for reelection.
  • Lou_CypherLou_Cypher One Cold Ass Honkey It's Cold, AlaskaPosts: 24,269 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,626 Regulator
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I'm wondering how he's pandering to a constituency that doesn't want the pipeline when he said he does.
    if it was as cut and dry as "Obama wants it," then he'd be more active on this front. the difference is that you think he's taking a more measured approach (which i would argue SHOULD mean you don't know if you want it or not) and i think he's paid lip service to the environmentalists for political reasons.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    That health plan has always been lambasted as being a conservative one.
    it might be conservative compared to more liberal plans, but the healthcare bill he signed off on is NOT such a conservative concept that it stopped guys running to the right of Romney from beating him up over it in the primary. remember also that you're arguing Romney supports "ULTRA-conservative" policies. ultra-conservatives don't support his Massachusetts healthcare plan at all.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    There are far more things on that list that he did not get trough the legislature that can be considered ultra conservative.
    traditionally this is where you give me some examples, i think
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I'm wondering if Romney signed that assault ban to pander openly for reelection.
    doesn't really matter since, again, someone ultra-conservative would NOT have signed off on it.
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Don't believe the hype Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2012
    janklow wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I'm wondering how he's pandering to a constituency that doesn't want the pipeline when he said he does.
    if it was as cut and dry as "Obama wants it," then he'd be more active on this front. the difference is that you think he's taking a more measured approach (which i would argue SHOULD mean you don't know if you want it or not) and i think he's paid lip service to the environmentalists for political reasons.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    That health plan has always been lambasted as being a conservative one.
    it might be conservative compared to more liberal plans, but the healthcare bill he signed off on is NOT such a conservative concept that it stopped guys running to the right of Romney from beating him up over it in the primary. remember also that you're arguing Romney supports "ULTRA-conservative" policies. ultra-conservatives don't support his Massachusetts healthcare plan at all.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    There are far more things on that list that he did not get trough the legislature that can be considered ultra conservative.
    traditionally this is where you give me some examples, i think
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I'm wondering if Romney signed that assault ban to pander openly for reelection.
    doesn't really matter since, again, someone ultra-conservative would NOT have signed off on it.

    If it's not that cut and dry, then why claim that he is Romney? That's my point, but i don't think his looking at environmental impact (because not every environment where these pipes exist is the same), was lip service. That was him getting in front of a project that should be done correctly with little impact in that region. Part of the pipeline was already approved, so i cant' see how he doesn't want one period.
    http://www.nbc33tv.com/news/decision-2012/president-obama-approves-part-of-keystone-oil-pipeline

    Maybe not in that area if it can't be done correctly. I'm sure you measure a situation before you jump in right? Or you end up like this guy.
    5327f.gif

    I didn't say Romneycare was ultra conservative, but it is conservative. Nationalizing that idea made it a states rights issue which conservatives are all about. Conservatives in this round were just grasping at straws and poisoning their own water. Obama actually initiated this strategy by thanking Romney for the idea.

    I believe i posted a list of all of his planned cuts that legislators blocked right? But I'm speaking on his social policies.
    http://www.blacklegalissues.com/Article_Details.ASPX?ARTCLID=34c582e665

    The ultimate humor of Romney's pandering Assault rifle ban is that the NRA endorsed him regardless. Even still, Obama never signed legislation banning assault weapons, but he does want to monitor them.
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,626 Regulator
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    If it's not that cut and dry, then why claim that he is Romney?
    because i believe he wants the pipeline for the same reason Romney does or would have: make rich people he knows money and to look like a success. i simply do not agree with your assessment that he's actively 100% for it. also, look, Obama = Romney does not mean that in every possible way they're the same guy; for example, one of them is black and one of them is a Mormon. but what are the substantial differences between them?
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    That's my point, but i don't think his looking at environmental impact (because not every environment where these pipes exist is the same), was lip service. That was him getting in front of a project that should be done correctly with little impact in that region.
    okay, but then i think you should be arguing that Obama is not necessarily for the pipeline, and then we could disagree about THAT.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I didn't say Romneycare was ultra conservative, but it is conservative. Nationalizing that idea made it a states rights issue which conservatives are all about. Conservatives in this round were just grasping at straws and poisoning their own water. Obama actually initiated this strategy by thanking Romney for the idea.
    it is conservative for a health care plan. i don't think the idea of a national and/or statewide health care plan is considered that conservative. i will allow, however, the following points:
    --it might have been previously more acceptable with conservatives before Obama was the one running with it (i don't think so, but honestly, i don't recall off-hand who was promoting such legislation pre-2008);
    --there might be people who are considering, without dispute, more conservative than Romney who have promoted state healthcare plans like that in Massachusetts ... but i cannot think of anyone.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I believe i posted a list of all of his planned cuts that legislators blocked right? But I'm speaking on his social policies.
    fair point on cutting stuff in MA, so i guess this means the primary (only?) difference between Romney and Obama is Romney's higher willingness to cut social programs for budgetary reasons? i say higher as THEORETICALLY both would consider it to some extent
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    The ultimate humor of Romney's pandering Assault rifle ban is that the NRA endorsed him regardless.
    eh, who else were they going to endorse? plus, to be fair, Ryan is clearly pro-gun and has a solid record on the issue: Romney's got a shit record, Obama's got a shit stance on guns, and Biden is one of these rich guys that talks up his duck hunting like it means he'll defend someone's gun rights. fuck that.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Even still, Obama never signed legislation banning assault weapons, but he does want to monitor them.
    so he's still just as much of a fucking asshole on this issue as Romney is? not really showing me the difference, and really, let's not start giving Obama any credit on this issue: he ran with promoting an assault weapon ban in his platform in 2008 and 2012, he brought it up during the debate, and he would undoubtedly sign on.

    plus... what the hell does "wants to monitor them" even mean?
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Don't believe the hype Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2012
    janklow wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    If it's not that cut and dry, then why claim that he is Romney?
    because i believe he wants the pipeline for the same reason Romney does or would have: make rich people he knows money and to look like a success. i simply do not agree with your assessment that he's actively 100% for it. also, look, Obama = Romney does not mean that in every possible way they're the same guy; for example, one of them is black and one of them is a Mormon. but what are the substantial differences between them?
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    That's my point, but i don't think his looking at environmental impact (because not every environment where these pipes exist is the same), was lip service. That was him getting in front of a project that should be done correctly with little impact in that region.
    okay, but then i think you should be arguing that Obama is not necessarily for the pipeline, and then we could disagree about THAT.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I didn't say Romneycare was ultra conservative, but it is conservative. Nationalizing that idea made it a states rights issue which conservatives are all about. Conservatives in this round were just grasping at straws and poisoning their own water. Obama actually initiated this strategy by thanking Romney for the idea.
    it is conservative for a health care plan. i don't think the idea of a national and/or statewide health care plan is considered that conservative. i will allow, however, the following points:
    --it might have been previously more acceptable with conservatives before Obama was the one running with it (i don't think so, but honestly, i don't recall off-hand who was promoting such legislation pre-2008);
    --there might be people who are considering, without dispute, more conservative than Romney who have promoted state healthcare plans like that in Massachusetts ... but i cannot think of anyone.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I believe i posted a list of all of his planned cuts that legislators blocked right? But I'm speaking on his social policies.
    fair point on cutting stuff in MA, so i guess this means the primary (only?) difference between Romney and Obama is Romney's higher willingness to cut social programs for budgetary reasons? i say higher as THEORETICALLY both would consider it to some extent
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    The ultimate humor of Romney's pandering Assault rifle ban is that the NRA endorsed him regardless.
    eh, who else were they going to endorse? plus, to be fair, Ryan is clearly pro-gun and has a solid record on the issue: Romney's got a shit record, Obama's got a shit stance on guns, and Biden is one of these rich guys that talks up his duck hunting like it means he'll defend someone's gun rights. fuck that.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Even still, Obama never signed legislation banning assault weapons, but he does want to monitor them.
    so he's still just as much of a fucking asshole on this issue as Romney is? not really showing me the difference, and really, let's not start giving Obama any credit on this issue: he ran with promoting an assault weapon ban in his platform in 2008 and 2012, he brought it up during the debate, and he would undoubtedly sign on.

    plus... what the hell does "wants to monitor them" even mean?

    I never said that he was actively 100% for or against it. I said he wasn't against it in totality because it depended on the impact of the environment along with other factors. If his point is only to make Rich people money, then he wouldn't be trying to tax the Rich and slowing down it's construction. If anything, it allows our region to be a solid powerhouse (Canadian export) and takes away influence of the middle east. But still, it should be done properly. He wasn't jumping in without testing the waters as the Gif implicated. Still the impact studies do have impact.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303425504577352651777168314.html

    States rights are what Republicans scream about so a national market was deemed very different. If you can't recall any opposition previously, that's because nobody was that concerned with a single state implementation. Conservatives actually pointed to that as being the way to go rather then involving the federal government before they imploded to a 'throw shit at the wall' argument. They were running for office; why not attack on anything they can dredge up? The types of cuts and whether you will cut or eliminate entire programs because it sounds good is a difference. Obama hasn't cut anything other then obscene payments. Streamlining and cutting waste isn't the same as cutting most funding without a detailed plan or a way to maintain quality service.

    Monitor meaning, monitor sales with background checks. Also, he mentioned that there are already laws on the book that he wants to honor, so there are already measures against your precious assault guns. I don't know how effective that would be or if he will go through with it, but still, there is a great difference when someone has a feeling about something, and when they implement action.
  • AggyAFAggyAF A Weirdo but I'm Real Tho Posts: 21,777 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,626 Regulator
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I never said that he was actively 100% for or against it. I said he wasn't against it in totality because it depended on the impact of the environment along with other factors.
    so let's return to my point that we shouldn't claim Obama is for the pipeline, then?
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    If his point is only to make Rich people money, then he wouldn't be trying to tax the Rich and slowing down it's construction.
    because taxing rich people is going to make rich people who are pro-Democrat stopping making money?
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    States rights are what Republicans scream about so a national market was deemed very different.
    i am pretty sure they scream about a lot MORE than just states rights; this just happens to be a way for them TO scream about it. remember that they're also bitching about it being taxes or fees or whatever the hell they're calling it today that they don't want to pay.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Obama hasn't cut anything other then obscene payments.
    ...which is why i said "theoretically," since he talked about accepting cuts as part of those earlier debt negotiations: he didn't cut anything because the talks failed.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Monitor meaning, monitor sales with background checks. Also, he mentioned that there are already laws on the book that he wants to honor, so there are already measures against your precious assault guns.
    i see you're being snide with the "precious assault guns" remark, so i suppose i can return the sentiment with questions like "would these background checks on sales be the background checks that CURRENTLY exist or something new that you're not defining" and "can you even define assault guns for me?"
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I don't know how effective that would be-
    first i suppose we need to narrow down what you're actually talking about...
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    -or if he will go through with it, but still, there is a great difference when someone has a feeling about something, and when they implement action.
    he's not going to go through with anything that requires legislation because the House is GOP-controlled, not because he's a defender of gun rights, which he is not. if there's no evidence he WOULDN'T sign an assault weapon ban he was presented with, he's the same as Romney on that score in my books.
  • G MackG Mack Posts: 6,256
    we'll see...you already know oil is the middle east life line, they would suffer greatly if this happened...
Sign In or Register to comment.