Drill, Drill, Drill: U.S. Production Today Same as '48
According to data from the Energy Information Adminstration for crude oil field production in the U.S., our current annual domestic production of about 1.873 billion barrels of crude oil (5.132 million barrels per day) is about exactly the same as oil production 60 years ago, back in the 1947-1949 period (see graph above). Real GDP today is about 7.2x higher than it was in 1948, and yet we're producing the same amount of domestic oil.
HT: Thanks to Michael A. Higley
Bottom Line: Don't blame the speculators for high oil prices, blame restrictions on domestic oil production. Let's drill, drill, drill.
HT: Thanks to Michael A. Higley
22 Comments:
Oh those datardly, eviiiilllll oil speculators!
Where are Representatives Collin Peterson and Chris Van Hollen (Democrats of course) when you need them?
CARPE DIEM
Think globally, drill locally.
> Think globally, drill locally.
And don't forget to squeeze the cheeze: oil shales and tar sands.
Note, please, that Obama has indicated substantial objection to extraction from shales and sands.
We use a lot less oil per unit of GDP, though the greenies would have you focus only on the absolute number.
Drilling is McCain's hammer. It is the cause of this.
McCain himself said we shouldn't drill in ANWR, "because it's the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge".
I'm not opposed to drilling in places in the US that don't cause massive eco damage. However, the real solution as we all know by now is finding better forms of energy. I hear there's even a new car out that runs on hydrogen and works pretty well.
something I noticed, it's funny how it took oil some 65,000,000 years to form and now we're going to exhaust it in about 200.
This has nothing to do with drilling, but I would love to hear your thoughts on the fast food ban in South Central LA. http://www.slate.com/id/2196397/
Matt, glad to hear that you are then not opposed to drilling anywhere in the US.
matt s says: "I'm not opposed to drilling in places in the US that don't cause massive eco damage. However, the real solution as we all know by now is finding better forms of energy"...
ROFLMAO!
Thanks matt s, its always good to start the day with a chuckle...
So tell us all about eco fragile ANWR...
But you don't stop there matt s: "something I noticed, it's funny how it took oil some 65,000,000 years to form and now we're going to exhaust it in about 200"...
Abiotic crude oil, look it up matt s...
Emirates to purchase 60 Airbus aircraft for route development
You know what that headline mean matt s?
It means that using crude oil will be around for a very long time to come...
I don't know if you realize this, but the big majority of the oil that's offshore is in the Gulf of Mexico, which is already completely in-play for drilling. On the Atlantic side, there's virtually nothing. Around Florida, its questionable. The west cost; there's some but much of it has already been produced. That leaves Alaska. The drilling is a red herring for the oil companies to lock up the leases before Bush leaves office. They know where the oil is; so does everyone else in the business. But take a look at how much these companies have spent on exploration over the past few years. And its not because there aren't places to explore; there are.
Don't believe me? Go take a look.
Thanks for that link oilman...
Almost 86 billion barrels of recoverable crude, eh?
I think I've read that this country consumes something in the neighborhood of 21 million barrels per day...
It seems like that link from oilman means that there is about 11 years worth of US needs out there at present day consumption rates...
@oilman:
You said:
"I don't know if you realize this, but the big majority of the oil that's offshore is in the Gulf of Mexico, which is already completely in-play for drilling."
According to the MMS, which you reference in your post, 85% of the OCS is off-limits to leasing and development, including 65.87 million acres in the Gulf.
take a look
With more than 65 million acres off-limits, I wouldn't say that the Gulf of Mexico is completely in play.
Sorry, my first link was wrong
here's the corrected link
Check out blogger SBVOR for more on drilling
This is where I found the link to the areas off-limit to exploration and development.
Drill for what purpose? So American oil companies can simply export the products overseas to the highest foreign bidder?
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/07/03/2008-07-03T184028Z_01_N02435397_RTRIDST_0_USA-OIL-EXPORTS-ANALYSIS.html
Reuters
ANALYSIS-US oil firms seek drilling access, but exports soar
07.03.08, 2:40 PM ET
United States - By Tom Doggett
WASHINGTON3 (Reuters) - While the U.S. oil industry want access to more federal lands to help reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, American-based companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries.
A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department.
The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
So, you don't think that producing more, even if it is exported, will reduce the price?
I don't care where the oil goes, as long as it lowers the price. I also like the idea of foreign companies giving money to U.S. companies. What don't you like about that?
Didn't we used to be in favor of U.S. industry? Now all the libs do is bash it. Big oil, big pharma, big agra. Hey, those are businesses in my country, and they employ hundreds of thousands of my people and I resent your bashing them. Not everyone can work for the government you know.
I would render caribou for their oil if it meant people would stop bitching about the price of oil and get back to work.
Caribou are not an endangered species. It is worth noting what species are in fact endangered in Alaska. Objectors may in fact be arguing on the preservation of a fern. Ferns are nice but hey, you can locate them and work around them.
One cannot help but observet that those posters who claim that drilling will cause catastrophic environmental degradation do not supply anything aside from rhetoric to support their claims.
> However, the real solution as we all know by now is finding better forms of energy.
Well, there's nuclear and SPS and Ocean Thermal, but we can't be bothered to work on those, since they hold substantial promise for control by misanthropic anti-business zealots.
Further, none of those currently deal with the notion of motive power, for which chemical energy is still the best bet. Some other comments on this here in this CD thread.
> something I noticed, it's funny how it took oil some 65,000,000 years to form and now we're going to exhaust it in about 200.
1) This is surprising? You're using a very markedly inefficient process to store solar energy, it's no surprise it doesn't take long to run through it. If I bake pies in a toaster oven, does it seem odd that a month's pie-baking efforts wouldn't take long to run through during a large get-together?
2) There are actually some arguments about both how long it will take to exhaust it and about the current state of some fields. They have looked at some old oil fields that were "dry" and found new oil there from somewhere (presumably deeper reserves "bubbling up", but that's my estimation, not from my original source) I can't produce the source, so take it for very limited value, but you might do a search for it, esp. if you have Lexus/Nexus access.
Further, the oil found in shales and sands is far greater than that already extracted... so we're probably looking at more like 300 to 400 years, depending on both demand and what tech we develop to replace it and when.
.
> Drill for what purpose? So American oil companies can simply export the products overseas to the highest foreign bidder?
OK:
whack!
Get a clue. You don't understand economics in **any** way, shape, or form.
This comment demonstrates this, with astounding alacrity.
Again:
whack!
First clue: Gasoline is almost entirely "fungible"
Put simply: It does not matter where it gets sold.
The price it is sold for is based on a complex feedback mechanism.
There isn't any "big bad eeeevil corporation" which is selling "our stuff" to "someone else".
That's not how it works.
"Why" is a more complex lesson than I'm going to try to explain.
Perhaps if you ask nice, someone, maybe even Dr. Perry, will offer someplace to start learning about this.
I would recommend, however, that you start by reading back columns by Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. Those would be a very, very good place to start. You should be able to guess by the titles which are economic in nature, as opposed to some of them on broader topics. You don't need to be a genius to grasp the points they are making, and they are both very, very readable. There will be a measure of repetition over time, as both have columns available dating back to 2000 -- but there will be a wide range of economics concepts covered at one point or another.
Another good place would be www.mises.org -- which produces daily articles on the subject of economics, most of them readable by the layman.
Here's another pair of good articles to start your economic education with -- not related to the topic of fungibility, but dealing with publicly common economic reasoning flaws:
The parable of the broken window.
The Nation That Lost Its Jobs, But Got Them Back.
.
> Reuters
P.S., you're quoting Reuters.
Another clue for you:
If it's Reuters, it is coming from the most left-leaning bunch of an inherently left-leaning bunch. It is anti-business, anti-people, and anti-sense.
You cannot rely on them for truth of *any* kind, as was demonstrated repeatedly a few years back with a whole series of stories.
Reuters does not hesitate to misuse photographs, take verbatim descriptions of events from utterly untrustworthy sources without any vetting of any kind, and they have even stooped to photomanipulation in published stories (until caught and forced to retract them, which usually ends up on page 45, column 2, at the bottom)
A newspaper filled with Reuters' stories is possibly qualified to line the bottom of a bird-cage, but, as someone else around here quipped in a similar instance --
Warning: such usage may constitute Animal Abuse.
> ... since they hold substantial promise for control by misanthropic anti-business zealots.
OOPS:
Sorry, changed something in the viewpoint around and "no" got elided somewhere:
... since they hold no substantial promise for control by misanthropic anti-business zealots.
=====
Doh!!
=====
obloodyhell:
your link doesn't work: "The Nation That Lost Its Jobs, But Got Them Back."
Post a Comment
<< Home