United States is now the largest global crude oil producer

The United States passed Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world’s largest crude oil producer earlier this year, based on preliminary estimates in EIA’s (Energy Information Administration).

EIA expects that U.S. crude oil production will continue to exceed Russian and Saudi Arabian crude oil production for the remaining months of 2018 and through 2019.

U.S. crude oil production, particularly from light sweet crude oil grades, has rapidly increased since 2011. Much of the recent growth has occurred in areas such as the Permian region in western Texas and eastern New Mexico, the Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico, and the Bakken region in North Dakota and Montana.

121 thoughts on “United States is now the largest global crude oil producer”

  1. Just no more Deepwater Horizon fiascoes please – although some might argue “out of sight out of mind”. Love how the petroleum industry gets to keep on truckin’ when they have their own Fukushima sized oil spills every year or so. My duallie Ram (that someone keyed last week) needs that fuel, bruh.

    Reply
  2. Just no more Deepwater Horizon fiascoes please – although some might argue out of sight out of mind””.Love how the petroleum industry gets to keep on truckin’ when they have their own Fukushima sized oil spills every year or so. My duallie Ram (that someone keyed last week) needs that fuel”””” bruh.”””

    Reply
  3. …yes, and the one who told him all we needed to do was ‘Drill, baby drill!” was derided as the idiot, instead. Turns out she was right about that. And as for seeing Russians from her house…Well, Libtards claim to Russians are hiding under their beds now, so….

    Reply
  4. And this changes everything, geopolitically. The US just has to mix Canadian heavy crude with our sweet…or if worse comes to worse, mix it with the heavy crude from the offshore Gulf of Mexico platforms and we have not only de facto energy independence, but will soon be a net exporter too. Not to mention all that natural gas that the frackers also release in their drilling. We are already a net exporter of it — mostly to Mexico via pipelines — and are exporting it in LNG form as well. That means if the Saudis and Iranians decide to start flinging missiles to each other over the tankers in the PG, it’s not a problem for us but one for everyone else…especially Asia. Or if the Russians do something stupid in the Baltics or the rest of Ukraine and their oil ends up being cut off, same thing. We will just have to sit back, re-impose the oil export ban if necessary and enjoy the (comparatively) cheap transportation and industrial energy while the rest of the world suffers big time.

    Reply
  5. …yes and the one who told him all we needed to do was ‘Drill baby drill! was derided as the idiot” instead.Turns out she was right about that. And as for seeing Russians from her house…Well Libtards claim to Russians are hiding under their beds now” so….”

    Reply
  6. And this changes everything geopolitically. The US just has to mix Canadian heavy crude with our sweet…or if worse comes to worse mix it with the heavy crude from the offshore Gulf of Mexico platforms and we have not only de facto energy independence but will soon be a net exporter too.Not to mention all that natural gas that the frackers also release in their drilling. We are already a net exporter of it — mostly to Mexico via pipelines — and are exporting it in LNG form as well.That means if the Saudis and Iranians decide to start flinging missiles to each other over the tankers in the PG it’s not a problem for us but one for everyone else…especially Asia. Or if the Russians do something stupid in the Baltics or the rest of Ukraine and their oil ends up being cut off same thing.We will just have to sit back re-impose the oil export ban if necessary and enjoy the (comparatively) cheap transportation and industrial energy while the rest of the world suffers big time.

    Reply
  7. The net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum relative to petroleum consumption is one measure of our reliance on imports to help meet petroleum demand. In 2017, net imports of petroleum averaged 3.7 MMb/d, the equivalent of 19% of total U.S. petroleum consumption, which was the lowest percentage since 1967. -> this means the US still imports oil

    Reply
  8. I used to think this too, but then I realized there’s still a motive to control the Middle East. In any large, theater conflict, controlling the ME gives you the ability to deprive other countries of exports and forces them to rely on their reserves while you blockade them and oil-starve them into submission. It is a part of our big picture strategic plans in any large conflict (something of a holdover from the Cold War, but relevant nonetheless in any global conflict with a near-peer nation). Most nations don’t have a very large oil reserve, and would rely on continuing exports from the Gulf.

    Reply
  9. Point is that it does not workAs you can see Iran is not bending to US pressure quite the opposite they are becoming stronger by the day. Iran now has a larger influence on Iraq than they had before the 2003 invasion and they are controlling larger swaths or Syria. Moreover Qatar is coming along their way. All the US demands of stopping their nuclear program and to bend down have been rejected so far

    Reply
  10. The net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum relative to petroleum consumption is one measure of our reliance on imports to help meet petroleum demand. In 2017 net imports of petroleum averaged 3.7 MMb/d the equivalent of 19{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of total U.S. petroleum consumption which was the lowest percentage since 1967.-> this means the US still imports oil

    Reply
  11. I used to think this too but then I realized there’s still a motive to control the Middle East. In any large theater conflict controlling the ME gives you the ability to deprive other countries of exports and forces them to rely on their reserves while you blockade them and oil-starve them into submission. It is a part of our big picture strategic plans in any large conflict (something of a holdover from the Cold War but relevant nonetheless in any global conflict with a near-peer nation). Most nations don’t have a very large oil reserve and would rely on continuing exports from the Gulf.

    Reply
  12. Maybe that’s why reactors should be floating on the ocean. Like an oil well any “little accidents” can be washed away and not bother anyone unless they really are big enough to affect people far away. More realistically, I think a big issue is that the average voter goes out every week and physically pours half their body weight of petroleum straight into their fuel tank. It’s right there in front of their eyes. They know, deep in their bones, that they need a lot of oil products. But flick a switch at home and you don’t see any uranium moving past you. It’s very easy to think of nuclear power as something that isn’t benefiting you personally.

    Reply
  13. The level of control required to stop the oil is far less than the level required to keep the oil flowing. You just need to be able to sink ships and/or facilities. A carrier group at the entrance to the persian gulf and another in the mediterranean would probably be able to shut down any high volume shipping they didn’t approve off. Likewise Iran would be able to shut down all the flow that doesn’t go out to the west. But so could the Saudis. Or the Turks. Or the Indians. Half of those could shut down the western direction too, along with Israel, Italy, and probably France or England. And Russia, and maybe China or Japan could also have a go at it long range, though they’d have trouble maintaining it against any opposition given their distance from home. There are nearly a dozen nations with a veto or partial veto on oil exports from the middle east, should they be prepared to use it and cop the inevitable consequences. But of course the consequences would be very serious. Most of those places would be cutting off their own nose to spite their face. That’s what an isolationist USA with its own oil has. The ability to send a carrier group in, sink 3 tankers and announce that anything heading towards (say…I don’t know, the rebellious state of California for example) would be sunk, and that’s it. It would shut down without tearing the economy of the USA to shreds, unlike the results for just about anyone else. It would still be a bad couple of years for the USA though. No 5% GDP growth in that case. But they could get through it.

    Reply
  14. Point is that it does not work As you can see, Iran is not bending to US pressure, quite the opposite, they are becoming stronger by the day. Iran now has a larger influence on Iraq than they had before the 2003 invasion, and they are controlling larger swaths or Syria. Moreover, Qatar is coming along their way. All the US demands of stopping their nuclear program and to bend down have been rejected so far

    Reply
  15. Maybe that’s why reactors should be floating on the ocean. Like an oil well any little accidents”” can be washed away and not bother anyone unless they really are big enough to affect people far away.More realistically”” I think a big issue is that the average voter goes out every week and physically pours half their body weight of petroleum straight into their fuel tank. It’s right there in front of their eyes. They know deep in their bones”” that they need a lot of oil products. But flick a switch at home and you don’t see any uranium moving past you. It’s very easy to think of nuclear power as something that isn’t benefiting you personally.”””

    Reply
  16. The level of control required to stop the oil is far less than the level required to keep the oil flowing. You just need to be able to sink ships and/or facilities.A carrier group at the entrance to the persian gulf and another in the mediterranean would probably be able to shut down any high volume shipping they didn’t approve off.Likewise Iran would be able to shut down all the flow that doesn’t go out to the west. But so could the Saudis. Or the Turks. Or the Indians. Half of those could shut down the western direction too along with Israel Italy and probably France or England.And Russia and maybe China or Japan could also have a go at it long range though they’d have trouble maintaining it against any opposition given their distance from home.There are nearly a dozen nations with a veto or partial veto on oil exports from the middle east should they be prepared to use it and cop the inevitable consequences.But of course the consequences would be very serious. Most of those places would be cutting off their own nose to spite their face.That’s what an isolationist USA with its own oil has. The ability to send a carrier group in sink 3 tankers and announce that anything heading towards (say…I don’t know the rebellious state of California for example) would be sunk and that’s it. It would shut down without tearing the economy of the USA to shreds unlike the results for just about anyone else.It would still be a bad couple of years for the USA though. No 5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} GDP growth in that case. But they could get through it.

    Reply
  17. Yawn. No it doesn’t. Only bluetarded states like California and Hawaii imports ME oil. The US diversified away from ME oil in way back in the 1980s, for the most part. Switched to Venezuela and Nigerian supplies. Pay attention to facts.

    Reply
  18. Yawn. No it doesn’t. Only bluetarded states like California and Hawaii imports ME oil.The US diversified away from ME oil in way back in the 1980s for the most part. Switched to Venezuela and Nigerian supplies. Pay attention to facts.

    Reply
  19. glad you are wearing a helmet. Sistani is no fan of Khamenei. Different tribes. It wouldn’t be a good thing to see Shahroudi replace Sistani. In any case, Iran has more or less had their oil revenues dry up. They are under tremendous pressure financially. They can’t take delivery in USD, and EUR is tight.

    Reply
  20. glad you are wearing a helmet. Sistani is no fan of Khamenei. Different tribes. It wouldn’t be a good thing to see Shahroudi replace Sistani. In any case Iran has more or less had their oil revenues dry up. They are under tremendous pressure financially. They can’t take delivery in USD and EUR is tight.

    Reply
  21. It’s a global commodity. Prices in one area affect prices elsewhere. If there’s not enough ME oil, people switch to Nigeria or Venezuela or Canada. People usually sell to the highest bidder. If prices go up a lot, we’re going to sell some of our oil to other countries, guaranteed. The rest we’ll buy locally and pay more for it. California imports its oil from overseas because the oil fields in Texas lead to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico, the oil in Canada and North Dakota goes to refineries in the Midwest (Gary, Indiana, for instance). Pretty sure we don’t have any pipelines going over the Sierra mountains, so it becomes a matter of basic economics for California – it’s cheaper for them to get oil shipped in from elsewhere, and in the Pacific, the cheapest source is the ME. (Cal. does produce some of their own to be sure).

    Reply
  22. It’s a global commodity. Prices in one area affect prices elsewhere. If there’s not enough ME oil people switch to Nigeria or Venezuela or Canada. People usually sell to the highest bidder. If prices go up a lot we’re going to sell some of our oil to other countries guaranteed. The rest we’ll buy locally and pay more for it. California imports its oil from overseas because the oil fields in Texas lead to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico the oil in Canada and North Dakota goes to refineries in the Midwest (Gary Indiana for instance). Pretty sure we don’t have any pipelines going over the Sierra mountains so it becomes a matter of basic economics for California – it’s cheaper for them to get oil shipped in from elsewhere and in the Pacific the cheapest source is the ME. (Cal. does produce some of their own to be sure).

    Reply
  23. And that is why the rest of the world has to move away from crude and focus on electric mobility and be not be messed up for no reason of theirs.

    Reply
  24. And that is why the rest of the world has to move away from crude and focus on electric mobility and be not be messed up for no reason of theirs.

    Reply
  25. That doesn’t have anything to do with what Matheus said. “California imports its oil from overseas because the oil fields in Texas lead to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico” No. It imports from overseas because it refuses to allow development of oil deposits in the state AND refuses to allow those pipelines to be built. The Monterrey Shale Basin has enough oil to supply California alone several times over. It could use the Richmond Oil Terminal to ship oil to Hawaii in that situation.

    Reply
  26. That doesn’t have anything to do with what Matheus said.California imports its oil from overseas because the oil fields in Texas lead to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico””No. It imports from overseas because it refuses to allow development of oil deposits in the state AND refuses to allow those pipelines to be built. The Monterrey Shale Basin has enough oil to supply California alone several times over. It could use the Richmond Oil Terminal to ship oil to Hawaii in that situation.”””

    Reply
  27. That doesn’t have anything to do with what Matheus said. “California imports its oil from overseas because the oil fields in Texas lead to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico” No. It imports from overseas because it refuses to allow development of oil deposits in the state AND refuses to allow those pipelines to be built. The Monterrey Shale Basin has enough oil to supply California alone several times over. It could use the Richmond Oil Terminal to ship oil to Hawaii in that situation.

    Reply
  28. That doesn’t have anything to do with what Matheus said.California imports its oil from overseas because the oil fields in Texas lead to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico””No. It imports from overseas because it refuses to allow development of oil deposits in the state AND refuses to allow those pipelines to be built. The Monterrey Shale Basin has enough oil to supply California alone several times over. It could use the Richmond Oil Terminal to ship oil to Hawaii in that situation.”””

    Reply
  29. And that is why the rest of the world has to move away from crude and focus on electric mobility and be not be messed up for no reason of theirs.

    Reply
  30. And that is why the rest of the world has to move away from crude and focus on electric mobility and be not be messed up for no reason of theirs.

    Reply
  31. That doesn’t have anything to do with what Matheus said.

    “California imports its oil from overseas because the oil fields in Texas lead to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico”

    No. It imports from overseas because it refuses to allow development of oil deposits in the state AND refuses to allow those pipelines to be built. The Monterrey Shale Basin has enough oil to supply California alone several times over. It could use the Richmond Oil Terminal to ship oil to Hawaii in that situation.

    Reply
  32. It’s a global commodity. Prices in one area affect prices elsewhere. If there’s not enough ME oil, people switch to Nigeria or Venezuela or Canada. People usually sell to the highest bidder. If prices go up a lot, we’re going to sell some of our oil to other countries, guaranteed. The rest we’ll buy locally and pay more for it. California imports its oil from overseas because the oil fields in Texas lead to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico, the oil in Canada and North Dakota goes to refineries in the Midwest (Gary, Indiana, for instance). Pretty sure we don’t have any pipelines going over the Sierra mountains, so it becomes a matter of basic economics for California – it’s cheaper for them to get oil shipped in from elsewhere, and in the Pacific, the cheapest source is the ME. (Cal. does produce some of their own to be sure).

    Reply
  33. It’s a global commodity. Prices in one area affect prices elsewhere. If there’s not enough ME oil people switch to Nigeria or Venezuela or Canada. People usually sell to the highest bidder. If prices go up a lot we’re going to sell some of our oil to other countries guaranteed. The rest we’ll buy locally and pay more for it. California imports its oil from overseas because the oil fields in Texas lead to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico the oil in Canada and North Dakota goes to refineries in the Midwest (Gary Indiana for instance). Pretty sure we don’t have any pipelines going over the Sierra mountains so it becomes a matter of basic economics for California – it’s cheaper for them to get oil shipped in from elsewhere and in the Pacific the cheapest source is the ME. (Cal. does produce some of their own to be sure).

    Reply
  34. glad you are wearing a helmet. Sistani is no fan of Khamenei. Different tribes. It wouldn’t be a good thing to see Shahroudi replace Sistani. In any case, Iran has more or less had their oil revenues dry up. They are under tremendous pressure financially. They can’t take delivery in USD, and EUR is tight.

    Reply
  35. glad you are wearing a helmet. Sistani is no fan of Khamenei. Different tribes. It wouldn’t be a good thing to see Shahroudi replace Sistani. In any case Iran has more or less had their oil revenues dry up. They are under tremendous pressure financially. They can’t take delivery in USD and EUR is tight.

    Reply
  36. It’s a global commodity. Prices in one area affect prices elsewhere. If there’s not enough ME oil, people switch to Nigeria or Venezuela or Canada. People usually sell to the highest bidder. If prices go up a lot, we’re going to sell some of our oil to other countries, guaranteed. The rest we’ll buy locally and pay more for it.

    California imports its oil from overseas because the oil fields in Texas lead to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico, the oil in Canada and North Dakota goes to refineries in the Midwest (Gary, Indiana, for instance). Pretty sure we don’t have any pipelines going over the Sierra mountains, so it becomes a matter of basic economics for California – it’s cheaper for them to get oil shipped in from elsewhere, and in the Pacific, the cheapest source is the ME. (Cal. does produce some of their own to be sure).

    Reply
  37. glad you are wearing a helmet. Sistani is no fan of Khamenei. Different tribes. It wouldn’t be a good thing to see Shahroudi replace Sistani.

    In any case, Iran has more or less had their oil revenues dry up. They are under tremendous pressure financially. They can’t take delivery in USD, and EUR is tight.

    Reply
  38. Yawn. No it doesn’t. Only bluetarded states like California and Hawaii imports ME oil. The US diversified away from ME oil in way back in the 1980s, for the most part. Switched to Venezuela and Nigerian supplies. Pay attention to facts.

    Reply
  39. Yawn. No it doesn’t. Only bluetarded states like California and Hawaii imports ME oil.The US diversified away from ME oil in way back in the 1980s for the most part. Switched to Venezuela and Nigerian supplies. Pay attention to facts.

    Reply
  40. Maybe that’s why reactors should be floating on the ocean. Like an oil well any “little accidents” can be washed away and not bother anyone unless they really are big enough to affect people far away. More realistically, I think a big issue is that the average voter goes out every week and physically pours half their body weight of petroleum straight into their fuel tank. It’s right there in front of their eyes. They know, deep in their bones, that they need a lot of oil products. But flick a switch at home and you don’t see any uranium moving past you. It’s very easy to think of nuclear power as something that isn’t benefiting you personally.

    Reply
  41. Maybe that’s why reactors should be floating on the ocean. Like an oil well any little accidents”” can be washed away and not bother anyone unless they really are big enough to affect people far away.More realistically”” I think a big issue is that the average voter goes out every week and physically pours half their body weight of petroleum straight into their fuel tank. It’s right there in front of their eyes. They know deep in their bones”” that they need a lot of oil products. But flick a switch at home and you don’t see any uranium moving past you. It’s very easy to think of nuclear power as something that isn’t benefiting you personally.”””

    Reply
  42. The level of control required to stop the oil is far less than the level required to keep the oil flowing. You just need to be able to sink ships and/or facilities. A carrier group at the entrance to the persian gulf and another in the mediterranean would probably be able to shut down any high volume shipping they didn’t approve off. Likewise Iran would be able to shut down all the flow that doesn’t go out to the west. But so could the Saudis. Or the Turks. Or the Indians. Half of those could shut down the western direction too, along with Israel, Italy, and probably France or England. And Russia, and maybe China or Japan could also have a go at it long range, though they’d have trouble maintaining it against any opposition given their distance from home. There are nearly a dozen nations with a veto or partial veto on oil exports from the middle east, should they be prepared to use it and cop the inevitable consequences. But of course the consequences would be very serious. Most of those places would be cutting off their own nose to spite their face. That’s what an isolationist USA with its own oil has. The ability to send a carrier group in, sink 3 tankers and announce that anything heading towards (say…I don’t know, the rebellious state of California for example) would be sunk, and that’s it. It would shut down without tearing the economy of the USA to shreds, unlike the results for just about anyone else. It would still be a bad couple of years for the USA though. No 5% GDP growth in that case. But they could get through it.

    Reply
  43. The level of control required to stop the oil is far less than the level required to keep the oil flowing. You just need to be able to sink ships and/or facilities.A carrier group at the entrance to the persian gulf and another in the mediterranean would probably be able to shut down any high volume shipping they didn’t approve off.Likewise Iran would be able to shut down all the flow that doesn’t go out to the west. But so could the Saudis. Or the Turks. Or the Indians. Half of those could shut down the western direction too along with Israel Italy and probably France or England.And Russia and maybe China or Japan could also have a go at it long range though they’d have trouble maintaining it against any opposition given their distance from home.There are nearly a dozen nations with a veto or partial veto on oil exports from the middle east should they be prepared to use it and cop the inevitable consequences.But of course the consequences would be very serious. Most of those places would be cutting off their own nose to spite their face.That’s what an isolationist USA with its own oil has. The ability to send a carrier group in sink 3 tankers and announce that anything heading towards (say…I don’t know the rebellious state of California for example) would be sunk and that’s it. It would shut down without tearing the economy of the USA to shreds unlike the results for just about anyone else.It would still be a bad couple of years for the USA though. No 5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} GDP growth in that case. But they could get through it.

    Reply
  44. Point is that it does not work As you can see, Iran is not bending to US pressure, quite the opposite, they are becoming stronger by the day. Iran now has a larger influence on Iraq than they had before the 2003 invasion, and they are controlling larger swaths or Syria. Moreover, Qatar is coming along their way. All the US demands of stopping their nuclear program and to bend down have been rejected so far

    Reply
  45. Point is that it does not workAs you can see Iran is not bending to US pressure quite the opposite they are becoming stronger by the day. Iran now has a larger influence on Iraq than they had before the 2003 invasion and they are controlling larger swaths or Syria. Moreover Qatar is coming along their way. All the US demands of stopping their nuclear program and to bend down have been rejected so far

    Reply
  46. The net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum relative to petroleum consumption is one measure of our reliance on imports to help meet petroleum demand. In 2017, net imports of petroleum averaged 3.7 MMb/d, the equivalent of 19% of total U.S. petroleum consumption, which was the lowest percentage since 1967. -> this means the US still imports oil

    Reply
  47. The net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum relative to petroleum consumption is one measure of our reliance on imports to help meet petroleum demand. In 2017 net imports of petroleum averaged 3.7 MMb/d the equivalent of 19{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of total U.S. petroleum consumption which was the lowest percentage since 1967.-> this means the US still imports oil

    Reply
  48. I used to think this too, but then I realized there’s still a motive to control the Middle East. In any large, theater conflict, controlling the ME gives you the ability to deprive other countries of exports and forces them to rely on their reserves while you blockade them and oil-starve them into submission. It is a part of our big picture strategic plans in any large conflict (something of a holdover from the Cold War, but relevant nonetheless in any global conflict with a near-peer nation). Most nations don’t have a very large oil reserve, and would rely on continuing exports from the Gulf.

    Reply
  49. I used to think this too but then I realized there’s still a motive to control the Middle East. In any large theater conflict controlling the ME gives you the ability to deprive other countries of exports and forces them to rely on their reserves while you blockade them and oil-starve them into submission. It is a part of our big picture strategic plans in any large conflict (something of a holdover from the Cold War but relevant nonetheless in any global conflict with a near-peer nation). Most nations don’t have a very large oil reserve and would rely on continuing exports from the Gulf.

    Reply
  50. …yes, and the one who told him all we needed to do was ‘Drill, baby drill!” was derided as the idiot, instead. Turns out she was right about that. And as for seeing Russians from her house…Well, Libtards claim to Russians are hiding under their beds now, so….

    Reply
  51. …yes and the one who told him all we needed to do was ‘Drill baby drill! was derided as the idiot” instead.Turns out she was right about that. And as for seeing Russians from her house…Well Libtards claim to Russians are hiding under their beds now” so….”

    Reply
  52. And this changes everything, geopolitically. The US just has to mix Canadian heavy crude with our sweet…or if worse comes to worse, mix it with the heavy crude from the offshore Gulf of Mexico platforms and we have not only de facto energy independence, but will soon be a net exporter too. Not to mention all that natural gas that the frackers also release in their drilling. We are already a net exporter of it — mostly to Mexico via pipelines — and are exporting it in LNG form as well. That means if the Saudis and Iranians decide to start flinging missiles to each other over the tankers in the PG, it’s not a problem for us but one for everyone else…especially Asia. Or if the Russians do something stupid in the Baltics or the rest of Ukraine and their oil ends up being cut off, same thing. We will just have to sit back, re-impose the oil export ban if necessary and enjoy the (comparatively) cheap transportation and industrial energy while the rest of the world suffers big time.

    Reply
  53. And this changes everything geopolitically. The US just has to mix Canadian heavy crude with our sweet…or if worse comes to worse mix it with the heavy crude from the offshore Gulf of Mexico platforms and we have not only de facto energy independence but will soon be a net exporter too.Not to mention all that natural gas that the frackers also release in their drilling. We are already a net exporter of it — mostly to Mexico via pipelines — and are exporting it in LNG form as well.That means if the Saudis and Iranians decide to start flinging missiles to each other over the tankers in the PG it’s not a problem for us but one for everyone else…especially Asia. Or if the Russians do something stupid in the Baltics or the rest of Ukraine and their oil ends up being cut off same thing.We will just have to sit back re-impose the oil export ban if necessary and enjoy the (comparatively) cheap transportation and industrial energy while the rest of the world suffers big time.

    Reply
  54. Just no more Deepwater Horizon fiascoes please – although some might argue “out of sight out of mind”. Love how the petroleum industry gets to keep on truckin’ when they have their own Fukushima sized oil spills every year or so. My duallie Ram (that someone keyed last week) needs that fuel, bruh.

    Reply
  55. Just no more Deepwater Horizon fiascoes please – although some might argue out of sight out of mind””.Love how the petroleum industry gets to keep on truckin’ when they have their own Fukushima sized oil spills every year or so. My duallie Ram (that someone keyed last week) needs that fuel”””” bruh.”””

    Reply
  56. Yawn. No it doesn’t.

    Only bluetarded states like California and Hawaii imports ME oil.

    The US diversified away from ME oil in way back in the 1980s, for the most part. Switched to Venezuela and Nigerian supplies. Pay attention to facts.

    Reply
  57. Maybe that’s why reactors should be floating on the ocean. Like an oil well any “little accidents” can be washed away and not bother anyone unless they really are big enough to affect people far away.

    More realistically, I think a big issue is that the average voter goes out every week and physically pours half their body weight of petroleum straight into their fuel tank. It’s right there in front of their eyes. They know, deep in their bones, that they need a lot of oil products. But flick a switch at home and you don’t see any uranium moving past you. It’s very easy to think of nuclear power as something that isn’t benefiting you personally.

    Reply
  58. The level of control required to stop the oil is far less than the level required to keep the oil flowing. You just need to be able to sink ships and/or facilities.

    A carrier group at the entrance to the persian gulf and another in the mediterranean would probably be able to shut down any high volume shipping they didn’t approve off.

    Likewise Iran would be able to shut down all the flow that doesn’t go out to the west. But so could the Saudis. Or the Turks. Or the Indians. Half of those could shut down the western direction too, along with Israel, Italy, and probably France or England.

    And Russia, and maybe China or Japan could also have a go at it long range, though they’d have trouble maintaining it against any opposition given their distance from home.

    There are nearly a dozen nations with a veto or partial veto on oil exports from the middle east, should they be prepared to use it and cop the inevitable consequences.

    But of course the consequences would be very serious. Most of those places would be cutting off their own nose to spite their face.

    That’s what an isolationist USA with its own oil has. The ability to send a carrier group in, sink 3 tankers and announce that anything heading towards (say…I don’t know, the rebellious state of California for example) would be sunk, and that’s it. It would shut down without tearing the economy of the USA to shreds, unlike the results for just about anyone else.

    It would still be a bad couple of years for the USA though. No 5% GDP growth in that case. But they could get through it.

    Reply
  59. Point is that it does not work
    As you can see, Iran is not bending to US pressure, quite the opposite, they are becoming stronger by the day.
    Iran now has a larger influence on Iraq than they had before the 2003 invasion, and they are controlling larger swaths or Syria. Moreover, Qatar is coming along their way.
    All the US demands of stopping their nuclear program and to bend down have been rejected so far

    Reply
  60. The net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum relative to petroleum consumption is one measure of our reliance on imports to help meet petroleum demand. In 2017, net imports of petroleum averaged 3.7 MMb/d, the equivalent of 19% of total U.S. petroleum consumption, which was the lowest percentage since 1967.
    -> this means the US still imports oil

    Reply
  61. I used to think this too, but then I realized there’s still a motive to control the Middle East. In any large, theater conflict, controlling the ME gives you the ability to deprive other countries of exports and forces them to rely on their reserves while you blockade them and oil-starve them into submission. It is a part of our big picture strategic plans in any large conflict (something of a holdover from the Cold War, but relevant nonetheless in any global conflict with a near-peer nation). Most nations don’t have a very large oil reserve, and would rely on continuing exports from the Gulf.

    Reply
  62. …yes, and the one who told him all we needed to do was ‘Drill, baby drill!” was derided as the idiot, instead.

    Turns out she was right about that. And as for seeing Russians from her house…Well, Libtards claim to Russians are hiding under their beds now, so….

    Reply
  63. And this changes everything, geopolitically.

    The US just has to mix Canadian heavy crude with our sweet…or if worse comes to worse, mix it with the heavy crude from the offshore Gulf of Mexico platforms and we have not only de facto energy independence, but will soon be a net exporter too.

    Not to mention all that natural gas that the frackers also release in their drilling. We are already a net exporter of it — mostly to Mexico via pipelines — and are exporting it in LNG form as well.

    That means if the Saudis and Iranians decide to start flinging missiles to each other over the tankers in the PG, it’s not a problem for us but one for everyone else…especially Asia. Or if the Russians do something stupid in the Baltics or the rest of Ukraine and their oil ends up being cut off, same thing.

    We will just have to sit back, re-impose the oil export ban if necessary and enjoy the (comparatively) cheap transportation and industrial energy while the rest of the world suffers big time.

    Reply
  64. Just no more Deepwater Horizon fiascoes please – although some might argue “out of sight out of mind”.

    Love how the petroleum industry gets to keep on truckin’ when they have their own Fukushima sized oil spills every year or so. My duallie Ram (that someone keyed last week) needs that fuel, bruh.

    Reply

Leave a Comment