Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

North America to be Top Energy Producer by 2030

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
November 13, 2012 1:45:21 PM

They are not lying, they are referring to both oil and gas. Also the fact that we are using less oil means that it is being achieved through multiple aspects.
November 13, 2012 3:31:30 PM

Then who was?
November 13, 2012 4:44:00 PM

Seems pretty straight forward if you ask me. Obama wanted to go with every kind of energy, Romney wanted to focus on Oil and we will be energy independent sometime between 2020 and 2030.
November 13, 2012 7:44:24 PM

We cant drill our way out is what then?
November 13, 2012 8:35:52 PM

A more realistic long term sustainable solution.
November 13, 2012 9:59:54 PM

johnsonma said:
A more realistic long term sustainable solution.
Not really...
johnsonma said:
Seems pretty straight forward if you ask me. Obama wanted to go with every kind of energy, Romney wanted to focus on Oil and we will be energy independent sometime between 2020 and 2030.
It is true that Obama's policies have marginally increased oil and gas production on private land but it would be a false narrative to give Obama any credit for America's move towards energy independence by 2030. If anything, Obama has been following a decades old energy plan that has systematically reduced the amount of oil and gas produced from federal lands; leaving private land as the only viable option. Romney wanted to open federal lands and offshore reserves to oil and gas drilling in addition to using private land.

If any one should get credit for the increase in domestic oil and natural gas production, it is the oil and gas drilling companies. These companies have taken the time and expense to take technologies invented in the late 1800's (directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing) developing them, making them cost effective, and using them efficiently to extract more resources with less environmental impact and at reduced production costs.

Obama's other energy sources, the "green economy", has proven to be a false economy. $90 Billion of tax dollars wasted on government investments in over 45 bankrupt solar panel and battery companies.

Consider this, the $90 Billion wasted tax dollars on failed green economy companies could have purchased and installed a 3kW solar panel system on 7+ Million homes; even when using "expensive" American made solar panels from existing (pre-Obama stimulus created) solar panel manufacturers. If Obama had given that $90B directly to homeowners as grants for the installation of solar panels on their homes, the immediate effects would have been tremendous. The primary results being an increase in domestic production of american made solar panels, a reduction in panel production costs, a reduction in installation costs, and an increase in the wholesale adoption rate of solar energy. The tertiary effects of that would be more private investment and capital in solar panel/green energy companies, an increase of installation companies, creation of repair and maintenance companies, more R&D into solar panels, increased efficiency of green technologies, along with numerous supply and service companies needed to maintain the solar panel/green company economy running on the whole; all of which would most likely be small and/or privately owned businesses operating within our existing mixed economy and within an open and free consumer market and all which means jobs. In general it seems to me that giving the tax payers their money back to purchase and install solar panels on their homes would have been a more effective way to jump start a green economy and get America moving towards using more alternative energy sources.
November 14, 2012 5:38:51 AM

For the little guy he is not, in regards to this, it points to the rich folk, giving them the monies.
Placing 90 billion into any business sector that shows growth by paying partial wages, make the companies achieve cheap labor, and get people off the dole by new hires.

Achievable wages, new jobs etc, besides the turnover of dollars spent in the economy, plus the reductions of those no longer on the dole, the government would be running in the black, the economy would be accelerated some.

All of this would take new energy, not new ways of getting it, but current known ways.
This means we need to create more gas, and yes, wheres all the naysayers now?
We havnt been gaining in new oil, a lie.
We cant keep up with production, a lie.
We cant drill our way out of this, another lie.

When economies accelerate, often invention is right around the corner, we cant afford to wait, and this is bad policy, bad investments and mixed with lies, only slows us down
November 14, 2012 12:01:05 PM

Let me know if you agree with this breakdown, because I also think that spending 90 Billion on failing companies is a bust. Im not that naive.

I would have liked to see 1/3 of that money going towards energy efficiency, modernizing homes, especially with 30 billion could do a lot of good in terms of how much heat is lost. Im sure all home owners here know how much cheaper it is in the winter if you have new windows, or foam insulation. New Englanders are all too familiar with that.

I would have like to see another 20% go towards building modern transportation systems, light rail, energy efficient mass transit, new buses etc. As more people live in cities the more heavily they will rely on public transit.

Put 10% to the grid, maybe even more than that. As we saw during Sandy being able to cut off and shift electricity more efficiently could have helped a lot of people, not to mention saving in efficiency.

Now the last 40%-35% should be put towards developing "Green Energy", because realistically only a small percent of the companies that received this money went bankrupt.

I think this would a better way of allocating this money, States get some more which they will spend a bit more wisely, and we still get to send some money to new tech companies.

I should run for office, Mingo 2020! I wont let Robots steal your children!
November 14, 2012 2:24:30 PM

chunkymonster said:
Not really...yes really.


It is true that Obama's policies have marginally increased oil and gas production on private land but it would be a false narrative to give Obama any credit for America's move towards energy independence by 2030. If anything, Obama has been following a decades old energy plan that has systematically reduced the amount of oil and gas produced from federal lands; leaving private land as the only viable option. Romney wanted to open federal lands and offshore reserves to oil and gas drilling in addition to using private land.

This is without a doubt a flat out lie. All you have to do is look at the numbers available to the public and you can see that production on federal lands is at an all time high. Romney used cherry picking when trying to attack Obama on this.

If any one should get credit for the increase in domestic oil and natural gas production, it is the oil and gas drilling companies. These companies have taken the time and expense to take technologies invented in the late 1800's (directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing) developing them, making them cost effective, and using them efficiently to extract more resources with less environmental impact and at reduced production costs.

They should get a lot of the credit.

Obama's other energy sources, the "green economy", has proven to be a false economy. $90 Billion of tax dollars wasted on government investments in over 45 bankrupt solar panel and battery companies.

Consider this, the $90 Billion wasted tax dollars on failed green economy companies could have purchased and installed a 3kW solar panel system on 7+ Million homes; even when using "expensive" American made solar panels from existing (pre-Obama stimulus created) solar panel manufacturers. If Obama had given that $90B directly to homeowners as grants for the installation of solar panels on their homes, the immediate effects would have been tremendous. The primary results being an increase in domestic production of american made solar panels, a reduction in panel production costs, a reduction in installation costs, and an increase in the wholesale adoption rate of solar energy. The tertiary effects of that would be more private investment and capital in solar panel/green energy companies, an increase of installation companies, creation of repair and maintenance companies, more R&D into solar panels, increased efficiency of green technologies, along with numerous supply and service companies needed to maintain the solar panel/green company economy running on the whole; all of which would most likely be small and/or privately owned businesses operating within our existing mixed economy and within an open and free consumer market and all which means jobs. In general it seems to me that giving the tax payers their money back to purchase and install solar panels on their homes would have been a more effective way to jump start a green economy and get America moving towards using more alternative energy sources.

Not the entire 90Billion was wasted as I have previously stated. It could of been handled better though.


November 14, 2012 2:56:39 PM

Due to fracking, the US has a boat load of natural gas and it is being considered as an export option now. Along with the methane crystals found in Alaskan ice, natural gas is going to be cheap for a long time.
November 14, 2012 3:53:42 PM

Fracking pollutes the water table, which is a more valuable resource clean water or cheap natural gas?
November 14, 2012 4:27:11 PM

Not to derail but I share similar concerns over water as a resource. Especially being in the water treatment business.

I have a question. With the Earth being 75% water, why not invest heavily in de-salination plants and utilize our oceans more?
November 14, 2012 5:48:31 PM

wanamingo said:
Fracking pollutes the water table, which is a more valuable resource clean water or cheap natural gas?


Cite your source/s



There's a recent report by the USGS that completely refutes it.

Edit: Looks like that report was retracted almost immediately..... We now return to our regular programming......
November 14, 2012 6:23:30 PM

Fracking occurs below the water table.
November 15, 2012 11:19:09 AM

riser said:
Fracking occurs below the water table.


The EPA says otherwise

How would shattering stone to release gas know when to stop at the water table? Or the holding pools for the fracking solution not leaking, they are open top...?

November 15, 2012 11:55:18 AM

I guess you should actually read that link before spouting off. All levels were found to be same and assumed to be from natural gas production.

The concern is in the deep wells if that could contaminate drinking water - it does not say it did - the concern is that water could eventually contaminate the drinking water. On going studies as there is no conclusive evidence. It is likely and safe to assume it eventually will, then again it is safe to assume by that time the process will change been made safer too.
November 15, 2012 4:01:24 PM

Chunkymonster wrote:
Quote:
It is true that Obama's policies have marginally increased oil and gas production on private land but it would be a false narrative to give Obama any credit for America's move towards energy independence by 2030. If anything, Obama has been following a decades old energy plan that has systematically reduced the amount of oil and gas produced from federal lands; leaving private land as the only viable option. Romney wanted to open federal lands and offshore reserves to oil and gas drilling in addition to using private land.
johnsonma said:
This is without a doubt a flat out lie. All you have to do is look at the numbers available to the public and you can see that production on federal lands is at an all time high. Romney used cherry picking when trying to attack Obama on this.
You're gonna make me do this, aren't you? You're reading comprehension needs some work. I said nothing about recent oil production and nothing about what Romney or Obama said during their debates. What I said was, specifically, "Obama has been following a decades old energy plan" which has resulted systematically reducing the amount of oil and natural gas america has produced.

Over the past fifty years, the energy policy has been to reduce the amount of domestic oil and natural gas and increase imports. This policy of reducing domestic oil production and increasing imports was solidified by the embargo in 1971. As a matter of fact, if you graph the history of domestic oil production, you will see a steady and continued decline of domestic oil and gas production since the early 1970's. This is a result of the decades old policy that has systematically reduced domestic oil and gas production, which Obama has has continued to follow.

You are probably not old enough remember that during the 1970's and into the 1990's, nuclear energy was expected to the primary producer of electricity in the United States. However, as a result or environmental concerns, capacity studies, and disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl , nuclear generation fell out of favor as the silver energy bullet. President Bush did revive the push for nuclear energy with the Energy Act of 2005 and pushed the DOE/NRC to approve licenses and permits so construction could begin as soon as possible on these facilities. What's interesting about recent decisions regarding nuclear power is that Obama actually increased the loan guarantees legislated by the Energy Act of 2005 by $36B (to total $54B) but the DOE and NRC under Obama's administration have only approved 4 of the 30 plans for new reactors.

But if you want to get into recent oil production and what Romney or Obama said during the debates, the fact is what they said during the debate about energy production are entirely moot points. Obama can lay no claim to his policies having any kind of effect on the recent increase in oil and/or natural gas production, and get's absolutely no credit for America being energy independent by 2030. Rather it was years of steadily increasing oil prices that caused oil companies to approve a number of new projects that had marginal economics at lower oil prices. These projects have taken some years to build, decisions that were made 4-6 years earlier (under President Bush? WHAT?!) have benefited President Obama with increased domestic oil production. Feel free to debate the above point, but before you do, look at the increase in domestic oil production under President Carter and research the Alaskan Oil Pipeline, specifically; what President approved the Pipeline, when it was built, and when it went into production.
November 15, 2012 4:34:52 PM

chunkymonster said:


Quote:
Romney wanted to open federal lands and offshore reserves to oil and gas drilling in addition to using private land.


Weird, for some reason I remember Romney saying this during the debates. By the way there is already drilling in federal lands and offshore drilling as well.


Quote:
But if you want to get into recent oil production and what Romney or Obama said during the debates, the fact is what they said during the debate about energy production are entirely moot points. Obama can lay no claim to his policies having any kind of effect on the recent increase in oil and/or natural gas production, and get's absolutely no credit for America being energy independent by 2030. Rather it was years of steadily increasing oil prices that caused oil companies to approve a number of new projects that had marginal economics at lower oil prices. These projects have taken some years to build, decisions that were made 4-6 years earlier (under President Bush? WHAT?!) have benefited President Obama with increased domestic oil production. Feel free to debate the above point, but before you do, look at the increase in domestic oil production under President Carter and research the Alaskan Oil Pipeline, specifically; what President approved the Pipeline, when it was built, and when it went into production.


There is so much more involved for energy independence than oil and natural gas. Although, natural gas will be a big part of energy in the coming years. An all of the above solution is the way to go, read any of the reports about energy in America today and you will see that we are starting to position ourselves in a place of strength for the coming years. Demand will continue to grow for oil as other nations become more developed. We don't want to be caught between the rock and the hard place on this one. Going all out for oil and gas is just ignorant of the future. I for one prefer not to be using a musket when the other guy has an assault rifle.


November 26, 2012 1:40:20 PM

VaishaliG said:
Yes thats why Obama win again the elections over Ramney Now hope Us will be till 2030 at top in energy :wahoo: 


Rock on.. whatever you said brotha!
!