[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'R')adon - so better for the citizens of the top producer to transfer about $600 billion per year to oil producers then to be the citizens of the #2 producing country who are receiving over $300 billion by selling oil?

Yep...as someone getting a piece of that $600 billion it works for me. How about everyone else here...feeling pleased and proud over our new title? BTW...thanks for the pay raise. LOL.

[diemos]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '
')Still.. this is a good thing, no?

[ROCKMAN]

John - Obviously I agree with you in principle. But I'll go back to the point about who "they" are. If "they" are me and my cohorts it's great whether the reserves are in the ground or not. In fact, my company is in the process of liquidation a big chunk of those in ground reserves. Big pay day...thank you all...you consumers of the largest energy producer on the planet.

It really does tickle me when folks offer it as a point of pride that the US is spending so much for energy. According to the IEA in 2000 the expenditure for all US consumers was $685 billion. In 2011 it had almost doubled to $1.2 trillion. I've asked repeated of the cornucopians how this is good news for the vast majority of US citizens and they are nonresponsive. Yes...producing more oil than before...maybe even the #1 producer on the planet soon. And all it cost our country is a meager $600 billion extra to buy that title.

I, for one, am pleased with that trade. Everyone else?

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'D')ream- Good or bad? Each of us answers differently. The Rockman and his company have significantly increased our incomes as a result of the higher oil price...good for us. Russia and the KSA have significantly increased their revenue in the last 10 years due to the high oil price...good for them. The US consumer is paying 300% more for oil and increased our domestic production significantly in the last 10 years...good?... bad?

Now you and the rest of the US consumers share several titles: the largest energy producer on the planet. The largest oil/NG consumer on the planet, even adjusted for inflation paying more for oil then ever before and lastly spending many more times the amount for energy than any other country. US consumers are paying over $400 billion more for oil these days as a result of higher prices. Higher prices that helped increase US oil production.

So I'll let you answer your own question: better to be the #1 producer and paying hundreds of $billions more or being the #3 producer and paying hundreds of $billions less? It's one or the other...obviously can't have it both ways. IOW is paying $400 billion/year more worth the bragging rights?

[ROCKMAN]

Americandream - "...there are immeditate benefits in the wake of peak oil market dynamics for the average American consumer. In fact, the future for America's labouring masses is a mixed bag, on the one hand on the labour front which I see as a negative and on the consumer front, including energy, which I see as a real positive in terms of access to technology". I'm sorry...color me very confused. What benefits of the peak oil dynamics are there for the American consumers as a result of oil prices increasing over 300% in the last 10 years? The American consumer is also the American tax payer who has spent $trillions in the last 20+ years trying to stabilize oil producing regions. The advantage there? I would agree with you that the American worker, particularly those with minimal skills, face a difficult future. Not that higher energy prices were the sole cause of today's weak economy and unemployment levels but it's contribution can't be denied IMHO.

Similarly there may be better times ahead for some of the worlds consumers such as the Chinese. But their benefits will arise from their country's ability to control more of global production to the detriment of all other consumers. And even the benefits to the expanded consumer base is muted by the negative effects of oil consumers spending $150 billion per month MORE for oil then they were not too many years ago. While increased oil prices have been great for those employed in the extraction of hydrocarbons it has greatly diminished the amount of potential earnings for most of the workers on the planet.

And as far as "America's energy developments a part of an inevitable global force" I couldn't agree more: as long as our relatively small percentage of the global population consumes a very disproportionally large amount of the energy resources we'll continue to negatively impact the rest of the planet's consumers.

[godq3]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', ' ')And all it cost our country is a meager $600 billion extra to buy that title.

[ROCKMAN]

Godq3 - The math is really very simple. Yes...US trade imbalance is reduced by producing more domestic production. And now for the simple math: in 2000 the US consumer were paying for 9 million bo per day at a cost of $100 billion/year. Today we are importing the lowest level in 17 years...7.7 million bo per day...at a cost of $260 billion per year.

"...the USA is producing more, more money stays there." So the way you see math the $260 billion we're currently paying foreign oil producers is less that the $100 billion we were sending overseas in 2000??? Yes...we are sending less money overseas then we would be IF we were importing more. But the bottom line: even with our increased production we are sending more money overseas for oil then ever before...260% more than we were in 2000. And virtually none of that money is coming back taxes or salaries. OTOH the $100 billion/year that the US is sending our Canadian cousins are certainly giving their economy a boost.

So explain how you are more pleased with the US oil import dynamics of today compared to that in 2000.

[godq3]

Of course the situation now is worse than in 2000, but it would be even worse without increased production.

[SeaGypsy]

Depending how one feels about the philosophy of 'Pull out all stops to maintain BAU' which is actually destroying the entire planet, to perpetuate an unsustainable situation. As many have said around here over the years- the sooner it gets worst for the economy the better for the ecosystem. It's pretty hard to rape entire oceans with canoes & sailboats for instance.

[ROCKMAN]

SG - "the sooner it gets worst for the economy the better for the ecosystem." Well, let's see how that theory is working out so far. In the last 10 years the world's economies have transferred many $trillions to oil producers, a number of oil exporters have suffered production restriction for political reasons, $trillions and many lives have been spent try to stabilize oil producing regions, etc. etc. So I think it's far to say economies have suffered greatly already.

And how has Mother Earth's ecosystems benefited so far in the last 10 years: we are burning more hydrocarbons then ever before, we are frac'ng more wells than ever before, we are producing records amounts of Canadian oil sands which some argue is the "dirtiest" oil on the planet, we are drilling in Deep Water for oil more then ever before... such as BP's Macondo well, increased exploration in Arctic waters, the world is producing more coal then ever before including the US allowing us to become the 4th largest coal producer on the planet, China has increased it's import of US coal by 500% in recent years, US electrical production from coal has increased by 20%, many tens of $billions have been spent expanding oil transport systems which do have a tendency to spill from time to time, etc. etc.

I assume the hope is that it gets much, much worse than it already has. The only question is how much worse it will get for the ecosystem until that day is reached.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'A')nd how has Mother Earth's ecosystems benefited so far in the last 10 years:
..
US electrical production from coal has increased by 20%

[cualcrees]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he U.S. will end 2013 as the world’s largest producer of petroleum and natural gas, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia, the Energy Information Administration said Friday.

[ROCKMAN]

K - Thanks. Got sloppy and wrote that wrong. Meant to say capacity not production: In 2009, there were 1436 coal-powered units at the electrical utilities across the US, with the total nominal capacity of 338.732 GW compared to 1024 units at nominal 278 GW in 2000. Got that from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power ... ted_States. The point being that while the amount of electricity we now generate from coal and NG are about even, if NG becomes much more expensive (as many believe it will) the US has the ready ability (if it accepts the GHG consequences) for coal to regain it's title as primary supplier of e-. No doubt the expansion of coal-fired capacity was a response to escalating NG prices during that time. When NG prices return to those levels it will be up to the US consumers to determine the priority: money vs. global warming. So far money seems to be the driving factor IMHO. Did NG gain a bigger share of e- generation because of a sudden increase in concern about the environment or because the price fell 70% from it's peak? Each can answer for themselves.

As far as e- generation overall fossil fuel sources have increased by about 5% over the last 10 years. Fortunately we are burning more NG but unfortunately as the economy grows so does consumption.

[ROCKMAN]

Godq3 - OK let's just focus on the trade balance. Increased US production, as a result of higher oil prices, reduced our outbound trade balance by $45 billion per year due to decreased imports. The increase in oil price that increased US production now increased the outbound trade balance for the crude we still import to $265 billion per year. When we were importing 9 million bopd barrel our outbound trade was $115 billion per year. So the higher oil prices that created higher US production has also increased our trade imbalance (despite less imported oil) by $150 billion per year.

So you can't have it both way: higher oil prices may have increased domestic oil production but has also greatly increased the cost of energy to the US economy as well as significantly increased our trade imbalance. No matter how try to parse it the US economy has been greatly damaged by higher oil prices. We are not better off today even with an increase in US oil production: we pay 300% more for oil and our trade imbalance from imported oil has increased 260%. And, of course, by "we" I don't mean me and all the other oil producers who have benefited from the huge increase in wealth transfer.

If we didn't have increased domestic production it would be because we didn't have higher oil prices. If we didn't have higher oil prices our economy would be doing much better. And, of course, by "we" I don't mean us oil producers. So I'll say once again: IMHO increased US oil production is one of the most obvious symptoms of PO I can point to. It is not a "good thing" by any stretch of the imagination IMHO.

[Tanada]

Rockman sometimes math can be depressing so I doubt many people will accept yours because it is unpleasant. It is the same thing that happens in many Peak Oil discussions, the numbers add up in a way that is painful so people choose to ignore or dispute the numbers.

[ROCKMAN]

Tanada - Sadly true. But as we both know not "accepting the numbers" doesn’t make them any less accurate. I accept the lack of rebuttal to facts I post as clear evidence many folks are more interested in advancing their personal agendas then discussing the reality of the situation. Not that I'm always successful but I try to stick with documented facts and avoid my opinions. You may notice that I get very few ad hom attacks as a result. And even more rarely references that refute what I've posted (even when I do goof...thanks again k). And I don’t fault godq3 for tossing out some positive spin about the increase in US oil production. But when it’s done without reference to the total dynamic including the very negative aspects such efforts border on propaganda whether the poster realizes it or not.

As far as not accepting unpleasant math: you're born + you live + you die = life's math. And it doesn't really matter if one accepts it or not...you're going to die regardless. In my youth I was pounded with what seems like a contradictory philosophy: You shouldn't be one of those people who hopes to live for ever...it interferes with living a proper life. Too complex to explain here...think of it as a mental puzzle. But I understand it even if I'm not always successful in applying it. .

[sparky]

.
Rockman " IMHO increased US oil production is one of the most obvious symptoms of PO I can point to.
It is not a "good thing" by any stretch of the imagination"

it certainly make one thinks when contemplating the thoroughness of the hydrocarbon hunt
to drill in the transoceanic floor and have a frackmentation front on the linear equivalent of hundreds of miles

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', ' ')I've asked repeated of the cornucopians how this is good news for the vast majority of US citizens and they are nonresponsive.

[ROCKMAN]

John – I stick with addressing those that show up here. If the “experts” aren’t aware of these simple facts there’s nothing I can tell them. And those that are aware and want to spin the story differently aren’t going to change their song and dance for me or anyone else. I’ll just keep doing my little bit here to keep the less informed and the dishonest from polluting the minds of any newbies. After all it’s the responsibility of ever oil patch hand to prevent pollution whenever they see it happening.

To be honest sometimes I wonder why I should have to point out the obvious. That very high oil prices for one of the largest oil consuming economies on the planet is not a good thing for its economy whether they are paying domestic or foreign producers. It's almost like having to explain to someone that having cancer is a bad thing. Sure there are a few bennies: getting money back from the insurance companies, days off from work when you go for chemo, nice sympathy flowers, etc. But it’s not really a good trade off IMHO. LOL.