Which Country is the Largest Producer of Oil and Gas

[VictorG]

They might have the most cows too but I'm not sure of that.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07 ... -producer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GannonFan]

Fracking.

[AZGrizFan]

“The U.S. increase in supply is a very meaningful chunk of oil,” Francisco Blanch, [Bank of America Corp.'s] head of commodities research, said by phone from New York. “The shale boom is playing a key role in the U.S. recovery. If the U.S. didn’t have this energy supply, prices at the pump would be completely unaffordable.”

Man, if THAT isn't putting lipstick on a pig.

[Chizzang]

“The U.S. increase in supply is a very meaningful chunk of oil,” Francisco Blanch, [Bank of America Corp.'s] head of commodities research, said by phone from New York. “The shale boom is playing a key role in the U.S. recovery. If the U.S. didn’t have this energy supply, prices at the pump would be completely unaffordable.”

Man, if THAT isn't putting lipstick on a pig.

As well as being completely false...

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Fracking.

Technology and innovation at work...

[GannonFan]

Fracking.

Technology and innovation at work...

And I'm perfectly fine with that. Innovation is the cure for anything wrong with the economy and the way to stay ahead of the rest of the world. Government policies, overall politics, etc, are just side shows - innovation is where it's at.

[kalm]

Technology and innovation at work...

And I'm perfectly fine with that. Innovation is the cure for anything wrong with the economy and the way to stay ahead of the rest of the world. Government policies, overall politics, etc, are just side shows - innovation is where it's at.

Agree in general. Now, let's level the playing field between fossil fuels and renewables. Government picking winners and losers stifles innovation.

[Baldy]

And I'm perfectly fine with that. Innovation is the cure for anything wrong with the economy and the way to stay ahead of the rest of the world. Government policies, overall politics, etc, are just side shows - innovation is where it's at.

Agree in general. Now, let's level the playing field between fossil fuels and renewables. Government picking winners and losers stifles innovation.

[Pwns]

And I'm perfectly fine with that. Innovation is the cure for anything wrong with the economy and the way to stay ahead of the rest of the world. Government policies, overall politics, etc, are just side shows - innovation is where it's at.

Agree in general. Now, let's level the playing field between fossil fuels and renewables. Government picking winners and losers stifles innovation.

It's interesting that some left-wingers (not saying this includes you) on the one hand are saying that ending oil subsidies will have a negligible effect on gas prices but on the other hand complain about government distorting the market.

If they are right about the subsidies then taxes are affecting gas prices a lot more than the subsidies are.

As long as we are talking about not picking winners and losers, would you favor eliminating gas taxes, kalm?

[GannonFan]

And I'm perfectly fine with that. Innovation is the cure for anything wrong with the economy and the way to stay ahead of the rest of the world. Government policies, overall politics, etc, are just side shows - innovation is where it's at.

Agree in general. Now, let's level the playing field between fossil fuels and renewables. Government picking winners and losers stifles innovation.

Super idea. So what needs to be done to make it perfectly level, since you are implying that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels since government favors fossil fuels with their subsidies and/or favorable taxes?

[Baldy]

Agree in general. Now, let's level the playing field between fossil fuels and renewables. Government picking winners and losers stifles innovation.

Super idea. So what needs to be done to make it perfectly level, since you are implying that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels since government favors fossil fuels with their subsidies and/or favorable taxes?

WalMart didn't have a "level playing field" when it went against KMart and Sears years ago, neither did Apple when it went against Microsoft, nor did Microsoft when it went against IBM, etc. etc. etc.
All of those (and many more) equaled or beat their better financed competition by having a better business model and/or product, and formulating a way to succeed.

kalm's implication that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels is just standard Donk boilerplate talking point victimization. "Big Oil" doesn't receive any more of an incentive than any other corporation (unless you call the expensing of ordinary business expenses for oil companies a subsidy), but it does sound good to the dumb masses and it makes for good campaign rhetoric.

[GannonFan]

Super idea. So what needs to be done to make it perfectly level, since you are implying that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels since government favors fossil fuels with their subsidies and/or favorable taxes?

WalMart didn't have a "level playing field" when it went against KMart and Sears years ago, neither did Apple when it went against Microsoft, nor did Microsoft when it went against IBM, etc. etc. etc.
All of those (and many more) equaled or beat their better financed competition by having a better business model and/or product, and formulating a way to succeed.

kalm's implication that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels is just standard Donk boilerplate talking point victimization. "Big Oil" doesn't receive any more of an incentive than any other corporation (unless you call the expensing of ordinary business expenses for oil companies a subsidy), but it does sound good to the dumb masses and it makes for good campaign rhetoric.

Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.

[Baldy]

WalMart didn't have a "level playing field" when it went against KMart and Sears years ago, neither did Apple when it went against Microsoft, nor did Microsoft when it went against IBM, etc. etc. etc.
All of those (and many more) equaled or beat their better financed competition by having a better business model and/or product, and formulating a way to succeed.

kalm's implication that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels is just standard Donk boilerplate talking point victimization. "Big Oil" doesn't receive any more of an incentive than any other corporation (unless you call the expensing of ordinary business expenses for oil companies a subsidy), but it does sound good to the dumb masses and it makes for good campaign rhetoric.

Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.

Also Reagan.

[kalm]

WalMart didn't have a "level playing field" when it went against KMart and Sears years ago, neither did Apple when it went against Microsoft, nor did Microsoft when it went against IBM, etc. etc. etc.
All of those (and many more) equaled or beat their better financed competition by having a better business model and/or product, and formulating a way to succeed.

kalm's implication that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels is just standard Donk boilerplate talking point victimization. "Big Oil" doesn't receive any more of an incentive than any other corporation (unless you call the expensing of ordinary business expenses for oil companies a subsidy), but it does sound good to the dumb masses and it makes for good campaign rhetoric.

Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.

You're both making solid counter points. I wish I could introduce you two to my conk friend who owns a gas station. He's a very smart and successful small business owner who has Sean Hannity playing on the radio in his store, and an open bible on his desk which he reads from constantly. He makes BDK sound like me and Chizzy.

Despite all of that he will emphatically tell you that Walmart and big oil have been horrible for America.

Something about stifling competition while manipulating government...

[Chizzang]

Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.

You're both making solid counter points. I wish I could introduce you two to my conk friend who owns a gas station. He's a very smart and successful small business owner who has Sean Hannity playing on the radio in his store, and an open bible on his desk which he reads from constantly. He makes BDK sound like me and Chizzy.

Despite all of that he will emphatically tell you that Walmart and big oil have been horrible for America.

Something about stifling competition while manipulating government...

Wal-Mart and big oil ARE America... its what we want and who we are (don't be a hater bro)

[GannonFan]

Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.

You're both making solid counter points. I wish I could introduce you two to my conk friend who owns a gas station. He's a very smart and successful small business owner who has Sean Hannity playing on the radio in his store, and an open bible on his desk which he reads from constantly. He makes BDK sound like me and Chizzy.

Despite all of that he will emphatically tell you that Walmart and big oil have been horrible for America.

Something about stifling competition while manipulating government...

So does your friend have answers then on how renewables are screwed by the government and only if we got government out of the way renewables would flourish and steer us away from fossil fuels? Can he post here?

[CID1990]

Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.

You're both making solid counter points. I wish I could introduce you two to my conk friend who owns a gas station. He's a very smart and successful small business owner who has Sean Hannity playing on the radio in his store, and an open bible on his desk which he reads from constantly. He makes BDK sound like me and Chizzy.

Despite all of that he will emphatically tell you that Walmart and big oil have been horrible for America.

Something about stifling competition while manipulating government...

Aaaaand Klam trots out the old "I have a black friend who sez...." trick

[houndawg]

WalMart didn't have a "level playing field" when it went against KMart and Sears years ago, neither did Apple when it went against Microsoft, nor did Microsoft when it went against IBM, etc. etc. etc.
All of those (and many more) equaled or beat their better financed competition by having a better business model and/or product, and formulating a way to succeed.

kalm's implication that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels is just standard Donk boilerplate talking point victimization. "Big Oil" doesn't receive any more of an incentive than any other corporation (unless you call the expensing of ordinary business expenses for oil companies a subsidy), but it does sound good to the dumb masses and it makes for good campaign rhetoric.

Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.

Maybe if the industry had been a bit smarter about things like siting a nuke plant on an earthquake fault and trying to build one from plans drawn backwards they (the tree-huggers, (as if their opinion mattered)) wouldn't have been. And Fukushima of course was an anomaly.

[LeadBolt]

For the reasons stated above, green energy, despite its almost universal appeal, can't seem to get more than a toe hold and much of that is subsidy driven. If we were to abolish all subsidies for all energy sources and all taxes on energy sources, fossil fuels would still win because of their lower expense and ease of use, only by a wider margin.

Nuclear generation of electrical energy would be less polluting and would actually make devices such as electric cars less polluting, but given the vast majority of our electrical energy is generated by fossil fuels, not as much as those who don't follow through with their thinking would perceive. But then again, who would pay for a Leaf without the subsidy it gets?

I have an elderly female neighbor that takes pride in her electric lawn mower and fails to grasp that by using electricity from our local co-op that is 100% generated from the burning of coal and given the loss of energy in transmitting it to her lawn mower from the power plant she is actually contributing more to air pollution and global warming than I am with my gas mower that I tune up twice a year.

[travelinman67]

You're both making solid counter points. I wish I could introduce you two to my conk friend who owns a gas station. He's a very smart and successful small business owner who has Sean Hannity playing on the radio in his store, and an open bible on his desk which he reads from constantly. He makes BDK sound like me and Chizzy.

Despite all of that he will emphatically tell you that Walmart and big oil have been horrible for America.

Something about stifling competition while manipulating government...

So does your friend have answers then on how renewables are screwed by the government and only if we got government out of the way renewables would flourish and steer us away from fossil fuels? Can he post here?

At the moment, our government's most significant renewable regulatory role is blocking China from dumping cheap green products. You could argue regulatory control inflates U.S. manufacturing cost (chicken or egg), but if trade blocks were dropped, most American residential would have online solar within a decade.

[houndawg]

So does your friend have answers then on how renewables are screwed by the government and only if we got government out of the way renewables would flourish and steer us away from fossil fuels? Can he post here?

At the moment, our government's most significant renewable regulatory role is blocking China from dumping cheap green products. You could argue regulatory control inflates U.S. manufacturing cost (chicken or egg), but if trade blocks were dropped, most American residential would have online solar within a decade.

Utilities are spending serious millions to buy legislation that inhibits roof top solar. In Florida it is now illegal to be off the grid.

[Baldy]

Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.

You're both making solid counter points. I wish I could introduce you two to my conk friend who owns a gas station. He's a very smart and successful small business owner who has Sean Hannity playing on the radio in his store, and an open bible on his desk which he reads from constantly. He makes BDK sound like me and Chizzy.

Despite all of that he will emphatically tell you that Walmart and big oil have been horrible for America.

Something about stifling competition while manipulating government...

He's a Conk, so what does he know?

[CID1990]

Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.

Maybe if the industry had been a bit smarter about things like siting a nuke plant on an earthquake fault and trying to build one from plans drawn backwards they (the tree-huggers, (as if their opinion mattered)) wouldn't have been. And Fukushima of course was an anomaly.

Actually, the biggest flaw in nuke power is a matter of scale and size.

The greens are going to raise hell about it no matter what.

It is security-minded government regulation that makes it so that nuke plants are MASSIVE (easier to keep tabs on your nuke fuel when it is all in one big pile, instead of 20 smaller more spread-out piles) and therefore more suceptible to massive accidents and natural disasters.

We have the ability to do it right, and the technology is plug-n-play

but dont fool yourself into thinking that there is any situation where the greens wont raise hell

[Chizzang]

Maybe if the industry had been a bit smarter about things like siting a nuke plant on an earthquake fault and trying to build one from plans drawn backwards they (the tree-huggers, (as if their opinion mattered)) wouldn't have been. And Fukushima of course was an anomaly.

Actually, the biggest flaw in nuke power is a matter of scale and size.

The greens are going to raise hell about it no matter what.

It is security-minded government regulation that makes it so that nuke plants are MASSIVE (easier to keep tabs on your nuke fuel when it is all in one big pile, instead of 20 smaller more spread-out piles) and therefore more suceptible to massive accidents and natural disasters.

We have the ability to do it right, and the technology is plug-n-play

but dont fool yourself into thinking that there is any situation where the greens wont raise hell

You really do not want them on or near fault lines...
So the entire west coast is out of the question

Earth quakes x nuclear plants = BAD

[houndawg]

Maybe if the industry had been a bit smarter about things like siting a nuke plant on an earthquake fault and trying to build one from plans drawn backwards they (the tree-huggers, (as if their opinion mattered)) wouldn't have been. And Fukushima of course was an anomaly.

Actually, the biggest flaw in nuke power is a matter of scale and size.

The greens are going to raise hell about it no matter what.

It is security-minded government regulation that makes it so that nuke plants are MASSIVE (easier to keep tabs on your nuke fuel when it is all in one big pile, instead of 20 smaller more spread-out piles) and therefore more suceptible to massive accidents and natural disasters.

We have the ability to do it right, and the technology is plug-n-play

but dont fool yourself into thinking that there is any situation where the greens wont raise hell

Probably do, but the first time they can save money by cutting corners with respect to safety, they will. For me the biggest problem is the handing down of the spent fuel mess to literally hundreds of generations.