There won't be a glut in US oil production

[seahorse3]

There won't be a glut in US oil production as there has been in NG production, according to Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, a major developer of the US oil shales. Here's the wiki on Hamm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hamm

This statement was made by Hamm during an interview on a US news show this morning called MSNBC. Since that topic has been debated here, I thought his comments were pertinent, since if anyone should know, he should know. If I can find a link to the interview later, I will post it.

[seahorse3]

Link to the Hamm interview:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/cnbc/48057568#48057568

Statement made at 3 minutes into the interview.

[Pops]

He was arguing to keep the subsidies for oil companies in place otherwise lots of the holes in the Bakken wouldn't happen because they aren't profitable. I didn't see the glut part just lots of pork-barrel for oil cos.

Bakken/pork, get it?

http://newsok.com/continental-resources ... 30/?page=1

[seahorse3]

Pops at the 3 minute mark he says at least two times that there won't be a "glut" in oil production as there has been with NG.

[Tanada]

How could there be a glut in a commodity where 2/3rds is imported? If domestic supply goes up imports fall, but domestic supply would have to triple or more to eliminate the need for imports.

[Pops]

Pops at the 3 minute mark he says at least two times that there won't be a "glut" in oil production as there has been with NG.

Not arguing horse, just saying Hamm's lobbying for pork to drill the Bakken.

Actually he's lobbying for Romney because Mit means continued pork

He says "immobile oil" is a bigger resource than the "mobile" oil we've been exploiting for the last 150 years but we need to subsidize oil companies dry holes because [my take] the economy can't afford the bakken without subsidies.

Your headline should be: "Hamm says: No pork, no Bakken!

Occidental pulled out you'll remember because it was too expensive.

[seahorse3]

Agreed Pops, but I thought his statement, said twice, that the oil shales would not bring about an oil glut illuminating. First, bc he should know as well as anyone what these plays are really capable of. So, instead of arguing they would make us energy independent, he said there would not be an oil glut. This is what lawyers call a "statement against interest" and is given, in law, 100% credibility.

[SeaGypsy]

Only a fool would say the USA is going to become oil independent in this era. Post collapse is another story which nobody knows. The porking of tight oil plays is probably the least worrying thing going on in US oil politics. The influence on US international actions is far more concerning and dangerous, but what you don't know won't hurt you (until it runs you over).

[KingM]

Only a fool would say the USA is going to become oil independent in this era. Post collapse is another story which nobody knows. The porking of tight oil plays is probably the least worrying thing going on in US oil politics. The influence on US international actions is far more concerning and dangerous, but what you don't know won't hurt you (until it runs you over).

It has to be cheaper to subsidize North American oil than to subsidize Middle Eastern security concerns. Having said that, there will be no such thing as oil independence on this continent until oil ceases to be a major part of the economy.

[SeaGypsy]

I am glad you think the US is in the ME to 'subsidize security'.