Oil Production, a guide to the future

[paxamericana]

Why Trump is now able to make a move in the Middle East? This infographic shows that North America is the largest producer of oil and no longer reliant on the Middle East for its energy needs. 

[John Johnston]

58 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Why Trump is now able to make a move in the Middle East? This infographic shows that North America is the largest producer of oil and no longer reliant on the Middle East for its energy needs. 

True. However...

In 2023, the U.S. imported approximately 8.5 million barrels of crude oil per day. Major suppliers include Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico, with Canada accounting for over 60% of total imports.

Russia's role has diminished significantly due to geopolitical tensions and sanctions, dropping from 7.9% of imports in 2021 to less than 1% recently. Additionally, Venezuela remains largely untapped due to sanctions, despite having one of the largest reserves globally.

And running around destroying global markets without thinking will eventually turn North America into a wasteland. On the bright side, the American people are understanding their massive mistake in electing criminals to run their government. Albeit a little late. 

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, paxamericana said:

Why Trump is now able to make a move in the Middle East?

Exactly right IMO...

There's a silly thread here about "not thinking about the Strait of Hormuz; as if it somehow wouldn't be a key part of any assessment and risk analysis... don't tell them though, it's fun to watch.

By all accounts, 2025 featured a record domestic production rate for the US; I'm just cynical enough to believe that it wasn't an accident. Only about 20% of US oil comes from the ME and of that about 12-15% transit the Strait.

BTW, sure to call it the "Straight" if you venture to that thread.

When you combine all of the factors at play in Iran (I won't list them), and assume (as I do) that eventual conflict with Iran is inevitable, there has simply never been a better time to undertake the effort and I see none of it as accidental. 

There are significant risks involved in escorting ships through the Strait and (perhaps for the first time) the US isn't in a position to suffer undue hardship because of it. It allows the luxury of maintaining the "concentration of force" (a principle of war) where it will have the greatest  time vs effect factor. 

All IMO of course, but things like asserting and defending the notion that "they didn't think about the "Straight" is actually why I keep coming back here for morning coffee.

Edited March 12 by Venandi

[paxamericana]

39 minutes ago, John Johnston said:

Canada

51st*
 

25 minutes ago, Venandi said:

never been a better time to undertake the effort and I see none of it as accidental. 

Agreed

 

26 minutes ago, Venandi said:

There are significant risks involved in escorting ships through the Strait and (perhaps for the first time) the US isn't in a position to suffer undue hardship because of it.

So why would we, it mainly benefits the Chinese….

[Venandi]

22 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

So why would we, it mainly benefits the Chinese….

You aren't, you are well positioned not to, and thus you shouldn't IMO.

That said, the global financial implications of all this is mostly lost on me, my eyes glaze over and I fall asleep... that's the office down the hall.

Here on the forum I rely on the Fox for such things, he dumbs it down to a level that even a grunt can comprehend and engagements with Flybaby keep it interesting enough that I don't fall asleep.

As to the 51st, it's another one of those cost / benefit "macro things" that I profess no knowledge or interest in.

I think you should be careful of what you wish for though, it might change more things in the US than what is immediately foreseeable. I'm not smart enough to list them but the Goddess of Unintended Consequence is a girl I've learned to approach with caution, politeness and humility. Most don't though... and I think she smiles when she accelerates them into the mat. My advice would be to tap early.

[Venandi]

12 minutes ago, Venandi said:

I think she smiles when she accelerates them into the mat

Something like this... at least learn how to fall before acting on those 51st aspirations:

 

[paxamericana]

10 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Something like this... at least learn how to fall before acting on those 51st aspirations:

 

Put it this way, unless Washington says so, Canada won’t be able to sell its oil to anyone. A defacto state already, Canada exist in name only, as a mental illness for its inhabitants.

Edited March 12 by paxamericana

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, paxamericana said:

Put it this way, unless Washington says so, Canada won’t be able to sell its oil to anyone. A defacto state already, Canada exist in name only, as a mental illness for its inhabitants.

I'm outside my pay grade here so this is opinion only... but, having a measure of economic control (even assuming a condition of full economic control) isn't the same as absorbing Canada into your own country as a state.

I haven't considered the economic and political consequences before (there are others here more qualified to comment on that) but right off the bat I think you would end up with the "California Of The North" and all the debt and political turmoil that goes with it. 

I get the resources aspect of your argument but from a US perspective, it may be like marrying a cheerleader you've only seen in pictures.

Have you thought all that through? You may find yourself blessed with the Bidens and Kamala's of the world for ever and a day and be all the worse for it. Imagine how Congress and the Senate would look right now were Canada a state. Imagine how the last election would have shaken out.

If you sincerely believe in the notion that "unless Washington says so, Canada won’t be able to sell its oil to anyone (which I don't BTW);" then you may be better off pursuing and expanding on that strategy rather than marrying the cheerleader you could date at your convenience.      

Edited March 12 by Venandi

[paxamericana]

4 minutes ago, Venandi said:

expanding on that strategy rather than marrying the cheerleader you could date at your convenience.

Yes there is a cost to absorbing Canada, the question is whether or not having the continent under one flag is important enough for the cost. That conversation has not been had with the American public at large. However, there are no cultural differences that would bar such a union is my point.

[Venandi]

27 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

However, there are no cultural differences that would bar such a union is my point.

Agreed... but before you add hardener to the mix consider the effect of having an additional state that makes California look conservative by comparison. I would urge the same degree of caution I would have happily extended to the unfortunate guy in the video above. 

Slapping the mat after you crash into it might make some noise but it's of little (meaning no) value in avoiding injury... the funny part of it is the injury hails from what initially appeared to be a highly attractive source. I still say tap early and avoid disappointment by being careful about what you wish for.

As an aside, there's also the possibility that a hostile takeover might be more prolonged and painful than you think and the resources you covet might come at a higher price than you expect.

Edited March 12 by Venandi

[paxamericana]

53 minutes ago, Venandi said:

As an aside, there's also the possibility that a hostile takeover might be more prolonged and painful than you think and the resources you covet might come at a higher price than you expect.

Not an undertaking America is interested in. There are better levers to punish Canada that stops short of drawing blood. 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, John Johnston said:

True. However...

In 2023, the U.S. imported approximately 8.5 million barrels of crude oil per day. Major suppliers include Canada,

The US imports Alberta oil at a huge discount. The lowest price for oil anywhere on earth. 

[herbie]

49 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The US imports Alberta oil at a huge discount. The lowest price for oil anywhere on earth.

And insists they don't need it....

Maybe we should talk China into building refineries in say Chilliwack and Brandon in return for their cars...

[paxamericana]

Just now, herbie said:

Maybe we should talk China

This is how you get annexed forcibly.

[WestCanMan]

25 minutes ago, herbie said:

Maybe we should talk China into building refineries in say Chilliwack and Brandon in return for their cars...

Not a surprising solution from an LPoC cultist.

[Deluge]

6 hours ago, John Johnston said:

True. However...

In 2023, the U.S. imported approximately 8.5 million barrels of crude oil per day. Major suppliers include Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico, with Canada accounting for over 60% of total imports.

Russia's role has diminished significantly due to geopolitical tensions and sanctions, dropping from 7.9% of imports in 2021 to less than 1% recently. Additionally, Venezuela remains largely untapped due to sanctions, despite having one of the largest reserves globally.

And running around destroying global markets without thinking will eventually turn North America into a wasteland. On the bright side, the American people are understanding their massive mistake in electing criminals to run their government. Albeit a little late. 

Yup, the US will become a wasteland - it's inevitable. I guess all democrats better self deport and find new safe spaces. 

Will you help them pack, Juan Juanston? 

[herbie]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Not a surprising solution from an LPoC cultist.

expected comment from one who prefers whining to results.

Good Tory! Now down boy!

[WestCanMan]

11 minutes ago, herbie said:

expected comment from one who prefers whining to results.

Expected comment from one who prefers fascism and lies to democracy.

Good cultist! Down girl!

Quick question: What does it feel like for you when your Supreme Leader goes to the WH and gets spanked, and then says "Elbows down 😭"?

[robosmith]

On 3/12/2026 at 8:46 AM, Venandi said:

Exactly right IMO...

There's a silly thread here about "not thinking about the Strait of Hormuz; as if it somehow wouldn't be a key part of any assessment and risk analysis... don't tell them though, it's fun to watch.

By all accounts, 2025 featured a record domestic production rate for the US; I'm just cynical enough to believe that it wasn't an accident. Only about 20% of US oil comes from the ME and of that about 12-15% transit the Strait.

BTW, sure to call it the "Straight" if you venture to that thread.

When you combine all of the factors at play in Iran (I won't list them), and assume (as I do) that eventual conflict with Iran is inevitable, there has simply never been a better time to undertake the effort and I see none of it as accidental. 

There are significant risks involved in escorting ships through the Strait and (perhaps for the first time) the US isn't in a position to suffer undue hardship because of it. It allows the luxury of maintaining the "concentration of force" (a principle of war) where it will have the greatest  time vs effect factor. 

All IMO of course, but things like asserting and defending the notion that "they didn't think about the "Straight" is actually why I keep coming back here for morning coffee.

So after months of bragging about low gas prices, you believe Trump is not politically hurt badly by very high gas prices.

That is hilarious, but only because I have a hybrid which gets 50 mpg.

IF Trump admin had thought about the Strait, they would be READY to deal with it BUT they're NOT. LMAO

[Legato]

25 minutes ago, robosmith said:

That is hilarious, but only because I have a hybrid which gets 50 mpg.

 

No ones interested in your camel.