Our increased production of oil is due to the new technology of fracking (fracturing the ground to get oil out of it). The situation is certainly not "We could have been fracking 15 years ago, but we didn't feel like it because Saudi gas was cheap". The energy sector is subject to the same process of technological advance that any other industry is. We came up with a new way to get oil out of the ground and figured out how to deploy it at scale. Saudi Arabia didn't have much to do with it. Gas could be selling for $2/gallon and people would still be tripping over themselves to get more of it out of the ground.
Secondly, the idea that we're keeping troops in the middle-east in order to get oil for ourselves is rather naive. There was nothing in the article about all the free oil that the US gets just because we have troops in Iraq. The different political factions there are fighting so hard over every drop of oil that there isn't any left for the iraqi people, much less the united states.
There are no conspiracies here. No international intrigues. Technology improved, so now we have more oil. The energy sector is about to go into a boom that's going to lift the whole country's economy.
To be fair: oil being fungible means that it doesn't much matter who gets Iraqi production or the direct profits from it. So long as that oil can be produced and sold by a regime not under international sanctions, it will increase market supply thus lowering price and giving the market a little more wiggle room to absorb supply shocks.
Which are goals much more in-line with American defense strategy in the region as a whole.
So while the view of our having invaded Iraq to steal their oil remains naive, it's hard to argue that the US receives no benefits from that oil being produced by a non-sanctioned (non-Saddam) regime.
Even if you ignore all the externalities, hydro-fracking is still much more expensive than traditional shallow well land drilling operations, and it requires higher oil prices to sustain them. The 8 massive oil fields in Saudi Arabia (as well as many of those in Venezuela) fall into the "easy oil" category.
It's true that technology has improved, but it's likely that with more price pressure to improve the technology, these innovations would have come sooner. In addition, fracking is more work, period. It requires more energy than traditional drilling, and while this can be incrementally improved, it's fundamentally a much more energy intensive process that can't just be "optimized away."
Wrong. There are currently 15k to 16k Americans working in Iraq, under the auspices of the State Department. I guarantee they aren't all working desk jobs and God knows how many mercenaries...I mean contractors are still running around. Just because they aren't labelled "combat troops" doesn't mean they don't carry guns and kill people.
Isn't fracking terrible for the environment though? I realize that's not the point of this article, but it makes me wonder if we're setting ourselves up for even more ecological damage.
Most of the anti-fracking rhetoric you see online is overblown. Sure, it might have some negative externalities (like all energy production), but domestic fracking is certainly more environmentally friendly than Saudi oil production.
Secondly, the idea that we're keeping troops in the middle-east in order to get oil for ourselves is rather naive. There was nothing in the article about all the free oil that the US gets just because we have troops in Iraq. The different political factions there are fighting so hard over every drop of oil that there isn't any left for the iraqi people, much less the united states.
There are no conspiracies here. No international intrigues. Technology improved, so now we have more oil. The energy sector is about to go into a boom that's going to lift the whole country's economy.