Because for this argument they are irrelevant. Domestic consumption is money you aren't spending to buy gas on the market, at market prices. If Norway had a use for 100% of it's oil, it would be saving the equivalent amount from the global market as it would be gaining in revenue.

The bigger difference is that one is state owned, and the other is mostly privatized. Then again, for the larger picture, this is only relevant if the countries in question are constrained to the income available from this system. Neither are. If the US wanted to issue a few hundred billion in bonds, they could do so with little trouble if it was politically feasible. Or they could literally just make the money out of thin air, if they weren't concerned with or were willing to accept the possible inflation.

It's hard to overstate just how much economic and monetary power the US can bring to bear.

For now, the US are exporting more natural gas than Norway. However, with the completion of Cheniere's project at Sabine pass, this will be the opposite [1]. Actually, this November, the US are going to export more than twice the volume of Norway.

[1]: http://imgur.com/a/uyBiZ

Disclosure: I work in an intelligence company, but I'm not a market expert.

Edit:

> USA does not have an oil fund that amounts do $150k per capita to pay for "free everything"

No, but they certainly have other ways of funding a "free everything" that don't rely on fossil fuel. Let's call that "taxes".