The U.S. will become the world's biggest oil producer before 2020 and energy independent by 2030

[LAgrunion]

I was surprised to read this on money.cnn.com.

LONDON (CNNMoney) -- The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia to become the world's biggest oil producer before 2020, and will be energy independent 10 years later, according to a new forecast by the International Energy Agency.

The recent resurgence in oil and gas production, and efforts to make the transport sector more efficient, are radically reshaping the nation's energy market, reported Paris-based IEA in its World Energy Outlook.

North America would become a net exporter of oil around 2030, the global organization said Monday.

"The United States, which currently imports around 20% of its total energy needs, becomes all but self sufficient in net terms -- a dramatic reversal of the trend seen in most other energy importing countries," the IEA stated.

The U.S. is experiencing an oil boom, in large part thanks to high world prices and new technologies, including hydraulic fracking, that have made the extraction of oil and gas from shale rock commercially viable.

From 2008 to 2011, U.S. crude oil production jumped 14%, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Natural gas production is up by about 10% over the same period.

[bolding added]

Curious to see how this will affect American foreign policy in the Middle East, especially re hotspots like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel.

*logs in to his etrade account, sells Facebook, and buys a few shares in energy infrastructure companies.*

[sulong]

We (the US) is already an exporter of gasoline. Oil, like gasoline will go to the highest bidder around the world, regardless where it originates from.

So really, this don't help the consumer at all. Oil companies are very happy though.

[Xelebes]

At a time of peace, this matters little. At a time of war, this matters a lot.

Anywhich way, hearing from geologists who work in the oil energy have grave doubts about this coming to fruition.

[kuwisdelu]

If we're dependent on a non-renewable resource, we're not energy independent.

We need to diversify.

[J.S.F.]

Diversification is fine if it pays off in the long run. Personally, I like the idea of using nature to help us out i.e. solar and wind power but right now all the natural resources combined don't really add up to one nuclear power plant.

Fracking seems the way to go but there will be tremendous ecological damage if it's not handled carefully and I expect there WILL be damage as the process evolves. Still, if it helps to solve the energy crisis and moves the US away from relying on foreign oil so much, then all the better.

[MattW]

Originally Posted by kuwisdelu

We need to diversify.

if 1/5 of the crackpot discoveries that Zoombie has posted over the years yield even 3% o national energy needs, then independence is truly possible.

I'm not hoping for a golden goose, but instead a thousand chickens laying eggs into a score of baskets.

[kuwisdelu]

Originally Posted by J.S.F.

Diversification is fine if it pays off in the long run.

Diversification is the only thing that will pay off in the long run.

Everything else is suicide.

Fracking seems the way to go but there will be tremendous ecological damage if it's not handled carefully and I expect there WILL be damage as the process evolves.

There's already been damage.

And not only ecological damage, but also damage to communities.

[Plot Device]

Total bullshit.

All of it.

The utter lie inherent in the "Blue Wedge of Hope" has struck again.

[Zoombie]

Not TOTAL bullshit. I could see a future in synthetic petroleum by the '30s and '40s, if the technology continues to mature and develop at a reasonable pace.

Of course, it wouldn't be for making energy. That, I see going to solar, nuclear and possibly fusion (though fusion is always ten years away). But plastics are soooo very useful...

[Gale Haut]

Originally Posted by kuwisdelu

If we're dependent on a non-renewable resource, we're not energy independent.

We need to diversify.

This was my gut reaction to the article. Though, I'm not sure how practical it is. The US is a hardcore drug user. And, at this point going cold turkey would lead to total systemic shutdown--it's not an option.

Independence from foreign oil is a move in the right direction, and probably in the direction you'd want us to end up, though not as quickly as anyone wants.

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by Plot Device

Total bullshit.

All of it.

Well, no, it actually isn't, but it's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. There really is a pretty good chance we become the world's top volumetric hydrocarbon fuel producer in about a decade, given current discoveries and technical developments.

The issue of "energy independence", based on these fossil fuel resources now being developed, is something else again. 2030 (or 2035, as I saw in another story) is a long way off, and anybody predicting what is going to happen by then is spouting phlogiston.

We still need to diversify our energy sources, and efforts to continue to do that should continue, unabated.

caw

[Plot Device]

Originally Posted by Zoombie

Of course, it wouldn't be for making energy.

If not, then how do we achieve "total energy independence by 2030"?

There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza ....


.

[Plot Device]

Originally Posted by blacbird

Well, no, it actually isn't, but it's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. There really is a pretty good chance we become the world's top volumetric hydrocarbon fuel producer in about a decade, given current discoveries and technical developments.

The issue of "energy independence", based on these fossil fuel resources now being developed, is something else again. 2030 (or 2035, as I saw in another story) is a long way off, and anybody predicting what is going to happen by then is spouting phlogiston.

We still need to diversify our energy sources, and efforts to continue to do that should continue, unabated.

caw

Blue Wedge of Hope.

caw


.

[Zoombie]

Originally Posted by Plot Device

If not, then how do we achieve "total energy independence by 2030"?
.

How many times do I have to say solar power? You keep saying there's a hole in the bucket, and forget that we're standing in a waterfall.

[Plot Device]

Originally Posted by Zoombie

How many times do I have to say solar power? You keep saying there's a hole in the bucket, and forget that we're standing in a waterfall.

Then let's see some water. (I'm thirsty.)

[Zoombie]

Okay!

[kuwisdelu]

Originally Posted by Gale Haut

This was my gut reaction to the article. Though, I'm not sure how practical it is. The US is a hardcore drug user. And, at this point going cold turkey would lead to total systemic shutdown--it's not an option.

Yup. That's why I said diversify. Fossil fuels will always be part of the equation.

But that equation needs to gain a lot more variables. Soon.

Nor will any one renewable be the answer. We need all of them, and we need to use them where they work, and not try to shoehorn them in where they don't.

And then there's the craptastic state of our grid...

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by Plot Device

Blue Wedge of Hope.
.

I think you missed my point, or perhaps I didn't make it explicitly clear. As to the "production" side, the likelihood of becoming the world's top producer is pretty strong. That's not based on my opinion. I'm a geologist, 35 years professional experience and great and continuing familiarity with the petroleum industry. Whether you like it or not is immaterial; the opening up of immense new resources with new technology has exceeded the most favorable predictions of just a few years ago. And, something that may amaze some people, the U.S. actually is a pretty big oil producer already.

The "consumption" side, however, is another matter. I'm not at all convinced we will somehow restrain our endless desire to consume energy, from whatever source. With 5% of the world's population, the U.S. today consumes something like 25% of the world's energy production. If that percentage continues to exist, we will likely outstrip even the probable new domestic production levels.

None of this discussion even begins to address the issue of the increased amount of CO2 emission inevitable with the increased production and consumption of fossil fuels.

caw

[kuwisdelu]

Originally Posted by blacbird

And, something that may amaze some people, the U.S. actually is a pretty big oil producer already.

And then you tell them that our biggest single source of imported oil is Canada...

[kuwisdelu]

I strongly recommend those interested in where this oil actually comes from read a couple of my blog posts here and here. The pertinent parts are toward the end of each.

The point is that this oil comes at a price. It is deeply affecting communities and people's lives. Some for good. Some for ill.

The people who come to drill, they don't care how it affects those communities. They don't live there. They don't have to deal with the consequences of where they dump their frack water. They get chewed out by a higher up and move on. They don't stay to watch the land die.

For many of these communities, this oil is a second chance. But I fear it will be gone, sucked up and bled dry, before they even know what they can do with it, before they figure out how not to get tricked again.

I just think it's important to remember where this oil comes from, that getting it affects the land, affects people, affects communities.

[J.S.F.]

kuwisdelu,

The point about affecting communities is well taken but hasn't that always been the way? Long ago (and still now) you had coal mining, or gold, or copper, or silver mining. Drilling in the earth for oil, rare earth substances, and other ores, all of which did cause damage to varying degrees. There is no way on Earth right now where you can mass produce anything which will equal what the planet gives us. This is a fact.

Zoombie sounds like a prognosticator in many of his posts but they are good prognostications and I like the ideas presented. Realistically, however, progress always comes at a price. And right now, the price is, yes, people in some communities. The trade-off is jobs and money and increased sources of energy (fracking, for example). I don't like it any better than you do but it is what it is.

As for solar power, Zoombie, how are the 'sun' companies doing? Not being snide, just would sincerely like to know. I know the President poured a lot of research money into some of them and from what I read, they suffered huge losses. Have any of them to the best of your knowledge made significant headway in solar power manufacturing?

[kuwisdelu]

Originally Posted by J.S.F.

kuwisdelu,

The point about affecting communities is well taken but hasn't that always been the way? Long ago (and still now) you had coal mining, or gold, or copper, or silver mining. Drilling in the earth for oil, rare earth substances, and other ores, all of which did cause damage to varying degrees. There is no way on Earth right now where you can mass produce anything which will equal what the planet gives us. This is a fact.

I don't see your point.

Zoombie sounds like a prognosticator in many of his posts but they are good prognostications and I like the ideas presented. Realistically, however, progress always comes at a price. And right now, the price is, yes, people in some communities. The trade-off is jobs and money and increased sources of energy (fracking, for example). I don't like it any better than you do but it is what it is.

But it's not progress. It's procrastination.

As for solar power, Zoombie, how are the 'sun' companies doing? Not being snide, just would sincerely like to know. I know the President poured a lot of research money into some of them and from what I read, they suffered huge losses. Have any of them to the best of your knowledge made significant headway in solar power manufacturing?

Solar works pretty well in the southwest.

The biggest hurdle is most people don't have any incentive, and they won't until it's too late.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by blacbird

The "consumption" side, however, is another matter. I'm not at all convinced we will somehow restrain our endless desire to consume energy, from whatever source. With 5% of the world's population, the U.S. today consumes something like 25% of the world's energy production. If that percentage continues to exist, we will likely outstrip even the probable new domestic production levels.



caw

Obama getting the automakers to agree to double fuel mileage will help quite a bit. Remember, that's a done deal.

[Plot Device]

Originally Posted by blacbird

I think you missed my point, or perhaps I didn't make it explicitly clear. As to the "production" side, the likelihood of becoming the world's top producer is pretty strong. That's not based on my opinion. I'm a geologist, 35 years professional experience and great and continuing familiarity with the petroleum industry. Whether you like it or not is immaterial; the opening up of immense new resources with new technology has exceeded the most favorable predictions of just a few years ago. And, something that may amaze some people, the U.S. actually is a pretty big oil producer already.

The "consumption" side, however, is another matter. I'm not at all convinced we will somehow restrain our endless desire to consume energy, from whatever source. With 5% of the world's population, the U.S. today consumes something like 25% of the world's energy production. If that percentage continues to exist, we will likely outstrip even the probable new domestic production levels.

None of this discussion even begins to address the issue of the increased amount of CO2 emission inevitable with the increased production and consumption of fossil fuels.

caw

I have tremendous respect for your professional accomplishments. But I do not see your saying I am wrong with my end-game stance of "we're screwed." The convoluted journey filled with deceptive milestones of presumed or temorary success that we will meander down on the road to "we're screwed" is immaterial because at the end of that marathon of false hope we're still screwed.

[Plot Device]

Originally Posted by Zoombie

Okay!

But, Zoombie, there are two problem with the two articles you have linked.

1) I am thirsty right fricking now. So these maybe-ish possbilities for somewhere in the future do not help as far as this right fricking now need goes.

2) Both article use those annoying words of false hope: woulds like "could" and "might" and "may soon" and "possibly one day," etc. In other words, the articles aren't even sure that these technologies will ever be deliverable at any time in any foreseeable future period here in the known universe.


For us to keep languishing in this kind of hoped-for state of still-on-the-drawing-board/maybe-some-day tech was fine back in the 1970's. But it's now 40 years later, and not only do we STILL not have this stuff, but we're runnng out of time as far as what our global economy can shoulder with increasing energy scarcity and balooning human population.