U.S. To Be World’s Top Oil Producer In 5 Years, Report Says...

[ABM]

Very interesting..

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/b...op-oil-producer-in-5-years.html?smid=fb-share

The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s leading oil producer by about 2017 and will become a net oil exporter by 2030, the International Energy Agency said Monday.

That increased oil production, combined with new American policies to improve energy efficiency, means that the United States will become “all but self-sufficient” in meeting its energy needs in about two decades — a “dramatic reversal of the trend” in most developed countries, a new report released by the agency says.

“The foundations of the global energy systems are shifting,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the Paris-based organization, which produces the annual World Energy Outlook, said in an interview before the release. The agency, which advises industrialized nations on energy issues, had previously predicted that Saudi Arabia would be the leading producer until 2035.

The report also predicted that global energy demand would grow between 35 and 46 percent from 2010 to 2035, depending on whether policies that have been proposed are put in place. Most of that growth will come from China, India and the Middle East, where the consuming class is growing rapidly. The consequences are “potentially far-reaching” for global energy markets and trade, the report said................

 

[BlazerWookee]

Who is the "International Energy Agency?"

 

[ABM]

Who is the "International Energy Agency?"

The IEA was founded in response to the 1973/4 oil crisis in order to help countries co-ordinate a collective response to major disruptions in oil supply through the release of emergency oil stocks to the markets.

When it was founded, the main objectives of the IEA were:

• to maintain and improve systems for coping with oil supply disruptions;
• to promote rational energy policies in a global context through co-operative relations with non-member countries, industry and international organisations;
• to operate a permanent information system on the international oil market;
• to improve the world’s energy supply and demand structure by developing alternative energy sources and increasing the efficiency of energy use;
• to promote international collaboration on energy technology; and
• to assist in the integration of environmental and energy policies

http://www.iea.org/aboutus/history/

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

North Dakota (iirc) is booming with their oil production.

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

USA! USA! USA!

 

[Denny Crane]

USA used to be #1.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Just what we need.

 

[jlprk]

Colorado shale oil is integrated with rock on a molecular scale. It costs more to process than regular liquid oil in underground pools. For 20 years I've read that when the world supply of regular oil decreases, the oil price will increase due to supply and demand, raising the liquid oil cost to something similar to shale. That's when shale mining will become cost-effective.

Republicans criticize Obama that we have enormous unused shale deposits, but they are too dumb to understand that it's not yet cost-effective to mine them. All that this new report says is that in 20 years, China's enormous demand will decrease supply and increase the price, making it economical for the U.S. to start mining its shale, making us oil-independent from Saudi Arabia and other countries, losing us our economic influence there. The price will be a lot higher than now for this to happen.

Good news, patriots!

 

[BrianFromWA]

I haven't read up on it in a while, but I was under the impression that the long-term break-even points for both shale reclamation and Fischer-Tropsch are about $85-120/barrel. I don't remember the breakdown, but at around $7/gallon you start getting into a range where photobioreactors are feasible.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Isn't it more economical to attempt switching to renewable resources? I mean, big picture. I know all you mid life war hawks can't picture a time where fossil fuels aren't the standard, but I may live to see the day where the world economy grinds to a halt when oil prices sky rocket. Shouldn't we get working on this seriously about now?

 

[Denny Crane]

I think lower than $80/bbl.

 

[ABM]

Isn't it more economical to attempt switching to renewable resources?......Shouldn't we get working on this seriously about now?

[video=youtube;PSxihhBzCjk]

 

[jlprk]

Isn't it more economical to attempt switching to renewable resources? I mean, big picture. I know all you mid life war hawks can't picture a time where fossil fuels aren't the standard, but I may live to see the day where the world economy grinds to a halt when oil prices sky rocket. Shouldn't we get working on this seriously about now?

Same answer. Later in this century, when China's demand has decreased supply and increased the price high enough to be the same as exotic technologies, renewables will become widely used. At this point 40 years ago someone would chime in that Karl Marx discovered that economics, not religion or politics or great leaders, determines history. But that's so passé now.

 

[Denny Crane]

Isn't it more economical to attempt switching to renewable resources? I mean, big picture. I know all you mid life war hawks can't picture a time where fossil fuels aren't the standard, but I may live to see the day where the world economy grinds to a halt when oil prices sky rocket. Shouldn't we get working on this seriously about now?

No.

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/428145/the-great-german-energy-experiment/

Energy costs increased in Germany, and it will cost them as much as 7% of GDP for nearly a decade, and that won't get them close to able to switch to renewable energy.

A similar expense by the US would be equivalent to half what the entire nation, including govt., spends on health care.

Germany is 137,00 sq miles, the USA is over 9,000,000. I think we can't possibly be as efficient as Germany. If we spent an equivalent pct of GDP per square mile, we would have to spend more than 100% of our GDP.

 

[jlprk]

In a few decades, oil will eat up GDP even more than the 7% you cited, and worldwide, not just Germany. So you are right in the short-term but in the long-term, renewables will be as cost-effective as oil, and will eventually be cheaper as oil runs out late in the century.

I've posted before that I predict China will make nuclear war around 2080 on a flaccid U.S. and Europe, then move half its surviving population into a Siberia 10 or 15 degrees warmer than today. China is taking over.

 

[speeds]

I've posted before that I predict China will make nuclear war around 2080 on a flaccid U.S. and Europe, then move half its surviving population into a Siberia 10 or 15 degrees warmer than today. China is taking over.

Are you a crazy person?


This won't happen until at least 2083.

 

[PapaG]

Isn't it more economical to attempt switching to renewable resources? I mean, big picture. I know all you mid life war hawks can't picture a time where fossil fuels aren't the standard, but I may live to see the day where the world economy grinds to a halt when oil prices sky rocket. Shouldn't we get working on this seriously about now?

Sure. Snap your magic fingers and make it happen without totally destroying the economy.

You do realize that there is research is happening right now to try and make renewable energy cost-effective. The problem is, we aren't even close to doing so, and the government is having renewable companies go bankrupt even after giving them hundreds of millions of dollars. Sure, the Solyndra execs and others made out like bandits, but there is nothing to show in terms of production with that money.

 

[Further]

I'm very pleased to see energy independence inching closer. When we are truly energy independent I will be more trusting that wars being fought are being done so for honorable reasons.

As far as alternative energy sources, I don't know the economics of when it makes sense to switch, but I do know that the more research and development in energy fields the sooner we will reach that break even point. If we are intelligent we will pour money into research now. Breakthroughs don't happen out of the blue, they happen through painstaking effort. Also, this will keep America ahead of the curve technologically, environmentally, and economically. Economics will determine when we make the switch, but R&D will bring down the economic hurdles and shrink that timeline.

 

[Denny Crane]

We are nowhere near break even.

Brian, what do you know of thorium reactors?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Little bit. Thorium has some potential (and China, among others, are looking hard at it) but it's still at a stage where there are a bunch of pretty significant engineering concerns and not a large amount of cost- or environmental-benefit needed to invest in it.

Chemistry-wise, it allows you to start up a reactor without fissile Uranium. However, U-233 and U-235 are both byproducts, and the Pa-233 byproduct is a significant neutron absorber, so you're not going to have either the efficiency or (probably, haven't seen detailed designs) the response time offered by Uranium-based fuels, so you're "decreasing" safety...which is something no one wants to hear, even though it doesn't necessarily mean what they think it means. Additionally, the gamma radiation is much, much higher than U-based fuels and their byproducts.

IMHO, pebble bed technology is the safest and most promising next-step idea going forward. Gen IV High-Temp reactors are being looked at, but there's some nasty stuff you have to engineer around. That might be a while away.

 

[Denny Crane]

Wow. People suggest we spend many $trillions on solar or wind power, yet Thorium certainly looks possible for amounts in the $billions.

My understanding is no chance of meltdown, no weapons grade material is produced, spent fuel is almost entirely consumed, and anything radioactive produced has a 1% of current tech's half life.

It could be a big win. Tree huggers don't seem to mind covering 1/3 of our near pristine land with solar panels. One of these plants would be clean, safe, and quiet - AND would occupy a couple square city blocks worth of land to generate many many acres of solar panels worth of energy. And they work at night and when the wind isn't blowing.

*shrug*

 

[Further]

Wow. People suggest we spend many $trillions on solar or wind power, yet Thorium certainly looks possible for amounts in the $billions.

My understanding is no chance of meltdown, no weapons grade material is produced, spent fuel is almost entirely consumed, and anything radioactive produced has a 1% of current tech's half life.

It could be a big win. Tree huggers don't seem to mind covering 1/3 of our near pristine land with solar panels. One of these plants would be clean, safe, and quiet - AND would occupy a couple square city blocks worth of land to generate many many acres of solar panels worth of energy. And they work at night and when the wind isn't blowing.

*shrug*

I'm a tree hugger(not really) who would be thrilled if this pans out. But, until we have an answer, let's not turn our backs on other possibilities. Wind, solar might not ever be the answer, but lets continue to explore all the techs. Once one technology proves to be the winner, we can laugh at all the losers.

 

[barfo]

I'm very pleased to see energy independence inching closer. When we are truly energy independent I will be more trusting that wars being fought are being done so for honorable reasons.

Energy independence doesn't mean we don't have to deal with global oil issues, unless we nationalize the oil companies. Anyone think that's going to happen, even with a raging socialist nazi terrorist Kenyan in the White House?

Oil will only become more valuable, and 'our' multinational oil companies will still have major interests in oil in other countries. So they will continue to bribe the government to do things that benefit their overseas operations. Oil generated in this country will likely be sold overseas, and oil generated overseas will be imported to the US.

More oil in the US does mean more jobs in the US, and more environmental damage in the US. I don't think it means fewer oil wars, but maybe it means we are fighting them from a position of strength rather than weakness. I'm not saying its a bad thing - it just doesn't cure all the oil problems.

barfo

 

[Masbee]

Energy independence doesn't mean we don't have to deal with global oil issues, unless we nationalize the oil companies. Anyone think that's going to happen, even with a raging socialist nazi terrorist Kenyan in the White House?

Oil will only become more valuable, and 'our' multinational oil companies will still have major interests in oil in other countries. So they will continue to bribe the government to do things that benefit their overseas operations. Oil generated in this country will likely be sold overseas, and oil generated overseas will be imported to the US.

More oil in the US does mean more jobs in the US, and more environmental damage in the US. I don't think it means fewer oil wars, but maybe it means we are fighting them from a position of strength rather than weakness. I'm not saying its a bad thing - it just doesn't cure all the oil problems.

barfo

You are wrong. It is a huge deal.

Why?

In a crisis the government can control u.s. oil output.

Thus, the leverage of the current major over tbe u.s. is dramatically reduced.

 

[barfo]

You are wrong. It is a huge deal.

Why?

In a crisis the government can control u.s. oil output.

Thus, the leverage of the current major over tbe u.s. is dramatically reduced.

That's pretty much what I said: "unless we nationalize the oil companies". We could do it... but the bar is very high.

barfo

 

[Masbee]

That's pretty much what I said: "unless we nationalize the oil companies". We could do it... but the bar is very high.

barfo

Note the "in a crisis" part.

Simply having the production in the U.S. territory (or all of North America if you consider those reliable partners in a major world crisis) is really all it takes.

The U.S. government only needs the ability to take over the supplies and control that market to avoid being pressured or blackmailed by a foreign supplier. They don't actually have go through with the action.

 

[Eastoff]

I blame Obama for not Drilling, baby, drilling.

 

[magnifier661]

Notice "5 years"; which is 1 year after Obama leaves office. Maybe by that time, our country will be in such a recession, that our only choice to inject new revenue into this economy, is to bite the bullet and allow drilling.

 

[Eastoff]

Notice "5 years"; which is 1 year after Obama leaves office. Maybe by that time, our country will be in such a recession, that our only choice to inject new revenue into this economy, is to bite the bullet and allow drilling.

haha, i get it now! thanks

 

[magnifier661]

haha, i get it now! thanks

Yep this is paramount for the democrats to inject a legit renewable energy program. One that can actually compete with the oil industry. If that happens; then the Democrats will be sitting pretty good. In fact, that single event could give the donkeys a easy shot for the next term of presidency. If they cannot find it; then expect the GOP to jump on the "waste of money" pony show of renewable energy.