U.S. is now the world’s biggest oil and gas producer

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-ticker/2013/10/04/move-over-russia-u-s-is-now-the-worlds-biggest-oil-gas-producer/

by ck2 • 13 years ago

85 86 13 years ago

blogs.marketwatch.com

ck23• 13 years ago

What I want to know, since we only consume a fraction of it, where is all that money going?

All that profit doesn't seem to be staying inside the US.

maxerickson4• 13 years ago

What do you mean by a fraction of it?

The U.S. is a net importer of both oil and natural gas:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_...

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_ist_a2dcu_nus_a.htm

ck23• 13 years ago

Those numbers are hard to follow but I do not understand why if we produce so much why we don't consume our own content?

For example if the keystone pipeline was approved the majority of it would be for export, not domestic use.

xradionut• 13 years ago

The profit is flowing to tax havens.

e13tra2• 13 years ago

Looks like the new arms race is about digging your own environmental grave.

ck23• 13 years ago

I think the country that is going to win will be biggest exporter of clean water in about two decades.

Meanwhile China makes more solar panels than anyone in the world yet has the most filthy air.

dominotw• 13 years ago

India too http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/indias-incoming-solar-plant...

maxerickson4• 13 years ago

If things are that bad, big movements on water and energy markets will influence each other (because you can use energy to purify or desalinate water).

e13tra2• 13 years ago

I don't think this is something that can be won, really, other than in a politics and power influence sense. Not to take analogies to where they oversimplify things, but this is similar to M.A.D.; we share the damage we do, locally, then globally. For us, the shortcut to energy production is in the industry already in place (with its centuries-old history and political power). Until that shifts, we'll keep going the same direction and worry about long term when we have to. Solar energy production is still in its infancy when you compare it to fossil fuels production, in China or anywhere else. I suspect the high output of actual solar panels are more (or just as much) a symptom of market than environmental concerns.

njharman• 13 years ago

Check out Canada's share of the world's fresh water sometime...

jhatax• 13 years ago

I wonder what prevents the use of "salt water" for fracking? We have an abundant supply of that resource; maybe prevents the oceans from rising too! (I am joking)

nathan_long• 13 years ago

Meanwhile China makes more solar panels than anyone in the world yet has the most filthy air.

Most overall or per capita? And do they use them?

If the cleaners at Grand Central Station use only twice the cleaning supplies as you do at your house, it's likely to be much dirtier than your house.

hannibal5• 13 years ago

If we want to limit climate change to +2°C, we must leave 80% of hydrocarbons into the ground. This option is not showing in the prices of energy companies. It's just not going to happen.

beedogs• 13 years ago

Hopefully the demise of our species will be quick and relatively painless, then.

foobarbazqux2• 13 years ago

On the bright side, forecasters that rely on computer models of massive systems often end up making horribly inaccurate predictions. For example, we usually get tomorrow's weather wrong.

devilsadvocate9• 13 years ago

The good news is that so far climate models have all been dramatically wrong in their predictions of global mean temperature, and that all of them have erred on the high side. It's striking how little knowledge climate activists have of relevant evidence.

[1] http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2157446...

[2] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/16/lomborg-climate-models...

marknutter5• 13 years ago

No, it's about the economy. Any alternative energy is going to have to be a drop-in replacement for current energy sources or it will be a complete non-starter (without heavy subsidies). Maybe we should consider finding this drop-in replacement our next moonshot? Or just embrace nuclear power and be done with it.

triplesec2• 13 years ago

Great. So now the US'll just run out relatively sooner than they would have done compared with those guys. WTG short-term thinking with finite resources. Humans are idiots.

bsullivan01• 13 years ago

WTG short-term thinking with finite resources. Humans are idiots.

Shale and gas is added to the thinking probably, enviro issues and all. Finite but it lasts 100+ years...

astrodust3• 13 years ago

A hundred years might seem like a long time, but in terms of civilization it's the blink of an eye.

Even on a human scale it's not that long. There are people alive today who are one or two degrees away from significant historical events. "Human wormholes" (http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/02/07/146534518/raspu...) if you will.

There were some US civil war widows still alive in the 21st century. Think about that next time you think a 100 year supply is a lot.

seiji• 13 years ago

The problem isn't running out of oil. The problem is increased production incentivizing increased usage which drives us over the edge of an irreversible climate catastrofuck.

All the oil is getting extracted out of the ground and (at utilization time) getting pumped into the air. It's the exact opposite of what we need to be doing now.

throwaway9848• 13 years ago

They are both problems...

hrjet• 13 years ago

Exactly. I would have loved to see an overlay of consumption over production in the article.

triplesec2• 13 years ago

Agreed. slower use f these things and encouraging alternative energies earlier (while understanding population control) would have kept this less of a clusterfkc. However, humans != long-term political planning.

devx• 13 years ago

Can we end oil subsidies yet? Or have the oil companies not made enough trillions of dollars in profit since they started receiving subsidies a century ago?

I'm all for subsidies to accelerate an emerging market or technology, especially if it's "the future", but for 5-10 years at most, until it becomes mature enough to handle itself. Subsidizing highly profitable companies for a century is beyond stupid, because it also means those companies can be a lot more wasteful, knowing the taxpayers will cover the difference.

I'd ask for an end to Middle East oil-wars, too, but that seems even less likely to happen, so I'll happily take the ending of subsidies for now.

ihsw2• 13 years ago

Oil subsidies are the only reason the US is an energy production leader, not unlike how corn subsidies are the only reason corn-based ethanol is competitive.

Ending subsidies cannot be done -- it needs to be accomplished as a side-effect of ending political interference. The oil lobby and corn lobby are very powerful.

hrishirc2• 13 years ago

what's the point of being a production leader? Shouldn't it be left to the free market? The Oil bias is in a sense, hampering innovation in efficiency in oil-consuming machines, notwithstanding effects on other energy sources.

Remember, the great efficiency drive in automobiles started after the Middle East Oil crisis in 1979, if I'm not wrong...

joshuahedlund2• 13 years ago

Commenters bemoaning US running out of resources sooner or ruining the environment by increasing usage should note that US oil demand has essentially peaked[1] and will likely drop in the coming years due to a variety of factors including demographics and the increasing viability of alternative energy sources (solar power + Tesla et. al.) In this context, the US gas/oil energy boom is a wonderful thing, a last hurrah of cheap energy to supply the economy before the alternatives are finally ready to compete. Furthermore, it's not even bad for the environment in the short term; thanks largely to the natural gas boom replacing the even dirtier coal, US CO2 emissions are at their lowest in 20 years[2] I admit I'm probably a little too optimistic (Edit: fracking may be less than "wonderful"), but even correcting for my bias I strongly suspect it's not nearly as bad as many seem to think.

[1] http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WR... [2] http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012...

llamataboot• 13 years ago

Nearly every prominent climate scientist disagrees strongly with you, and sees the current move towards fracking as climate suicide.

silverlight• 13 years ago

I'm sure you have them, but since the parent commenter was nice enough to supply sources for his claims, perhaps you could as well?

marknutter5• 13 years ago

What's more likely? That we'll convince people to cut their energy consumption in half, or convince people to purchase higher efficiency equipment and slowly move over to cleaner forms of energy as they become available? What's needed in the climate debate is a healthy dose of pragmatism.

specialist3• 13 years ago

I have a minority view: Climate change is now in a positive feedback loop (thawing tundra, forests burning, ocean acidification) and ceasing human activity won't stop it.

I believe we need to proactively remove atmospheric CO2. Retool our economy and industrial might for that job.

To do that, we need a strong economy.

I'm not saying more, cheaper fossil fuels is a good thing. I just think we should play the cards we're dealt (to ourselves).

Xeoncross• 13 years ago

Source? I keep hearing this - but only see a small sampling of papers from the large scientific community.

foobarbazqux2• 13 years ago

I wouldn't say that oil demand has peaked from looking at that graph. I'd say it took a big hit right around the time of the 2008 financial crash and is recovering along with the rest of the economy, or perhaps lagging somewhat.

joshuahedlund2• 13 years ago

There's definitely a hit from the financial crash, but there's also been no increase since that drop for four straight years, during which the economy has presumably been recovering, albeit slowly; I suspect the decrease in retiring Boomers driving, decrease in new teenagers driving, increase in fuel efficiency, increase in non-driving entertainment like social networks, etc are all outweighing the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been created since then. The huge growth in electric vehicles in the last 2-3 years[1] is probably to small to have an impact on that graph now, but give it a few more...

[1]http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/IV-AA467_ECARS_G_2...

_delirium2• 13 years ago

There's some uncertainty about whether shale-gas is actually better than coal, due to the substantial (but poorly measured) "fugitive gas" losses direct to the atmosphere in gas recovery. This paper estimates that replacing coal with shale-gas leads to about 20% worse greenhouse-gas impact: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/greeninc/Howarth20...

Some commentary on the paper and reactions to it, which concludes mostly that better data would be nice: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/fracki...

snowwrestler• 13 years ago

A study that was just released found lower values for the amount of methane that escapes than the 2011 study.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/10/1304880110.abst...

Not saying this should end the debate, but it's another data point.

ChuckMcM2• 13 years ago

From a public health perspective, unless fracking can be tied to water table contamination in a systemic way (as opposed to in the occasional accidental way) its going to be head and shoulders above Coal, both in the extraction, the processing, and the burning categories.

SM_MS• 13 years ago

This paper is actually the start of a very interesting academic brawl. I've reviewed that paper by Howarth and found it lacking in many ways. Howarth is included in a trio of academics from Cornell University that have become popular in the media for denouncing the increasing use of natural gas, and even suggest that coal is cleaner on a short time scale. Since this initial paper was published there has been a flurry of responses from another academic at Cornell, named Lawrence Cathles. Cathles is also the only geologist in the group, Howarth is a prof of ecology and Ingraffea is a structural engineer. This article sums up the history between Cathles and Howarth. [2] So far Cathles has written at this point two or three papers in response to Howarth's original paper, and one of the later ones is a bit of a scientific smackdown.[1] It concludes that the estimates of fugitive gas emissions are very high and other assumptions are made that badly shift the conclusions against natural gas. The response papers by Cathles are very fun to read and I think they provide a great introduction to the current climate science on natural gas.

[1] http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/PeoplePlaces/Faculty/cathles/...

[2] http://energyindepth.org/national/cornell-response-to-cornel...

wahsd• 13 years ago

Sorry, but as much as I want them to succeed too, the "alternative" energies just do not have the capacity to replace the "traditional" fuels. The problem with America is that we have a problem with glut and self-destructive greed, which is why all of our "green" efforts are nothing but window-dressing, facade, and self-delusion while be destroy and consume our way into disaster. There is never any real sacrifice or pain (which comes from withdrawing from pernicious and bad things that feel so good in the short term), especially in things that would actually make a difference.

nsxwolf2• 13 years ago

Sorry, I am not into sacrifice and pain. Please continue developing energy technologies so that I can live in a house with lights and running water, and have a car that can get me and my family around.

Shivetya• 13 years ago

may I ask whom you think is taking the lead in this area? Surely some country must meet this criteria?

What kind of sacrifice or pain? What steps have you done that constitute sacrifice and pain as part of your contribution? Yeah, being trite here, but I rarely find those professing a need for others to give up rarely do so themselves, they have endless levels of justification, usually starting with how smart they are.

dnissley• 13 years ago

Here's a good article[1] on why US oil consumption has declined in recent years.

Basically: Improved vehicle MPG, flat/decreasing VMT [2], decreasing non-highway use of distillate [3], improved industrial efficiency, and a shrinking industrial sector.

[1] http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9811

[2] - Vehicle Miles Traveled

[3] http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/twiparch/2013/130227/twippr...

Someone• 13 years ago

That "shrinking industrial sector" without a shrinking consumption probably means that other countries, in particular China, burn oil/gas/nuclear to produce stuff for the USA.

A honest "are the US using less oil" evaluation should include that energy, just like ecological footprint calculations include imports of materials.

coldcode• 13 years ago

But it costs more to produce here. Most oil wells in Texas for example are now fairly low volume and require a lot of expense to pump. The Saudi wells are so high volume they spend almost nothing to get the oil out. Also the Saudis generally control the output to keep the price high. If they wanted to they could flood the world with oil.

Gas is a different story but currently the price is pretty low compared to oil.

Lagged2Death• 13 years ago

The Saudi wells are so high volume they spend almost nothing to get the oil out. Also the Saudis generally control the output to keep the price high. If they wanted to they could flood the world with oil.

This has long been the comforting conventional wisdom, but there have been contrarians. One wrote a book-length argument:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/047173876X

The argument is more-or-less that the Saudis have in fact been struggling just to keep output more-or-less flat. Their ability to open the taps to control prices is a thing of the past. They've made massive capital investments in the field operations, yet despite very high prices and an opportunity to make staggering profits, their output has only changed modestly and has never hit the peaks they've promised in the past (12 million bbl/day, I believe was what they claimed they could do; 7-8 million bbl/day is about all they've ever done lately).

mseebach• 13 years ago

Surely if you count the value of not having to pander to the Saudi regime anymore, it can't be that bad.

alphydan• 13 years ago

So the US produces 11 mbpd (million barrels per day) of liquids (oil, gas2liquids, ethanol, biodiesel). However it consumes about 19 mpbd [0]. Unfortunately this is just a bleep because more expensive prices have made fracking (a 30 - 20 year old technology) economical, but the typical decline rates of these fields are extremely high (produces loads the first year, dies out very very quickly thereafter) [1]. In the longer view (5 - 10 yrs) it's a bump in a long,unstoppable and ever more expensive decline [2].

[0] http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm

[1] http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9506

[2] http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/10/02/our-oil-problems-are-no...

known• 13 years ago

Will US stop importing oil and gas?

ChuckMcM2• 13 years ago

The US is on track to become a net exporter of natural gas. Is that what you are asking?

guyzero• 13 years ago

This should really be "US now produces more oil and gas than Russia OR Saudi Arabia" as the US does not produce more than Russia and Saudi Arabia combined.

chiph• 13 years ago

I'm wondering if this was a strategy on the part of Nixon, Ford & Carter -- make US oil more expensive so that we leave it in the ground and use everyone else's oil, and when that's gone we still have our reserves to draw on.

U.S. is now the world’s biggest oil and gas producer

Related Stories