

U.S. is now the world’s biggest oil and gas producer - ck2
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-ticker/2013/10/04/move-over-russia-u-s-is-now-the-worlds-biggest-oil-gas-producer/

======
joshuahedlund
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...](http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WRPUPUS2&f=W)
[2]
[http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012...](http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/08/in-
a-surprise-co2-emissions-hit-20-year-low/1)

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

~~~
silverlight
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?

~~~
coherentpony
[http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UknaKlN7WMc](http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UknaKlN7WMc)

~~~
jadc
That's a very useful report but where does it support the claim of "the
current move towards fracking as climate suicide"?

------
alphydan
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](http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm)

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

[2] [http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/10/02/our-oil-problems-are-
no...](http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/10/02/our-oil-problems-are-not-over/)

------
coldcode
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
_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](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).

------
e13tra
Looks like the new arms race is about digging your own environmental grave.

~~~
ck2
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.

~~~
jhatax
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)

~~~
jadc
Based on a quick read of [1], it seems that using saline water is more
expensive because of the preparation that is needed, so _for now_ , it is
easier to start with fresh water and add additives.

Also seems the consideration is about saline aquifers and not ocean water. I
suspect the cost of transporting ocean water is the issue leading to this
consideration.

[1] [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-
business/breakthrou...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-
business/breakthrough/taking-the-water-out-of-fracking/article13876363/)

------
triplesec
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.

~~~
seiji
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.

~~~
triplesec
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.

------
guyzero
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.

------
devx
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.

~~~
ihsw
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.

~~~
hrishirc
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...

~~~
ihsw
The point is control -- look no further than the Carter Doctrine to understand
the basis of America's foreign policy in the Middle East.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_doctrine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_doctrine)

It's the reason the US Marines have their own air force -- they don't want
someone else second-guessing their decisions.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
Thank you for making this point. The economically literate see "price
controls" and think "oh no, that is inefficient wrt price! This has been
proven." But the point of price control isn't prices, it's control.

------
ck2
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.

~~~
maxerickson
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/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm)

[http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_ist_a2dcu_nus_a.htm](http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_ist_a2dcu_nus_a.htm)

~~~
ck2
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.

~~~
maxerickson
Are you sure the majority of it would be for export?

A big driver of exports is simply the fact that lots of places don't have
refinery capacity. People in such places are willing to pay more than people
in the U.S., with its relative abundance of refineries.

The rest of the 'not consuming our own content' is just a logistics thing, the
cheapest oil is generally used, not the oil that crosses the least borders.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>>>> A big driver of exports is simply the fact that lots of places don't have
refinery capacity.

I've been harping on this for years. You can produce billions of gallons of
oil, but if you can't refine it, it's a loss leader and a big reason why our
gas continues to hover around $4.

If we owned the whole cycle from drilling, production, refinement and
consumption, it would be huge. Cutting out the refining middle man would save
us billions and dramatically reduce the price per gallon. It's just simple
supply and demand.

Just in case you wanted to know. .

[http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=29&t=6](http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=29&t=6)

The last refinery was built in 2008. Before that, in 1998. The majority of
refineries were built in the 1970's - go figure, when oil was suddenly
abundant and post OPEC embargo, very, very cheap.

~~~
jfb
For instance, Iran, one of the largest oil producing countries in the world,
has to import refined gasoline, diesel, &c., because they lack refinery
capacity. This in turn leads to enormous expenditures on subsidies to keep
consumers and businesses running. One of the drivers for their nuclear program
(setting aside the geopolitics of the bomb) is to reduce the cost of domestic
energy production.

------
chiph
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.

------
known
Will US stop importing oil and gas?

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

