U.S. to Overtake Saudi Arabia as Top Oil Producer, Agency Forecasts

[groovedaddy]

(Hold on. Didn't Obama put a damper on energy production? gd)

LONDON (Reuters) - The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's top oil producer by 2017, the West's energy agency said on Monday, predicting Washington will come very close to achieving a previously unthinkable energy self-sufficiency.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said it saw a continued fall in U.S. oil imports with North America becoming a net oil exporter by around 2030 and the United States becoming almost self-sufficient in energy by 2035.

"The United States, which currently imports around 20 percent 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," it said.

The forecasts by the IEA, which advises large industrialized nations on energy policy, were in sharp contrast to its previous reports, which saw Saudi Arabia remaining the top producer until 2035.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/11/12/business/12reuters-iea-oil-report.html?ref=business&_r=0

[theoldman]

1. We only have about 3% of the worlds oil reserve.

Saudi Arabia has 250%.

[groovedaddy]

2. How do they have 250% Isn't 100% max? n/t

[joshcryer]

3. This is shale oil. The US has the largest reserves in the world.

About 1.5 trillion barrels of recoverable reserves by the profiteers estimates.

Whether those estimates are correct isn't relevant, I'm just clarifying that's where they get the number from.

[joshcryer]

4. I've been predicting this for awhile now.

[FBaggins]

5. No need for the frowny face. It's not a bad thing.

It's good news economically - it cuts the trade deficit and sends taxes/fees to local/state/federal governments

It's good news on the foreign policy front - Possibly fewer wars in the middle east if we aren't relying on them for oil.

It's even good news for the environment. Oil is fungible. The global price is going to be the global price (give or take a little for transport). So we're going to burn however much we're going to burn. It can't hurt (in the long run) for the impact (drilling/pollution) of that production to be felt here in the U.S. rather than just on the other side of the world.

[joshcryer]

6. It's bad for a few reasons. BLM is only getting pennies on the dollar.

The environmental impact of shale oil exploration is massive (though post-drilling reconstruction can work, it's all dependent upon the charity of the corporations). Go look at the pictures of the oil shale exploration spots in Rifle, Colorado. I've seen them in person. Reconstruction is expensive and someone must pay for it.

It threatens groundwater, even with the freeze plug technology, I can't see it being 100% effective. The Colorado rockies literally water the west.

Economically speaking, I think I would be more open to it if BLM was getting 50% of the profits. But as I said it's much smaller than that. Like a few percent. I'll have to look up the number again because this will be an important point that needs to be made.

Yeah, it'll hire a lot of roughnecks and 401k's can grow from it (oh, and CEO's pockets can be lined), but it should also go to social welfare and environmental reconstruction if we're going to take it seriously.

Earlier post on this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11277814

[hatrack]

9. Best single stat I can recall about kerogen operations:

Fully exploiting the Green River Shale would require duplicating the generating capacity of the state of Colorado.

This was from a guy at Honeywell who was doing a presentation on microwave in situ.

Oh, and where's the water going to come from? Diverting the Great Lakes?

[happyslug]

8. No it is NOT good News, depends on a lot of "bad things"

First, as I stated in my comment on another thread, we are looking at $10 a gallon gasoline, and somehow we have a massive drop in internal oil use, i.e. we give up on suburbia. Given that is where the money is today, we are looking a some very rough times.

[happyslug]

7. I responded to this in another thread

That thread used Bloomberg instead of the New York Times, but both used the underlying International Energy Agency Summary as the basis for their report.

The previous thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014301394

The IEA's actual report
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/English.pdf

I think this is wishful thinking, but see my comments on the other thread for details.