Slashdot Mirror
US Now Produces More Oil and Gas Than Russia and Saudi Arabia
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Claudia Assis writes that the US will end 2013 as the world's largest producer of petroleum and natural gas, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia with the Energy Information Administration estimating that combined US petroleum and gas production this year will hit 50 quadrillion British thermal units, or 25 million barrels of oil equivalent a day, outproducing Russia by 5 quadrillion Btu. Most of the new oil was coming from the western states. Oil production in Texas has more than doubled since 2010. In North Dakota, it has tripled, and Oklahoma, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah have also shown steep rises in oil production over the same three years, according to EIA data. Tapping shale rock for oil and gas has fueled the US boom, while Russia has struggled to keep up its output. 'This is a remarkable turn of events,' says Adam Sieminski, head of the US Energy Information Administration. 'This is a new era of thinking about market conditions, and opportunities created by these conditions, that you wouldn't in a million years have dreamed about.' But even optimists in the US concede that the shale boom's longevity could hinge on commodity prices, government regulations and public support, the last of which could be problematic. A poll last month by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that opposition to increased use of fracking rose to 49% from 38% in the previous six months. 'It is not a supply question anymore,' says Ken Hersh. 'It is about demand and the cost of production. Those are the two drivers."'"
1) Import as much as possible
2) stockpile it
3) resell later for massive profit
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
I wonder what this means for geopolitics... will the US continue to support the Saudis etc?
OTOH I expect we'll just see Jevons Paradox in action, which would mean we still need the Saudis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
No. While the long-term implications of increased production are troubling, and there should be local concern regarding fracking(I've changed my mind, real scientific evidence suggests groundwater contamination isn't uncommon), as far as the big environmental concerns go: it doesn't matter where fossil fuels come from, it matters how much are being burned.
Why are we still paying $3.50/gal for gasoline?
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, is the process of drilling and injecting fluid into the ground at a high pressure in order to fracture shale rocks to release natural gas inside. Each gas well requires an average of 400 tanker trucks to carry water and supplies to and from the site.
It takes 1-8 million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job.
The water brought in is mixed with sand and chemicals to create fracking fluid. Approximately 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used per fracturing.
Up to 600 chemicals are used in fracking fluid, including known carcinogens and toxins such as
The fracking fluid is then pressure injected into the ground through a drilled pipeline.
500,000 Active gas wells in the US X 8 million Gallons of water per fracking X 18 Times a well can be fracked
72 trillion gallons of water
and
360 billion gallons of chemicals
needed to run our current gas wells.
The mixture reaches the end of the well where the high pressure causes the nearby shale rock to crack, creating fissures where natural gas flows into the well.
During this process, methane gas and toxic chemicals leach out from the system and contaminate nearby groundwater.
Methane concentrations are 17x higher in drinking-water wells near fracturing sites than in normal wells.
Contaminated well water is used for drinking water for nearby cities and towns. There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water. Only 30-50% of the fractring fluid is recovered, the rest of the toxic fluid is left in the ground and is not biodegradable. The waste fluid is left in open air pits to evaporate, releasing harmful VOC’s (volatile organic compounds) into the atmosphere, creating contaminated air, acid rain, and ground level ozone. In the end, hydraulic fracking produces approximately 300,000 barrels of natural gas a day, but at the price of numerous environmental, safety, and health hazards.
2 Factors.
America uses more oil then it produces but produces more gas then it uses.
America has a lot of refiners. IIRC Nigeria exports oil to the US where it is refined into gasoline and shipped back. Also remember that plastic is comes from oil and gas - and we produce and consume a lot of plastic.
I just paid $3.17 last night, just 5% over your $3 target so I'd say we're getting close. What I don't get is why LSC is still at $109 a barrel, with US production up this much and global demand still slightly below 2007 levels we should be under $80, probably around $75. The only thing I can think of is inflation and speculation, and no other metric shows a 25% inflationary factor for the dollar so it has to be down to speculation and manipulation by the financial players, can we please limit their interaction with the commodities market please so the rest of the broader market can reap some of the benefits of this cheaper fuel.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Nobody drinks water anymore. That's what's in toilets. It doesn't have electrolytes. It doesn't have what plants crave.
I have read several articles and reports by economists and geologists claiming this fracking boom is a bubble. The estimate of 100 years worth of gas is overstated. It seems 25 years worth of gas is more likely, less if gas exports are allowed. Then the bubble bursts. The shale oil bubble is worse, 80% of shale oil comes from two rapidly declining deposits, so unless replacements deposits are found that bubble bursts in ten years or so,. Also, we haven't even started talking about limiting factors like environmental issues and the increasing cost of maintaining production levels as the best deposits are used up. As usual everybody is so busy dancing to the buzz they don't stop to think.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
but produces more gas then it uses.
You leave congress out of it!
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
That strategy seems to work well for aluminium oxide, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, diamonds, ferrochromium, ferromanganese, iodine, iridium, mica, niobium, platinum group metals, talc, tantalum, thorium, tin, tungsten and zinc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_National_Stockpile_Center
Oil production in Texas has more than doubled since 2010
Huh, that's interesting because I thought that it was more or less established that the lower 48 states hit peak oil a while ago. The price went up, but production didn't, because they couldn't, because it wasn't there.
Oh, wait, yeah, here we go:
It doubled from almost nothing. (linked like it's hot) And here's the larger picture.
Now, the main thrust of the article could be right on the money because it lumps natural gas in with oil and we've got a new way of squeezing gas out of the ground. WOO! Let's here it for technological innovation making the world a better place! But pointing out how Texas has doubled production from 300 to 600 million of barrels per year when it used to produce over 1200, and other than the last few years has been in decline since the 70's.... it's a little disingenuous.
But it's interesting that Texas has indeed ramped up oil production. There's probably a pretty serious story about why they're doing it NOW as opposed to during the massive scare that preceded the econopocalypse cica 2006.
You're more Illinois Nazi than Grammar Nazi. A proper Grammar Nazi would not have used a comma to separate independent clauses without a conjunction. Perosnally, I would have preferred a semi-colon. All the cool Nazis are using them these days.
THIS is what I believe is the US's plan to remain relevant in the coming economic collapse. As the rest of the world attempts to "route around" the damage caused by the US, the US's energy independence and abundance will make the US into an attractive exporter to control and keep the price of energy lower. At the end of the day, it's energy that runs the world. It is figuratively and literally a "power struggle."
Russia: $2.10 / gallon
Saudi Arabia: $0.91 / gallon
How many billions of dollars per year do we give the oil and natural gas industry in tax breaks every year? That savings is passed on to the consumer, right? It's not like oil companies are still raking in record profits.
Since the U.S. doesn't have a state run oil company, U.S. consumers get no special benefit from oil and natural gas production in the US being at an all time high. The oil companies sell it on the open market, it doesn't matter where it came out of the ground. Furthermore, production increases in the US will not outweigh demand increases across the rest of the world.
Net result: U.S. consumers still pay the same, the U.S. Government still gives oil companies tax breaks while they laugh their ass to the bank, a lot of people's groundwater is being contaminated, and in the end we will have nothing to show for it.
You may be forgetting that (we are told that) oil price is set in the global marketplace. "American" oil does not stay in America. This "fact" is always used to explain price increases. Increased "American" oil production will only effect oil prices in the context of global supply. "Drill baby Drill would have only marginal downward presure on prices. So it follows that "Hoard baby Hoard" would also have only marginal upward presure on oil prices. All this talk about increased American production being a boon to Americal consumers is mostly nonsense. Same applies to the argument that the Keystone pipeline would be a boon to consumers here in America. These are con jobs designed to make a very small handful of already very wealthty Americans even more wealthty. Most Americans will/would see very small price changes at the pump.
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
America may now be the world's biggest oil producer, but in contrast to other oil producing countries around the world, where multinational oil companies must hand over most of their profits (90% in Saudi Arabia), when they pump it out of the ground in the United States they pay zero taxes and are even subsidized with hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Why? Because of political bribery, now legal thanks to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which has created a corrupt Congress that affects both Democrats and Republicans alike.
Luckily there is still hope: it's called Wolf-PAC. This organization was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Constitutional Amendment to end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections. Since Congress won't pass an Amendment like this on its own, the idea is to have the State Legislators propose it instead by way of an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, so it's not an easy thing to do, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, notably Texas. If successful, Congress should be fixed within one or two election cycles.
The US consumes 7 billion barrels of oil per year (around 19 million barrels per day). Way more than the 12~13 million barrels produced in the US (according to the graph).
Reference: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6
Not necessarily - depends on the reason for the stockpile. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is designed to alleviate short term fluctuations such as in an embargo or war. It's oil you can get out by flipping a switch. Leaving it in the ground would be a longer term stockpile. However, it's not like you can just punch a hole in the ground and set up a tap and collect the dollars. Wells cost a lot of money so sinking them and leaving them to produce at some unknown time in the future is not an economically viable proposition unless you plan on nationalizing the oil companies.
The economics of oil production are complex and odd. Public companies pretty much have to drill constantly as their stock prices depend mostly on proven reserves rather than actual production. And you don't know what you have until you've got it.
Further, there are tragedy of the the commons issues - if you don't drill out the reservoir you've already spent time and money developing, that clown on your right just might beat you to it.
So 'efficiency' is a poor, nebulous metric. Given the private ownership of oil companies in this country a long term holding strategy isn't going to happen. It's not rational and it's not in the societies best long term interest, but it's what we've got.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You may be forgetting that (we are told that) oil price is set in the global marketplace. "American" oil does not stay in America. This "fact" is always used to explain price increases. Increased "American" oil production will only effect oil prices in the context of global supply. "Drill baby Drill would have only marginal downward presure on prices. So it follows that "Hoard baby Hoard" would also have only marginal upward presure on oil prices. All this talk about increased American production being a boon to Americal consumers is mostly nonsense. Same applies to the argument that the Keystone pipeline would be a boon to consumers here in America. These are con jobs designed to make a very small handful of already very wealthty Americans even more wealthty. Most Americans will/would see very small price changes at the pump.
For oil this is true. The cost to ship oil is quite low, so oil produced in one country doesn't really help lower prices. The price is reasonably the same around the world.
For natural gas, this doesn't apply. Transporting large amounts of natural gas is expensive. It is energy intensive to compress and cool the gas into a liquid. Some gas is lost during the ocean journey, either as blowoff (LNG ships typically do not have liquification equipment on board, so as the gas heats up, it boils off), fuel for the ship, or both. Right now the US has huge natural gas production, but moving it outside of the US is expensive. So natural gas in the US costs ~25% what it costs in Europe, and ~35% of what it costs in Russia. The natural gas boom IS keeping gas prices very low, and in places where electricity and heating is gas, this is saving US consumers a lot of money.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.