[Sixstrings]

U.S. Seen as Biggest Oil Producer After Overtaking Saudi Arabia

The U.S. will remain the world’s biggest oil producer this year after overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia as extraction of energy from shale rock spurs the nation’s economic recovery, Bank of America Corp. said.

U.S. production of crude oil, along with liquids separated from natural gas, surpassed all other countries this year with daily output exceeding 11 million barrels in the first quarter, the bank said in a report today. The country became the world’s largest natural gas producer in 2010. The International Energy Agency said in June that the U.S. was the biggest producer of oil and natural gas liquids.

“The U.S. increase in supply is a very meaningful chunk of oil,” Francisco Blanch, the bank’s head of commodities research, said by phone from New York. “The shale boom is playing a key role in the U.S. recovery. If the U.S. didn’t have this energy supply, prices at the pump would be completely unaffordable.”

Oil extraction is soaring at shale formations in Texas and North Dakota as companies split rocks using high-pressure liquid, a process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The surge in supply combined with restrictions on exporting crude is curbing the price of West Texas Intermediate, America’s oil benchmark. The U.S., the world’s largest oil consumer, still imported an average of 7.5 million barrels a day of crude in April, according to the Department of Energy’s statistical arm.


Photographer: Matthew Staver/Bloomberg
An oil drilling rig stands on the Bakken formation in Watford City, North Dakota.
Surpassing Saudi

U.S. oil output will surge to 13.1 million barrels a day in 2019 and plateau thereafter, according to the IEA, a Paris-based adviser to 29 nations. The country will lose its top-producer ranking at the start of the 2030s, the agency said in its World Energy Outlook in November.

“It’s very likely the U.S. stays as No. 1 producer for the rest of the year” as output is set to increase in the second half, Blanch said. Production growth outside the U.S. has been lower than the bank anticipated, keeping global oil prices high, he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html

Ok I'm no oil expert I'm sure y'all will have comment on this.

Interesting: without all this extra domestic production, our price at pump would be "completely unaffordable." Well that's good.

And I guess USA will stay #1 in oil production until 2030.

[Pops]

So you finally decided to post on the topic here.

[Paulo1]

Wow, they now produce 1/2 of what they use!

Of course it is still a world market as well. I suppose this article will be used to push stocks higher on hangover Monday.

Paulo

[Synapsid]

The article is talking about crude + condensate + NGL. We've seen this dodge before.

[ROCKMAN]

What always amazes me about some reports is the excitement they seem to want to generate. The US has been one of the largest oil producers on the planet since the beginning tome. So we move from #3 to #2. Yawn. LOL. And NG? For most of history the US has been the largest producer of NG on the planet occasionally swapping the title with Russia,

[Byron Walter]

LTO has given us a stay of execution... but as for how long? Even the opinions of the 'experts' vary wildly. That increase, combined with around a 2 mmbpd drop in consumption has given the entire world a little breathing room as well. It adds up to more than 6 mmbpd of additional oil available for the global market at current prices. I'm not inclined to think that this is going to end well.

[Longtimber]

"Photographer: Matthew Staver/Bloomberg
An oil drilling rig stands on the Bakken formation in Watford City, North Dakota.
Surpassing Saudi" Hmmm
--Great Image... much going on there.. Invisible drilling rig? Surpassing Saudi? why the white Jack? Perhaps that one is Number 50,000? BOA? - An institution backing title's to SUV's which depreciate faster than pump prices rise. How is a pickup" Like a Rock" anyway? Oh .. had to think about it.

[GregT]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I wonder what words our grandchildren will use to describe what we are leaving behind for them?

Thanks, does not come to mind.

[Sixstrings]

The article is talking about crude + condensate + NGL. We've seen this dodge before.

Yeah, I know that, but the article says "oil" -- largest "oil" producer. I'm sorry I'm such a peak oil idiot, but what exactly is "condensate" (is that shale?) and I guess NGL is liquified natural gas.

Ok fine shale is "oil," but liquified nat gas is not. So how can they keep saying largest "oil" producer?

[Sixstrings]

So you finally decided to post on the topic here.

I'm a zeitgeist person, if it's in the zeitgest I post it!

And we can't have the place turning into peak-obama-peak-ukraine-peakisis-peakclimatechange-peakcapitalismarguments.com

Come on Pops, you know I liven things up and drive traffic, and y'all still have the oil threads too.

(I got hooked here originally for the economics discussions, I never was into oil.. I see the same problems you do, the US falling apart a bit and society changing and economics problems, I just don't see the oil connection)

And I just derailed the topic, let's stick to oil. This is an OIL thread. Let's keep it dull and boring, just oil.

Questions at hand (that I wonder anyway):

1) How can we say we are #1 "oil" producer in the world, if natgas is definitely not oil.
2) Can everyone admit that something's going right, the shale is working out? That's why we're not paying a fortune at the pump.
3) What are the real details about all this shale oil, ok so the US peaks in 2030 but what about the rest of world? Isn't there shale all over the place? How long do we have on that?

[ROCKMAN]

six - Before the shale boom you were paying 1/3 the cost to fill your gas tank up. So you're happier now producing the shales since doing so required you to pay 3X as much for oil? I'm pretty sure you and most here understand that if you weren't paying so much for gasoline we wouldn't be drilling the shales. Or dies someone believe the shale boom would continue with $35/bbl oil?

[C8]

All the comments in response to this news really hammer home that Peak Oilers are not characterized mainly by the belief that we will run out of oil- but the desire that we run out of oil.

You can come up with all the reasons you want to dampen the party but it just seems like Peak Oilers WANT doom.

PO argument: yes we are producing more oil- but look at the costs!
Counterargument: oil prices have been stable the last 3 years and are lower than $140 a barrel over 6 years ago- besides which, given what oil can do and how concentrated and energy source it is- it is still a killer bargain at this price. And BTW- inflation has raised the price of many things- why do you still expect oil to be $30 a barrel?

PO argument: But we are still going to run out someday so this news is worthless
Counterargument: yes we will run out, but "when" makes all the difference- with enough time we can transition to other energy sources smoothly- plus research is leading to more energy efficient living. More time changes everything

PO argument: this changes nothing- we are headed for collapse because alternatives will fail- its just a matter of time
Counterargument: this reveals Peak Oil as a faith based movement- not a science based one. There is simply no way to predict the pace and course of future scientific discoveries. The greatest flaw of PO is that is completely relies on the certainty that science is spent- yet no evidence to support this amazing conclusion is ever presented- it is simply accepted as a "Peak Oil Truth." It is in this dogmatic belief that the PO is revealed as more of a religious viewpoint than a rational one. A group so united by the desire to see collapse that objectivity is no longer welcome.

PO argument: this will lead to global warming doom- so more oil condemns us
Counterargument: or it could lead to the time needed for scientific insights which help avert GW. Prosperous economies are more able to fund science research which increase the odds of game changing discoveries. I welcome the rising research in newly prosperous China for instance.

It should be noted that GW is not 100% understood- oceans contain over 90% of all the thermal mass and we have only begun recording deep ocean temperatures very recently- there is still much more to discover to understand what really drives what. The recent deflection of surface temperatures from CO2 levels were not predicted by "experts" 7 years ago- this should give any fair minded person a pause. I am not a denier but I also respect how complex this system is. A truly scientific attitude doesn't not lead to "belief" or "denial"- these are the realm of religion. I believe we should invest in renewables to be on the safe side.

The more you socialize with people based on a knee jerk optimism or pessimism about everything- the more you lose your own independent ability to think clearly. You become a follower- a mental slave. I think things can go either way- that's the only rational conclusion. But for the short term-- more oil production is good news for Americans and the world

[GregT]

All the comments in response to this news really hammer home that Peak Oil deniers are not characterized mainly by the belief that we will never run out of oil- but the desire that we will never run out of oil.

There, fixed it for you.

[Pops]

oil prices have been stable the last 3 years and are lower than $140 a barrel over 6 years ago-

The inflation adjusted, yearly average price of oil has been higher, longer than at any time in history.

--

besides which, given what oil can do and how concentrated and energy source it is- it is still a killer bargain at this price.

Doesn't matter to the economy, what matters is how much we are accustomed to paying. Water is required for survival, do you think it would have no affect on the economy if the price of tap water rose to $4/gallon?

--
Asserted and answered, LOL

argument:plus research is leading to more energy efficient living...

Counterargument:There is simply no way to predict the pace and course of future scientific discoveries.

[forbin]

Hello CB


"All the comments in response to this news really hammer home that Peak Oilers
are not characterized mainly by the belief that we will run out of oil-
but the desire that we run out of oil. "

Your arguement starts from an invalid point or posit.

Peak oil theory is that as regions reach a peak in the production of oil * then so the world reach a
production peak.

Nothing about running out of oil at all .

* whats defined as "oil" has been revised , even if public perception has not caught up.

did that invalidate the PO theory ? Well not really , its a mathematical point it time , very scientific

As for what happens when the ROW find out we've past the world peak - well I'll give you that, lots
of speculation there but thats just the doomerist scenarios verses the GTF ( Great Techno Fix ) ones.

just remember PO is the peak of production , nothing more , nothing less, running out is something else
and you can speculate as much as you like with the rest of them - good luck

Forbin

PS: More time changes everything - as in all things in life - for the better or for the worst and
if you dont plan , then you plan to fail.

[Byron Walter]

...You can come up with all the reasons you want to dampen the party but it just seems like Peak Oilers WANT doom....

...This reveals Peak Oil as a faith based movement- not a science based one. There is simply no way to predict the pace and course of future scientific discoveries. The greatest flaw of PO is that is completely relies on the certainty that science is spent- yet no evidence to support this amazing conclusion is ever presented- it is simply accepted as a "Peak Oil Truth." It is in this dogmatic belief that the PO is revealed as more of a religious viewpoint than a rational one. A group so united by the desire to see collapse that objectivity is no longer welcome....

I became a 'peaker' back around 1999 after reading two opposing articles. One was the Economist article about the world being awash in oil and suggesting that the price could even drop to five bucks a barrel. The other was the Sci America article about global production peaking in the near future. Both articles proved incorrect but I believed that the Sci American article was on to something that I had never considered.

What few of us foresaw was the shale revolution and the overall increase in North American production. If you subtract that out of global production, you might see trouble on the horizon. Or perhaps we will have that Deus ex machina moment and new shale plays will come online in time to take over when the LTO production starts to decline (the 'when' being highly debatable).

I would feel more comfortable with your suggestion that science will save the day if you could point to just what that break through might be. At this point it is little more than metaphysical speculation.

As it is, nothing has the energy density and portability that oil provides for us. At four bucks a gallon I consider gas a steal (my friends complain about the cost of gas frequently but I keep my mouth shut ). It's the incredible return on investment from oil that has allowed the human population to expand to seven billion, and made it possible to have tattoo parlors, Starbucks, smart phones and all the other babbles of contemporary life. From my point of view, the EROEI has been falling and that partially explains the weak economic recovery and why it may never return to the growth levels back when oil was cheap and would squirt out of the ground all on its own.

And at least with me PO is not a dogmatic religious belief that I wish to be 'revealed' to the world. Declining global oil production will be like getting an endless root canal procedure.

At least I've made it pay off as I put my money where my mouth is and putting cash into the energy sector allowed my to bail from my real job years ago. Now I just hang out on the keyboard and take trips in my yacht. Well okay... it's not really a yacht but at least the first two letters are correct. Knock off the last three letters and replace with 'yak'.

[Plantagenet]

nothing has the energy density and portability that oil provides for us. At four bucks a gallon I consider gas a steal

Some other fuels actually have higher energy density, but they have other drawbacks. The closest practical liquid fuel we've got now that could replace gasoline and diesel are liquified natural gas and various forms of alchohol. Both come close to the energy density of gasoline, and at even lower cost.

energy density of fuels

[Byron Walter]

nothing has the energy density and portability that oil provides for us. At four bucks a gallon I consider gas a steal

Some other fuels actually have higher energy density, but they have other drawbacks. The closest practical liquid fuel we've got now that could replace gasoline and diesel are liquified natural gas and various forms of alchohol. Both come close to the energy density of gasoline, and at even lower cost.

energy density of fuels

That's interesting. Here's another wiki link that gives BTU/gal and kWh/gal for liquid fuels...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent

...with Diesel on top for bang for the buck. And as you mentioned lng has infrastructure issues while alcholols have eroei and scalability problems. Fortunately petroleum is renewable but there is an issue with the time frame

[ROCKMAN]

Byron - "I became a 'peaker' back around 1999". You're a tad late but welcome to the party anyway. LOL. I was tutored on the harsh reality of PO in 1975 by my first mentor at Mobil Oil. And no...he didn't call it "PO"...it was the "reserve replacement problem". He explained the difficulty the industry was having then maintaining our oil production rate. Of course, we were in the process of getting incentivized by the 300% increase in oil prices (as well as NG prices) during the late 70's. Which led to a great drilling boom of over 4500 rigs drilling back then. Similar to the current response (1800 rigs drilling) of the recent increase in the price of oil. Unfortunately that boom in drilling over 30 years ago had little significant effect on the US or global oil production. Fortunately the recent increase of 5X the inflation adjusted price of oil in the early 70's has provided an increase in US production. Unfortunately not enough to prevent us from continuing to be an oil importer. Equally unfortunately: even though we have decreased the number of bbls we import the higher prices has us sending more $US out of the country today then when we were importing more. Even more unfortunately the increase in US oil production coincides with our consumers having to pay an additional $500 billion per year for their oil consumption.

So for the most part the PO dynamic has played out as my mentor had forewarned almost 40 years ago. Maybe just a lucky guess on his part. Or maybe it was based upon his 30+ years exploring for oil in the US. And the there was my prediction to my nephew that his young daughters would be facing a harsh energy world when they reached adulthood...sometime around 2010. Maybe just another lucky guess since oil prices had dropped to almost $10/bbl when I made that prediction. Or maybe it had something to do with my long career of chasing what oil we had left in this country.

[maxrates]

I haven't been on this site since 2008. Weren't we all supposed to be dead by now ?