[Plantagenet]

The International Energy Agency (IEA) just released a report projecting that the USA will be the world's top oil producer in five years.

IEA says USA to be world's top oil producer by 2018

I've got to confess I have a hard time accepting these kinds of projections. While I support frakking and applaud North Dakota and Texas for their success in growing their oil production through frakking, I still can't quite believe that the US oil production will continue to grow rapidly for the next five years to the point that we surpass Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest oil producer.

[dsula]

It's amazing, isn't it. And yet, OF2 + Shorty + meeme + others are constanly beat up for showing that the world is not as simple as doomer might like it to be. So whether the 1970 USA peak holds, remains to be seen. Even if the new peak won't beat the old, the depletion curve don't follow gauss anymore.
What a crazy world.

[lowem]

This is the press release for the IEA World Energy Outlook 2012 report and this is the current direct link to the executive sumamry.

As expected, they are pointing to shale oil and its close relation, "light tight oil" in the US to grow to levels surpassing Saudi Arabia, at least in the summary. Well, the details will cost you 150 euros for the paper edition or 120 euros for PDF. I'd suppose I don't need to buy it to guess they're probably doing some kind of extrapolation perhaps. Maybe it's even non-linear.

[copious.abundance]

For all who thought US oil production was dead, click here. Make sure your computer speakers are on.

[Plantagenet]

Bloomburg/Businessweek contacted leading peak oilers to ask about the "USA world's top oil producer" story, and then gently mocked them. People commenting were less kind in their comments about peak oil---one comparing it to flat earthers and another to the Romney campaign

peak oil mocked after IEA prediction

THis is very bad PR for peak oil. Whatever chance peak oil had of being addressed as a major global problem by governments and/or the UN in the near future is probably gone now, just as Saudi production is likely to start falling due to peaking at Ghawar..


Ghawar peaking as world parties on....

[SpringCreekFarm]

Good news. It may be enough to help with the development of more sustainable, renewable energies and technologies. It may be the reserve tank selection the US needs. If only the political will existed to go in this direction, you'd have a better chance post peak.

[vtsnowedin]

Read it closely. It projects that "North America" not the USA will be a net exporter by 2030. That means that we will be still importing oil in 2029. If we have the money to pay for it that is. I suppose that KSA might fall off quite a bit by 2030 so we might indeed exceed them in net exports but it might be as little as 1000 barrels a year. Get real we are using 19 MBD and producing just 6MBD. If we ever got to the point where we could export any net oil we would be better off leaving it in the ground and letting our enemies starve.

[SpringCreekFarm]

Some believe North America should exploit foreign oil as much as possible and leave North American oil for last. Corporate thinking will make sure that never happens. Drill baby....

[ColossalContrarian]

Some believe North America should exploit foreign oil as much as possible and leave North American oil for last. Corporate thinking will make sure that never happens. Drill baby....

Corporate thinking would have taken advantage of this already, it's nothing new. If it were really the boon the IEA says -who's been late to the party, there would be a pipeline across the country up or down to Canada....

I see nuclear having a better chance than shale and there really is no argument against that. I'm not saying I support it, that's just how it is.

Big Oil has a lot of money. The banks will loan them money based of this nonsense the same way they did to Americans buying homes. They'll bite the dust for their malinvestment and be bailed out again. I still think NG should be pursued but conservation should be concentrated on more. I have a feeling it isn't as profitable though.

[Pops]

Hmmm.

So supply increases an average of.5mb/d over the next 23 years in their best scenario - with China consuming half of that... but it's OK because we'll be paying our tithes to the Koch Bros instead of the Saudi Bros.

Oh and we'll be getting more "efficient".

If efficient means slowing economic growth, we've been getting more "efficient" right along as Gail shows:



So far that level of oil supply growth doesn't correlate with a very robust growth in GDP so we'd better be getting more efficient.


On the other hand, their "efficiency" scenario predicts a peak of 91Mb/d in 2020. Ah, now we're getting there. Take a look at the summary, the entire report is pushing climate change and efficiency. What is the definition of efficiency? It's getting by with less.

Or in PO terms: Demand Destruction.

[Pops]

As to the NYT (and every other "news" source) headline, the point isn't that we'll be pumping so much oil but that we'll be using so much less. I kept looking at the summary to find the actual numbers but wasn't able.

But, surprise, surprise, the NYT made a mistake:

Correction: November 12, 2012

An earlier version of this article misstated the International Energy Agency’s prediction of American self-sufficiency in energy production. The agency said 55 percent of the improvement would come from more oil production and 45 percent from improvements in energy efficiency. It did not say that domestic oil production would rise 55 percent.

[Pops]

Another coup for the Oil and Gas Lobby.

ETA, this is why I linked to the report itself instead of the headlines. We are used to having everything predigested for us from our food to our news. It puts us at the mercy of not only the people who will make shit up for their own benefit but the people who are just too stupid to read anything critically.

Argh. Everything is Fine says the NYT*
* all we gotta do is use half as much oil and there will be a glut of oil!

Think the headline at the top of this thread will be retracted by the NYT? Think it will be retracted by the 99% of rags and blogs that retweet it?

Criminy...

[Pops]

Maybe Plant could change the thread title to reflect the error of the NYT?

[dissident]

Improvements in energy efficiency is a euphemism for: people will not be able to drive as much as they used to and those that do will be driving smaller cars. Oil is not used in power plants (enough to matter) and is mostly consumed by transportation. I do not see any miracle technology coming to transportation. Plug in electrics are running on coal and natural gas. Tractor trailers are still burning diesel.

[Plantagenet]

Another coup for the Oil and Gas Lobby......Argh. Everything is Fine says the NYT*
Think the headline at the top of this thread will be retracted by the NYT? Think it will be retracted by the 99% of rags and blogs that retweet it?

Criminy...

Exactly right.

The NY TIMES is the voice of the liberal establishment and the same NY TIMES that says climate change is a disaster and needs immediate action is shouting to the world and the TPTB that peak oil is a big nothing, and the USA is awash in oil.

I'd look for at least another 4 years of inaction on the peak oil issue----and by then it will be too late.

PS: Sorry Pops---I didn't see your earlier thread on the IEA. In practice, this thread is turning out to be mainly about the MSM coverage of the IEA.

[Plantagenet]

Now the venerable leftist GUARDIAN newspaper in England is bashing peak oil---their environment editor just wrote "PEAK OIL HAS GONE UP IN FLAMES".....and........"the problem isn't that we have too little oil-the problem is that we have too much."

The Guardian says Peak Oil has gone up in flames

Its kind of amazing to see the mainstream liberal media slamming the door on any discussion of peak oil.

Whatever happened to the 60s adage "Question Authority"? The folks in the MSM today seem to just believe whatever an authority figure says to them.

[Pops]

The reaction from “peak oil” theorists? Not a chance. They continue to argue that the surge in U.S. production coming from shale oil and shale gas is a flash in the pan. Before long, they say, U.S. output will start falling again—as will global output. The price of oil will skyrocket and the industrial economy will be brought to its knees, they argue...

I then reached Jeremy Leggett, a British solar energy entrepreneur who is chairman of a company called Solarcentury and who writes about energy issues, including peak oil. His talking points were more polished than Aleklett’s, but he hit the same arguments. Like the Swede, he said he doesn’t think production from unconventional sources such as shale is sustainable for long.

“On the massive balance of probabilities, not withstanding the U.S. phenomenon, there’s going to be a descent of global production and much higher prices, by 2015 at the latest,” Leggett said.

I asked him if it’s harder for him to persuade people now than it was before the surprising resurgence in U.S. output. Yes, he said. “It’s a comfortable narrative, and people are desperate to believe comfortable narratives.

Read the rest at Bloomberg BusinessWeek

[Pops]

The U.S. Won't Be Energy Independent Even If We Pump More Oil Than Saudi Arabia

[ralfy]

"Sorry, Here's Why People Aren't Buying The Report About The US Achieving Oil Independence"

http://www.businessinsider.com/iea-repo ... ce-2012-11

[copious.abundance]

^
As Pops pointed out on the previous page, according to Birol at the IEA, they're assuming a dramatic reduction in US oil consumption in addition to increased domestic production. Have no idea if that'll actually come to pass, but with the new CAFE standards coming online the next 10+ years I wouldn't be too surprised.

NY Times

Dr. Birol said the agency’s prediction of increasing American self-sufficiency was 55 percent a reflection of more oil production and 45 percent a reflection of improving energy efficiency in the United States, primarily from the Obama administration’s new fuel economy standards for cars.