New Oil Boom Reshapes Global Oil World

Russ Steele

This is bad new for APPLE’s Peak Oil  mavens and good news for America. Low and behold this story is by the left wing National Public Radio. Here are some of the details.

“Two years ago, America was importing about two thirds of its oil. Today, according to the Energy Information Administration, it imports less than half. And by 2017, investment bank Goldman Sachs predicts the US could be poised to pass Saudi Arabia and overtake Russia as the world’s largest oil producer.”

 There is more:

 Amy Myers Jaffe of Rice University says in the next decade, new oil in the US, Canada and South America could change the center of gravity of the entire global energy supply.

“Some are now saying, in five or 10 years’ time, we’re a major oil-producing region, where our production is going up,” she says. 

The US, Jaffe says, could have 2 trillion barrels of oil waiting to be drilled. South America could hold another 2 trillion. And Canada? 2.4 trillion. That’s compared to just 1.2 trillion in the Middle East and north Africa.

Jaffe says those new oil reserves, combined with growing turmoil in the Middle East, will “absolutely propel more and more investment into the energy resources in the Americas.”

Russia is already feeling the growth of American energy, Jaffe says. As the U.S. produces more of its own natural gas, Europe is free to purchase liquefied natural gas the US is no longer buying.

“They’re buying less natural gas from Russia,” Jaffe says. “So Russia would only supply 10 percent of European natural gas demand by 2030. That means the Russians are no longer powerful.”

I recommend reading the whole article HERE. Then ask yourself what are the domestic implications? With plentiful oil and cheap gas, do we really need to spend billions on subsides to develop alternative energy to get us off foreign oil, with all this oil in our own back yard.  What will Russia and Saudi Arabia do? They could be subsidizing US environmentalist groups to put a stop to this boom, including environmentalist efforts to demonize “fracking” which is the key technology to this boom.


About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

18 Responses to New Oil Boom Reshapes Global Oil World

  1. gjrebane says:

    Re your exit questions – can anyone spell A-G-E-N-D-A-2-1?

  2. RL Crabb says:

    I showed this to my bro-in-law (retired CEO, Oxy) who laughed and said the numbers are wildly exaggerated. Also, we use oil for plenty of other uses. Doesn’t it make sense to conserve much of these resources for manufacturing, etc. rather than burning them up on the highway? Green energy may be going through a bumpy period, but it’s still the long term solution until something better comes along.

  3. stevefrisch says:

    “They could be subsidizing US environmentalist groups to put a stop to this boom, including environmentalist efforts to demonize “fracking” which is the key technology to this boom.”

    Seriously Russ, the moon could be made of green cheese, …….the Tea Party could be subsidized by secret children of Hitler created by cloning in Paraguay who are intent on taking over the world…….

    I mean really, have you no sense of decency, sir?

  4. Russ, very interesting. I have a friend who was involved in the oil biz in Dallas in the early 80’s. right before the bust in proces. He said the companies were drilling and capping. The theory was use up the other guys first. As far as the eco groups being funded by the competition? Well, I have decided to keep an open mid about that. When you see the Solyndra graft and their guy Kaiser getting a lot of tax payers money through subsideises which then get returned to Obama and the democrats in the form of campaign contributions, I would say it is very possible. I have seen eco reps lie through their teeth over and over again in hearings. Most of them in charge of the non-profits are no better then grifters.

  5. Russ says:


    What green energy are you planning on burning on the highways? At best the range of current electric vehicle is 90 miles in warm weather and 60 in cold weather. There are no electric 18 wheelers to deliver our food stuff yet, no electric tractors to plow the field and harvest the gain.

    With the coming cold, we are going to need all the oil and gas we can get to heat our homes.

  6. Russ says:


    Did I come too close to the truth? Why are you changing the subject? Have you not read the news environmentalist are trying to stop the oil pipeline from Canada and they have forced fracking moratoriums in New York and New Jersey. These are not green cheese actions, they are the actions of dedicated wackos bent on controlling our energy usage. Now why would they want to do that?

  7. RL Crabb says:

    Nobody says we’re going to stop drilling or using oil any time soon. Finding the most efficient use for it is the question. Adding solar, wind, hamsters, whatever, will help to take some of the load. Some will fail, and the govt should be damn careful how they invest, but putting all your eggs in the oil barrel is just plain dumb. As for the climate, history has shown us that it will do whatever it pleases. So many variables that predicting warm or cold is an inexact science at best.

  8. stevefrisch says:

    Russ, I am not changing the subject, I am responding to a direct quote from within your post.

    You said, “What will Russia and Saudi Arabia do? They could be subsidizing US environmentalist groups to put a stop to this boom, including environmentalist efforts to demonize “fracking” which is the key technology to this boom.”

    What evidence do you have to support this assertion, posed skillfully in the form of a question? NONE. Thus I am asking, have you no decency, sir?

    I am intentionally drawing a comparison between your assertion and our history of making wild unsubstantiated allegations in the past, by quoting Joseph Nye Welch, general counsel of the United States Army in 1954, in his response to Senator Joseph McCarthy in front of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

    I also think that it is important that one not paint all environmentally minded people with the same brush. Not all environmentalists are opposed to fracking, nor is there, in my opinion, enough hard data yet to draw a full conclusion on the practice.

    But there is beginning to be a body of science that questions the practice from an emissions standpoint, particularly around the issue of methane releases.

    And speaking of mixing ideas, I see fracking and tar sand oil extraction as two separate issues. You seem to be blending them in your 21:25 comment.

    My questioning of the pipeline has more to do with the water use associated with extraction, and greenhouse gas emissions. According to the National Academy of Science, 3 times more water is used than oil extracted in the case of the Canadian tar sands; and since Canadian tar sands are suspended in water, the water released by the process is often laden with heavy metals and other pollutants. Water is becoming a precious commodity in the regions where tar sand extraction is most prevalent. Greenhouse gas emissions from tar sand extraction are almost 3 times more than traditionally extracted oil and gas. Of course, for one to be concerned about this one would have to believe in anthropogenic global warming.

    But even with these concerns, I do not support immediate suspension of either traditional oil and gas production, fracking, or tar sand extraction at this point, even though I have called fracking ‘bullhockey’.

    I think it will take us 50 years or more to transition our infrastructure, economy and energy supply to renewable domestic sources. I strongly support a gradual reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels for a variety of reasons: they contribute to global warming; they are a finite resources so conservation of this resource for the most needed applications in the future makes sense; they contribute to our dependence on foreign sources of energy instead of domestic production; they represent a loss of American blood and treasure securing foreign sources; they represent a trillion dollar negative balance of trade; they export American jobs; they receive massive federal subsidies and I think subsidies should go to the technologies that promise to solve our problems, not make them worse.

    But what I really object to is your propensity to try to make these issues ‘black and white’; it is an ‘you are either with us or against us’ mentality, and this issues are far more complex than that approach.

  9. Greg Goodknight says:

    “Of course, for one to be concerned about this one would have to believe in anthropogenic global warming.”

    Or maybe the Easter Bunny.

    For someone trying to make the case that the issues are not black and white, you’ve identified as black and white a dividing line as can be. It is as simple as believing in AGW, or not believing in AGW. If you’re as scientifically ignorant as a polisci or rhetoric major can be expected to be, you really are just fodder for appeals to authority. Like the IPCC. Bringing us to an interesting match that has been made between IPCC lead authors and World Wildlife Foundation:

    Considering the howling over MIT’s Dr.Lindzen having once consulted for an oil company for a few days, and is (gasp, cough) a smoker, the double standards here are overwhelming.

  10. stevefrisch says:

    Well Greg, as is par for the course, your comment fails to respond to any of the key points I brought up, namely water use and emissions, nor addresses the wild allegation made by Russ that foreign oil interests may be financially supporting US environmental organizations. Really your comments are just a vehicle for you to assert what you believe to be your superiority in matters scientific, and insult a fellow poster. Must be tough having to hold that big ego up all day long.

    • Greg Goodknight says:

      Frisch, none of your points are “key”. I realize your utter lack of any science background (outside of applied food chemistry) makes it hard to understand what the argument is all about, but the horses you’ve hitched your wagon to are not taking you in the correct direction.

      The ego problem is sitting in the CEO chair of the SBC.

      There will be no transition to current alternative energy sources; they are not efficient enough to compete (Steven Chu says that’s by a factor of 6) and fossil fuels of all kinds will remain preferable in the absence of political force to the contrary, which is what the whole campaign against “deniers” is designed to produce. Unfortunately, the ‘science’ behind AGW has been stalled since the IPCC AR4 was produced and the cracks in the facade have become evident.

      As far as funding of climate alarmism is concerned, I think it’s a waste of time to look for foreign connections when it is clear that, for the climate alarm community, it’s all about having a scientific reason to force everyone to do what you’d want them to do even in the absence of AGW.

      A great cartoon that is meant to demean skeptics but does a great job of illustrating the above is here:

  11. Todd Juvinall says:

    Greg, thanks for all the scientific information you supply. It is refreshing when someone like you and Russ post true science and not the flat earth type from the left. I would like to see the left disprove that foreign governments that have the oil are not supplying the money for the econuts in America. Since the Wall Street loons in the park are anti-capitalist and their money sources are being exposed, I would suggest it is probably true what Russ has mentioned. What is funny to me about science is the leftwingnuts try and convince themselves they know anything about it and denigrate the true scientists because of politics. If they only could see through the immense ego’s on the left they would hear us laughing.

    • Greg Goodknight says:

      Todd, I’m afraid you’re just stuck in the same loop that Frisch & Company are stuck in, just believing in different bogeymen. Trying to prove to a right winger that there aren’t left wing conspiracies at the core of a problem is as impossible as it is to prove to a left winger that there are no right wing conspiracies at the core of the matter.

  12. Todd Juvinall says:

    Greg I was making an absurd point to show absurdity.

    • Greg Goodknight says:

      Todd, sorry, it’s sometimes hard to tell when you’re being absurd intentionally 😉

  13. Greg Goodknight says:

    “I will leave you to worship you [sic] Gods and navel in the dark buddy.”

    Steve, I accept your forfeit. Better luck next time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: