cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Veteran Advisor

US Oil Production Changes The Whole Game

Mitt Romney referenced some of this in the debates last fall, most of the amigos probabaly missed that part since they just wanted to hate the guy.

 

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/01/17519026-how-the-us-oil-gas-boom-could-shake-up-glob...

7 Replies

Re: US Oil Production Changes The Whole Game

After US oil production peaked in 1970 there was a modest bump from the trans alaske pipeline in the mid-80s but production never exceeded the 1970 peak and soon began to fall again.

 

We're getting another decent bump but also unlikely to toip the 1885 secondary peak.  The greater change in the balance sheet is from lower demand- somehting you'd expect whrn you quadruple the price of something.

 

The higher production level is a nice thing but not likely a game changer at all.

Re: US Oil Production Changes The Whole Game

The piece you linked was posted at the theoildrum.com as well. Here is another article posted there.

 

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9901

 

Senior Advisor

Re: US Oil Production Changes The Whole Game


@hardnox604008 wrote:

After US oil production peaked in 1970 there was a modest bump from the trans alaske pipeline in the mid-80s but production never exceeded the 1970 peak and soon began to fall again.

 

We're getting another decent bump but also unlikely to toip the 1885 secondary peak.  The greater change in the balance sheet is from lower demand- somehting you'd expect whrn you quadruple the price of something.

 

The higher production level is a nice thing but not likely a game changer at all.


Or when you replace it with ethanol.

Veteran Advisor

Re: US Oil Production Changes The Whole Game

Is that like you hating Obama????
Senior Contributor

Re: obalmo will try and stop it

if it hurts his muslim brethren

Veteran Advisor

Re: obalmo will try andd stop it

Re: US Oil Production Changes The Whole Game

Yes, you could objectively say that ethanol has probably ruduced US oil consumption by about 3%.

 

Of course if it was such a great deal it wouldn't have been necessary to build up the elaborate set of lies about the cellulosic future in order to sell it.  Those lies did provide cover for a number of Bush Solyndras, though, like Range Energy.

 

An aside, to me the ethanol deal stands as an example of how and why we really are screwed.  There are a great many public policy debates where I can't claim any greater level of expertise than any other average Joe. In this one I can, at least in regards to corn, both on an agronomic level and a US and global grain econoomics. I don't have the greatest academic credentials on the matter but if you combine the two disciplines I am ahead of 99.999% of people on this topic (which still leaves a few hundred, or thousand, who know as much or more).

 

Anyway, in the "testimony" before the ethanol legislation was railroaded through there were assertions about the enhanced yield trend from improved genetics and why the 15 bgy by 2013 goal was no big deal.

 

Those of us who know something about this stuff questioned that on a couple of different levels- first, genetic improvements tend to be seen in leaps, not in continuous extrapolated upward trendlines.  Second, if yield doesn't advance fery sharply then you're left to get that production from marginal acres, COC acres etc. and the yield goal gets even tougher to meet.

 

There is more, like a very simple example of how statisitics lie in that a trendline does not approximate cululative production if even one year in a series falls substantially below trend (2012).

 

Time has proven us 100% right on the matter- we have enough data points to say that with no reservations. But it matters not in the least for legislation that now has built a regional and iindividual constituency. 

 

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times, we could have done the 9 bgy that it touk to replace MTBE with much less dislocation and it still would have been a huge deal for agriculture anyway. But what happened is that the lobbyists handed the staffers a number, who handed it to their bosses and it got rubber stamped.

 

Takeaway, even a modest bit of complexity provides enough cover for anybody with the political pull to get whatever they want whether it represents good and wise public policy or not.