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

Apparently the U.S. has surpassed Saudi Arabia and Russia in oil production.

One main factor is oil fracking oil shale production.

Not bad. The economy might be moving ahead slow as it be.

The story also say the U.S. has been the leader in natural gas since 2010.

And of course, the U.S. is the largest oil consumer.

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.

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

pump 'n burn pump 'n burn CO2

originally posted by: xuenchen
Apparently the U.S. has surpassed Saudi Arabia and Russia in oil production.

One main factor is oil fracking oil shale production.

Not bad. The economy might be moving ahead slow as it be.

The story also say the U.S. has been the leader in natural gas since 2010.

And of course, the U.S. is the largest oil consumer.

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.

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

pump 'n burn pump 'n burn CO2

I read a couple of years ago that the USA production would surpass Saudi oil in the near future. That was before the relationship kinda turned down for not being Saudi puppets in Syria. I for one am glad and would really like to see the U.S. energy independent and stop sending money overseas to countries that would piss on America's grave.

Amazing how the Mid-East is being shaken up now that western interest have backed off. Wonder how the Saudi Royal family sleeps at night.. No never mind I really don't want to know.

If you think about it, this is not a good sign.

The US has seen peek oil coming for some time. We've been holding our sources in reserve while we exchange federal reserve notes for oil from other countries. We all know what happens to countries that don't want to take our paper for their oil. If we're starting to tap our resources like this, two possibilities come to mind. Either we can't find enough foreign sources to drain to meet our needs, or we're getting dangerously close to "printing too much paper" and crashing the economy. Maybe a combination of both.

Well, I don't know about this.....Almost everything Bank of America says is a twisted misconception. How can we trust them for information.

If this were true, clearly we have been lied to. I have always thought it was ludicrous to say we still import from the middle east. Hell, gas prices are still high, our dollars SHOULD be going to pay down the debt; we know it is not.

www.businessinsider.com...

President Obama has said the U.S. possesses just 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, or about 22.3 billion barrels, writes Investor's Business Daily's John Merline.
However, this figure represents just proven reserves.

But one analyst believes he could be off by almost a trillion.

According to the Institute for Energy Research's calculations, the U.S. actually sits on 1.442 trillion barrels of recoverable deposits.

That's over 60 times the amount we usually hear about.

Merline writes that this larger number would be enough to meet all U.S. oil needs for about the next 200 years.

Most of that — an estimated 1.4 trillion barrels — is locked into shale deposits in the Green River Formation in Wyoming. The U.S. recently began holding public hearings about issuing permits to drill there.

One caveat is that refining capacity is nearly full-up; no new refineries have been built in the U.S. in 35 years, although that could soon change.



Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

My opinion is that this is all bunk.

The US invaded Iraqi, stayed for more than a decade. They pumped the oil out from the oil fields, shipped it home and put it back into the ground in empty wells!

Now they are 'producing' oil.

You are all buying stolen goods. What is more, the US seems to be getting away with it. It was not theirs, it is stolen merchandise.

Just my opinion but it is not hard to figure it out. Shale oil .... yea right.

P

Howdy folks,

I'd like to share what I know from the... "biased" side of the industry we are discussing. The eastern coast and the interior of the USA has an abundance of "frackable" natural gas and even oil producing shales. Hydraulic fracturing IS a big deal in the industry, and it all comes done to how and where oil and gas are usually pumped, which in turns means whether or not something is an economic or subeconomic resource.

The formation of gas and oil are in fact biogenic. Organic material is cooked as it is buried with the sediment it is in, and as it gets buried, it gets condensed by pressure of the overlying sediment and rock. Usually this happens in black shales, which are oceanic deposits, but any sediment with sufficient organic material will work... As this organic material is cooked, it forms first kerogen, which is essentially stable where it is. Cook that, it releases crude and gas. These by products, if unhindered, will eventually rise to the surface, unused by man. Most potential fossil fuels end up at the surface, unusable and unused. It is only when these resources are naturally collected and concentrated that they can be economically harvested...
Essentially before modern hydraulic fracturing (which requires some pretty high-tech alloy pipes and drilling apparatuses...), oil geologists looked for structural geology that would trap and concentrate this rising oil and gas. These structures are called trap rocks, and they can consist of folds, faults, or unpermeable rocks that essentially hinder the rest of the material from flowing upward, which causes a large reservoir to form... With fracking, well, now they can just go to the source rock, and as long as not all of the material has risen up, it can be fracked and collected. Unfortunately, I've read some reports of fracking companies (with regard to purely natural gas) actually going out of business because of the cheapness and abundance of natural gas in the USA... I also hear that a lot of places use natural gas to process crude into gasoline and other petroleum products because of the cheapness and abundance...
Anyway, yeah... Not stolen oil and gas, just suddenly extractable and economic thanks to new tech.

(Disclosure for those who don't know, I am a geology undergrad... Don't think less of me for it.)

originally posted by: pheonix358
My opinion is that this is all bunk.

The US invaded Iraqi, stayed for more than a decade. They pumped the oil out from the oil fields, shipped it home and put it back into the ground in empty wells!

Now they are 'producing' oil.

You are all buying stolen goods. What is more, the US seems to be getting away with it. It was not theirs, it is stolen merchandise.

Just my opinion but it is not hard to figure it out. Shale oil .... yea right.

P

Thats the way to save money, spend 100's billions in war, repair all those burning wells, install all the equipment to pump oil to tankers on the coast, ship it back to the US, pump it back into the ground, then frack it back out of the ground, refine it then sell it to the public. Man I love saving money in America.

For sure this would be a Cheney program developed by Halliburton, with oversight by the Bush Family.

a reply to: hydeman11

Anyway, yeah... Not stolen oil and gas, just suddenly extractable and economic thanks to new tech.

Well then! What an amazing co-incidence. The perfect timing of these events is just what? A co-incidence .... I do not think so. Yes I am sure some shale oil is being extracted, but to suddenly lead the world in oil production.

No, I think not!

P

a reply to: LeoStarchild

The bulk of US oil imports does not come from the middle East. It comes from Canada and South America.

Being number one only to lose it around 2030 is not something to celebrate. I also find that time table interesting from a business aspect. Why advertise the so called "Hubbard Peak" for the United States?

Australia located an oil field on their territory estimated around 20 trillion USD. Not sure if its easily accessible or if it will require new technology to withdraw it.

@Phoenix358 -
Do you just randomly make claims about the US? Since you seem to be lost about Iraq and oil you should look at China, who has the bulk of the oil contracts for Iraq. To suggest we pumped it and then put it back in the ground is all bunk.

Also I am still waiting for you to support the claims you made in the other thread. I am guessing since you have failed to respond / produce the sources to support your position in that thread that you were making things up there as well.

a reply to: Xcathdra

To which other thread are you referring.

In this thread I have made it clear that it is just my opinion. I do not believe in co-incidence, especially where the US is concerned. The machinations of big business!

P

a reply to: Xcathdra

Howdy,

I believe you might have been referring to the Linc Energy (company name) Shale field... If you are, I don't think that actually panned out at 20 trillion dollars (and you can never get the last drop anyway. ;D ) because, I think, that was a high end estimate of the size of the field?

Also, yes, Canadian oil. Another recent advance in oil production is the ability to retrieve crude from tar sands, though I guess people call them "oil sands" to make them sound cleaner... >.> I stick to what I said about new tech allowing people to retrieve previously subeconomic resources.

a reply to: xuenchen

Hmm. Moot point if Tesla's Tower works.

On second thought, we'll be told it's treasonous to use free power instead of our own eco-destructive oil.

a reply to: soficrow

Howdy,

I'd personally love it if Tesla's Towers could operate as efficiently as he believed they could, but I somehow doubt that they will... Will they work? I think so. But they don't generate power, they only transmit it without wires by electrifying the ground and reportedly the ionosphere.

So there are two big issues to be accounted for. Firstly a power source (they claim a large solar array would do, if the tower can transmit efficiently...). We'll see about that when and if it's built. Secondly, the issue of electrifying large expanses of the ground and atmosphere... I have no idea what kind of effect that might have on animals living in the air (such as birds, that navigate potentially by electromagnetism) or the ground, but I know earthworms are sensitive to that kind of thing... Shocking the ground can cause earthworms to crawl upward. I can't speak for other things, but earthworms are potentially some of the best bioturbators on land. Without them, plants have a much harder time growing, so there might be some issues with that.

That said, it'd be great if it would work without serious issues. All energy has a downside, so please don't be offended by my skepticism.

The majority of the growth in world production of oil over the last few years has come from the US, specifically, Texas. The problem with these unconventional methods of producing oil and gas, is that they have a very low EROI. The fact that we're even going for this, shows just how desperate the situation is. We're doing this, in spite of the ecological damage that FF have already wrecked onto the ecosystem, and despite how these new methods of obtaining energy, shale and tar sands, are even more damaging to the environment.

Not only this, but if anyone bothers to analyze the outlook in growth/production for the near future, you'll realize first that it's unsustainable, and has a steep bell-curve, but also that the official reports likely don't take all the factors into consideration. To put it bluntly, we'll never be energy independent, and will peak out in production rather soon, if this hasn't already happened with unconventional oil. Gas still has some years (not decades) left before peaking, but will have it's time as well.

Best I can tell, this is a complete damned the consequences approach. My hope is someone out there has a long-term gameplan of getting a chunk of us off planet before the inevitable demise of civilization brought on by many factors, notable and appropriate to this thread, energy decline.

a reply to: pheonix358

Wow, those are some pretty serious accusations.

Show me a neutral, non extreme and un biased source and you might have some credibility.

It doesn't make any sense to extract oil on one side of the planet, ship it to the complete opposite side, pour it back in and then pump it out later, how the hell would they make any sort of profit from that.

The US invaded Iraqi, stayed for more than a decade. They pumped the oil out from the oil fields, shipped it home and put it back into the ground in empty wells! Now they are 'producing' oil.

Someone should learn a bit more about the industry and wells.

Were number 1, were number 1 MErIKA...... mEriKa............ Sorry had to.
If we (US) are number uno then why am I paying nearly 4 skins a gallon.
I have my own opinion, we out produce others but we are so deep in dept. So we sell at a reduced rate\ all most free to other countries to cover the dept. While at the same time raising prices at home to cover even more of the dept. Taxed into starvation.

a reply to: hillbilly4rent

That's actually the exact opposite of how it really plays out.

We have low prices at the pump compared to all other developed nations that I'm aware of. This is due to our reserve currency status, in effect exporting the burden/tax, onto other countries. Our tax on gas is nil compared to most other countries, which must do this in order to reach an appropriate tax base to implement the policies they desire.

It's more cost effective for us to ship oil half way around the world and sell to countries like China, at a higher cost than we're willing to pay for it in the west, than it is to keep it all to ourselves. We must sell it to these countries, in order to keep the capital investment flowing into further R&D so that supply doesn't sharply decline in the ever-becoming, near future.

a reply to: hillbilly4rent
I used to think the US prices were bad, until I moved to Canada. Try almost ~$3 a litre. I heard europe is even worse.

When I was younger and just coming up for the odd vacation, it wasn't so bad, because the dollar was worth so much more than the canadian dollar. A few times it was about double, so I would come up with 500 and get almost a grand, and the prices then were very similar, so I made out like a bandit. Not so these days, the dollars have been neck in neck past few years, but the prices haven't gone down any of course. And now I am working for the canadian dollar, not importing a stronger currency.