The World of Oil will be dominated by a second wave of US Shale oil according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The United States will be the source of 70% of the total increase in global capacity to 2024 by adding a total of 4 million barrels per day. This follows growth of 2.2 million barrels per day in 2018.
World Oil production and oil demand is currently hovering around 100 million barrels per day. IEA projects 1.2 million barrel per day growth each year for the next 5 years.
The US will add more than the current oil production of Canada and could reach an addition of the oil production of Iraq over the next five years.
At $60 per barrel, the increase in US oil will be worth about $88 billion per year.
World economists are not forecasting any switch away or decline in fossil fuel usage. Trillions of dollars are being invested to create this second shale oil wave.
SOURCES – International Energy Agency, Knoema
Written By Brian Wang
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
I agree with you that there has been a reduction in cost as the drillers ascend the learning curve. But there is a limit where they will stop borrowing money to drill. They will just keep the old holes producing.
The consumer drives trade. And I doubt they are thinking about the cold war.
No, they don’t. Not when it comes to international trade. That is all driven by geopolitics And the US was definitely using it as a specific tool in the Cold War.
Yeah I have a hard time taking ThorConn seriously.
“Sorry, but they invested there. They deserve what they get. Anything else is called “moral hazard”.”
The investment losses have consequences beyond some fatcat investors. It can effect everyone invested in the stock market including insurance companies who now have to raise rates, retirement funds of hard working Americans, banks that financed the loans…
Just like the global financial crisis, just a few bad decisions can send everything into chaos.
What makes it immoral to invest in China?
That is not exactly tobacco, hard liquor, and brothels.
You said the cold war was over.
I am grasping at straws and strawmen. Is it over or isn’t it? Is it because it is Communist? Which is debatable anyway. I just am not seeing the moral hazard in seeking to make things more cheaply so more people will be able buy and enjoy those products.
If it really was slave labor or child labor…sure. But I think if those accusations were true, they would have been substantiated long before now.
The only real moral hazard I see is the environmental one, which I don’t think you agree with, if I recall.
Intellectual property theft is serious, but they have made changes and lawsuits are being more fairly handled. Though almost no one is looking at this. Agreeing to hand over your intellectual property just so you can manufacture in China? Well, thems are bozos. Plenty of other countries out there.
The consumer drives trade. And I doubt they are thinking about the cold war.
The middlemen: Wallmart, Amazon, Home Depot, Target, Costco, Ebay…would likely be bankrolling political campaigns to continue and expand trade so they can continue to make money.
When the UK was a large empire they also expanded trade, and there was a lot of money to be made selling goods that were made overseays. And they had no cold war. Compeditors, but nothing like what you are talking about.
I tell you, if those Walmarts think they have been duped by a President who said he wanted free trade and just playing hardball to get it, but instead is infatuated by getting money from other countries via tariffs, he will not be back.
Yes. We get to stick it to the rest of the world that we used to prop up, while watching them fight over oil supplies and expensive food (try mass growing of staple crops w/o fertilizer in today’s world).
No. It was ALL ABOUT the Cold War. For us, anyway.
To the US. I have stated that repeatedly.
It already is hurting them more.
Yes, because we were the world’s ‘China’ back then, remember?
Sorry, but they invested there. They deserve what they get. Anything else is called “moral hazard”.
And many of them have already pulled out or started to do so.
Yawn! Let’s see. US GDP is $21 TRILLION. 1% of billion of $21 trillion is $210 billion. So that $54 billion is a mere rounding error to our economy.
AND the Chinese steal more in value than that, if you want to calculate ‘net’ value from those services being sold. I bet we’ll end up selling them more in food, oil and natural gas pretty soon.
Running out of word space…
Way more variables than that. There has been a big increase in efficiency and in the last year we are outputting more oil despite keeping drilling rigs at a fixed level.
Worse/Better/Different still is that if there is a ME flare up the US gets rich because the price of oil goes up.
Fracking has done wonders when it comes to getting cheap methane to Europe to displace Russian gas.
The thing below this was not a response to this but a continuation of my previous. Don’t know why it ended up here.
These people you keep mentioning. Hard to parrot someone I haven’t heard.
If you are hearing quacks you need your ears checked.
Free trade is about more than the Cold War. Trade produces efficiency and productivity.
9,000 years ago people did not appreciate trade. In places like Çatalhöyük https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk
there were no trades, no specialization. Everyone made their own half-assed walls. I think you would agree that specialization has benefited everyone.
International trade is an extension of this. Sure we could probably grow bananas in Florida, but not as well as in Central America or somewhere with a true equatorial climate. And there are 10,000 other commodities we would produce poorly on our own.
It is true that free trade is more of an ideal than a reality, but not having tariffs benefits the people that matter: consumers…ordinary people who can afford stuff those idiot countries prevent their citizens from benefiting from.
I am not saying we should embrace trade deficits. We just need to do a better job making things other countries want and need. Some American goods are tariffed/banned for good reasons. It can be very hard on an economy to be importing large amounts of oil as we had issues with for decades. As such, it is rational to ban our guzzlers. Then there is our unhealthy food…
I apologize for the strawman or perceived strawman(men). I was just trying to understand your position which was very unclear to me. If I mocked a little, I was just just trying to get you to tell me more, because it just did not make sense to me.
I think the conversation below has taken a nonconstructive turn. I will attempt to remedy that, as I think it is largely my fault.
You are correct you did not say “we should hunker down and be a North Korea”
You suggested that international trade in goods does not matter very much. And that the breakdown in trade between China and the US would hurt China a lot more than it hurts us.
I would point out that the path to insularity in the past has proven very destructive. I suppose to is still a point of some debate but there is evidence that the Smoot-Hawley act greatly contributed to the depth and duration of the great depression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act
Now perhaps it could be argued we have an economy that is quite different than in the past.
But consider that
1.A lot of US companies are heavily invested in China, as are many individuals, owning stock in these American companies, or Chinese companies, or other international corporations. Their loss can easily be our loss.
2.China imports the service exports you mention to the tune of $54 billion. With antagonistic relation that could drop dramatically.
3.And I think this is the most important. We get great value from what we import from China. Buying stuff from somewhere else means everyone’s paycheck will not go nearly as far. People only see the negative side of importing all this stuff. But, the things that the consumer can benefit from outweigh protectionist nonsense.
There is far far more including the real guiding principles involved…philosophical stuff. And I have about 550 policy changes I would like to see, the vast majority I have never heard anyone advocate.
I can think for myself. I am not using other people’s ideological crutches.
And I believe every idea needs to be open to rejection by sound reason. I don’t hold stuff because it gives me the warm fuzzies. It all follows from facts and reasoning…either of which can be in error. Or there can be an ever more ingenious solution, I hadn’t considered.
I think it is important to be informed about human nature. Most political philosophies are tied to views that are inconsistent with what we know about psychology, sociology, and anthropology. And what we learn changes.
9 Free trade globalist huckster. <– that’s you
Sorry, but rather you are quacking like one. You’re like a John Tamny clone right now.
When it comes to international ANYTHING, everything in the post-Cold War era you seem to think is ‘natural’ is really very artificial. It’s all propped up. There is no ‘free trade’. That’s just a spin the globalists who are phuking us all over like to say.
If that wasn’t the case, then I’d be right there saying what you have been saying. Hell, I USED to say those things before I wised up.
And the US doesn’t need the trade in goods (and even most services) as much as other nations do. Yes, we propped up this global trading system that opened up trade to levels not seen before in human history except maybe back in the time of the Roman Empire and…<drumroll please> didn’t use it to make ourselves wealthy as others did.
That is because we didn’t need to nor could we in order to use it for what it was actually meant to be: Bribe other nations into the Cold War on our side or at least not on the other side, one way or another.
Cold War is over, dude.
10.embrace of optimizing markets
11.major effort in public health including all manner disease prevention, food safety, and lower stress
12.making people far more capable: prenatal nutrition, nutrition in general, education, various training things beyond traditional education.
13.infrastructure
14.colonization of space
15.genuine care for families, the general public, the elderly, the consumer, the shareholder, the motorist, the traveler, the worker, the homeowner, above corporate/bank/special interests. Though helping corporations in many other ways is valued.
16.reigning in the power of the media. Liability for moral corruption, fearmongering and its effects on markets public health, effects of factual distortion…
17.Extreme anti-waste. if policy can remove useless jobs…that is a good thing.
18.anti-union and any other form of monopoly.
19.resist corporate mergers and break up many large corporations.
20.systems for quickly getting people jobs after being let go.
21.the basics guaranteed…but in less preferable forms…not money handouts though…other than to the retired and small amounts to disabled (beyond meeting their general needs more directly).
22.extreme low red tape. no direct taxation of most people.and whatever is provided by government (public amenities) is freely available to everyone. You don’t have to prove need or worthiness in some way.
23.there would be many public amenities.
Me?
1.Productivity.
2.Efficiency.
3.Pragmatic and creative use of any tool of any ideology of the past present and future, if it addresses issues the best.
4.Not obsessed with democracy, while recognizing its advantages and accomplishments. Respect the right of other nations to have different forms of government…with chief concern about whether their people are pleased with what they have. We should not deal with any government that is not overwhelmingly supported by its people.
5.Belief that ingenious policies can lead to everyone living far better than any king of old…even any millionaire 100 years ago.
6.Belief that human life is valuable…and that means more humans is a good thing. Don’t believe crowding or burden on the environment are required costs but a result of poor planning and failure to peruse and employ technology.
7.longstanding Pro science, pro fact in media, politics, & advertising.
8.Low government debt.
9.Not obsessed with the Constitution as is…it needs a major rework: a)they were wrong about key aspects of the nature of man.
b)they did not anticipate the rise of political parties and the hold they would have.
c)they did not anticipate gerrymandering, pork barrel, or the overwhelming influence of special interests.
d)rights of States oversteps rights of citizens
e)they did not know how technology would change people or how tech would assail privacy
You just don’t have enough pidgin holes in your world.
You don’t seem to know what a neocon is.
Their biggest things are:
1.Being hawks. Very much for using force in the world to get what they want. U.S. forceful dominance. Close to empire seeking.
2.Extreme anti-commie including use of secret agencies to undermine communist governments, and favoring abusive/corrupt dictators.
3.Strongly favor the rich, the exploitation of people/environment to make money…even asset stripping corporate raiders.
4.Support banks using loans to extort countries into privatizing the means of production on purely ideological grounds, with no consideration of the wellbeing of countries or their citizens.
5.Fairly low emphasis on social stuff.
6.Could care less about abortion or anything else morally related
7.Modest concern about poverty, mostly inasmuch as it could destabilize, or endanger the wealthy.
8.Don’t really care about anything Christians care about: abortion, gambling, pornography, prostitution, nudey bars, erosion of the teaching of good character, direct undermining of morality by the media, the persecution of Christians in other countries, the removal of the symbols of Christianity, like crosses on hilltops, the right to guide children using punishment when needed, drugs/inebriation, family stability, marriage, anti-serial monogamy, pro work ethic, U.S. charity in the World especially during and after disasters, not fond of greed, exploitative loans, or legalistic swindling.
So we built our Navy to protect the World from the millions of Somali pirates in your worldview?
No. But w/o it, Somali pirates would be a bigger problem. In fact, there would be a lot more pirates out there than Somali ones. Nations would use their navies to seize the shipping of others, too.
But you keep creating these bogus straw man arguments it seems. It’s like the crap Bill Krystal tweets all the time now.
And yes, you are a Neocon, whether you realize it or not. Interesting. I never had you pegged that way before now.
So we built our Navy to protect the World from the millions of Somali pirates in your worldview?
That is certainly worth thousands of billions of dollars.
Fascinating.
I think we have spent a lot more time blocking trade, enforcing embargoes and such than rescuing damsels held by pirates.
It does not mater that we export services. People need basic stuff far more. The Chinese could just as easily compel other countries not to buy our services as physical exports. It is all trackable on the Internet.
Current laws do not allow people to exploit the advantages of one person cars.
However I don’t see any roadblocks to changing these particular laws. They are there because of inertia and traditional thinking, not because there are any driving factors or interest groups pushing for this particular ruleset.
Having said that, I use a single person vehicle the majority of the time. Because it’s faster and more fun.
You have to look at the big picture. All the trading partners can have more.
But I do not accept that our country’s economy has matured and the service industry is the natural transition. Unless our ore is poor quality, or other resources compared to other countries, but I see no evidence of that. We have quality soil, good ore, a good climate for many valuable commodities. Our only problem in productivity was unions and to a much smaller degree lead exposure (smaller degree because most of these manufacturing jobs and such don’t require people to be extraordinarily intelligent).
We have also past bill after bill that makes things more costly interfering with the Idealized conditions of perfect competition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition#Idealizing_conditions_of_perfect_competition
Every industry wants to get more money for what they make, the work they perform, or the money they invested. And they achieve that by getting government to mess with or allow them to mess with one or more of these idealized conditions. This makes us inefficient. Consider medication. You have to have someone prescribe it, and that person is not you and may not have the foggiest what it costs. And you only have the choice to take that medication or disobey your doc and take nothing. This is broken in so many ways, it is nearly impossible to list. At the very least, you should have a choice between several medications that all treat what you are diagnosed with.
We are profoundly miscommunicating if you think I am in any way an advocate of the neocons…or would be reading their drivel. They are predatory selfish amoralists looking out for big corporations especially military. All the negatives of Conservatism with none of the positives.
As for globalism, if by that you mean free trade, absolutely. Different countries are going to have different resources and various costs of developing and goods. The more countries you trade with the more each player benefits because less investment (not just money but energy and man-hours) in creation of goods because each will do what they do most efficiently.
The only costs to this are self-sufficiency lack of which bothers many conservatives because it requires cooperation. And it is in opposition to the “Manly” BS. And it really is BS, because in society we are all dependent on others for our very existence.
If we can’t compete because our resources are inadequate to compete with the cheapest exporter of some item in cost and quantity, then it is just smarter to trade them something we do better for what they do better.
Imagine if you had to go find iron ore make your own nails, hinges, hammer heads axe heads and such, grow your own trees… to make a house from scratch. What are the odds that house would be better than the one you currently reside in?
You always get more with trade than without. Maybe more people will be employed, but they will be able to buy much less with their pay.
I never said anything about failing to participate in world trade. I mentioned trade in goods only. Services far outpace the trade of goods and that ratio is going to increase further.
China will never have a navy 2 or 3 times the size of ours.
Nothing cryptic about it. I was quite clear what those policies were:
Seems pretty clear to me.
“…our ability to secure world shipping lanes courtesy of the US Navy…”
We would not be able to do that if China had a navy 2 or 3 times the size of ours. They could claim the Pacific and the Indian ocean…charge all shipping through.
Not saying they would do these things, but if we weaken ourselves by failing to participate in global trade, it opens the door.
“And both policies are about to get a nasty reversal for many of the world’s nations, too.” I have no idea what this cryptic sentence it trying to say.
I hate to get all conspiratorial…
Well, that is what we tend to do here on NBF. 🙂
Now THAT is something along the lines I have been thinking of also. Only I figure it doesn’t have to be a POTUS with ties to the oil industry.
And it doesn’t have to involve a direct attack by us.
Say a false flag cruise missile attack on the Iranian oil terminals at Kharg Island that come from the ‘direction’ of SA? Followed by an “Iranian retaliatory strike” on Saudi terminals on the other side of the Gulf? Then some ‘accidental’ strikes of missiles fired by neither side but during real missile strikes by both…which just ‘happen to’ hit some oil supercontainer ships in the PG, sending insurance prices through the roof or causing the insurance industry to just cancel policies altogether.
Suddenly China, India (which is very dependent upon oil imports now and will only become even more so as its economy grows more), Japan, South Korea…hell, ALL of East Asia…and lots of Europe will be up the creek. The US will come out as a winner.
That has nothing to do with what I wrote as far as I can see. Is SO screwing up again?
Someone already did that.
If forced between the two, China loses.
No, I am not arguing that hyperbolic North Korean false comparison.
I didn’t say it didn’t matter. I said it mattered a whole lot less for us than other countries. As China’s current predicament with Trump proves.
Not w/o destroying the base reserves of every central bank in the world. As for the rest, you really should not read the BS from Neocons and globalist ‘economists’. They are flat wrong.
Those small units make a nice dirty bomb once they have run a few months. Disconnect it, put tit in a container and deliver it to a city center somewhere.
What you are saying is that the oil exploration firms fall off a cliff while oil production firms start their slow decline. Of course a large part of the value of the oil production firm is their oil reserves which won’t be tapped so their stock price should also take a beating.
Shale oil production is limited by the cost of production versus the price of oil. There is a price point where drilling will slow down drastically.
I don’t think you get more in parking lots or more on the road. The parking lots have to accommodate larger cars, and space between vehicles is what dictates road capacity.
I liked the original 2013 Bladeglider Concept, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rABd_lQFwRs the redone one in 2016 just completely killed the aesthetic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLlbGSOogUQ
I think cars with a single driver’s seat in front like this trapezoidal car or triangular cars like the Elio that is probably DOA, are likely to be seen in the future. The aerodynamic efficiency is just so much better, and the cockpit feel and driver vision is also very attractive.
Not for everyone, but I think many people would enjoy commuting using something like this.
The only thing that could shift gas, oil, and coal is an easily, cheaply manufacturable set of the following:
Electric storage.
Non-carbon electric production.
We’d have to be talking about batteries that could be processed from dirt, ditto electric production. Carbon is way, way, way too easy to displace.
If the “Get the vehicle you need on demand” thing ever takes off enough, I think there’s a lot of room for improvement on weight by just moving to tiny, one person cars for most trips. You could fit more of them on the road and in parking lots too.
Honestly it might happen even without a “vehicle on demand” sharing economy. A lot of us could afford to have a separate economy vehicle just for commuter trips. Or have it for one partner in a marriage while the other gets the minivan. People wouldn’t do this just to save on gas money, but if the tiny car gets an exemption for the carpool lane, cheaper parking, and reduced rates at tolls, it would start to look attractive for people in many large cities.
Links please? I am part of a consortium designing what would be the largest building in the world, by floor area, and one of the most innovative, and we could use some innovative Earthquake protection technology, even in NYC where it will be located. Video & details here: http://bit.ly/Riverarch
As for energy usage, it has 5 offgrid proposed systems: solar, wind, water turbine (all 3 uniquely unobstructed in the open river), geothermal (like St. Patrick’s Cathedral: 2,200′ deep wells supply 30% of electric there, and structural engineers say we have to go down 200′ anyway for Sheer force compensation & weight factors). We also have 4 indoor gray water dams, fed periodically from tanks below the top 10 floors to turn turbines while metered gray water pushes effluence out & down arch side plumbing.
Tesla battery packs on every floor (both legs) to store energy in an FAA regulated building that can never go dark, even in a city blackout.
It’s going to take major innovations at every level to get real NBF progress.
50-slide presentation upon request of serious investors, developers, partners.
The two go hand in hand. Produce more oil and electric cars get cleaner air in the US and more export income and geopolitical influence.
If 30% of oil goes to feeding cars. And the car fleet turns over at 10% per year. And current oil usage is growing at 1% per year.
THEN when 1/3 of new cars is an EV being purchased to replace an ICV, the oil market will plateau and stop growing.
If oil production keeps going up the result would be a price collapse.
I don’t think there is any reason that carbon fiber resins cure more slowly than fiber glass (or fiber sapphire).
As far as I know, any current curing speed differential is that the higher performance of carbon fiber materials mean it’s worth while using higher performance resins, and they are less easy to deal with than the cheap stuff (otherwise they would BE the cheap stuff).
I’ll admit that the theory “the USA has war in the ME to disrupt oil supplies and benefit US oil producers” is far, FAR more logical than the argument that was actually popular “The US is in the ME to Steal their oil”.
It has the advantages of the alleged motivation actually lining up with the results. And the added advantage of the story resulting in a small group of super wealthy Americans making lots of money, so it follows that they might want to do so.
In fact, the way the accepted story that the anti-war media and activists push (steal the oil) is such a worse story than the alternative (send the oil price up) that it is actually suspicious in itself. Maybe the “steal the oil” story was promoted to deliberately distract from the real reason of spiking the price.
Of course, this then leads to the idea that the anti-war protesters were actually working for the US Oil barons.
I have been arguing for years that we need to get virtually all freight that has a different origin state than destination state and is 500+ miles, moved to electrified rail. And any freight from the US boarders should be moved by rail, or shipping port. And at ports cargo should be moved from ship directly to rail, unless the destination is within 300 miles. There might be exceptions for smaller businesses.
Over 90% of the damage to our freeways is caused by freight trucks (one semi does the same damage as 9,600 cars according to a government study). But obviously they do not pay 90% of the maintenance.
Rail is used in Europe and elsewhere for freight far more than in the US and it is not due to lack of rail. We have the most rail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_transport_network_size
As far as fuel and maintenance, rail is 6 times cheaper. You might ask, “So why the heck are we not using rail more?” The reason is that FDR screwed with it to make it more expensive by creating the Railroad Retirement Board drastically inflating costs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Retirement_Board
Though, if they did do what I am saying, there would still be many semis on the road…maybe 50% less. Rural roads maybe 75% less.
I also think we need more city bypasses. Those the semi drivers would use to avoid the cities they don’t have pickups or deliveries at. That means less of those trucks in traffic at rush hour improving traffic flow and efficiency
I hate to get all conspiratorial but it could be that they were there to mess up the petroleum supply lines. After all, that generally is the result of war…at least during the war…and a few years following. Perhaps to make oil more costly to make more money for the oil industry.
In that case, all you need to do is wait for the next President whose family made their money in oil, and poof, there will be some legitimate reason to pound the Middle East again. Though it could be harder to sell to the public. But the “commander and chief” can do quite a bit of destruction without Congressional approval.
And the cheaper you can extract oil the better chance of survival. The main use may be in pharmaceuticals, plastics, lubricants, chemicals, paint (and other coatings) and tires.
No real getting away from plastics. Plastic sewer pipe will probably be around for a long time. Plastic chemical drums similarly will probably be around for several decades to come. Unless they come to a conclusion that all plastic is carcinogenic. That is unlikely though. A few probably.
One impediment is that many of the big makers are only halfheartedly making or designing EVs. They have an awful lot invested in the status quo. It will likely mean a few of them, or even a bunch of them, will bite the dust. Other than Studebaker, no major carriage makers survived the transition to automobiles. Now, perhaps there is less difference between ICE and EV than there was between horse carriages and automobiles, but it still is a pretty dramatic. The major manufactures of EVs 50 years from now, probably don’t even exist. ICE parts suppliers could easily be dead. And if just a few key suppliers go belly up, ICE car makers could be thrown into chaos.
Our grandchildren might be asking us what it was like to drive an ICE like we asked our grandparents what it was like to use horses.
I think affordable titanium alloys could be an important contribution to the transition. Weight becomes a far greater concern given the weight of batteries…and the value of range.
Though, if batteries of the future charge in 3 minutes, it becomes less of an issue.
I also think we will see more advanced plastics, advanced fiberglass, and fibersapphire. Carbon fiber will probably remain a luxury, because of the curing time. Though, who knows, chemists may find quicker ways to cure carbon fiber. In any case, there will likely be significant efforts to make cheap, light, strong, materials for weight savings in EVs…just as there are efforts to make better batteries.
The British never had a sufficient domestic resource base to feed a large military or industrial base. The U.S. does and, honestly, if the U.S. doesn’t want to participate in global trade (it certainly doesn’t need to) who gives a crap about China’s Navy? They have a single coastline that’s basically surrounded by nations that would rather not bow to the Chinese. They can build all the ships they want but they’ll never threaten the U.S. and if they want to pay to secure global shipping lanes they’re welcome to do so.
They don’t need to. The home market is plenty large enough and “environmental tariffs” and other non-tariff barriers assure they won’t have to compete with products subsidized by cheap, dirty energy and other environmentally unfriendly practices. The U.S. loses a little in such a trade breakdown but the rest of the world loses a heck of a lot more.
Correction: *needed. Retooling refineries to go from heavy to light is far easier and cheaper than the reverse (depending on the configuration of the refinery, you’re either bypassing certain crackers or running others at different temperatures and pressures). Many U.S. refineries are adjusting to the lighter, sweeter supply as part of their seasonal maintenance cycles.
I agree but I think it would be generous to say that ten years from now 50% of all new builds are electric. Couple that with a typical vehicle lifespan of 12 years and the effect on oil demand isn’t exactly a cliff but it’s also not inconsequential. I’ve often contemplated that, at some point, the oil industry just enters into a long-term liquidation phase with very little new drilling activity at which point it becomes a game of decline rates.
Been drinking?
Parody, friend, parody.
GoatGuy
⊕1 LOL ✔
I just happened to have been at UCBerkeley during the years when the Seismic Engineering department was actually designing and certifying rather large municipal buildings that indeed were on rollers. The whole buildings. Pretty amazing stuff. It works, too. The real “not-so-obvious tech” was figuring out how to also put in critical damping for the whole loaded structure. For that, one had to have the occupants and their chattels move in. Then variable resistance shock absorbers did the rest.
I agree, I drive a fugLeaf. (hopefully a used model 3 in a couple years).
I am certainly not against the US being a net exporter of oil, but I do believe we shouldn’t be putting too much effort into oil production, as it is beginning it’s slow death. I would wager by 2030, 90% of new car sales will be all electric.
The English used to have the largest Navy, the Spanish and Portuguese before them. And ships are made of steel last I looked. If China has steel that costs 1/3 of ours… And our ships are how much more expensive than the steel they are made of? So much fat! If China wanted to make double our Navy they could do it so fast, it would leave our heads spinning. We make 4.8% of world steel. China makes 49.2%.
Now which makes more sense:
A: Charge a fat tax on essential building and manufacturing materials that increases the cost of anything made with them?
B: Provide nearly free loans to companies to build nuclear power plants to produce essential construction and manufacturing materials in very large quantities in state of the art refineries/foundries at even cheaper prices and get a considerable global market share, and in the process make many things more affordable for everyone, like a titanium cars, titanium roofs that will last the life of your home, manufactured housing, freeways and ordinary roads made with cheap high quality concrete?
What about adding a Che hat?
You’d have to scram your reactors anyway, because the cities and grid you are pumping your power into just shut down with lines down and other disruptions. Even if nothing is damaged, nobody is running any heavy industry during an earthquake.
I think it is kinda funny. All the conservatives that rightly ridiculed the liberals for thinking simple slap -on taxation and simplistic rules that don’t take into consideration market dynamics and the fallout are embracing tariffs…which is EXACTLY the same simplistic…failure to think 2 steps ahead legislation.
You know who were the ones who wanted this stuff a hundred years ago? It was the trade unions. They have always wanted this stuff and are the ones that have put this stuff in…in Europe.
Now tell me truly, how well is it working for Europeans? Are they exporting much more than a few luxury goods to the random snob?
741 million first world skilled educated Europeans but they barely inch out more exports than the US with half the population.
You really want American products to be rare and cherished by some very small group…like some old crap you get at Cost Plus World Market?
And the Europeans at least export exotic cars. The world is not going to pay inflated prices for F-150s.
Just get the semis off the Interstates. Put them on electric pods, and shoot them along at 150+. Sure it would cost trillions but think of the jobs building this future “Interstate”
As far a oil predictions, it is a mistake to assume that electric cars are not going to be fully competitive with ICE in 10 years with all the enormous implications that comes along with it. I think that EVs are already at 2% of global sales and we are only at the beginning of the introduction curve.
They absolutely would. Those companies would be in the third country not here. The company buying from them would either not know or pretend they did not…and erase or shred anything that could be used to show otherwise.
Who can the world manage better without as a trading partner…a country providing essential materials or one selling movies, deodorant and cigarettes? If it comes down to choosing sides, they will choose China every time. All China has to do is say “If you trade with the US, you can’t trade with us”.
Your orange-headed fool, war will be lost.
So you are arguing that we should hunker down and be a North Korea, as trade does not mater and it can all go down the toilet, and the country would not be affected.
Way off. The economic consequences would be devastating. Our money would tank, and all the gold, silver, copper, and anything else valuable would be vacuumed up by people in other countries. We would effectively be a third world country.
No, we don’t. We have influence because of our power to grant/deny access to our vast domestic market and by our ability to secure world shipping lanes courtesy of the US Navy — neither of which even remotely resembles ‘free trade’ policies.
And both policies are about to get a nasty reversal for many of the world’s nations, too.
If we add criminal felonies that provide for 20 years in jail with no parole, they wouldn’t.
Else said companies would be smuggling in drugs instead of the cartels.
Who cares? US Trade in goods as percentage of GDP is only 8-10% now. And half that is with the NAFTA countries. So…yawn! This is why the ‘scary’ Chinese trade deficit is always mentioned in absolute dollar terms, not percentage of GDP. And when they talk of percentage of anything, it is percentage of our measly 8-10% trade figure. Sometimes not even that but the half that is not-NAFTA.
Not to mention: why should we even be exporting products made with lots of steel anyway if it can be produced for lower cost by someone else? Comparative advantage and all that. So much for ‘market forces’, eh?
Speaking of which, there is no ‘market forces’ in international trade. It’s all rigged on way or another…even when nations’ adopt ‘pro-market’ policies.
That will just make companies cheat. They will buy the Chinese stuff and try to pass it off as made in their country, then export to us collecting the difference minus the extra shipping. I am sure they can even get the Chinese to put markings on the stuff that looks right.
These market distorting legislative tricks are a sorry substitution for actually addressing market forces.
If our manufacturers have to pay more for steal, and all the other materials, how are they going to make a product that is globally competitive?
Doesn’t work for key industrial products.
This is the sort of thing that makes Europe expensive for those within and the visitor. If the US wants to remain a world influencer, we have to continue to have competitive exports. Recognize that we are the #2 exporter on the planet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports
We undermine that with tariffs. This is especially so when you get retaliation and foster a dislike of “made in the USA” by the consumer in the tariffed countries.
There is a tendency for US government to pass legislation that results in higher prices…of just about anything they legislate on. This, I believe, is a destructive force. My arguments will not fit. But mostly it follows from being contrary to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition
It’s all about the Globalists keeping their show running.
Nah. I like this stupid look of her. So ‘honest’ as it is.
BTW, have you heard the latest from this stupid twatwaffle? Oh yeah…just when you think she can’t possibly out do herself again.
I give you the Officially Designated Future of the Democrat Party at work. Be sure to read the comments. There’s a youtube embed of part of this wack-show:
https://patrick.net/post/1323056/2019-03-12-gotta-love-the-latest-aoc-aoc-vs-wells-fargo
Cajones the size of sesame seeds.
Non-tariff trade barriers work even better for this. Like how the Japanese switched over to using to basically ban US car imports for decades.
Example: Simply don’t allow the importation of concrete or refined metals that were made using those heavy coal processes. Not even allow them to bring them to our ports on ships that are continuing on to take them somewhere else.
Why we don’t do that is beyond me, really. It doesn’t violate WTO rules as far as I know.
That’s the thing: The KXL wasn’t so much to transport Canadian oil to ports in the Gulf as much as it was to blend in with our oil.
We needed that heavy crude from the oil sands to blend in with our sweeter crude produced by fracking. Either that or spend trillions to refit our refineries.
Canadian provinces are also more economically integrated with the US states immediately bordering them than they are with their fellow provinces in Canada, too.
Canada is where Scotland was right before the Act of Union, economically speaking. All it would take is for DC to force the issue and there would be unification just like how Scotland got pulled into the UK.
The GOP would never go for it, because that would be 38+ million Democrat voters and 10 more Senators at least. Not to mention the EC votes. But I can see the Democrats finally wising up and forcing Ottawa to play ball. All it takes is a majority vote in both chambers of Congress and a presidential signature. They would have to dump the Queen as head of the new states, tho.
Besides, everyone else in the world sees five additional stars shaped like little maple leafs on the US flag as it is. Only Canadians don’t, for some reason.
I believe you’re right.
Why am I not surprised?
I think you need to edit the AOC avatar, and stick on a badly drawn mustache
This is in reply to your “taxation works…” comment. The comment management system seems terribly inclined to attach it to the wrong thread. Dunno why. I’ve submitted 3 different versions and they all end up here.
ThorConn!
Tariffs, friend.
They can be imposed for the most arcane and esoteric reasons, should that the tariffing board have bâhlls larger than sesame seeds.
Brilliance should be employed thus and so.
The Chinese are brilliant, and with little push back employ all nature of legerdemain to thwart actually-free Trade.
GoatGuy
Yup. And they will need SECURE petroleum supply lines, too. Hell, they already need it.
Previously, the US secured it for them. Went to war in Iraq twice to do so (that was the real reason, the US never wanted the oil per se).
But next time there’s another flare up in the ME tho, it will have to be Japanese, German and Chinese boys and girls dying in that sandbox to secure that oil. No American president can justify having our troops do it anymore now that we are the world’s largest oil exporter and a net oil exporter at that.
No. The only job of the US when the ME next goes t1ts up will be to rake in the bucks selling oil for three digit per barrel figures while imposing export controls to maintain affordable fuel prices at home. That’s it.
Well, that and watching on TV as Asians and Europeans bleed in the sand so much it becomes a ochre red color that can be seen from space. 🙂
#AmericaFirst #ScrewTheRestOfTheWorld
Taxation works with one country. But some country will always see the opportunity to undercut those who have taxed their concrete production. Then they will be the world’s largest supplier. You have to actually undercut the use of coal, if you want it to disappear.
I believe, especially on a global scale, you have to address market forces to get anywhere. This is why I think any kind of carbon tax plan is doomed…the incentive to cheat is enormous.
Po’ Canada doesn’t actually have much OIL. It now is euphemistically billed as “oil sands”, but let’s recall, that only 25 years back, they were called “tar sands”. Because that’s the level of polymerization and isomerization that the once-oils-and-now-tars intermixed with alluvial post-glacial till has become.
That they produce prodigious quantities of the stuff, and that in so doing, they burn nearly 40% of it to provide the heat to extract the 166% that then becomes 100% output in accounting terms, well … as long as the Greenies aren’t looking too closely to the CO₂ budget, and ignore the immense tracts of unremediated post-strip-mining plains that sourced the tarry glop to begin with, it seems fine and dandy.
Just ✔ing
GoatGuy
Agreed… tho’ the air-cooled less-than–100-MW-thermal IMSRs are particularly impervious to local seismic idiosyncrasies, so long as they’re mounted on well engineered damped roller (XY cup) pads, AND have nicely compliant electrical connections to the power lines. Done right, they can easily survive X or XI level ground motion, and keep on ticking. As if nothing happened at all.
Just ✔
GoatGuy
You just need a lot of nuclear power.
✔ — nuclear power MUST be an integral “part of the solution”.
That means either very large reactors and/or molten salt.
… Balkanization is also key: micro-nuclear reactors supplying high-demand, constant-demand customers.
… An IMSR of 50–100 MWth can be air cooled. Perfect for a high-tech steel alloy factory, aluminum smelting plant and a hydrogen-gas spin-off facility. Combo.
… Also perfect for a “parallel grid” for charging fleets of e-trucks. Haulers. Mid-to-big ones. Public rapid-charge infrastructure.
Molten salt looks very good.
✔
With LOW risk of meltdown and explosion, there is no need for the NRC to be involved.
… well, realistically, we both know that ain’t possible. Either of the clauses.
Sub 1 cent/kWh level.
✔
The only way to get people to stop using COAL is to UNDERCUT IT.
✔ but … disruptive taxation also works.
Coal, China, Concrete, mitigation
… the Sino-Indian love affair with sintering carbonate rock to make lime (precursor to all concrete) is TRIPLY BAD: the plants have no exhaust gas scrubbers or remediation, the heat-use-efficiency is abysmal, and the decarbonation reaction releases as much CO₂ as the fuel itself.
… Yet, a huge share of China’s coal really goes to electricity production. That and smelting iron, copper, nickel, cobalt, molybdenum, vanadium, chromium and manganese ores.
Just ✔
GoatGuy
There is actually some good geothermal potential. But I would just go with nuclear. Geothermal has it drawbacks like the rest of the renewables. Nuclear is the most adaptable for grid power anyway. But in the seismically active areas (which is a lot of ASEAN area), either floating reactors or molten salt makes more sense.
Because of the way power is vested at the provincial levels, it seems unlikely that any PM could shepherd a pipeline to the east or to the west. South was the only direction and I’m starting to strongly suspect that the whole KXL drama was political theater and that it was actually canceled to give U.S. shale producers a larger domestic market at higher prices.
We can put wires above all the freeways and have semis, buses (like Greyhound), campers, and other long haul vehicles use these for power. https://new.siemens.com/global/en/products/mobility/road-solutions/electromobility/ehighway.html
Grid power is easy. You just need a lot of nuclear power. That means either very large reactors and/or molten salt. Molten salt is not a done deal. We still need to know about reactor life and such. Still, molten salt looks very good. If we can create another agency that over sees these reactors’ construction rather than the NRC…that could greatly accelerate its adoption. With no risk of meltdown and explosion, there is no need for the NRC to be involved. Have a “Safe Reactor Commission” instead. I think we could get hundreds of these built and producing electricity at the sub 1 cent/kWh level. Why would countries not want these? Dams are nice, but there are risks of dam brakes and the lakes created may require the relocation of many thousands of people. Coal? Well we all know about that. The only way to get people to stop using it is to undercut it. And only nuclear can reliably do that anywhere on the planet. The US needs to build a bunch of these reactors to work with energy intensive materials production: aluminum, steel, glass, concrete, and titanium. Ideally, the Fed would give very low rate loans to have reactors built for companies willing to produce enormous quantities for export primarily…and undercut the Chinese. The single largest use of coal is the Chinese manufacture of concrete. We must undercut this. That would do more to reduce greenhouse gasses than anything.
Transportation beyond trains, trolleys and trolleybuses is more difficult.
THe really interesting “problem” that the World (less the United States) is going to have is that China, India and the rapidly growing Southeast Asian countries:
pop : 000,000 – 650.5 2018, 689.3 2023, 6.0% ( 1.2%/a cmpd)
nom_gdp : 000,000 – 2891020.0 2018, 4111241.0 2023, 42.2% ( 7.3%/a cmpd)
nom_capita : USD – 4444.0 2018, 5964.0 2023, 34.2% ( 6.1%/a cmpd)
ppp_gdp : 000,000 – 8557573.0 2018, 12116246.0 2023, 41.6% ( 7.2%/a cmpd)
ppp_capita : LOCAL – 13155.0 2018, 17578.0 2023, 33.6% ( 6.0%/a cmpd)
Anyway, it probably doesn’t format worth beans, but the above show an estimate of 6% population growth in 5 year (1.2% compounded per year, for 5 years). And rather remarkably, a 7.3% compounded per year for a total of 42% GDP growth in US dollars. Amazing. Same kind of goes for individual prosperity (33% growth). And it tracks for PPP (compensated for local exchange-and-cost-of-prosperity differences).
The POINT is that ASEAN will, barring a nearly complete end-to-end revolution in power generation and energy storage, be requiring a concommitant increase in petrochemical fuels alongside their nuclear, wind, solar, hydro and scant geothermal sources. No way around it, IF the projections hold.
Just to think.
GoatGuy
Poor Canada. If only they had leaders who would help get their oil to market.