Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Power

The US Is Now Energy Independent (axios.com) 96

Posted by BeauHD from the locally-sourced dept.
The U.S. produced more petroleum than it consumed in 2020, and the numbers were essentially in balance in 2021, according to the Energy Information Administration. Axios reports: The surge in oil prices taking place in 2022 has radically different implications for the U.S. economy -- and for key geopolitical relationships in the Middle East and Russia -- than in past episodes when energy prices have risen. In the past, when oil prices spiked, the impact on the U.S. economy was straightforward: It made America poorer, as more of our income went overseas to pay for imported energy. Now, after the shale gas revolution of the last 15 years, the impact is more subtle. Higher fuel prices disadvantage consumers and energy-intensive industries, yes. But there is a counteracting surge in incomes for domestic energy producers and their workers. Higher oil prices no longer depress overall measures of prosperity like GDP and national income, but rather shift it around toward certain regions. Texas and North Dakota win; Massachusetts and North Carolina lose.

As recently as 2010, America imported 9.4 million barrels a day of oil more than it exported. That had swung to a 650,000 barrel per day surplus in 2020, and preliminary numbers for 2021 show trade pretty much in balance last year. To the degree the U.S. does still import oil, more of it is coming from our closest ally. Canada was the source of 51% of U.S. petroleum imports in the first 10 months of 2021, compared with 8% from the Persian Gulf. By contrast, the Gulf states supplied more than 30% of American petroleum imports in 2008.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The US Is Now Energy Independent More

The US Is Now Energy Independent

Comments Filter:

  • sure. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    yeah sure the higher prices negatively impact 10's of millions of American families, but a couple of companies and a handfull of workers are better off so it balances out.

    • The article is stupid. Yeah, we sent dollar paper overseas for other people's limited resources. Those people just burned all the dollars they got or ate them. They certainly didn't use them to pay for American made goods.

      That dollar circle makes the dollar stronger internationally and encourages a lot of secondary trading. It also creates an incentive to keep good relations between trading countries.

      Finally, the US actually maintains energy independence because it has more of its own resources still locked

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      In the past higher prices tended to indicate a lack of supply. The economy suffered because we did not have energy. While lower prices might have marginally helped a small segment of the population, higher prices with ample supply has always been better overall. The issue with north American oil is it is expensive, and outside of Texas dirty. At $90 a barrel we can make shale oil work, but saying we are a good spot is misleading. The fact is that the money canâ(TM)t be used to increase suppply because

    • I was paying $40 to fill up my car during the Bush years while I was still in high school in Pennsylvania. I just paid $45 to fill up my tank in California.

      If anything the price of gas has fallen or stayed the same while inflation has exploded.

  • A freshly resurfaced roadway means it's time to dig it up and replace something underneath.

    Similarly, petrochemical energy independence means it's time to run the oil and gas companies out of business by extrajudicial pressure campaigns so we can go back to being more poor and more dependent on dictatorships on the other side of the planet.

    The principal cause is attitude. If the attitude is that America is a generally benign entity whose inhabitants should be left free to pursue their own destinies, you get

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      > Similarly, petrochemical energy independence means it's time to run the oil and gas companies out of business by extrajudicial pressure campaigns so we can go back to being more poor and more dependent on dictatorships on the other side of the planet.

      What? Dictatorships on the other side of the planet control wind, solar, water, and Canada/Australia's massive uranium deposits? Have you been watching too many Bond films and got them confused for reality or something?

      Given fossil fuel reserves are finite

  • Peak Oil (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Thursday February 17, 2022 @08:47PM (#62278525)
    The peak oil wikipedia article has been one of the more amusing ones to follow for a while:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    Figure 1: What we propagandized to you for decades and hoped to influence public policy with.
    Figure 2: How pants-shittingly wrong we were.
    • Was largely because solar power and wind power developed at a rate many times more than we anticipated? Also natural gas and fracking changed how we access fossil fuels, not necessarily for the better. For example the way we are accessing natural gas we are venting huge amounts of helium into space. We need helium to make virtually all modern electronics and it's not like we can just get helium from somewhere. It is not practical to get it from the moon and it's not practical to create a nuclear reactors. I

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      Looks impressively accurate to me, except that he couldn't predict the 2008 financial crisis and dysfunctional energy market driving people back to fossil fuels. I guess he over-estimated our ability to make progress.

  • Then someone decided to close down a pipeline, restart production restrictions, and bring in larger amounts of foreign product. But hey, the headline looks nice.

    • Not really. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Thursday February 17, 2022 @11:04PM (#62278815)

      The pipeline you speak of was importing fuel to the US. This doesn't make us more dependent on external sources but precisely the opposite. Also, nobody likes an environmental catastrophe, so shutting it down as the right move.

      I don't think there should be any production restrictions so long as the company is willing to pay for amount of money needed to clean up the pollution it emits.

      It's far past time for companies to invest in renewable energy. Seriously, their refusal to do so is a testament to their own greed because they know they will lose their monopoly of energy if it's just generated using silicon panels that can be produced anywhere on the planet. Losing their monopoly means they have to actually compete with other energy suppliers.

      It's far past time for a carbon tax.

  • Was (Score:3)

    by Vanyle ( 5553318 ) on Thursday February 17, 2022 @08:51PM (#62278541)

    I think the word the article ment to use is was. These numbers are from 2020, we have had a lot of turmoil in 2021

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      These numbers are from 2020, we have had a lot of turmoil in 2021

      Turmoil in 2021? Is that the next Politically Correct version of "Fuck Joe Biden?"

  • No matter what coal is dead (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Thursday February 17, 2022 @08:57PM (#62278559) Journal
    The oil industry whipped up passions and got full support in the slogan Drill, Baby Drill. But that found more natural gas. Natural gas became cheaper than coal, way cheaper. So the Dig, Baby Dig crowd got shafted.
  • The US is only energy independent if all that oil is kept for domestic use. However, the US exports nearly 9 million barrels of oil per day, and thus must import a similar amount. You are not energy independent when you import that much oil. https://www.eia.gov/todayinene... [eia.gov]

    • However, the US exports nearly 9 million barrels of oil per day, and thus must import a similar amount.

      For what purpose?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RobinH ( 124750 )
      That doesn't invalidate the point of the article, which is that if the price of energy goes up, the extra money paid to import energy is then offset by the extra revenue from exported energy. To the government this is energy independence, since GDP is now more independent of oil price.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by battingly ( 5065477 )

        That doesn't invalidate the point of the article, which is that if the price of energy goes up, the extra money paid to import energy is then offset by the extra revenue from exported energy. To the government this is energy independence, since GDP is now more independent of oil price.

        According to the TFA, the point is:

        For decades, politicians have talked about the U.S. achieving energy independence, a seemingly elusive goal of producing enough fuels to avoid relying on the rest of the world to fill up gas tanks and keep electricity flowing.

        However, the US still relies on the rest of the world to fill up gas tanks because it still imports nearly 9 million barrels of oil per day.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ody ( 100079 )

          However, the US still relies on the rest of the world to fill up gas tanks because it still imports nearly 9 million barrels of oil per day.

          I don't see how you conclude that when the article you linked to says:

          This year marks only the second time the United States has been a net total petroleum exporter in the first half of the year. The United States has been a net exporter of petroleum products alone since 2011.

          Now there are obviously some semantic tricks being played by the phrase "energy independence" here, but it also suggests that, if anything, the US tends to import crude oil and exports more refined product, such as gasoline. So in any case there doesn't seem to be much argument that we need to import "to fill up gas tanks."

  • It is part of the plan to reduce consumption without regard for the poor who need this energy.

  • For how long, though? (Score:3)

    by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Thursday February 17, 2022 @09:04PM (#62278575) Journal

    There's only so much oil and gas in the ground. Without curtailing the use of fossil fuels it's a matter of when, not if, we run out. Last I checked - which was like a decade ago at this point so it deserves revisiting - that time was on the order of a few decades at best.

    Also, even if the US doesn't import oil, it's still subject to the global market forces that dictate the price of that oil... meaning we're not really independent in any meaningful way unless some absolutely batshit laws get passed that ban energy imports and exports yet still manage to not trigger retaliatory trade wars or other knock-on economic impacts.
    =Smidge=

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      Also, even if the US doesn't import oil, it's still subject to the global market forces that dictate the price of that oil... meaning we're not really independent in any meaningful way unless some absolutely batshit laws get passed that ban energy imports and exports yet still manage to not trigger retaliatory trade wars or other knock-on economic impacts.
      =Smidge=

      Are you old enough to remember when OPEC held our nuts to the fire? They can't just cut production and raise prices to ass fuck us like they did back then.

      • I believe you, but how about a few citations for the young 'uns?

        • In 1973 OPEC decided to quadruple the price of oil. In 1979 they doubled it.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]

          These are examples of when they actually carried through on it. More often it was a threat that the west had to cowtow to. Whatever they wanted, the US had to agree to it. Because either go along or we cut off your transportation, heating, etc by cutting off the oil.

          • The United States abandoned the last link of the dollar to gold in 1973. At least part of the oil price rises was related to the loss of purchasing power of / confidence in the dollar.
            • I believe the equation was rewritten from (dollar = k * gold) to (dollar = (inertia + r) / oil). In 1973 I lived for months mostly in my car, under my desk, and in an occasional hotel room for shower and real sleep, because I could not reliably buy enough gas to get between home and work (2 gas stations on that route, both closed most of the time, and I worked mostly graveyard shift).

            • Inflation in 1973 was 6%. that's the reduced purchasing power of the dollar, 6%.

              OPEN TRIPLED the price of oil. 300%.

              If you want to deduct inflation from that, 294%.

      • They can because oil is a commodity and when the world oil prices go up worldwide they will also go up in the USA unless the USA bans exports.

    • There's only so much oil and gas in the ground. Without curtailing the use of fossil fuels it's a matter of when, not if, we run out.

      Nope. That's a fallacy from the peak oil discussions of the 80s. The reality is we will never run out of fossil fuels because the market is price sensitive. Proven reserves are based on the cost of extracting those reserves, so when the product cost goes up there are more reserves which we can tap into.

      We will ween ourselves off fossil fuels due to the *price* long before we need to worry about them actually running out.

      We are low-hanging fruit pickers. There's plenty of fruit in the tree but none of us are

      • > The reality is we will never run out of fossil fuels because the market is price sensitive.

        Uh. Even if I grant you this - and I don't - that doesn't really mean that we can't or won't ever run out of oil, it doesn't change the fact that there is a limited supply, and it doesn't discredit the idea of peak oil at all.

        The planet is physically finite. Therefore, the amount of fossil fuels present is physically finite. QED.

        And to address your bullshit point about prices getting so high that we'll stop using

        • Uh. Even if I grant you this - and I don't - that doesn't really mean that we can't or won't ever run out of oil, it doesn't change the fact that there is a limited supply, and it doesn't discredit the idea of peak oil at all.

          No it does. The idea has been thoroughly discredited, by researchers as well as the oil industry itself (who were instrumental in calling the alarm). It's a basic economic supply and demand game showing that there will never be a peak supply, but there *will* be a peak demand.

          You can see that in historical data already. When oil prices spiked sharply demand reduced and the proven reserves suddenly massively increased as non-conventional oil as well as difficult to reach sources (deep water / arctic) suddenl

  • is the fact that during the pandemic gasoline use was down by 30% or more so we didnt need to import as much and usage is still down because of the many government slackers pretending to work from home. If this oil is used it would seem to be contrary to the plans of the so-called progressives and will likely add to the burgeoning CO2 and methane buildup. The methane in particular I feel may be locked into a very bad feedback loop. CO2 increases slowed over the pandemic but US coal use increased by 20%, ag

  • I hate how the oil industry has some how branded itself as the "energy sector" when "pollution sector" is more accurate, where "energy" has a less critical tone to it.

    Nuclear is energy
    Wind is energy
    Hydro-electric is energy
    Solar is energy
    Geothermal is energy

    Hydrocarbons are also used for energy, but by not calling it what it is, it reduces the reminder of just what it is.

    And yes. I'm writing this as I'm about to board a flight which will produce 200kg of CO2 to get home, to drive my car in airport parking, t

    • That's cute, but the primary use is energy. Byproducts do not get a say in the name otherwise Food would be called Shit.

      • But if we have all the apples we need, the headline should read "America reaches apple independence" not "America reaches fruit independence"

    • We could call it a battery, cos it is energy storage. ...maybe dirty battery

    • Totally agree. Why on earth wouldn't we use the actual name of the thing? It's just as easy to say that we have reached petroleum independence.

      The reason is because even the freakin' news outlets have bought into this greening of the oil business as energy. It's the oil producers own propaganda that the news is regurgitating. This is definitely a pet peeve of mine.

      Look, I'm realist, I drive a car that uses gasoline, but fuel economy was a definite consideration when I bought it. And still is when I dec

  • ??? "It made America poorer, as more of our income went overseas" ???

    "It made regular Americans poorer, as more of our income went to the American rich"
    FTFY

  • Or was 2020 a year that should not even be used/included for this type of data or conclusion?
    • That's a valid point for sure. Though going back to 2017 or 18 we were on track to be full-time net-exporters this year, so you could look at 2020 as giving that trend a healthy boost. Which the next President immediately attempted to undo.

  • Companies buy carbon offsets so they can say they are "carbon neutral." Yet the same companies continue to produce tons of exhaust, while the offsets are often theoretical or merely promises of future action.

    In the same way, the US both imports and exports energy in many forms. These forms are not necessarily interchangeable. If we export more natural gas than we import, and this is offset by imports of oil, you can't just exchange one for the other. If the ports suddenly closed, we would still be in a worl

  • We're energy independent? No, we're very energy dependent and a lot of us will die when the oil runs dry.

  • When is the invasion? (Score:4, Funny)

    by kmoser ( 1469707 ) on Friday February 18, 2022 @12:32AM (#62279015)
    So when will a greedy capitalist nation invade us under the pretense of stopping terrorism but really so they can steal our oil?

  • Pure propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tiqui ( 1024021 ) on Friday February 18, 2022 @12:33AM (#62279021)

    Before Biden was sworn in, we were actually "energy independent" (by the US Gov's standards, not necessarily "for real") for the first time in decades and we were actually exporting energy, which put downward pressure on the price of oil. It took Biden less than a year to reverse that and he then had to tap the strategic oil reserves and ask the Saudis to pump more oil - we are currently a net importer of oil, including (absurdly enough) from RUSSIA at the very time we have cut our production, thus taking off the downward pressure on prices (so Putin makes more per barrel now than he did a year ago). This stuff's quite complex and we have long both exported AND imported oil in the same years (there are different grades, with different uses and different customers with different needs/capabilities) so what matters here is NOT the number of barrels imported or exported or the specific countries, but rather the net amounts and prices paid.

    The "article" pretends to say "under Biden, things are GREAT!" while actually citing stats that show that under Trump we were energy independent and that early in Biden's term we still were, as his policy changes took time to kick-in, but we're not now. it says "The US Is Now Energy Independent" while showing data from two years ago showing that independence, data from last year showing the loss of that independence, and leaving out the current data showing dependence. This sort of dishonesty is NEVER accidental.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by iserlohn ( 49556 )

      Oh right, let's forget about the COVID lockdowns in 2020 and the crash in demand for fossil fuel that led to this 'independence'.

      >This sort of dishonesty is NEVER accidental.

      Let's be charitable and call this satire. I couldn't imagine seeing this much hypocrisy and projection on the Internet, no way.

      • Oil production, consumption and imports/exports are tracked weekly. Since at least 2017, we have had an increasing number of weeks per year where we were independent or net exporters. We were predicted to become year-long net exporters this year well before the pandemic.

        That said, 2020 was an outlier in far more ways than what was happening in the oil market, and is thus a bad basis for comparisons.

        • Not disputing that the US has made a lot of progress in shale production and was projected to reach sufficiency. But to use 2020 as the baseline to compare against is blatant distortion, probably worse than what the GP is accusing the article of.

    • Yup, that's how it works alright. /s The article is not saying that at all, your mind can only see things one way, that's why you will always be unhappy.

  • we need to export a lot of this to Europe. (Score:3)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Friday February 18, 2022 @01:19AM (#62279111) Journal
    Seriously, Canada and America should be helping Europe to divorce Russia. At same time, the west needs to quit being anti-science and push multiple types of SMRs.
    • Err... I hope that you realize that Russia is physically part of Europe and that there is a large amount of trade and tourism with Russia, not just oil and gas? White Europeans are called Caucasians and the Caucasian mountains are physically in Russia and Georgia - that is where we all sort of come from. The Caucasus and Black Sea is actually a nice area to visit, despite the language barriers. I would not like to live there, since most people are very poor and it is hard to make a living there, but one
      • sigh. You were a dick 10 years ago, disappeared, and it looks like you remain a total dick. Too bad. I would have thought that having served and then living in Florida would make you grow up a bit. Apparently, I was wrong

        WHat did I say that would indicate a war mongering ? I would like to see Western Europe not be dependent on a nation that wants to control all of Europe. As such, I suggested that America and Canada needs to step up with selling nat gas. How the fuck is that war mongering? Your service c

  • If US really becomes energy independant, maybe it may consider not getting involved as much in the middle east.

    That region is already bad enough, without US pocking things there with a sharp stick all the time.

  • These numbers come out every week. We've had weeks of being a net exporter since 2017, and have known we were during 2020 since... 2020.

    But it's an election year, oil prices are through the roof, voters are hurting because of it, and it looks like a certain party is going to get shellacked as a result. Coincidence?

  • Then how come Joe Biden <checks notes> screwed up the economy and drove the price of gas up?

Slashdot Top Deals

To stay youthful, stay useful.

Close