Impending Record U.S. Crude Oil Production

I've got to admit, I wrote that without looking at the link. All of those use 1990s + technology. I look at the statistics and can't figure out what they actually mean, they just look like someone through some numbers up. Given the large variation in new well count, and the age of the old, it doesn't tell me much.

 

Iplug, I can't readily see from the eia source what role petroleum play (with I assume are distillates) play in this.

 

Chart is labeled crude oil and petroleum products. I ask what (and what part of the trade balance) comes from petroleum products that are not crude oil?

 

Got it also petroleum products are 19% of total.

 

Also at an all time high is gallons Gasoline used in America:
(graphic below for @iplug)

U.S. Product Supplied of Finished Motor Gasoline (Thousand Barrels)

Although if we somehow had energy content per gallon of gaso, we might see that on an energy content basis, less increase. US refinery gaso production is definitely down since ~2008, because ethanol has been given about 10% of the pool. But each gallon of gasoline removed requires I guess about 1.5 gallons of ethanol to replace it on an energy content (MPG) basis.

 

After being lied to twice about the so called "energy crisis" in my driving career, and having to buy gas on specific days, and being told that by 1980, the air and water would not be usable due to the automobile, I would like OPEC to go away. I want them out of business. Remember in the 80's when all the gas station owners were turning out to be OPEC relatives? Remember when you couldn't get gasoline, but they could? There should be no excuse for us (the United States) to have to pay $5 per gallon for gasoline again. None! Period!

 

"being told that by 1980, the air and water would not be usable due to the automobile"

I think environmental alarmism in these issues and others has been much overstated. Even before modern click media, it was how pessimistic folks made their concerns known. I am not proud of those excesses, and quite unsure that alarmism was optimal.

We have now, compared to 1980 a much larger vehicle fleet that (per unit) emits much less 'trouble' to atmosphere and lungs. Catalytic converters and low-sulfur fuel made it happen. Alarmism may have played a small, debatable role, but there it is.

We still have alarmed voices about air pollution, and perhaps millions of premature deaths from burning whatever for NEEDED energy. If previous alarmism slows curing that, we collectively have certainly lost.

Front-end economics drives energy towards renewables; that is the story of the decade. Back-end economics, externalities, are the sound of current alarmism with, +CO2 blended in for good or ill.

I wish I had an answer...

 

Some of us are old enough to remember the bad air of the 1960s and later. There was a time when engine exhaust had enough carbon monoxide to commit suicide. Not impossible but much harder today.

What is most remarkable is the relative cost of electric versus gas miles. Sure the electric emissions are displaced but natural gas and nuclear have done a great job of diluting the worst. Better still, it has become uneconomic to operate inefficient coal fired, generator plant. China and Japan are leading the way.

I'm reminded of the transition from horse to engine powered vehicles. Although Dobin had self-driving capabilities with collision avoidance and auto-navigation to the feed stall, the cost today would be impossible. Economics drove decisions that mean we don't have to beat the spot where the dead horse was dragged away. The recent exception, the diesel scandal.

I am reminded that EU (and the UK) have cities with NOx monitoring. They couldn't figure out why the ambient rates kept going up. On bad days they had to limit all traffic even with the 'clean' diesels. Excessive air pollution has an economic effect.

Bob Wilson

 

It is quite unfortunate that some people now getting into Congress, who are too young to remember that bad air, don't even believe that it ever existed.

 

+1

I believe alarmism and politics are slowing not speeding up solutions. Luckily economics and technology may come to the rescue ;-)

We have had some vivid failures. The oil crisis mixed with politics led to gas lines and federaly mandated coal power plants that caused much higher ghg and unhealthy pollution.

Europe bent on reducing CO2 has much more unheathy air than the US, perhaps its about priorities. They are now starting to get to it.

Fracking should be providing a good transition to rewewables but .... we have reactionary politics trying to keep coal on top or other fuelish endeavors.

They can take trips to other countries to breathe bad air. Bad air in the US outside of california will be mostly gone in the next decade, I don't think burning oil will change that. Bad water. Much more of a problem in the US. Perhaps we should send mr pruitt and his lobbyist friends to flint for awhile and serve them and their children untreated water.

 

I've lived in California 61 years and the bad smog problem we had in the 60s got better for awhile. I'm afraid that even with our much stricter smog laws out here, the prevalence of less controlled large vehicles and trucks, coupled with the ever growing generally larger volume of cars on the road is bringing back smoggier days.
Hopefully we can curtail the greater polluters with wiser and improved controls on their emissions and fuel economy. The upcoming higher gas prices should curb somewhat the volume of giant globs. I hope more Primes etc. are sold everywhere, instead of these irresponsible, single occupant monsters; give me, my kids, and grandkids back our clean air!

Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.
AChoiredTaste.com

 

Don't forget that that particular area is also afflicted with natural hydrocarbon emissions, such as underwater methane seeps bubbling to the surface. These do contribute to the photochemical smog, especially when local weather and topography are trapping and concentrating it.

I seem to remember some of the area refineries receiving air pollution credits for tenting or capping some of the larger offshore natural gas seeps, collecting the gas for human use before it reaches the surface. This reduces local air pollution, reduces global greenhouse gas emissions (raw methane is far worse than the CO2 produced by burning it), and offsets extraction of still-sealed-underground hydrocarbons.

​

 

Its important to remember california is not the country, and has particular issues that reducing ghg will not solve. I am almost of the opinion that California's ARB moved to ghg because they are not doing well on unhealthy pollutants. Example from the LA times - Southern California smog worsens for second straight year despite reduced emissions
Southern southern california is the worst region of the country. Its improved but 145 days is simply unacceptable.

They really haven't even done the easy work houston did to evaluate and cut down on the worst point sources. Not to say the problem is as easy as it was in houston. One major change Marathon bought the texas city refinery from BP, and pollution at that awful site dropped greatly. EPA has cars like the prius and even the non hybrid camry polluting less than models suggest, but NOx from trucks being much higher than expected. It is unlikely that replacing today's tier 1 gasoline cars with plug-ins or fuel cells would cut down on much of the pollution. Hell I bet a gen III prius actually cleans LAs air ;-)