WI U.S. became self-sufficient in oil by 1990?

[Cash]

This is a thought experiment I've been playing with for a while now. Following the energy crises of the 1970s, U.S. oil consumption dropped from a peak of 18.85 mbpd in 1978 to 15.23 mbpd in 1983, when various energy conservation tax incentives approved during the Carter Administration expired under Reagan. (There were other factors as well; I'm simplifying for the sake of space.) Oil imports in 1983 were only 4.31 mbpd.

What if the U.S. had continued on that downward consumption trend -- more conservation measures, tighter mpg regulations on cars, perhaps increased domestic oil exploration to offset the 1.33 mbpd decline in domestic production between 1983 and 1990 -- and achieved independence from oil imports by 1990? What would have been the impact?

For example, what if all the money that we sent to foreign oil producers over the last 24 years had instead stayed here or had simply never been created in the first place? Would there still be such a thing as a petrodollar? What if we didn't have to maintain the world's largest military to keep sea lanes open and underwrite Middle Eastern dictatorships? What would have been the impact of exporting energy conservation technology rather than importing ever larger quantities of oil? How would that have affected Saudi Arabia or Iran? What would have happened politically in the U.S.? Would we still have Justin Bieber and the Kardashians? (OK, so I'm joking about that. Sort of.)

I've discussed this with several people in the energy business, but they lack the sort of wide-ranging vision that this question requires. This place has produced some of the most thought-provoking analysis I've seen of various "what-if" scenarios. So what do you think would happen? What would the U.S. and the world be like today if its largest oil importer ... wasn't?

 

[Curiousone]

This is a thought experiment I've been playing with for a while now. Following the energy crises of the 1970s, U.S. oil consumption dropped from a peak of 18.85 mbpd in 1978 to 15.23 mbpd in 1983, when various energy conservation tax incentives approved during the Carter Administration expired under Reagan. (There were other factors as well; I'm simplifying for the sake of space.) Oil imports in 1983 were only 4.31 mbpd.

What if the U.S. had continued on that downward consumption trend -- more conservation measures, tighter mpg regulations on cars, perhaps increased domestic oil exploration to offset the 1.33 mbpd decline in domestic production between 1983 and 1990 -- and achieved independence from oil imports by 1990? What would have been the impact?

For example, what if all the money that we sent to foreign oil producers over the last 24 years had instead stayed here or had simply never been created in the first place? Would there still be such a thing as a petrodollar? What if we didn't have to maintain the world's largest military to keep sea lanes open and underwrite Middle Eastern dictatorships? What would have been the impact of exporting energy conservation technology rather than importing ever larger quantities of oil? How would that have affected Saudi Arabia or Iran? What would have happened politically in the U.S.? Would we still have Justin Bieber and the Kardashians? (OK, so I'm joking about that. Sort of.)

I've discussed this with several people in the energy business, but they lack the sort of wide-ranging vision that this question requires. This place has produced some of the most thought-provoking analysis I've seen of various "what-if" scenarios. So what do you think would happen? What would the U.S. and the world be like today if its largest oil importer ... wasn't?

Conventional Oil production dropped with peak oil being reached in the Continental U.S (recent increases are in unconventional oil, fracking, sands etc). It's not a question of more exploration, the oil's already been located. Price is what gets it out. Between Jevon's paradox & the power of the oil companies (largest corporations in the world. Invasions happen over oil. Members of Oil dynasties (Bush/Cheney) gain Presidencies. Global action on climate change is stalled from resistance to the fact that fossil fuel reserves which are 'assets' on a company spreadsheet will have to be left in the ground) voluntary energy efficiency isn't going to happen, not without politics somehow swinging leftwards as much as it did rightwards when the baby boomers aged OTL.

Higher prices could do it. If OPEC isn't undermined by Saudi Arabia it might be cheaper to develop todays fracking technology earlier. So the boom of the 80's driven by low oil prices doesn't happen. Soviet Union doesn't go bankrupt, at least not when it did OTL. 90's will start to look good for the U.S economically once it has it's own oil production raised.

The U.S will still be maintaining a large military. It's not there just to maintain the open lines of trade, it buttresses the American model of economic expansion, shuts down alternative experiments/tendencies to independence among the vassals.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

This is a thought experiment I've been playing with for a while now. Following the energy crises of the 1970s, U.S. oil consumption dropped from a peak of 18.85 mbpd in 1978 to 15.23 mbpd in 1983, when various energy conservation tax incentives approved during the Carter Administration expired under Reagan. (There were other factors as well; I'm simplifying for the sake of space.) Oil imports in 1983 were only 4.31 mbpd.

What if the U.S. had continued on that downward consumption trend -- more conservation measures, tighter mpg regulations on cars, perhaps increased domestic oil exploration to offset the 1.33 mbpd decline in domestic production between 1983 and 1990 -- and achieved independence from oil imports by 1990? What would have been the impact?

For example, what if all the money that we sent to foreign oil producers over the last 24 years had instead stayed here or had simply never been created in the first place? Would there still be such a thing as a petrodollar? What if we didn't have to maintain the world's largest military to keep sea lanes open and underwrite Middle Eastern dictatorships? What would have been the impact of exporting energy conservation technology rather than importing ever larger quantities of oil? How would that have affected Saudi Arabia or Iran? What would have happened politically in the U.S.? Would we still have Justin Bieber and the Kardashians? (OK, so I'm joking about that. Sort of.)

I've discussed this with several people in the energy business, but they lack the sort of wide-ranging vision that this question requires. This place has produced some of the most thought-provoking analysis I've seen of various "what-if" scenarios. So what do you think would happen? What would the U.S. and the world be like today if its largest oil importer ... wasn't?

We are not completely certain of the limits of the oil fields on the NOrth Slope, if they were explored and turned out to be like Saudi Arabia sized, such an outcome is POSSIBLE, if highly unlikely.

OIl prices would still rise, the cost of drilling and transport from the freaking Arctic is going to be more than from Texas.

This would help of Balance of Trade of course. You would see less of a squeeze on the middle class.

The US is still going to have a large military. The Cold War drove military spending and that would still be going on. The Cold War required us to help make allies were we could, so "underwriting military dictatorships" would still be going on.

Not to mention that oil is far from the only thing that we need to have travel the sea lanes.

And also not to mention that we would need to protect the oil supply of our allies.

Exporting conservation tech is not going to be a big business, not like exporting cars or food, or even movies.

Saudi Arabia and Iran would have a little less money. This could be actually be a good thing if it encourages them to develop other aspects of their economies, or to deal with serous political and social problems in a way of other than throwing money at it, but probably not.

 

[Faeelin]

Wouldn't the US be poorer if it's spending resources to produce a good in a more inefficient manner than it can be acquired overseas?

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Wouldn't the US be poorer if it's spending resources to produce a good in a more inefficient manner than it can be acquired overseas?

Except that the over seas resource is controlled by a monopolistic cartel that inflates the price.

 

[BlairWitch749]

if the US had adopted a national scheme to largely have all commercial trucks be on diesel and all personal autos be on natural gas its possible; maybe not by 1990, but entirely possible

 

[Riain]

Wouldn't the US be poorer if it's spending resources to produce a good in a more inefficient manner than it can be acquired overseas?

There is nothing free about the 'free' market, it has a million little controls for a million different reasons.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

This is a thought experiment I've been playing with for a while now. Following the energy crises of the 1970s, U.S. oil consumption dropped from a peak of 18.85 mbpd in 1978 to 15.23 mbpd in 1983, when various energy conservation tax incentives approved during the Carter Administration expired under Reagan. (There were other factors as well; I'm simplifying for the sake of space.) Oil imports in 1983 were only 4.31 mbpd.

What if the U.S. had continued on that downward consumption trend -- more conservation measures, tighter mpg regulations on cars, perhaps increased domestic oil exploration to offset the 1.33 mbpd decline in domestic production between 1983 and 1990 -- and achieved independence from oil imports by 1990? What would have been the impact?

For example, what if all the money that we sent to foreign oil producers over the last 24 years had instead stayed here or had simply never been created in the first place? Would there still be such a thing as a petrodollar? What if we didn't have to maintain the world's largest military to keep sea lanes open and underwrite Middle Eastern dictatorships? What would have been the impact of exporting energy conservation technology rather than importing ever larger quantities of oil? How would that have affected Saudi Arabia or Iran? What would have happened politically in the U.S.? Would we still have Justin Bieber and the Kardashians? (OK, so I'm joking about that. Sort of.)

I've discussed this with several people in the energy business, but they lack the sort of wide-ranging vision that this question requires. This place has produced some of the most thought-provoking analysis I've seen of various "what-if" scenarios. So what do you think would happen? What would the U.S. and the world be like today if its largest oil importer ... wasn't?

First, you are overstating the impact of Carter's policies. First, during the late 70's and 80's, the utility industry converted power plants to nat gas and coal. Second, in early 83 we were still in the early stages of recovering from a horrific recession where energy usage was less than what it would be in a normal economy. So, you had a lot of factors that make the size of the decline in energy usage appear to bigger than what it was going to be in the long term.

The US developed just about every bit of economically viable oil possible during the oil bubble from 78-82. Between that, the Saudis, North Sea, and Mexico, the world was awash in oil with prices finally bottoming at $10 a barrel in 1999.

Second, now that oil is at $100+, it is economically viable to develop more expensive fields. I believe we just surpassed the Saudis in production due to the shale fields in North Dakota and will likely be independent in a couple of years. The issue isnt availability of supplies, it is the cost to find, develop and produce it. It costs around $8 barrel to pull oil out of Saudi Arabia and about $70 to get it from N. Dakota.

To get the world you are proposing, the US would need have found supplies that cost $8 a barrel to produce. We had those supplies at that price in West Texas but they started to decline in 1970. The new ones just cost more produce. Or, you would need to develop alternative energy methods like solar that are still not economical despite the economic incentives of the last 10 years.

I think the big mistake you and a lot of people make is looking just availability and not cost to produce. Given the Saudis are the low cost producer, they would still be exceptionally important in this scenario and end up similarly. It would be higher cost producers like deep offshore that would lose out. So the mideast is still important in this scenario and any scenario that doesnt involve a new technology which displaces oil.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Except that the over seas resource is controlled by a monopolistic cartel that inflates the price.

Oligopolistic. There was a lot of cheating even at their peak. Now the price is more influenced by demand from China than OPEC's ability to supply.

 

[Henriksson]

You need a PoD earlier than 1970's, or a much later date than 1990 for this to happen. Heck, I'd argue that the 1940's, when the US became a net importer, despite producing two thirds of all the oil in the world, is too early. Oil consumption is just too entrenched, and there's just no way to increase oil production that much further.

 

[TheMann]

if the US had adopted a national scheme to largely have all commercial trucks be on diesel and all personal autos be on natural gas its possible; maybe not by 1990, but entirely possible

Having the 250+ million cars on American roads run on natural gas is just not feasible, and more to the point what then do people use to heat their homes? Most homes in the West which have central heating are heated by natural gas-fired furnaces for a reason. Practically all heavy trucks are already powered by diesel fuel, and their efficiency is growing as well.

If you want to get America off of fuel fossils, you have to improve efficiency as well as develop new ways of fueling vehicles and getting new sources of energy. There is no way to avoid the need of aircraft to be powered by jet fuel, though it is possible to use biofuel in many jet engines (and this would be one of the avenues used). I think one of the best ways to avoid the consumption of oil is the production of synthetic crude in large amounts from low-sulfur coal, which is very common in the United States, using the Fischer-Tropsch process, the energy from this coming from hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants. This electrical surplus could also easily be used to power trains through electrification of rail lines - and plans to electrify huge distances of rail lines in America was proposed in the 1970s, with one railroad proposing electrifying its entire main line from Chicago to Los Angeles and another proposing electrifying its heavy-hauling lines from the coal fields of the Powder River Basin. The best way to get hydroelectricity in large amounts is for Ontario Hydro in Ontario to follow Quebec's lead and build a series of hydro dams in the sparsely-populated north of Ontario and have parts of Western Canada follow, then sell the energy to the United States. (Hydro-Quebec makes a lot of money doing this.) Having Ontario do the same as Quebec in the 1970s would by the 1990s provide at least 15,000 MW of electric power to the northeastern United States, as at the same time Ontario would be finishing up the building of the Bruce, Pickering and Darlington nuclear generation stations. End result is a huge energy surplus and a nice way to power the Rust Belt.

Having gasoline taxed at a higher level than diesel fuel would also help, and for the vehicles on the road some mandates would help, the first and foremost being making CAFE rules apply to all the cars and light trucks on the road. The CAFE exception that SUVs and Pickup trucks got is a direct cause of the massive boom in those vehicles in the 1990s and 2000s, without it you would likely see those vehicles go with turbodiesel power and they would probably see much smaller sales, which has the benefit of adding to the average fuel economy of American vehicles in both directions. Having electrified large segments of rail lines in America adds to the lower amounts of diesel fuel, and having America build high-speed rail lines in large amounts would also add to this.