"So the us is going to start pulling it's oil out of the ground a lot faster. And then it's going to run out of oil."
This does not appear to be an entirely accurate conclusion, according to the article. For example, the article explains that:
"The desert kingdom is due to become the biggest producer again by 2030, pumping 11.4 million barrels a day versus 10.2 million in the U.S."
That said, if the numbers and projections are accurate, then the U.S. will still be producing, but the output will be lower, largely because of changes in the sources of energy:
"'In the United States, low prices and abundant supply see gas overtake oil around 2030 to become the largest fuel in the energy mix,' according to the report, written by a team of researchers led by Birol."
On the topic of running out of oil, I have always wondered (just a theory for discussion here): maybe oil will never physically run out, but rather what will happen is that once all of the easily-accessible supplies have been expended, it will simply become so cost-prohibitive to extract that we will eventually be forced to change and adapt. Hopefully we will change sooner than later. (Also, when I say "we", I mean all of us as humans, not a specific country).
Edit: Thanks for responding roc and checker. You gave me a further reading point (i.e., peak oil).
It's pretty well accepted that oil will never physically run out.
Long before even extraction/refining costs make remaining oil infeasibly expensive, supply/demand will send the price spiking to uneconomical levels as soon as oil production so much as slows down relative to growth in world-wide demand.
That's what the US increase in extraction is primarily about: trying to avoid price shocks between now and when the economy is, or can be, substantially run on natural gas and renewables as global demand outstrips supply. And even then, all we'll likely have done is smoothed the increase in price over the next 20 years.
Similarly, the increased CAFE standards are much more about lowering American dependence on oil, fleet-wide, than environmental concerns.
The problem with oil, is that it is an inelastic commodity. During the oil shocks of the 70's prices had to rise by 400% before demand started to fall.
Also the notion of a country being energy independent when relying upon oil is a silly one. In the global economy, we want everyone to have relatively cheap energy, if not the global standard of living will fall.
It's inelastic in the short term, because there are limits to what people can do to change: they aren't necessarily able to immediately dump their existing car and trade up; they still have to commute to work; cargo still has to be transported to its destination; factories will not replace their inefficient equipment overnight. Costs go up but behavior doesn't change, so an increase in energy costs just replaces spending on other goods, hurting the rest of the economy.
Over the longer run, though, if prices have risen significantly and permanently, and that coincides with a point where a consumer decides they need to replace their car, then oil consumption does start becoming more elastic: the consumer is more likely to choose the more fuel efficient vehicle. We've seen some of this in the rise in sales of small vehicles versus trucks and SUVs lately.
This is where building a long-term steady upward price trend is important, versus short-term price shocks, since the former allows the economy to react appropriately by increasing efficiency.
> "Also the notion of a country being energy independent when relying upon oil is a silly one."
Sure. But there's no path to energy independence that doesn't include either: A.) huge economic shocks or B.) extending use of fossil fuels during the transition.
Basically, if you need to burn one barrel of oil to extract one barrel of oil from the ground, then you have already lost. Here, "burn" is used very loosely and is an all encompassing term including electricity for workers, rigs etc. and also the physical petrol required for transport to the refinery and end customers. The cost obviously also includes the initial investment and factors in the life of the rig installation itself as well.
It seems that we're currently at an EROEI of 10:1 and it's declining pretty steadily (kind of obvious). The wiki article is pretty informative. And, a cursory search on reddit for the term "peak oil" also returns quite a few interesting results. Caveat Emptor though, since there are some loony conspiracy theories posted as well, so it's up to you to sift the wheat from the chaff.
if you interpret "need to burn one barrel of oil" as "need the energy of one barrel of oil", there will probably be some leeway, even below 1:1; oil is a very good energy carrier, and pumping up oil carrying a kWh of energy at the cost of more than one kWh of solar electricity or solar heat will probably be more efficient than using that energy to produce (in the literal sense, by chemistry, starting with CO2 and H2O) oil for some time.
I believe your theory is essentially peak oil: When the price of extraction exceeds demand. Oil will still be there, but it would be economically unfeasible to tap, especially with the rise of alternative fuels.
No, that's not peak oil. Peak oil is the point were we have extracted the maximum amount of oil in a given year, after that productions starts reducing - but production could continue for centuries after that.
This does not appear to be an entirely accurate conclusion, according to the article. For example, the article explains that:
"The desert kingdom is due to become the biggest producer again by 2030, pumping 11.4 million barrels a day versus 10.2 million in the U.S."
That said, if the numbers and projections are accurate, then the U.S. will still be producing, but the output will be lower, largely because of changes in the sources of energy:
"'In the United States, low prices and abundant supply see gas overtake oil around 2030 to become the largest fuel in the energy mix,' according to the report, written by a team of researchers led by Birol."
On the topic of running out of oil, I have always wondered (just a theory for discussion here): maybe oil will never physically run out, but rather what will happen is that once all of the easily-accessible supplies have been expended, it will simply become so cost-prohibitive to extract that we will eventually be forced to change and adapt. Hopefully we will change sooner than later. (Also, when I say "we", I mean all of us as humans, not a specific country).
Edit: Thanks for responding roc and checker. You gave me a further reading point (i.e., peak oil).