Economics

Free exchange

American energy trends

Less of a menace from oil

Jan 23rd 2012, 22:35 by G.I. | WASHINGTON

If I had to pick the economy's likeliest spoiler this year, it would be oil prices. Whether it's Iran trying to close the strait of Hormuz or the Arab Spring  wafting through Saudi Arabia, I have no idea; but nothing matches the track record of oil in delivering nasty economic surprises.

But over the long run, something important is happening to the role of imported oil in the American economy: it's shrinking. This comes through quite strikingly in the outlook released today by America's  Energy Information Administration. The remarkable expansion of U.S. production from shale gas and unconventional oil sources such as the Bakken formation in North Dakota are relatively well known. There is, however, less awareness that American consumption is barely growing (see the nearby chart). The EIA has sharply revised down how much liquid fuel it reckons America will consume in 2035, to 20m barrels a day, from 22m it projected last year, which would be below the 2005 peak. Couple that with rising domestic production, and America will rely on net imports for just 36% of its liquid fuel needs in 2035, compared to 60% in 2005.

Several factors are at play. Factor one (unfortunately) is lower economic activity in the aftermath of the recession. Factor two is upward pressure on the price of oil from emerging markets demand. The EIA reckons by 2035 it will average $145/barrel in 2010 dollars, up from last year's range of $85 to $110. The higher price stimulates domestic production, encourages conservation and makes alternatives more viable. Factor three is policy such as more demanding fuel economy standards for vehicles and energy efficiency requirements for appliances, and state portfolio standards that mandate the use of more renewables in electricity generation. 

These developments have several  positive implications. The first is lower CO2 emissions. As the nearby chart shows, the EIA reckons America's energy-related emissions will be lower in 2035 than in 2005.   Among the more notable trends identified by the EIA is the electric industry's falling reliance on coal. Increased competition from natural gas and renewables and stiffer environmental requirements mean coal-fired plant retirements will exceed new additions, leading to a steady decline in coal-fired generating capacity.

The other key implication is that the economy will be less sensitive to changes in the oil price. That will be both because America will use less oil and gas per unit of GDP, and because more of the oil and gas it consumes will be domestically produced. So a rise in the price will transfer income from domestic consumers to domestic rather than foreign producers. 

This isn't going to happen fast enough to save the economy if oil prices spike this year. And even in the future oil will still be able to do a lot of damage: America will remain a big net importer for as far as the eye can see. The inelastic nature of demand means it is very difficult for consumers to respond to higher oil prices in the short run by consuming less.

But the trend lines are encouraging.

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

Ah Beng

Note again, that is not oil production in the graph. That is total liquids, which includes natural gas liquids. Actual additional oil production will barely cover the decline of Prudhoe Bay.

bampbs

OPEC has been waging economic war on the rest of the world since 1973.

If I had had an army in Kuwait in 2003, I'd have gone the other way.

shaun39

Oil consumption per head in the US has fallen by more than half since 1978.

It's no wonder that - for the majority of Americans - living standards have fallen.

The multiplier of median wage for buying a house, buying a car, driving 200 miles or attending college are all higher than at any time since the late 1960s (and some have never been higher).

New technology does mitigate this a little - ipods and xboxes provide distraction. But it is harder than ever in living memory for ordinary Americans to leave their parents' homes, get married, drive a car or put food on the table.

It isn't just worsening concentration of wealth and income - worsening scarcity of oil and energy disproportionately destroy material wealth (buildings, heavy engineering, vehicles, agriculture, utilities...).

Shale gas is a godsend. For when the gas ends, we need to build capacity for new nuclear: thorium (http://energyfromthorium.com/ ), breeder reactors and eventually fusion. Divert some more of the military budget for essential civilian energy research (and pilot plants) - cheap energy and better lives depend on it.

Connect The Dots

Simple Solution of World Peace: End Oil Addiction

Which would allow disengagement from the Middle East.

And Solve Global Warming. And eliminate World Terror.

That would deserve a Triple Nobel Chemistry, Economics and Peace Prize, COMBINED.

Simple solution, but a hard problem to solve.

About Free exchange

In this blog, our correspondents consider the fluctuations in the world economy and the policies intended to produce more booms than busts. Adam Smith argued that in a free exchange both parties benefit, and this blog's aim is to encourage a free exchange of views on economic matters.

Advertisement

Trending topics

Read comments on the site's most popular topics

Advertisement

Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Coddlers of plutocrats?
From Schumpeter - January 24th, 0:27
Less of a menace from oil
From Free exchange - January 23rd, 22:35
Issues with "issues"
From Johnson - January 23rd, 20:20
More from our blogs »
Products & events
Stay informed today and every day

Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.


Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter


See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.