The United States produced enough energy to suppy 84 percent of its needs in 2013

posted at 2:31 pm on June 9, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

While we should always be wary of advocating for the canard of “energy independence” purely for its own sake — because doing so means eschewing the competitive, price-controlling, and wealth-creating powers of free and open trade and instead inviting the protectionism that generally benefits special interests over all consumers — it’s always worth looking at just how far the United States has come in terms of oil-and-gas production capacity in just a few short years, both in terms of boosting our energy security with diversified sources (including ourselves) and for boosting our ability to compete in the global economy by growing our own. Via FuelFix:

The United States produced enough energy to satisfy 84 percent of its needs in 2013, a rapid climb from its historic low in 2005, according to a report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The nation produced 81.7 quadrillion British thermal units of energy last year and consumed 97.5 quadrillion, the highest ratio since 1987. The nation’s energy output rose 18 percent from 2005 to 2013, as a surge in oil and gas production offset declines in coal. Meanwhile, its total energy used fell 2.7 percent during that period.

The nation’s ability to meet its own energy needs hit an all-time low in 2005, when the amount of energy produced domestically met just 69 percent of demand. The last time the United States’ energy production exceeded its energy use was in the 1950s, according to the Energy Information Administration, an agency of the Energy Department.

It attributed the nation’s rising energy security largely to the increased production of oil and natural gas, which has been fueled by the domestic shale boom. The rise of new drilling and production technology, namely hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, has allowed companies to tap more reservoirs deeply buried in dense rock formations.

And here’s a visual from the EIA:

graph of ratio of domestic production to consumption, as explained in the article text

Our increased production capabilities, combined with technological innovations that have increased our overall fuel efficiency and how much bang we can get for our buck, are just another reason to finally lift our self-imposed crude oil ban (which more or less acts like a subsidy for U.S. refiners and may actually be keeping prices artificially higher than they could be) as well as fast-track more natural gas export terminals (which, thankfully, the DOE is thinking about doing at an increased pace, but they should really feel free to get a move on any day now) so that we can fetch the best possible price for our domestically produced wares and cultivate more robust economic growth.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Oooohhhhh man….is Obama gonna be mad when he hears about that!

BobMbx on June 9, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Yes all those windmills are making us energy independent! (/sarc)

s1im on June 9, 2014 at 2:37 PM

The United States produced enough energy to suppy 84 percent of its needs in 2013


The United States produced enough energy to suppy 84 percent of its needs in 2013 – Obama and Dhimmicrats vow to put a stop to it

FIFY – no need to thank me

oldleprechaun on June 9, 2014 at 2:38 PM

YAY OBAMA!

/channeling f*ckwitted trolls and Obama admin flacks…

Midas on June 9, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Thanks to the Obama administrations EPA MPG requirements our nation will be able to provide enough oil for ALL our needs.

portlandon on June 9, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Let’s see how that stat looks after 300 coal plants shut down…

PatriotRider on June 9, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Bad news for the warmistas.

How can they take us back to a Stone Age “balance” if we keep producing more energy?

Obviously, Obama and his EPA aren’t doing enough to choke off carbon energy production.

novaculus on June 9, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Don’t we produce 100% of electricity here? What am I missing?

faraway on June 9, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Thanks to the Obama administrations EPA MPG requirements our nation will be able to provide enough oil for ALL our needs.

portlandon on June 9, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Well sure – cuz us peons won’t be able to afford to buy our own cars.
That’s sure to cut down on our energy needs.

dentarthurdent on June 9, 2014 at 2:43 PM

Don’t we produce 100% of electricity here? What am I missing?

faraway on June 9, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Nawwwww, we import that stuff on the intercontinental railroad.

dentarthurdent on June 9, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Excellent! Everybody can reset the thermostat to 72 and deflate the tires.

Christien on June 9, 2014 at 2:46 PM

100 million unemployed Americans don’t require much energy to warm up their soup, or wait on the VA to call.

faraway on June 9, 2014 at 2:46 PM

We can get the remaining 16% from putting the pro-Dem media on treadmills and harnessing the power of manbearpig’s second chakra.

Christien on June 9, 2014 at 2:50 PM

While we should always be wary of advocating for the canard of “energy independence” purely for its own sake — because doing so means eschewing the competitive, price-controlling, and wealth-creating powers of free and open trade and instead inviting the protectionism that generally benefits special interests over all consumers — it’s always worth looking at just how far the United States has come in terms of oil-and-gas production capacity in just a few short years, both in terms of boosting our energy security with diversified sources (including ourselves) and for boosting our ability to compete in the global economy by growing our own.

101 words! A new HA record!!!

Akzed on June 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM

While we should always be wary of advocating for the canard of “energy independence” purely for its own sake — because doing so means eschewing the competitive, price-controlling, and wealth-creating powers of free and open trade and instead inviting the protectionism that generally benefits special interests over all consumers…

Normally, I’d be the firs to agree. However, I disagree here. Energy independence is a matter of national security. It is insanity for us not to be producing our own energy, and an amazing vulnerability. I am willing to endure some “protectionism” in order to make that happen.

Also, it’s not like the free market is truly at work in the energy sector anyway. Most of the places we’re importing energy from are totalitarian regimes, or close to it, and prices are being set by cartels. Free market forces are pretty much already not at work as it is.

Shump on June 9, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Our increased production capabilities, combined with technological innovations that have increased our overall fuel efficiency and how much bang we can get for our buck, are just another reason to finally lift our self-imposed crude oil ban (which more or less acts like a subsidy for U.S. refiners and may actually be keeping prices artificially higher than they could be) as well as fast-track more natural gas export terminals (which, thankfully, the DOE is thinking about doing at an increased pace, but they should really feel free to get a move on any day now) so that we can fetch the best possible price for our domestically produced wares and cultivate more robust economic growth.


The records continue to fall like October leaves sports fans – 115 words!!!

Akzed on June 9, 2014 at 2:55 PM

OT: You have got to be kidding me!!!

ConservativePartyNow on June 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM

101 words! A new HA record!!!

Akzed on June 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM

LOL!

You’ll miss her when she’s gone.

portlandon on June 9, 2014 at 2:59 PM

While we should always be wary of advocating for the canard of “energy independence” purely for its own sake — because doing so means eschewing the competitive, price-controlling, and wealth-creating powers of free and open trade and instead inviting the protectionism that generally benefits special interests over all consumers…

If we were going to benefit from the competitive, price controlling and wealth creating powers of free and open trade, then we should be in a market that is at least remotely similar to such.

The world market for energy is anything but free and open trade. The fact is that other nations benefit from price controlling the resources we buy from them. When ever the price risks going down to benefit us, they cut production to drive the price higher.

We should be aiming for energy independence just for the sake of energy independence. Only when we have the capability of producing 110% of our own energy use will we ever have the opportunity to alter the markets to the free and open trade that prevents all those problems you listed above.

I do not think you have any clue how free and open markets work. They sure as hell do not look anything remotely similar to the markets world energy supplies are traded in.

astonerii on June 9, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Our increased production capabilities, combined with technological innovations that have increased our overall fuel efficiency and how much bang we can get for our buck, are just another reason to finally lift our self-imposed crude oil ban (which more or less acts like a subsidy for U.S. refiners and may actually be keeping prices artificially higher than they could be) as well as fast-track more natural gas export terminals (which, thankfully, the DOE is thinking about doing at an increased pace, but they should really feel free to get a move on any day now) so that we can fetch the best possible price for our domestically produced wares and cultivate more robust economic growth.

If energy exporting was a path to economic growth, I would imagine that Saudi Arabia and other nations would be in much better positions than they are.

Energy PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTION combined are the path to economic growth. That there lies the perfect union between resources and prosperity. Selling our goods over seas will make us rich. Selling other nations our energy on the other hand is a good path to making them rich.

astonerii on June 9, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Don’t we produce 100% of electricity here? What am I missing?

faraway on June 9, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Trains, Airplanes, Cars, Trucks, Furnaces, Heating, Primary Metal Production, Refining, Chemical Plants, etc. You think like a librul. Not critically, only halfway, and not enough!

Old Country Boy on June 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Don’t we produce 100% of electricity here? What am I missing?

faraway on June 9, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Believe it or not, we get a metric butt ton of electricity from Canada.

Johnnyreb on June 9, 2014 at 3:18 PM

It’s no longer about producing energy but about producing a product the donks can tax us to death on.

Blake on June 9, 2014 at 3:18 PM

You all really need to understand that ALL energy is FUNGIBLE, no matter where the energy comes from. Oil companies and refineries don’t set the prices. They are set by international trading, even if the oil comes out of the ground at Odessa and is refined at Pampa. Almost ALL oil drilling is done by independent drillers and sold to the pipelines or other traders. The independent drillers don’t set the price, but if the price gets too low, they don’t drill because they lose money. I know all you political pukes think they should just produce oil and gas out of the goodness of their hearts and as good Americans. Of course, all the rest of you don’t have to do anyting out of the goodness of your hearts at a loss.

Old Country Boy on June 9, 2014 at 3:21 PM

What will amnesty and the Senate immigration plan do for demand? Can we keep up with the immigration growth in demand for food, fuel, wood, housing, roads, schools, water, etc?

I am hard pressed to understand why the environmentalist movement is so quiet with regards to increasing our population by tens of millions of consumers.

The answer of course is that these immigrants will be Democrat voters who will help advance the eco-Marxist agenda so the enviros stay silent.

Charlemagne on June 9, 2014 at 3:37 PM

suppy?

ctmom on June 9, 2014 at 3:46 PM

If energy exporting was a path to economic growth, I would imagine that Saudi Arabia and other nations would be in much better positions than they are.

Energy PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTION combined are the path to economic growth. That there lies the perfect union between resources and prosperity. Selling our goods over seas will make us rich. Selling other nations our energy on the other hand is a good path to making them rich.

astonerii on June 9, 2014 at 3:04 PM

If selling energy to other nations made the other nations rich, then Ukraine should be a very rich country at the expense of Russia. Instead, the Ukrainians are at Russia’s mercy and have no leverage to kick the Russians out of Crimea.

We had the same problem here in the 1970′s, when the OPEC countries cut their exports to the U.S., and we waited in mile-long gasoline lines on odd days and our brilliant President (Carter) told us to turn down the thermostat and wear sweaters.

Energy self-sufficiency should be a national-security concern–if we produce more energy than we consume, no hostile nation can use a threat to cut off energy exports to blackmail the United States into a weak position.

Eighty-four percent self-sufficiency is much better than 69%, but we should not stop even at 100%. If the U.S. government promoted the development and even export of energy resources, we could eventually come to the aid of our European allies, who have only recently realized that they are far too dependent on a hostile Russia for their energy needs.

This doesn’t mean that the government needs to develop the energy itself–”greedy” private capitalists can do the job all by themselves. The government needs to allow the development to go forward, and ease the environmental restrictions on fracking and drilling on public land, the construction of refineries and the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Steve Z on June 9, 2014 at 4:00 PM

You all really need to understand that ALL energy is FUNGIBLE, no matter where the energy comes from. Oil companies and refineries don’t set the prices. They are set by international trading, even if the oil comes out of the ground at Odessa and is refined at Pampa. Almost ALL oil drilling is done by independent drillers and sold to the pipelines or other traders. The independent drillers don’t set the price, but if the price gets too low, they don’t drill because they lose money. I know all you political pukes think they should just produce oil and gas out of the goodness of their hearts and as good Americans. Of course, all the rest of you don’t have to do anyting out of the goodness of your hearts at a loss.

Old Country Boy on June 9, 2014 at 3:21 PM

LOL, you all really need to understand that not all energy is fungible.

They have different grades of crude oil. The different grades can be processed at some plants, not others. So it does not matter if you are producing a boat load extra of one type if you do not have the processing (refinery) capability to process it. Some fuels cannot be run in certain states. So where it refined matters. How it gets places matters. Pipeline versus train or truck for instance. Then you have other energy sources such as coal, natural gas, nuclear and the unconventional.

You are right, if the price is too low, they stop producing it. On the other hand, if we are producing excess, the perfect path to f^cking over the American worker is to export the excess to make certain the prices at home are always at the absolute maximum possible.

The Republican platform is to get to energy independence and low energy prices. There is a reason for those two aspects.

astonerii on June 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Steve Z on June 9, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Wrong, they are far richer in the Ukraine than they would be if they had no energy at all.
Energy = Wealth creation. Wealth creation REQUIRES energy.

astonerii on June 9, 2014 at 4:02 PM

suppy = supply

Geez.

JannyMae on June 9, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Believe it or not, we get a metric butt ton of electricity from Canada.

Johnnyreb on June 9, 2014 at 3:18 PM

No, suh! I checked – it’s actually an Imperial butt-ton, which is roughly equivalent to 1.21 gigawatts!

massrighty on June 9, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Am I the only that thinks that the best strategic move is to buy energy from abroad? Sure, that doesn’t sound logical right now, but think 40 or 50 years into the future when we have depleted our own supply and we are right back in the same boat. Doesn’t it make more sense to help deplete the supplies of our adversaries first and then be the last ones standing with plenty supply of our own? We could essentially control the world energy market at that point.

Spacen on June 9, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Obama is spinning in his grave over this.

What, he’s not dead?
Weird.

Tard on June 9, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Am I the only that thinks that the best strategic move is to buy energy from abroad? Sure, that doesn’t sound logical right now, but think 40 or 50 years into the future when we have depleted our own supply and we are right back in the same boat. Doesn’t it make more sense to help deplete the supplies of our adversaries first and then be the last ones standing with plenty supply of our own? We could essentially control the world energy market at that point.

Spacen on June 9, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Your scenario includes full acceptance of two things;
1. That the supply of the raw material involved is limited, in the sense that we will somehow be “out of it” in 50 years.
2. That no new energy source will be devised to replace, or even augment, our current sources.

Remember, we’ve been told we’ll “soon be out of oil” since roughly 1950 – the doomists push the date back, like the crazy cultists they’ve always been, while we (the American Exceptionalists) keep producing, discovering, and inventing what we need, when we need it.

Put another way;

“Environmentalists’ energy plan is the repudiation of America and Christian destiny, which is Jet Skis, steak on the electric grill, hot showers, and night skiing.” – Ann Coulter

massrighty on June 9, 2014 at 4:18 PM

The nation produced 81.7 quadrillion British thermal units of energy last year and consumed 97.5 quadrillion, the highest ratio since 1987

Um, I think you meant to say ga-zillion.

msupertas on June 9, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Erika, you know full well our beloved Prez will trade this surplus away to get those 5 Gitmoids back. A cool deal. This energy thing will not stand. We are going in the wrong direction – When the “progressively worst” crowd find out, lean back. It will get worse. Always has, always will. It is the goal of the Libby Freordie-types. Or is it BrainOnKoch? Can’t keep them straight. Fumes …

Chuck Ef on June 9, 2014 at 4:25 PM

I have full acceptance that there are limitations to the fossil fuels we’ll be able to access. While innovation may allow us to increase what we can access, eventually we will reach our limits.

I would like to think that eventually we will have alternative forms of fuel that are cheap and clean. That is not the case today and to assume it will happen before we reach the limits of fossil fuels is foolish. Pray for the best, plan for the worst. That means planning on what we know today. The “doomists” and the “cultists” have not factored innovation in their targets, but you can’t always count on that. Again, you have to plan based on what you know today.

What we know today is that fossil fuels are a finite resource of which we can only access a fraction of what exists. Newer and cleaner energy is still not viable. The country with the largest energy reserve will be the country that wins. Why not position ourselves to be that country?

Spacen on June 9, 2014 at 4:28 PM

“LOL, you all really need to understand that not all energy is fungible”.

Actually it is. There is no one place where any one type of energy can be used (except a coal fired submarine or aircraft), but those can be serviced by fungible displacement. There is no one place where cnly one type of energy can be processed. Note the WWI German production of submarine and aircraft fuel From coal. The examples you use are representative of political action that really is outside of determining fungibility. Of course, if the librul politicians write laws or edicts that we won’t use a particular energy source hers, than that sourcew becomes not fungible only in the political sense here. we can’t buy it here, somebody else will buy it, no matter what (except Phil Harris’s box floating in the bay). Petroleum can often be substituted for coal, NG for petroleum. As far as electricity is concerned, it is all fungible by displacement.

Now, stop blaming the extremely hard working engineers and oilfield workers because they won’t let you get free gasoline.

Old Country Boy on June 9, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Don’t we produce 100% of electricity here? What am I missing?

faraway on June 9, 2014 at 2:42 PM

No. Interconnects with Canada and Mexico.

Oldnuke on June 9, 2014 at 4:30 PM

What we know today is that fossil fuels are a finite resource of which we can only access a fraction of what exists. Newer and cleaner energy is still not viable. The country with the largest energy reserve will be the country that wins. Why not position ourselves to be that country?

Spacen on June 9, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Again, when you say it’s finite – that means that it’s been precisely, accurately measured. This is not the case – every time we arrogantly decide we know how much fossil fuel inventory exists, we find more. And, even if I accept your premise that we can only access a fraction of that which exists, that amount will increase with improvements in technology. While we are sitting on our stockpiles, (per your suggestion) we will also be sending our money to folks that don’t like us much today! and funding terrorism.

You seem to be a doomist – I am a meliorist.

massrighty on June 9, 2014 at 4:55 PM

“Under my administration, energy prices will necessarily SKYROCKET”.

GarandFan on June 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM

It would be about 100% except for Obama’s war on coal.

burt on June 9, 2014 at 6:12 PM