Home / Business / Trump Can Make the US Energy-Independent—If He Goes Green

Trump Can Make the US Energy-Independent—If He Goes Green

The U.S. can realize President-elect Donald Trump’s dream of independence from foreign oil “foes” and “cartels”–but he likely won’t live to see it unless he embraces the kinds of policies he’s campaigned against, according to a new study out Wednesday.

In its World Energy Outlook for 2016, the International Energy Agency said that on current policies, the U.S. will need until 2040 to reduce its oil import needs to a level that can be met by just Canada and Mexico. (The IEA assumes that neither of those has become a foe of the U.S. by then.) At that point, it would be free of the need to intervene in the Middle East to guarantee vital energy supplies.

It could happen sooner, but that would require Trump to really embrace the kind of transformation of the energy sector called for by the Paris Accord on climate change–promoting renewables, encouraging energy efficiency, and migrating the transport sector to electric motors. That’s kind of awkward, given that Trump has pledged to pull out of the accord and revive the coal industry instead.

A pathway to energy independence for the U.S.Source: IEA

The U.S. currently imports over 20% of its energy needs, making any short-term aim of “independence” practically impossible. But that figure has been on a clear downward path since the start of the shale oil and gas boom a decade ago. The uptake of renewable energies–where the U.S. has a massive and largely untapped resource base–has slowly accelerated that trend in the last eight years.

Trump’s campaign promises on energy were a nod to voters in oil-producing states. They also reflected the idea that dependence on Middle Eastern oil helped provoke the decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 and perpetuates the need to spend billions of dollars every year on defending strategic interests in the region, notably in support of Saudi Arabia.

Khalid al-Falih, the Saudi energy minister, warned in an interview Tuesday that Trump should not try to reach his energy goals through import restrictions. Trump has never publicly proposed banning or restricting imports per se, although he has warned of boycotting Saudi oil if it didn’t contribute more to the upkeep of the U.S. military presence in the Gulf.

The U.S. “benefits more than anybody else from global free trade,” al-Falih told the Financial Times, pointing to the U.S.’s increasing exports of refined oil products and natural gas.

With global demand for natural gas expected to rise more strongly than for any other fossil fuel over the next 20 years, the U.S. would risk throwing away valuable export opportunities if it rejected free trade.

Elsewhere in its report, the IEA warned that the global oil market is headed for another boom and bust cycle within four years, due to the drastic cut in investment by exploration and production companies over the last two years.

Big oil companies in particular have slashed their capital expenditure budgets to conserve cash as oil prices have fallen from over $110 a barrel in 2014 to as low as $30 a barrel earlier this year, raising hard questions over how they can sustain their output and their returns to shareholders. BP Plc, for example, expects to invest only $15-$17 billion next year, compared to $24.6 billion in 2013. Chevron Corp


cvx



may spend as little as $20 billion next year, barely half the $40 billion it originally planned to invest in 2014.

“A lot of attention is focused on the remarkable resilience of U.S. tight oil output through the current downturn and its potential ability, because of a short investment cycle, to respond in a matter of months to movements in price,” The IEA said. “But there is a threat on the horizon to the ‘baseload’ of oil output, the conventional projects that operate on a different rhythm, with lead times of three to six years from investment decision to first oil.”

The IEA noted that the number of conventional oil projects receiving approval fell to its lowest level since the 1950s in 2015 and that there was no rebound this year.

“If new project approvals remain low for a third year in a row in 2017, then it becomes increasingly unlikely that demand (as projected in our main scenario) and supply can be matched in the early 2020s without the start of a new boom/bust cycle for the industry,” the Agency said.

InterNations.org

Trump Can Make a US Energy-Independent—If He Goes Green

The U.S. can comprehend President-elect Donald Trump’s dream of autonomy from unfamiliar oil “foes” and “cartels”–but he approaching won’t live to see it unless he embraces a kinds of policies he’s campaigned against, according to a new investigate out Wednesday.

In a World Energy Outlook for 2016, a International Energy Agency pronounced that on stream policies, a U.S. will need until 2040 to revoke a oil import needs to a turn that can be met by usually Canada and Mexico. (The IEA assumes that conjunction of those has turn a enemy of a U.S. by then.) At that point, it would be giveaway of a need to meddle in a Middle East to pledge critical appetite supplies.

It could occur sooner, though that would need Trump to unequivocally welcome a kind of mutation of a appetite zone called for by a Paris Accord on meridian change–promoting renewables, enlivening appetite efficiency, and migrating a ride zone to electric motors. That’s kind of awkward, given that Trump has affianced to lift out of a settle and revitalise a spark courtesy instead.

A pathway to appetite autonomy for a U.S.Source: IEA

The U.S. now imports over 20% of a appetite needs, creation any short-term aim of “independence” most impossible. But that figure has been on a transparent downward trail given a start of a shale oil and gas bang a decade ago. The uptake of renewable energies–where a U.S. has a large and mostly untapped apparatus base–has solemnly accelerated that trend in a final 8 years.

Trump’s debate promises on appetite were a curtsy to electorate in oil-producing states. They also reflected a thought that coherence on Middle Eastern oil helped incite a preference to go to fight in Iraq in 2003 and perpetuates a need to spend billions of dollars each year on fortifying vital interests in a region, particularly in support of Saudi Arabia.

Khalid al-Falih, a Saudi appetite minister, warned in an talk Tuesday that Trump should not try to strech his appetite goals by import restrictions. Trump has never publicly due banning or restricting imports per se, nonetheless he has warned of boycotting Saudi oil if it didn’t minister some-more to a maintain of a U.S. troops participation in a Gulf.

The U.S. “benefits some-more than anybody else from tellurian giveaway trade,” al-Falih told a Financial Times, indicating to a U.S.’s augmenting exports of polished oil products and healthy gas.

With tellurian direct for healthy gas approaching to arise some-more strongly than for any other hoary fuel over a subsequent 20 years, a U.S. would risk throwing divided profitable trade opportunities if it deserted giveaway trade.

Elsewhere in a report, a IEA warned that a tellurian oil marketplace is headed for another bang and bust cycle within 4 years, due to a extreme cut in investment by scrutiny and prolongation companies over a final dual years.

Big oil companies in sold have slashed their collateral outlay budgets to preserve money as oil prices have depressed from over $110 a tub in 2014 to as low as $30 a tub progressing this year, lifting tough questions over how they can means their outlay and their earnings to shareholders. BP Plc, for example, expects to deposit usually $15-$17 billion subsequent year, compared to $24.6 billion in 2013. Chevron Corp


cvx



might spend as small as $20 billion subsequent year, hardly half a $40 billion it creatively designed to deposit in 2014.

“A lot of courtesy is focused on a conspicuous resilience of U.S. parsimonious oil outlay by a stream downturn and a intensity ability, given of a brief investment cycle, to respond in a matter of months to movements in price,” The IEA said. “But there is a hazard on a setting to a ‘baseload’ of oil output, a required projects that work on a opposite rhythm, with lead times of 3 to 6 years from investment preference to initial oil.”

The IEA remarkable that a series of required oil projects receiving capitulation fell to a lowest turn given a 1950s in 2015 and that there was no miscarry this year.

“If new plan approvals sojourn low for a third year in a quarrel in 2017, afterwards it becomes increasingly doubtful that direct (as projected in a categorical scenario) and supply can be matched in a early 2020s but a start of a new boom/bust cycle for a industry,” a Agency said.

Article source: http://fortune.com/2016/11/16/donald-trump-energy-iea-oil/

InterNations.org

Trump Can Make the US Energy-Independent—If He Goes Green

The U.S. can realize President-elect Donald Trump’s dream of independence from foreign oil “foes” and “cartels”–but he likely won’t live to see it unless he embraces the kinds of policies he’s campaigned against, according to a new study out Wednesday.

In its World Energy Outlook for 2016, the International Energy Agency said that on current policies, the U.S. will need until 2040 to reduce its oil import needs to a level that can be met by just Canada and Mexico. (The IEA assumes that neither of those has become a foe of the U.S. by then.) At that point, it would be free of the need to intervene in the Middle East to guarantee vital energy supplies.

It could happen sooner, but that would require Trump to really embrace the kind of transformation of the energy sector called for by the Paris Accord on climate change–promoting renewables, encouraging energy efficiency, and migrating the transport sector to electric motors. That’s kind of awkward, given that Trump has pledged to pull out of the accord and revive the coal industry instead.

A pathway to energy independence for the U.S.Source: IEA

The U.S. currently imports over 20% of its energy needs, making any short-term aim of “independence” practically impossible. But that figure has been on a clear downward path since the start of the shale oil and gas boom a decade ago. The uptake of renewable energies–where the U.S. has a massive and largely untapped resource base–has slowly accelerated that trend in the last eight years.

Trump’s campaign promises on energy were a nod to voters in oil-producing states. They also reflected the idea that dependence on Middle Eastern oil helped provoke the decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 and perpetuates the need to spend billions of dollars every year on defending strategic interests in the region, notably in support of Saudi Arabia.

Khalid al-Falih, the Saudi energy minister, warned in an interview Tuesday that Trump should not try to reach his energy goals through import restrictions. Trump has never publicly proposed banning or restricting imports per se, although he has warned of boycotting Saudi oil if it didn’t contribute more to the upkeep of the U.S. military presence in the Gulf.

The U.S. “benefits more than anybody else from global free trade,” al-Falih told the Financial Times, pointing to the U.S.’s increasing exports of refined oil products and natural gas.

With global demand for natural gas expected to rise more strongly than for any other fossil fuel over the next 20 years, the U.S. would risk throwing away valuable export opportunities if it rejected free trade.

Elsewhere in its report, the IEA warned that the global oil market is headed for another boom and bust cycle within four years, due to the drastic cut in investment by exploration and production companies over the last two years.

Big oil companies in particular have slashed their capital expenditure budgets to conserve cash as oil prices have fallen from over $110 a barrel in 2014 to as low as $30 a barrel earlier this year, raising hard questions over how they can sustain their output and their returns to shareholders. BP Plc, for example, expects to invest only $15-$17 billion next year, compared to $24.6 billion in 2013. Chevron Corp


cvx



may spend as little as $20 billion next year, barely half the $40 billion it originally planned to invest in 2014.

“A lot of attention is focused on the remarkable resilience of U.S. tight oil output through the current downturn and its potential ability, because of a short investment cycle, to respond in a matter of months to movements in price,” The IEA said. “But there is a threat on the horizon to the ‘baseload’ of oil output, the conventional projects that operate on a different rhythm, with lead times of three to six years from investment decision to first oil.”

The IEA noted that the number of conventional oil projects receiving approval fell to its lowest level since the 1950s in 2015 and that there was no rebound this year.

“If new project approvals remain low for a third year in a row in 2017, then it becomes increasingly unlikely that demand (as projected in our main scenario) and supply can be matched in the early 2020s without the start of a new boom/bust cycle for the industry,” the Agency said.

InterNations.org