Alaska News

Energy independence: Manifest destiny or mythology?

Much has been made of the shale oil boom across North America and how the newly-accessible hydrocarbons could position the U.S. to overtake Saudi Arabia in oil production before the end of the decade.

The International Energy Agency this week revised its oil-production forecast. Last year, the Paris-based agency announced that Russia and Saudi Arabia would jockey for the lead spot in terms of production through the year 2020. No more. Led by shale-oil plays in the Bakken formation across Montana and the Dakotas, the Marcellus in the Northeast and the Eagle Ford in south Texas -- with Alaska's middle-aged elephant fields across the North Slope shoring up production -- the U.S. of A. is poised to become the world's leading producer of oil within about seven years, the IEA has concluded:

The Wall Street Journal quickly and correctly acknowledged the implications for the U.S. both in terms of domestic economics and geopolitical strategy. The Journal's lede:

But what does that mean? Will America finally be weaned off its dependence on oil imports from unstable Middle East regimes? Is energy independence something that's actually achievable?

Don't hold your breath. At least that's the premise for a thoughtful article from The Atlantic, which explores the IEA forecast and what it means for the U.S. One takeaway from The Atlantic piece is that the U.S. can never achieve oil-market hegemony because, ironically, of our belief that the markets will level the playing field. They won't, The Atlantic posits.

For one, the U.S. is unlikely to nationalize its oil reserves the way that other crude kingdoms like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Russia have done in different ways, but ways that all achieve a similar result that bequeaths market control to the central government. Wildcatters in South Texas or North Dakota likely won't have to worry about Congress or any president usurping their property rights. Alaska's a different story for another analysis.

And Saudi Arabia chooses not to produce more oil. It could if it wanted to but the kingdom exercises more power -- and with power, political stability -- by stabilizing the world's oil markets, pumping more when the global economy heats up and cutting back when it cools off. The U.S. can't and won't ever do any such thing.

ADVERTISEMENT

But here's the crutch: with more oil production comes more oil consumption. And because the U.S. economy is fueled by consumption, not production, it's hard to imagine that without a sustained emphasis at the state and federal levels on a diversified portfolio of energy sources -- from renewables like wind, geothermal and solar to hydrocarbons like oil and coal -- the U.S. can ever achieve anything that remotely resembles the political catch phrase, "energy independence."

Says The Atlantic:

The World Energy Outlook executive summary also contextualizes the shale oil boom's curse: A glut of new oil could end up delaying inevitable investments in renewables and energy-efficient technologies -- the very things, according to the report, that could deliver energy security (although the phrase "energy independence" is noticeably omitted):

Thoughts? Share them in our comments section.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article mistakenly identified the International Energy Agency by the acronym IAEA. The correct acronym is IEA.

Contact Eric Christopher Adams at eric(at)alaskadispatch.com

ADVERTISEMENT