103 comments on Energy Debate Fact Check #2 - Is Energy Independence Good For the Nation?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
103 comments on Energy Debate Fact Check #2 - Is Energy Independence Good For the Nation?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“No civilization can survive the physical destruction of its resource base.”
—Bruce Sterling
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Mexico's production is falling off a cliff. I would be shocked if it ever gets up very much. In July, the biggest source of imports was still Canada, at 2,390,000 barrels per day. Saudi Arabia was second at 1,675,000. Venezuela was third at 1,340,000, and Mexico was number four with 1,290,000. It is possible some months Mexico will trade places with Venezuela, but is hard to see it going up much higher than number three.
It could if KSA and Canada production falls....;-)
In all seriousness though, due to financial deleveraging and coming depression, Mexico becoming a net oil importer is probably pushed back a couple years, though I expect their price elasticity to oil is lower than richer countries (higher amount of demand is needed). But once this country realizes the precipitous nature of Cantarell ++ (and it has been written about in WSJ and other mainstream places), we are going to have some real problems..
Once production starts declining, the three key factors that affect the rate of change in net exports are: (1) Consumption as a percentage of production at final peak; (2) The rate of change in production; (3) The rate of change in consumption.
Of the three, #1, consumption as a percentage of production, is the most important variable. And Mexico--like Export Land (final peak to zero net exports in 9 years), Indonesia (final peak to zero net oil exports in 8 years) and the UK (final peak to zero net oil exports in 7 years)--is in the "Red Zone," i.e., consuming about half of production at final peak (2004 for Mexico).
Mexico's net oil exports in 2004 were 1.9 mbpd (EIA, Total Liquids). I estimate that they will be down to around 1.0 to 1.1 mbpd in 2008. At this rate of decline, Mexico would be approaching zero net oil exports in around four to five years. However, the Cantarell decline is pretty steep, and subject to what consumption does, it's possible that they could get close to zero net oil exports in as little as two to three years.
And Venezuela's net oil exports have been dropping at an average rate of 100,000 bpd per year for 10 years. While hope springs eternal, at this rate of decline they will be approaching zero net oil exports in 20 years.
gail -- I doubt this will significantly change the future flow rates. I'm unclear exactly what they mean by "oil well repairs". Perhaps it's just a bad translation of the term "workovers".
MEXICO CITY (Dow Jones Newswires), October 14, 2008
State-run Petroleos Mexicanos has launched a tender to build four offshore oil platforms for the giant Cantarell field where the company hopes to stabilize production levels that have dropped by around a third over the past year.
In a statement Monday, Pemex said the four platforms will be used in the Akal section of the field for oil well repairs. Interested companies must deliver project proposals to Pemex between Nov. 5 and Nov. 14, depending on the platform.
Cantarell peaked in 2004 at nearly 2.2 million barrels a day, over 60% of Mexico's total production at the time. Now it barely produces a third of total production at under a million barrels a day.
Mexico is getting hammered. Slowdown in USA means that migrant remittances are falling. Oil production and exports are crashing. And the drug war, fueled by cash and illegal weapons from the USA, has brought violence from the hinterland into the capital.
Eight were killed and over 100 injured in a bomb blast during celebrations on the eve on Independence Day (Sept 15) in a plaza in Morelia.
On October 2, Mexico's conservative president proposed decriminalizing possession for personal use.
The destabilization of Mexico is one of the biggest security threats we face, in my humble opinion. (Which doesn't mean we need to invade, amigos. Rethinking prohibition, as these law enforcement officers are doing, would be a better place to start.)
And apropos the post, would we be safer if we imported no oil from Mexico through "energy independence?"
I believe we will be safer if we do not invade Mexico in order to get their oil.
Yes, invasion would be a very bad idea.
That being said, the Mexican War worked out well for the USA. If the outcome had been different, then the oil fields of Texas and California would be part of Mexico.
Talk about alternate history.
... and if Russia hadn't flogged off Alaska - no Prudhoe and no Governor Palin