To contact us Click HERE
It not enough that the frustration over the reelection of Mr Obama and those who did the voting, but now we seem to be headed back into the insanity of climate change. With a huge of recorded history showing man-made climate change is a fraud, completely riff with managed facts and out right lies. The storm Sandy has supposedly given the nutjobs a legitimate reason to scream and wave their arms over climate change.
But it seems history and the facts have little or no effect on the progressive socialist environmentalists who what more control over the population to bring about their agenda of slowing expansion and taking all of us back to the late 19th century living standards.
Of course, this will not be for them, only you and me. They believe someone has lead the ignorant into the new world of less.
Carbon Tax Will Kill the Economy, Boost Inflation
Source: Steve Milloy, "Carbon Tax Will Kill the Economy, Boost Inflation," Investor's Business Daily, November 13, 2012.
November 19, 2012
Many climate alarmists are hoping to use Hurricane Sandy and the re-election of President Obama to spur Congressional action on climate change. The purpose of the tax is to penalize the use of fossil fuel in order to reduce emissions. Many environmental groups are lobbying for a deal on a carbon tax. However, it is unlikely the tax will have any effect other than an inflationary one, says Steve Milloy in Investor's Business Daily.
•Assume that the United States emits 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year and 40 percent of it accumulates in the atmosphere.
•The United States adds about 0.31 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 to the atmosphere annually.
•Even if the United States reduced all emissions as of 2013, by 2100 the United States would avoid adding 27 ppm of CO2.
•However, this is miniscule compared to the fact that the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 391 ppm.
•Moreover, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that CO2 in the atmosphere could range from 450 ppm to 950 ppm.
Even if the tax were somehow able to cut all emissions, it wouldn't be enough to offset CO2 levels to curb the effects of global warming. This is especially true considering that other countries like China and India will continue to emit high levels of CO2 despite U.S. policies.
More importantly, the economic impacts far outweigh any benefits derived from taxing emissions. Goods and services like gas and electricity will become much more expensive. Meanwhile, the purchasing power of the dollar will decline, creating a phenomenon many people are familiar with: inflation.
26 Kasım 2012 Pazartesi
Affordabel Care Act (ACA), ObamaCare, Doctor Numbers Explode
To contact us Click HERE
Just think on this for a few minutes, 30 million more people participating in the health care system which for many of them will be free and, as this article points out, the aging population and the new immigrants streaming into the country ever day will force doctors to make decisions on who they see and when, and whether they say in the practice of medicine at all.
It's a guarantee that costs will increase geometrically. It is projected to be more then 1.6 trillion added to the debt for health care alone over the next 10 years. I wonder who will be able to pay for all new stuff with U6 unemployment nearing 20%?
But the bright spot in all this is the 'Death Panel' that will eliminate a lot of people that aren't worth keeping alive. I just hope it isn't one of my family that's found to be worthless. How about one of your family?
Projecting U.S. Primary Care Physician Workforce Needs: 2010-2025
Source: Stephen M. Petterson et al., "Projecting U.S. Primary Care Physician Workforce Needs: 2010-2025," Annals of Family Medicine, November/December 2012.
November 26, 2012
Researchers in the Annals of Family Medicine sought to project the number of primary care physicians required to meet U.S. health care needs through 2025 after passage of the Affordable Care Act.
They used the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to calculate the use of office-based primary care in 2008. They also used U.S. Census Bureau projections to account for demographic changes and the American Medical Association's Masterfile to calculate the number of primary care physicians and determine the number of visits per physician.
•Driven by population growth and aging, the total number of office visits to primary care physicians is projected to increase from 462 million in 2008 to 565 million in 2025.
•After incorporating insurance expansion, the United States will require nearly 52,000 additional primary care physicians by 2025.
•Population growth will be the largest driver, accounting for 33,000 additional physicians, while 10,000 additional physicians will be needed to accommodate population aging.
•Insurance expansion will require more than 8,000 additional physicians, a 3 percent increase in the current workforce.
It's a guarantee that costs will increase geometrically. It is projected to be more then 1.6 trillion added to the debt for health care alone over the next 10 years. I wonder who will be able to pay for all new stuff with U6 unemployment nearing 20%?
But the bright spot in all this is the 'Death Panel' that will eliminate a lot of people that aren't worth keeping alive. I just hope it isn't one of my family that's found to be worthless. How about one of your family?
Projecting U.S. Primary Care Physician Workforce Needs: 2010-2025
Source: Stephen M. Petterson et al., "Projecting U.S. Primary Care Physician Workforce Needs: 2010-2025," Annals of Family Medicine, November/December 2012.
November 26, 2012
Researchers in the Annals of Family Medicine sought to project the number of primary care physicians required to meet U.S. health care needs through 2025 after passage of the Affordable Care Act.
They used the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to calculate the use of office-based primary care in 2008. They also used U.S. Census Bureau projections to account for demographic changes and the American Medical Association's Masterfile to calculate the number of primary care physicians and determine the number of visits per physician.
•Driven by population growth and aging, the total number of office visits to primary care physicians is projected to increase from 462 million in 2008 to 565 million in 2025.
•After incorporating insurance expansion, the United States will require nearly 52,000 additional primary care physicians by 2025.
•Population growth will be the largest driver, accounting for 33,000 additional physicians, while 10,000 additional physicians will be needed to accommodate population aging.
•Insurance expansion will require more than 8,000 additional physicians, a 3 percent increase in the current workforce.
Employers Opt for Employee Directed Health Insurance
To contact us Click HERE
What this all comes down to is what is the actual responsibility of the employee when it comes to taking care of their health care needs? Why does it seem it's always someone eles's problem, someone else has to make the decisions for the workers. Who will decide for the non worker? But it's not just health care, it's everything that impacts the human need.
Of course, this is how Mr Obama got reelected, promising everything that a person could want for free. I wonder how this will work out when revenue doesn't match demand? Who do you think will have to be blamed for a reduced living standard or worse, no living standard at all? Better yet, who do you think will not care what happens to the unwashed?
Employers Are Giving Employees the Option of Choosing their Own Health Insurance Plan
Source: "Employers Are Giving Employees the Option of Choosing their Own Health Insurance Plan," Washington Post, November 15, 2012.
November 26, 2012
In an effort to reduce health costs, companies are turning to defined contribution health insurance plans in which they pay their workers a fixed sum and allow them to choose their own insurance based on individual needs, says the Washington Post.
Under this defined contribution plan, a worker may choose to use their employer-provided money to put toward a company offered health plan or one they find through another insurer.
•The average annual premium for employer-sponsored family health plans has almost doubled to nearly $16,000.
•Companies end up paying about 70 percent of it.
•As a result, employers have turned to allowing their workers to choose benefits tailored to their own needs, which reduces overall health care costs.
•Now, workers that choose the company's benefit may end up paying higher costs.
For many, this is seen as a step in the right direction. Employees no longer have to pay for a plan that offers services they will never use. Instead, a worker can find a tailored health insurance plan and pay as much as they are willing to on it.
To aid the employees in finding the right health insurance plan for them, many companies are turning to online exchanges to help workers in finding the right plan for them. Many health insurers such as WellPoint, Inc., and Bloom Health are beginning to provide online exchanges so that people can shop around for the best insurance plans.
Small businesses will benefit greatly from defined contribution plans. It will help provide insurance to attract and keep workers while avoiding large premiums that are typically found in traditional plans.
Moreover, proponents say that the defined contribution approach will create competition that forces insurers to lower prices in an effort to attract more people. However, critics contend that an employer may not provide enough money to keep up with rising health insurance costs, leaving the worker to pay more out of their own pocket.
Of course, this is how Mr Obama got reelected, promising everything that a person could want for free. I wonder how this will work out when revenue doesn't match demand? Who do you think will have to be blamed for a reduced living standard or worse, no living standard at all? Better yet, who do you think will not care what happens to the unwashed?
Employers Are Giving Employees the Option of Choosing their Own Health Insurance Plan
Source: "Employers Are Giving Employees the Option of Choosing their Own Health Insurance Plan," Washington Post, November 15, 2012.
November 26, 2012
In an effort to reduce health costs, companies are turning to defined contribution health insurance plans in which they pay their workers a fixed sum and allow them to choose their own insurance based on individual needs, says the Washington Post.
Under this defined contribution plan, a worker may choose to use their employer-provided money to put toward a company offered health plan or one they find through another insurer.
•The average annual premium for employer-sponsored family health plans has almost doubled to nearly $16,000.
•Companies end up paying about 70 percent of it.
•As a result, employers have turned to allowing their workers to choose benefits tailored to their own needs, which reduces overall health care costs.
•Now, workers that choose the company's benefit may end up paying higher costs.
For many, this is seen as a step in the right direction. Employees no longer have to pay for a plan that offers services they will never use. Instead, a worker can find a tailored health insurance plan and pay as much as they are willing to on it.
To aid the employees in finding the right health insurance plan for them, many companies are turning to online exchanges to help workers in finding the right plan for them. Many health insurers such as WellPoint, Inc., and Bloom Health are beginning to provide online exchanges so that people can shop around for the best insurance plans.
Small businesses will benefit greatly from defined contribution plans. It will help provide insurance to attract and keep workers while avoiding large premiums that are typically found in traditional plans.
Moreover, proponents say that the defined contribution approach will create competition that forces insurers to lower prices in an effort to attract more people. However, critics contend that an employer may not provide enough money to keep up with rising health insurance costs, leaving the worker to pay more out of their own pocket.
Federal Employee Salary Study Finds Wages Lacking?
To contact us Click HERE
Little wonder this federal agency found government workers are under paid, this agency is paid by the taxpayers so they can decide to find in their study that they are under paid. This makes perfect sense given the history of federal workers and the unions that represent them.
What doesn't make much sense is there are many studies, nongovernmental studies that is, that found federal workers are paid far more then their private sector counter parts.
Why is it I don't believe anything that comes out of Washington any more these days. Everything is managed to make their agenda believable.
The Truth about Federal Salary Numbers
Source: Andrew G. Biggs and Jason Richwine, "The Truth about Federal Salary Numbers," Washington Post, November 19, 2012.
November 26, 2012
The Federal Salary Council, an advisory body of academics and leaders of public employee unions, suggested last month that federal workers are underpaid by an average of 35 percent relative to nonfederal employees. Employee unions seized on this figure, using it to push back against salary freezes. But the pay agent's latest conclusions actually highlight the inadequacy of its methods, say Andrew G. Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and Jason Richwine, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
•If these figures are to be believed, federal employees are paid only 65 cents for every dollar received by nonfederal employees doing the same work.
•Put another way, the average federal employee who shifts to a job outside government would increase his salary by 54 percent.
The figures are implausible on their face. Here is the truth behind these numbers.
•The pay agent doesn't consider fringe benefits, even though benefits for federal workers are famously generous. Indeed, a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study published in January found that the federal retirement package was 2.7 times more generous than what is paid by large private-sector firms.
•Federal workers also receive more paid vacation and sick days.
•Even if they made 35 percent less, their benefits would make up much of the difference.
But federal salaries are not 35 percent below private-sector levels. All five outside studies reviewed this year by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that federal pay is equal to or higher than those of comparable private-sector workers. This is consistent with three decades of academic research.
So where does the government calculation go wrong? To begin, it compares pay for federal jobs to nonfederal positions at a similar "grade," or level. Yet both the CBO and the GAO have documented "overgrading" in the federal workforce, meaning that federal jobs could be assigned higher grades on the General Salary Schedule than the pay agent assumes for their nonfederal equivalents.
The pay agent also doesn't consider the relative qualifications of federal employees. In a 2002 study, economist Melissa Famulari concluded: "Federal workers have significantly fewer years of education and experience than private sector workers in the same level of responsibility in an occupation."
Federal employees should be compensated at fair market levels, which would allow the government to hire and retain workers without overcharging taxpayers. An essential first step toward that goal is ensuring that the government's annual pay comparison is objective and comprehensive.
What doesn't make much sense is there are many studies, nongovernmental studies that is, that found federal workers are paid far more then their private sector counter parts.
Why is it I don't believe anything that comes out of Washington any more these days. Everything is managed to make their agenda believable.
The Truth about Federal Salary Numbers
Source: Andrew G. Biggs and Jason Richwine, "The Truth about Federal Salary Numbers," Washington Post, November 19, 2012.
November 26, 2012
The Federal Salary Council, an advisory body of academics and leaders of public employee unions, suggested last month that federal workers are underpaid by an average of 35 percent relative to nonfederal employees. Employee unions seized on this figure, using it to push back against salary freezes. But the pay agent's latest conclusions actually highlight the inadequacy of its methods, say Andrew G. Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and Jason Richwine, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
•If these figures are to be believed, federal employees are paid only 65 cents for every dollar received by nonfederal employees doing the same work.
•Put another way, the average federal employee who shifts to a job outside government would increase his salary by 54 percent.
The figures are implausible on their face. Here is the truth behind these numbers.
•The pay agent doesn't consider fringe benefits, even though benefits for federal workers are famously generous. Indeed, a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study published in January found that the federal retirement package was 2.7 times more generous than what is paid by large private-sector firms.
•Federal workers also receive more paid vacation and sick days.
•Even if they made 35 percent less, their benefits would make up much of the difference.
But federal salaries are not 35 percent below private-sector levels. All five outside studies reviewed this year by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that federal pay is equal to or higher than those of comparable private-sector workers. This is consistent with three decades of academic research.
So where does the government calculation go wrong? To begin, it compares pay for federal jobs to nonfederal positions at a similar "grade," or level. Yet both the CBO and the GAO have documented "overgrading" in the federal workforce, meaning that federal jobs could be assigned higher grades on the General Salary Schedule than the pay agent assumes for their nonfederal equivalents.
The pay agent also doesn't consider the relative qualifications of federal employees. In a 2002 study, economist Melissa Famulari concluded: "Federal workers have significantly fewer years of education and experience than private sector workers in the same level of responsibility in an occupation."
Federal employees should be compensated at fair market levels, which would allow the government to hire and retain workers without overcharging taxpayers. An essential first step toward that goal is ensuring that the government's annual pay comparison is objective and comprehensive.
Employee Wages Decline During Lost Decade
To contact us Click HERE
The real reason for depressed wages is that no one believes our country is headed in the right direction. Anyone with the responsibility for hiring or giving out wage increases will be concerned with where the profits will come from to support the wage increases or new hires.
Bottom line economics is what is foremost in the decisions of all businesses. The progressive socialist agenda of taking from the productive is case in point for wage depression and huge unemployment numbers, and with the reelection of Mr Obama, this situation will only get worse. Optimism for the future is gone.
Given all this bad news on our economic future that most everyone is aware of, who actually voted of Mr Obama and why? Where is the common sense?
U.S. Workers Endure "Lost Decade" of Declining Wages
Source: Kevin G. Hall, "U.S. Workers Endure 'Lost Decade' of Declining Wages," McClatchy, November 15, 2012.
November 26, 2012
Real earnings have declined across most job sectors since the Great Recession. Now, real wages are about the same level as they were in December 2005, highlighting the slow growth of the economy. This has been referred to as a "lost decade" for workers, says Kevin G. Hall of McClatchy Newspapers.
•Real wages have been on a downward slope for more than 40 years now.
•The median working-age man earns 4 percent less than he did in 1970 when adjusted for inflation.
•Nearly every occupational group is either below the 2005 level or at most 1.5 percentage points above the 2005 level.
•As a result of stagnant wages, economic recovery is likely to be more difficult since Americans are unable to pay off their debts.
To the confusion of many economists, the only occupational category that has seen a rise in real wages is office and administrative workers.
There are several explanations for the decline in wages.
•First is that the Federal Reserve has tamed inflation so wages have not had to increase to keep up with the rising prices of other goods and services.
•Second, it is possible that the decline in labor unions have resulted in less of a force for demanding higher wages and better benefits.
•Another likely reason is that productivity has improved due to automation of many jobs.
Some economists say that consumption is a better measure of the increase in wages. Since the 1970s, there hasn't been much of a change in inequality or a widening of inequality in consumption tables. In fact, low-income households have seen their purchasing power increase. However, this may be the result of increase in government transfer programs.
Some argue that the reason wages haven't increased is because the labor market is so depressed. So many people are unemployed and looking for jobs that employers are able to land workers that are willing to take less money.
Bottom line economics is what is foremost in the decisions of all businesses. The progressive socialist agenda of taking from the productive is case in point for wage depression and huge unemployment numbers, and with the reelection of Mr Obama, this situation will only get worse. Optimism for the future is gone.
Given all this bad news on our economic future that most everyone is aware of, who actually voted of Mr Obama and why? Where is the common sense?
U.S. Workers Endure "Lost Decade" of Declining Wages
Source: Kevin G. Hall, "U.S. Workers Endure 'Lost Decade' of Declining Wages," McClatchy, November 15, 2012.
November 26, 2012
Real earnings have declined across most job sectors since the Great Recession. Now, real wages are about the same level as they were in December 2005, highlighting the slow growth of the economy. This has been referred to as a "lost decade" for workers, says Kevin G. Hall of McClatchy Newspapers.
•Real wages have been on a downward slope for more than 40 years now.
•The median working-age man earns 4 percent less than he did in 1970 when adjusted for inflation.
•Nearly every occupational group is either below the 2005 level or at most 1.5 percentage points above the 2005 level.
•As a result of stagnant wages, economic recovery is likely to be more difficult since Americans are unable to pay off their debts.
To the confusion of many economists, the only occupational category that has seen a rise in real wages is office and administrative workers.
There are several explanations for the decline in wages.
•First is that the Federal Reserve has tamed inflation so wages have not had to increase to keep up with the rising prices of other goods and services.
•Second, it is possible that the decline in labor unions have resulted in less of a force for demanding higher wages and better benefits.
•Another likely reason is that productivity has improved due to automation of many jobs.
Some economists say that consumption is a better measure of the increase in wages. Since the 1970s, there hasn't been much of a change in inequality or a widening of inequality in consumption tables. In fact, low-income households have seen their purchasing power increase. However, this may be the result of increase in government transfer programs.
Some argue that the reason wages haven't increased is because the labor market is so depressed. So many people are unemployed and looking for jobs that employers are able to land workers that are willing to take less money.
25 Kasım 2012 Pazar
Affordable Care Act Dumps On Low Income Families
To contact us Click HERE
I wonder why Mr Obama and his ilk didn't mention how the Affordable Care Act would effect low income families. Nancy Pelosi was right for once, we do have to pass the bill to find out what's in it. And now we know but it's too late. The voters have spoken. They have decided that poverty and dependency is so much better then personal freedom and prosperity.
The voters have decided by reelecting Mr Obama that they believe living a substandard life won't be so bad after they get use to it. Freedom really isn't all it's crapped up to be anyway.
How Would the Fiscal Cliff Affect Typical Families in Each State?
Source: Nick Kasprak, "How Would the Fiscal Cliff Affect Typical Families in Each State?" Tax Foundation, November 12, 2012.
November 15, 2012
Just weeks after the election, lawmakers have the fiscal cliff looming over them during the lame duck session, says Nick Kasprak, a programmer and analyst at the Tax Foundation.
•The fiscal cliff includes a combination of tax increases and spending cuts at the end of the year.
•In it, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire.
•In addition, the 2 percent cut to employee-side Social Security payroll taxes will expire.
•Furthermore, the Alternative Minimum Tax has yet to be patched.
•This means that certain credits, like the Child Tax Credit, would not be allowed.
The combination of tax and spending changes threaten families of all income levels. Data was compiled to look at how households with median incomes and two children were affected by the tax and spending changes. The average family was affected more by these changes in high-income and low-income states than those in middle-income states.
•In New Jersey, the tax increase is expected to be 6.82 percent of income.
•In Maryland, it is expected to be 6.74 percent of income.
•On the other hand, the tax increase on the average family in Maine is only expected to be 4.46 percent of income.
•Washington ranks the lowest with the tax increase on the average family being 4.12 percent of income.
Low-income states are disproportionately affected because three tax increases from the end of the Bush-era tax cuts -- the reduction in the child tax credit, the elimination of the 10 percent bracket and the reduced standard deduction for married filers -- represent fixed increases that do not depend on income.
The voters have decided by reelecting Mr Obama that they believe living a substandard life won't be so bad after they get use to it. Freedom really isn't all it's crapped up to be anyway.
How Would the Fiscal Cliff Affect Typical Families in Each State?
Source: Nick Kasprak, "How Would the Fiscal Cliff Affect Typical Families in Each State?" Tax Foundation, November 12, 2012.
November 15, 2012
Just weeks after the election, lawmakers have the fiscal cliff looming over them during the lame duck session, says Nick Kasprak, a programmer and analyst at the Tax Foundation.
•The fiscal cliff includes a combination of tax increases and spending cuts at the end of the year.
•In it, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire.
•In addition, the 2 percent cut to employee-side Social Security payroll taxes will expire.
•Furthermore, the Alternative Minimum Tax has yet to be patched.
•This means that certain credits, like the Child Tax Credit, would not be allowed.
The combination of tax and spending changes threaten families of all income levels. Data was compiled to look at how households with median incomes and two children were affected by the tax and spending changes. The average family was affected more by these changes in high-income and low-income states than those in middle-income states.
•In New Jersey, the tax increase is expected to be 6.82 percent of income.
•In Maryland, it is expected to be 6.74 percent of income.
•On the other hand, the tax increase on the average family in Maine is only expected to be 4.46 percent of income.
•Washington ranks the lowest with the tax increase on the average family being 4.12 percent of income.
Low-income states are disproportionately affected because three tax increases from the end of the Bush-era tax cuts -- the reduction in the child tax credit, the elimination of the 10 percent bracket and the reduced standard deduction for married filers -- represent fixed increases that do not depend on income.
America To Dominate Energy Production? : Where's Obama?
To contact us Click HERE
I wonder what Mr Obama has in mind now for the XL pipeline? What will he do to stop this from going forward? I believe the reasoning is more then just green energy production and capping CO2 emissions, I think it has a lot to do with making sure that the Arab oil nations are not subjected to diminished financial returns. Mr Obama's history points in this direction.
Everyone on the left says we need to be energy independent but they do everything in their collective power to stop that independence. Given all the rhetoric from progressive socialists, what do you think the reasoning is for this as a national policy?
U.S. Redraws World Oil Map
Source: Benoit Faucon and Keith Johnson, "U.S. Redraws World Oil Map," Wall Street Journal, November 13, 2012.
November 19, 2012
The shale-oil boom can help the United States surpass Saudi Arabia as the largest oil supplier by 2020, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Such a change could have major ramifications for U.S. politics and diplomacy. In short, the global energy map is being reconfigured due to the resurgence of America as a major gas producer, says the Wall Street Journal.
The IEA is joining other forecasters such as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the U.S. Energy Information Administration in predicting the sharp rise in U.S. oil production in the coming years.
•U.S. oil production is projected to be at 11.1 million barrels a day in 2020.
•The IEA says natural gas will displace oil as the largest single fuel in the U.S. energy mix by 2030.
Kevin Book, managing director at Clearview Energy Partners LLC, observes that American energy policy is still influenced by the experiences from the 1970's supply shocks. However, the current reality is the age of energy adequacy.
•According to an analyst at Raymond James, the question is: will federal regulators allow these exports to materialize?
•Allowing exports could be politically tricky. The crude export ban was designed to ensure U.S. energy security following the Arab oil embargo in 1973.
The current ban will create limitations.
•The United States could soon be awash in easier-to-process domestic crude oil -- with no way to get rid of the excess supply, because U.S. law generally bans crude-oil exports.
•That would force new investment in refining capacity for lighter, sweeter grades of oil.
•Nonetheless, to realize America's full potential as an energy supplier while boosting the economy, it must commit to global markets.
Regardless of the limitations facing export, there is a strong domestic market.
•Made-in-USA oil is already displacing imports of similar crude from West Africa, and the market for it could be saturated as early as 2013.
•Within a decade, the IEA forecasts U.S. oil imports will fall by more than half, to just 4 million barrels a day from 10 million barrels a day currently.
OPEC will continue to be the powerhouse of global production, the agency said, but a growing portion of its output will go to nations like China and India instead of North America.
Everyone on the left says we need to be energy independent but they do everything in their collective power to stop that independence. Given all the rhetoric from progressive socialists, what do you think the reasoning is for this as a national policy?
U.S. Redraws World Oil Map
Source: Benoit Faucon and Keith Johnson, "U.S. Redraws World Oil Map," Wall Street Journal, November 13, 2012.
November 19, 2012
The shale-oil boom can help the United States surpass Saudi Arabia as the largest oil supplier by 2020, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Such a change could have major ramifications for U.S. politics and diplomacy. In short, the global energy map is being reconfigured due to the resurgence of America as a major gas producer, says the Wall Street Journal.
The IEA is joining other forecasters such as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the U.S. Energy Information Administration in predicting the sharp rise in U.S. oil production in the coming years.
•U.S. oil production is projected to be at 11.1 million barrels a day in 2020.
•The IEA says natural gas will displace oil as the largest single fuel in the U.S. energy mix by 2030.
Kevin Book, managing director at Clearview Energy Partners LLC, observes that American energy policy is still influenced by the experiences from the 1970's supply shocks. However, the current reality is the age of energy adequacy.
•According to an analyst at Raymond James, the question is: will federal regulators allow these exports to materialize?
•Allowing exports could be politically tricky. The crude export ban was designed to ensure U.S. energy security following the Arab oil embargo in 1973.
The current ban will create limitations.
•The United States could soon be awash in easier-to-process domestic crude oil -- with no way to get rid of the excess supply, because U.S. law generally bans crude-oil exports.
•That would force new investment in refining capacity for lighter, sweeter grades of oil.
•Nonetheless, to realize America's full potential as an energy supplier while boosting the economy, it must commit to global markets.
Regardless of the limitations facing export, there is a strong domestic market.
•Made-in-USA oil is already displacing imports of similar crude from West Africa, and the market for it could be saturated as early as 2013.
•Within a decade, the IEA forecasts U.S. oil imports will fall by more than half, to just 4 million barrels a day from 10 million barrels a day currently.
OPEC will continue to be the powerhouse of global production, the agency said, but a growing portion of its output will go to nations like China and India instead of North America.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)