Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

ROB Insight is a premium commentary product offering rapid analysis of business and economic news, corporate strategy and policy, published throughout the business day. Visit the ROB Insight homepage for analysis available only to subscribers.

No less authority than the United States government itself has declared that some time this year, the country should reach a landmark not seen in nearly two decades – indeed, one that many experts believed had been permanently consigned to the history books. The U.S. will be producing more oil than it is importing.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (IEA) published a report Wednesday forecasting that monthly crude production in the United States is on target to surpass net imports by October. The last time this happened was in 1995.

Story continues below advertisement

One much-talked-about cause for this has been the shale-oil boom of the past couple of years, which has rapidly and dramatically expanded U.S. domestic oil supplies. The IEA expects crude production to reach eight million barrels a day in the 2014 fourth quarter – levels not seen since 1988.

While the IEA admits that the timing of these forecasts could be thrown off – something researchers at Colorado State University believe is more likely than not, based on their December forecast – the fact remains that U.S. oil output has, in the past two years, reversed nearly two decades of declines.

That has to be a kick in the teeth to peak-oil proponents, who have pointed to the long and relentless fall in U.S. production (it peaked in 1970, and dropped by more than 50 per cent from 1985 to 2009) as evidence that U.S. and global oil supplies are destined to eventually run dry. The peak-oil argument has been a driving force behind the energy-security debate over the past decade.

The sudden reversal of U.S. production by no means disproves the peak-oil theory; after all, all these new tight-oil fields could, as many experts fear, prove to have relatively short production lives. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the unleashing of these new supplies, made possible by advancements in drilling technologies, has set back the argument an entire generation.

Meanwhile, another key and often overlooked source for the turnaround has been the steady decline in U.S. consumption of liquid fuels. As domestic oil production has risen, imports have been falling since before the recession. The IEA predicted that net crude imports will fall below seven million barrels a day in the 2014 fourth quarter – a 19-year low.

In that light, it becomes easier to see how the Keystone XL pipeline project has become a hard sell south of the border. Canada's rich supplies of oil sands crude have become, if not ultimately less relevant to the U.S. energy-security question, certainly far less urgent. The U.S. government's own numbers say so.

David Parkinson is a contributor to ROB Insight, the business commentary service available to Globe Unlimited subscribers. Click here for more of his Insights, and follow him on Twitter at @ParkinsonGlobe .

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies