Guest “Looking for energy transitions in all the wrong places” by David Middleton
Despite the best efforts of Biden’s autopen, US primary energy production set a new record in 2024. Natural gas and crude oil led the way, by a WIDE margin and natural gas plant liquids actually overtook renewables…
In 2024, the United States produced a record amount of energy, according to data in our Monthly Energy Review. U.S. total energy production was more than 103 quadrillion British thermal units in 2024, a 1% increase from the previous record set in 2023. Several energy sources—natural gas, crude oil, natural gas plant liquids, biofuels, solar, and wind—each set domestic production records last year.
Natural gas accounted for about 38% of U.S. total energy production in 2024 and has been the largest source of U.S. domestic energy production every year since 2011, when it surpassed coal. U.S. dry natural gas production was nearly 38 trillion cubic feet, about the same as in 2023.
Domestic crude oil accounted for about 27% of U.S. total energy production in 2024, as the United States continues to be the world’s top crude oil-producing country. U.S. crude oil production was a record 13.2 million barrels per day in 2024, 2% more than the previous record set in 2023. Almost all of the production growth came from the Permian region that spans parts of New Mexico and Texas.
Coal accounted for about 10% of U.S. total energy production in 2024. At 512 million short tons, last year’s coal production was the lowest annual output since 1964. Coal was the largest source of U.S. energy production from 1984 through 2010.
In 2024, U.S. solar and wind production increased by 25% and 8%, respectively, as new generators came online. Output from other energy sources that are primarily used for electric power generation either peaked decades ago (hydropower and nuclear) or fell slightly from their 2023 values (geothermal).
We convert sources of energy to common units of heat, called British thermal units, to compare different types of energy that are usually measured in units that are not directly comparable, such as barrels of crude oil and cubic feet of natural gas. Appendix A of our Monthly Energy Review has the conversion factors that we use for each energy source.
Natural gas plant liquids (NGPL): Those hydrocarbons in natural gas that are separated as liquids at natural gas processing, fractionating, and cycling plants. Products obtained include ethane, liquefied petroleum gases (propane, normal butane, and isobutane), and natural gasoline. Component products may be fractionated or mixed. Lease condensate and plant condensate are excluded. Note: Some EIA publications categorize NGPL production as field production, in accordance with definitions used prior to January 2014.
Natural gas plant liquids (NGPL) production: The extraction of gas plant liquids constituents such as ethane, propane, normal butane, isobutane, and natural gasoline, sometimes referred to as extraction loss. Usually reported in barrels or gallons, but may be reported in cubic feet for purposes of comparison with dry natural gas volumes.
From 2016-2022, renewable energy production received $84 billion in Federal subsidies.
Over the same time period, natural gas and petroleum liquids “subsidies” totaled just over $9 billion.
In both cases, over 90% of the subsidies were categorized as “tax expenditures” – AKA tax deductions and credits. However, there’s a big difference. Wind and solar qualify for fully transferable tax credits. While oil & gas tax expenditures are simply deductions to offset the costs of drilling and production.
Bang for the buck
In 2022, renewables received $1.9 billion in subsidies per quadrillion Btu (Quad) of energy production. Oil and natural gas only received $33 million per Quad.
Why are people still hyped up about this autopen? They’ve been around for ages, often by public figures. I suspect one reason is that if people try to copy an autopen signature for a forged document, the exact copy would be a big clue that it was take from a public document and not a related/stolen/whatever private transaction.
Heck, I’d use one to make up for crappy penmanship and degraded nerve issues that impact holding things like pens and computer mice. (I use my vertical mouse with my left hand.)
What if someone forged your signature on a check? Then, what if someone used an autopen to forger your signature on a whole bunch of checks?
It’s not the use of the autopen that’s in question. It’s the potentially fraudulent use to sign expenditures, pardons, and a bunch of other nefarious actions without the demented Biden’s knowledge or authorization.
Despite the best efforts of the Biden Era autopen, US primary energy production set a new record in 2024. Natural gas and crude oil led the way, by a WIDE margin and natural gas plant liquids actually overtook renewables.
In 2024
.
Reliable. slightly subsidized, grid-supporting Fossil Fuel 86.34 quad
Reliable, grid-supporting Nuclear 8.17 quad
Unreliable, expensive, grid-destabilizing, heavily subsidized Wind, Solar, Hydro, Biofuels, etc. 8.79 quad
Total primary energy production 103.3 quad
Bang for the buck
In 2022,
Renewables received $1873 million in subsidies/quad of energy production.
Oil and natural gas received $33 million/quad
The Church of Warming pushed by the CCP owned Biden tried to reach the energy crisis goal of the Obama crime spree where he intended to have a photo op of dragging frozen grandmas from the ghetto to blame on US energy, but shale gas ruined his plan.
In 1969 my soon-to-be mother-in-law sent a wedding invitation to President Nixon. A short while later we received a nice card from the White house, signed by the President himself. So claimed the M-I-L. I don’t remember if the card also had First Lady Pat’s signature.
I’ve often wondered how many (and the cost) of these things the White House dispensed each year. USA population has increased by 150 M since then.
It’s not about the autopen. It’s about people using the autopen to sign documents without Biden’s knowledge and consent.
There are questions about legality of certain official actions signed by autopen even if done with knowledge and consent of the president.
Biden had clear signs of dementia by the time he left the Vice Presidency in 2017. By the time of the Hur interview, Biden couldn’t remember when he served as Veep or when his son died. Who was performing Biden’s duties when he was incapacitated?
BTW – I’ve only previously heard of using the autopen for unofficial documents, not pardons or executive orders.
The problem is, how do we know that Biden even knew the document was being signed for him?
A couple clerks draw up a few dozen pardons, the autopen signs them, and Biden is non-the-wiser.
(Of course that was the standard condition for Biden.)
strativarius
June 13, 2025 6:12 am
Oh where, oh where is the Energy Transition?
Ed Miliband: O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Funny how it’s always about a ring – especially of truth.
Question – are the subsidies quoted federal only or do they include state subsidies as well.? Also, is there a number for the total costs expended on unreliables in the US?
The “energy transition” was faith healing the energy supply. Think green thoughts, and give subsidies to “renewable energy”, and don’t ask embarrassing questions.
$4.79, Outer Central California. By this time next year $10?
Rant start. If our gas price doubles, there will be one positive – the Overlander hoards that have multiplied like cockroaches since Kovid will be knocked back some. There are several areas not far from me that face closure due to the impact of hundreds of weekend idiots from SoCal that drive their $100K rigs willy-nilly across wet meadows, make new campsites wherever they want, leave 5 gallon buckets of human waste for someone (who?) to cart away. Rant over.
There isn’t going to be any “energy transition.” There was never any transition from the Stone Age to the Metal Age, either. We still use stone for more things than ever before. By almost any measurement, sand and gravel with 1000 uses are by far the most heavily mined raw materials, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Would we have roads, concrete, large buildings, breakwaters for seaport, etc, without stone? Not on your life!
Metal tools, metal machinery, and the fuels to operate them facilitate the greater use of stone.
New technologies are usually deployed incrementally. With only a few exceptions (No one still harvests whalebone for buggy whips) new technologies are added to existing technologies more than they replace them. ‘Twas ever thus, and is likely to continue.
We just found better ways of doing things. We still consume as much wood and biomass for energy as we did when we started using coal… we just added more sources of energy to the mix.
How much of the “renewables” category in the primary sources chart is hydroelectric? Was hydro supported by the same people who support solar/wind subsidies? Why group hydro with renewables but keep nuclear as a separate category? What is the definition of “renewable”?
Chart scales oddly on my laptop but answers some questions.
It also unleashes new puzzles – like burning wood is considered renewable but burning coal is not. I guess it matters how long the tree has been dead?
Whenever I read about the pending “energy transition” I am reminded of all the trade rag articles I read in the late 80s and early 90s about how this year or next installed base of token ring would overtake that of ethernet.
Well, if “cold fusion” had worked out…
I noticed my kids growing up without advertisement jingles (raised-by-tv, two-income family generations remember hundreds of corporate jingles) but now that era is over. Streaming has grown the …. to start inserting commercials. Random observation remembered by thinking “what other things sounded right in the 90s”)
JTraynor
June 13, 2025 10:04 am
I am curious if the universities are producing the number of geologists, geophysicists, and petroleum engineers needed to “frac on”? That is one area the “greens” could stop this. Enough peer pressure in the schools could reduce the number of candidates to take these roles, and the number of teachers to pass on the know-how.
My father was a geophysicist and what he did looked really complicated! I know computers and AI can play a role but AI only works with what is known, and is most likely not going to innovate the technology you will need to get to the really hard to get reserves.
Petroleum engineering grad rates down by over 75% in the last 8 years. It’s not “peer pressure”, but dry eyed assessments of the career potentials. Why spend 40 years developing a diminishing resource, for much less pay than the dudes you’re replacing, under worse conditions, when you can choose a dozen better disciplines and avoid the ups, downs, and more downs?
Check out rig counts, service rates, well EURs/ft drilled, steadily increasing asset retirement costs, and – yes – competition from the renewables which will be dominating later this century, to see the future of the most finely honed oil and gas industry that the world has, and will ever, know. Not a hard decision for any bright adolescent….
Ugh. Well, California is about to find out what happens when you put all of your eggs in one basket. Gasoline is the least of the worries. Jet and Diesel is. It won’t exist out there and unless you pay countless billions getting refined products to PADD 5 the place will become an uninhabited desert again. I’m surprised Nevada and Arizona haven’t sued yet.
BTW, China is turning out engineers to do this and I suspect India won’t be far behind. And, as the “transition” fails to materialize and crude oil prices skyrocket the talent will find its way there. The 20-year training gap will be painful though.
“BTW, China is turning out engineers to do this and I suspect India won’t be far behind.”
For the most part, they won’t be working here.
” And, as the “transition” fails to materialize and crude oil prices skyrocket the talent will find its way there.”
Reserves/present production ratios – the name of the game – will not be increasing any more. Ever. Yes, higher costs DO increase reserves/ But that rising tide aids ALL forms of energy, Including those that don’t deplete away, no matter how hard you Drill Baby Drill.
Cal upstream oil and gas – which can not be temporarily extended by it’s tiny shale resources – has been playing out most of this century. And yes, their insistence on world class ES&H regs for refineries, along with clean air rules for gasoline formulations, has reduced downstream outputs. Which is why they are phasing out ICE’s.
The Monterey is played out. Watered out, to be specific. It’s also sour. It is communicated to a great source of pressure support – the Pacific ocean, but that’s why it’s watered out. The death knell was the nonexistent Plains All American offshore oil pipeline maintenance that resulted in a rupture roughly 15 years ago. The Monterey platform operators (about half of all) investigated, and found that the lines would hardly cast a shadow if pulled. So, they did the $ arithmetic, and shut down. The smartest operator, Venoco, went teats up right away and left the state and feds with their asset retirement obligations. The rest will do so later, with Exxon most likely offloading to a paper LLC to duck out…
I’m talking about the shale formations below that. Along the coast. It is in a spiraling formation that makes current fracking tech too costly at today’s price
What you think are shales are probably Monterey outcrops. They are sedimentary. Same formation. They are naturally fractured – i.e. not frac candidates. AFAIK, there are no commercially frackable oil shales anywhere in California.
“Natural gas plant liquids (NGPLs), also known as natural gas liquids (NGLs), are hydrocarbons that are separated from natural gas as liquids at natural gas processing plants. These liquids are primarily made up of ethane, propane, butanes (including isobutane), and pentanes plus (natural gasoline).” On first graph in the essay.
These are rising far faster than other intermittent renewables.
Why are people still hyped up about this autopen? They’ve been around for ages, often by public figures. I suspect one reason is that if people try to copy an autopen signature for a forged document, the exact copy would be a big clue that it was take from a public document and not a related/stolen/whatever private transaction.
Heck, I’d use one to make up for crappy penmanship and degraded nerve issues that impact holding things like pens and computer mice. (I use my vertical mouse with my left hand.)
What if someone forged your signature on a check? Then, what if someone used an autopen to forger your signature on a whole bunch of checks?
It’s not the use of the autopen that’s in question. It’s the potentially fraudulent use to sign expenditures, pardons, and a bunch of other nefarious actions without the demented Biden’s knowledge or authorization.
Or it was just a sarcastic, snarky swipe and Biden… Because some idiot will likely try to credit him for the record energy production.
Just like they did with Obama.
In both cases, the level of energy production was IN SPITE OF them, NOT THANKS TO THEM.
BOTH of them did EVERYTHING THEY COULD to stop the US from producing USEFUL energy.
Despite the best efforts of the Biden Era autopen, US primary energy production set a new record in 2024. Natural gas and crude oil led the way, by a WIDE margin and natural gas plant liquids actually overtook renewables.
In 2024
.
Reliable. slightly subsidized, grid-supporting Fossil Fuel 86.34 quad
Reliable, grid-supporting Nuclear 8.17 quad
Unreliable, expensive, grid-destabilizing, heavily subsidized Wind, Solar, Hydro, Biofuels, etc. 8.79 quad
Total primary energy production 103.3 quad
Bang for the buck
In 2022,
Renewables received $1873 million in subsidies/quad of energy production.
Oil and natural gas received $33 million/quad
The Church of Warming pushed by the CCP owned Biden tried to reach the energy crisis goal of the Obama crime spree where he intended to have a photo op of dragging frozen grandmas from the ghetto to blame on US energy, but shale gas ruined his plan.
True and agree. Guess the sarc just went over my head.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm
Because of climate change sarcasm will become acidic.
Well there you go.
Climate Sarcacidification:
It’s worse than we thought.
Downright Acerbic
I think it’s more the issue that it’s become clear he didn’t even know about much of what was signed.
Biden had no idea he signed natural gas export pause, Johnson says
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-had-no-idea-he-signed-natural-gas-export-pause-johnson-says
In 1969 my soon-to-be mother-in-law sent a wedding invitation to President Nixon. A short while later we received a nice card from the White house, signed by the President himself. So claimed the M-I-L. I don’t remember if the card also had First Lady Pat’s signature.
I’ve often wondered how many (and the cost) of these things the White House dispensed each year. USA population has increased by 150 M since then.
It’s not about the autopen. It’s about people using the autopen to sign documents without Biden’s knowledge and consent.
There are questions about legality of certain official actions signed by autopen even if done with knowledge and consent of the president.
Biden had clear signs of dementia by the time he left the Vice Presidency in 2017. By the time of the Hur interview, Biden couldn’t remember when he served as Veep or when his son died. Who was performing Biden’s duties when he was incapacitated?
BTW – I’ve only previously heard of using the autopen for unofficial documents, not pardons or executive orders.
My parents have a signed card from the president congratulating them on their 50th wedding anniversary. I’m very certain W. didn’t personally sign it.
BTW, is this program still in effect? You could write or email the White House and get a card for significant life events.
The problem is, how do we know that Biden even knew the document was being signed for him?
A couple clerks draw up a few dozen pardons, the autopen signs them, and Biden is non-the-wiser.
(Of course that was the standard condition for Biden.)
Oh where, oh where is the Energy Transition?
Ed Miliband: O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Funny how it’s always about a ring – especially of truth.
Miliband isn’t the least bit interested in transitioning. He’ll get there by telling you what you can and can not have.
Question – are the subsidies quoted federal only or do they include state subsidies as well.? Also, is there a number for the total costs expended on unreliables in the US?
Federal only.
The “energy transition” was faith healing the energy supply. Think green thoughts, and give subsidies to “renewable energy”, and don’t ask embarrassing questions.
I filled my car’s gasoline tank with gasoline the other day: $2.47 per gallon. Much better than $4 per gallon.
Drill, Baby, Drill ! 🙂
$2.81/gal this morning at a Dallas Exxon.
$3.80 in central Washington State. WA has a Carbon Indulgence fee.
Still over $4 on Whidbey, depending on which station you go to. Some are just barely under $4.
$2.58 at the Costco by airport in Denver.
$4.79, Outer Central California. By this time next year $10?
Rant start. If our gas price doubles, there will be one positive – the Overlander hoards that have multiplied like cockroaches since Kovid will be knocked back some. There are several areas not far from me that face closure due to the impact of hundreds of weekend idiots from SoCal that drive their $100K rigs willy-nilly across wet meadows, make new campsites wherever they want, leave 5 gallon buckets of human waste for someone (who?) to cart away. Rant over.
There isn’t going to be any “energy transition.” There was never any transition from the Stone Age to the Metal Age, either. We still use stone for more things than ever before. By almost any measurement, sand and gravel with 1000 uses are by far the most heavily mined raw materials, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Would we have roads, concrete, large buildings, breakwaters for seaport, etc, without stone? Not on your life!
Metal tools, metal machinery, and the fuels to operate them facilitate the greater use of stone.
New technologies are usually deployed incrementally. With only a few exceptions (No one still harvests whalebone for buggy whips) new technologies are added to existing technologies more than they replace them. ‘Twas ever thus, and is likely to continue.
Correct-a-mundo!
The various stone ages were defined as those where stone weapons and tools were primarily used, not building materials.
Also correct, The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.
No technological age ended because we ran out of the primary resource.
We just found better ways of doing things. We still consume as much wood and biomass for energy as we did when we started using coal… we just added more sources of energy to the mix.
There are just under 7 million horses in the USA. They do better on mountain trails than EVs or ICE vehicles.
How much of the “renewables” category in the primary sources chart is hydroelectric? Was hydro supported by the same people who support solar/wind subsidies? Why group hydro with renewables but keep nuclear as a separate category? What is the definition of “renewable”?
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2025.06.09/chart2.svg
Chart scales oddly on my laptop but answers some questions.
It also unleashes new puzzles – like burning wood is considered renewable but burning coal is not. I guess it matters how long the tree has been dead?
They hate dams but love to count their output as “green” to make “renewable” energy numbers look bigger.
BINGO! And ditto for “biomass.”
Love your posts David!
Whenever I read about the pending “energy transition” I am reminded of all the trade rag articles I read in the late 80s and early 90s about how this year or next installed base of token ring would overtake that of ethernet.
Well, if “cold fusion” had worked out…
I noticed my kids growing up without advertisement jingles (raised-by-tv, two-income family generations remember hundreds of corporate jingles) but now that era is over. Streaming has grown the …. to start inserting commercials. Random observation remembered by thinking “what other things sounded right in the 90s”)
I am curious if the universities are producing the number of geologists, geophysicists, and petroleum engineers needed to “frac on”? That is one area the “greens” could stop this. Enough peer pressure in the schools could reduce the number of candidates to take these roles, and the number of teachers to pass on the know-how.
My father was a geophysicist and what he did looked really complicated! I know computers and AI can play a role but AI only works with what is known, and is most likely not going to innovate the technology you will need to get to the really hard to get reserves.
Petroleum engineering grad rates down by over 75% in the last 8 years. It’s not “peer pressure”, but dry eyed assessments of the career potentials. Why spend 40 years developing a diminishing resource, for much less pay than the dudes you’re replacing, under worse conditions, when you can choose a dozen better disciplines and avoid the ups, downs, and more downs?
Check out rig counts, service rates, well EURs/ft drilled, steadily increasing asset retirement costs, and – yes – competition from the renewables which will be dominating later this century, to see the future of the most finely honed oil and gas industry that the world has, and will ever, know. Not a hard decision for any bright adolescent….
Ugh. Well, California is about to find out what happens when you put all of your eggs in one basket. Gasoline is the least of the worries. Jet and Diesel is. It won’t exist out there and unless you pay countless billions getting refined products to PADD 5 the place will become an uninhabited desert again. I’m surprised Nevada and Arizona haven’t sued yet.
BTW, China is turning out engineers to do this and I suspect India won’t be far behind. And, as the “transition” fails to materialize and crude oil prices skyrocket the talent will find its way there. The 20-year training gap will be painful though.
“BTW, China is turning out engineers to do this and I suspect India won’t be far behind.”
For the most part, they won’t be working here.
” And, as the “transition” fails to materialize and crude oil prices skyrocket the talent will find its way there.”
Reserves/present production ratios – the name of the game – will not be increasing any more. Ever. Yes, higher costs DO increase reserves/ But that rising tide aids ALL forms of energy, Including those that don’t deplete away, no matter how hard you Drill Baby Drill.
Cal upstream oil and gas – which can not be temporarily extended by it’s tiny shale resources – has been playing out most of this century. And yes, their insistence on world class ES&H regs for refineries, along with clean air rules for gasoline formulations, has reduced downstream outputs. Which is why they are phasing out ICE’s.
I believe the Monterey shale formation is quite rich yet its spiral nature makes it to costly to get to now. 50 years from now, possibly.
The Monterey is played out. Watered out, to be specific. It’s also sour. It is communicated to a great source of pressure support – the Pacific ocean, but that’s why it’s watered out. The death knell was the nonexistent Plains All American offshore oil pipeline maintenance that resulted in a rupture roughly 15 years ago. The Monterey platform operators (about half of all) investigated, and found that the lines would hardly cast a shadow if pulled. So, they did the $ arithmetic, and shut down. The smartest operator, Venoco, went teats up right away and left the state and feds with their asset retirement obligations. The rest will do so later, with Exxon most likely offloading to a paper LLC to duck out…
Sorry to have miss your first observation. The Monterey has been produced for a long time. Hence my long para, above..
Monterey shale was largely a bust because the rock was too ductile.
I’m talking about the shale formations below that. Along the coast. It is in a spiraling formation that makes current fracking tech too costly at today’s price
What you think are shales are probably Monterey outcrops. They are sedimentary. Same formation. They are naturally fractured – i.e. not frac candidates. AFAIK, there are no commercially frackable oil shales anywhere in California.
Sorry, boned up. The Monterey is indeed a shale. But the rest stands.
The “Great Crew Change” has been an imminent disaster for at least a decade.
The Oil Industry’s Great Crew Change — Why It’s Even More Complicated Now
https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2015/05/04/the-great-crew-change-why-its-even-more-complicated-now/
The Big Crew Change—Bang or Whimper?
https://jpt.spe.org/big-crew-changebang-or-whimper
“Natural gas plant liquids (NGPLs), also known as natural gas liquids (NGLs), are hydrocarbons that are separated from natural gas as liquids at natural gas processing plants. These liquids are primarily made up of ethane, propane, butanes (including isobutane), and pentanes plus (natural gasoline).” On first graph in the essay.
These are rising far faster than other intermittent renewables.