Connect with us

Energy

444,000 semi-loads of food? Just another day on planet Earth

Published

14 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Terry Etam

At 100 million b/d, the world consumes a billion barrels of oil every ten days. Eleven billion barrels of recoverable reserves will meet the worldā€™s needs for about 110 days, or just under four months. And global demand continues to grow.

The scope of this discussion goes far beyond oil demand. It is imperative that people understand energy demand, and particularly so on a global scale.

A friend of mine, always with a keen eye on interesting things, passed on an interesting quote from the CERA Week energy conference the other week. The head of the International Energy Forum mentioned a surprising statistic, asĀ quotedĀ by Javier Blas on Twitter: ā€œHeathrow airport in London uses more energy than the whole African nation of Sierra Leone [population ~8.5 million].ā€ Yikes!

Hereā€™sĀ another oneĀ that turned up randomly in the feed by a credible source: ā€œIf we keep growing our energy usage (2.9% CAGR last 350 years) we will use more energy in the next 25 years than in all prior human history. 3x in 39 years and 9x by the end of the century.ā€

Energy is an amazing topic, both sources and uses. The sheer scale of what we require for our present lifestyle is mind-blowing when placed in concrete contexts like above. In the abstract, the numbers donā€™t mean anything. The world consumes over 100 million barrels of oil per day. So what? Is that a lot? Sure itā€™s a big number but so is 8 billion people. Either stat is hard to wrap oneā€™s head around.

Consider the following with respect to oil consumption/production: ExxonMobil made waves recently for a large oil discovery offshore Guyana, in an era when there arenā€™t that many discoveries being made (the flip side of the demand for oil/gas companies to return money to shareholders means exploration generally takes a back seat). Reuters picked upĀ the story: ExxonMobil announced a new discovery, one of 30 since 2015, in a 6.6 million acre area that to date has been found to hold 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil, which also equals the countryā€™s total. The results are significant, moving Guyana up to 17th on the worldā€™s petroleum reserve rankings,Ā similar toĀ Norway, Brazil, or Algeria.

Now compare that number to consumption. At 100 million b/d, the world consumes a billion barrels of oil every ten days. Eleven billion barrels of recoverable reserves will meet the worldā€™s needs for about 110 days, or just under four months. And global demand continues to grow.

The scope of this discussion goes far beyond oil demand. It is imperative that people understand energy demand, and particularly so on a global scale.

Look at this history of global energy consumption chart fromĀ Our World in Data:

Itā€™s nuts. But it coincides very well with the rising standard of living attained by humanity, particularly in the west, an increase the rest of the world wants to emulate.

Consider the following statistics if you think that trajectory is going to slow down or reverse any time soon.

Africa has about 1.2 billion people, or roughly 15 percent of the earthā€™s population. Yet AfricaĀ accounts forĀ 2 percent of global air traffic. By contrast,Ā Europe has a populationĀ of about 740 million, and accounts for 31 percent of global air traffic.

What if Africans decide they want to live like Europeans, air-travel-wise, which is not just justified on moral grounds but actually more functionally logical, because Europe covers only 1/3 of Africaā€™s size of 30 million square kilometres?

What if the rest of the world wants to enjoy air conditioning to the extent the US does (and why on earth wouldnā€™t they)?Ā According toĀ the US Energy Information Agency, nearly 90 percent of US households use air conditioning, and virtually every office building does as well. The US has aboutĀ 130 million households for 330 million people, or about 2.5 people per household. If Africa had a similar ratio, they would have 480,000,000 households, and if a similar proportion had AC there would be 430,000,000 households with AC. Itā€™s safe to say that today in Africa the number of households with AC is far closer to zero than 90 percent. (EvenĀ communists/hardcore socialistsĀ support near-universal air conditioning, though they call it a ā€˜rightā€™ by way of that fuzzy but firm ā€˜gimme thatā€™ appropriation way of theirs.)

Now add in India, with another 1.4 billion people, and do the same math. AĀ billion air conditionersĀ  worth of global demand is not a ridiculous estimate, not when considering Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, parts of South Americaā€¦ in addition to Africa, Indiaā€¦

Consider even food, and the logistical magnum opus required to keep countries food-riot-free. A typical western website says that the average person consumes 3-4 pounds of food per day. Letā€™s say the rest of the world isnā€™t so lucky, and weā€™ll call it 2.5 pounds per day for a global average (each new cruise ship drags the world average up considerably). There are 8 billion of us schlepping around planet earth. A semi trailer can carryĀ about 45,000 poundsĀ of cargo. So every day, the equivalent of about 444,000 semis full of food are forklifted out of trucks and down the gullets of 8 billion upturned mouths. Every freaking day, without a break.

And thatā€™s just food. What about IKEA. And Costco. And Home Depot. And Walmart. And all the other stuff in our world.

And billions more people are striving to fill up the SUV (yes, everywhere you go, SUV) at their local Costco/Home Depot/Walmart, as soon as one arrives in their community.

Ah hell, I give up. The scale of all this stuff is unfathomable. And yet it all gets where it needs to go, every day, as long as thereā€™s energy.

Any singular household staple must be there, in abundance, or all hell breaks loose. Remember Covid > toilet paper? What happens as soon as there is even a rumour of a shortage? Social deviants, which are harder to eradicate than (and just as useful as) STDs, get into gear and begin hoarding in order to resell at a profit. It just happens, one of the unfortunate costs of living in a free society. (Iā€™m not suggesting that those people should be found and beaten with a tire iron, but then again Iā€™m not suggesting that they shouldnā€™t.)

When we think of energy consumption, we tend to think of our hilariously comfortable lives in western nations, where supermarkets are perpetually full, where gasoline and heating fuels are available 24/7/365 at reasonable prices, where flying wherever and whenever we want, with minimal hassle, is one step away from being viewed as a human right. We are correct in that our energy consumption per capita in the west is very high. But on an outright total consumption basis,Ā individual country statisticsĀ are pretty wild. And saddening, in some ways.

First the wild part: You would expect (or I did anyway) the US to be either at the top of the consumption pile or close; it is and has been an economic juggernaut for a century. But not even close: in 2022, the US consumed about 96 exajoules of energy, which is a lot ā€“ that number equals the consumption of India, Russia, Japan and Canada combined. But way out in front is China, with 2022 consumption of 159 exajoules. No one should be surprised China leads the world in renewables installation and coal fired power plant construction. They need it all.

Where it gets sad is to wander further down the list to the lowest consumers. The site linked above shows a graphic of the world, with each country colour-coded for total energy consumption. The lowest on the colour scale is a pale yellow representing 20 exajoules per year. The scale rises up through blues and towards a dark navy which represents China at the top of the heap.

Most African countries, and some South American ones, do not even warrant a definition in the legend at all, and are simply greyed out. They have so little energy consumption they hardly even make it onto the raw data table. Hundreds of millions of people live like that. But only as long as they have to.

It is very sobering to see how much of the world lives, and how very far they are from the Westā€™s standard of living. The Westā€™s leaders push the concept of ā€˜electrify everythingā€™, a concept that only makes sense if one is looking no further than their backyard and has zero feel for the true global situation. In much of the world, they would just as happily get behind the slogan ā€˜electrify anythingā€™.

It is hard to imagine this energy consumption trajectory falling; weā€™d be very lucky if it stayed flat. But that seems like an unrealistic hope. The developing world clearly has every incentive and right to advance towards the Westā€™s standard of living, and if they get close global energy consumption will head off further into the stratosphere. Here in the West, we play cute little games like a forced switch to EVs, while ignoring almost totally any common sense commentary on the subject (For example, Toyotaā€™s 1:6:90 rule which states that for the same amount of raw materials to manufacture one EV, Toyota can make six plug-in hybrids or 90 hybrids, and in doing so would achieve 37 times the emissions reduction of a single EV. Yet Toyota isĀ scornedĀ for such logic on the grounds that ā€œToyotaā€™s reluctance to fully embrace EVs can hinder innovation in the EV industry.ā€ Note that there is no challenge to the facts themselves, just a bruising of the ego of the think tanks.)

Anyone that provides energy of any kind should roll up their sleeves, thereā€™s a lot of work to be done, and those who wish to hunt for energy villains will get run over, in due course.

Terry Etam is a columnist with theĀ BOEĀ Report, a leading energy industry newsletter based in Calgary.Ā  He is the author ofĀ The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity.Ā  You can watch his Policy on the Frontier session from May 5, 2022Ā here.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

Published on

The Audit David Clinton

Contrasting the principle of equalization with the execution

Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. ThoseĀ potential opportunitiesĀ include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the GaspĆ© Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year toĀ notĀ exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light.

Youā€™ll need to search long and hard to find a Canadian unwilling to help those less fortunate. And, so long as we identify as members of one nationĀ¹, that feeling stretches from coast to coast.

So the basic principle of Canadaā€™s equalization payments – where poorer provinces receive billions of dollars in special federal payments – is easy to understand. But as you can imagine, itā€™s not easy to apply the principle in a way thatā€™s fair, and the current methodology has arguably lead to a very strange set of incentives.

According to Department of Finance Canada, eligibility for payments is determined based on your provinceā€™sĀ fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity is a measure of the taxes (income, business, property, and consumption) that a provinceĀ couldĀ raise (based on national average rates) along with revenues from natural resources. The idea, I suppose, is that youā€™re creating a realistic proxy for a provinceā€™s higher personal earnings and consumption and, with greater natural resources revenues, a reduced need to increase income tax rates.

But the devil is in the details, and I think there are some questions worth asking:

  • Whichever way you measure fiscal capacity thereā€™ll be both winners and losers, so who gets to decide?
  • Should a province that effectively funds more than its ā€œshareā€ get proportionately greater representation for national policyĀ²Ā – or at least not see its policy preferences consistently overruled by its beneficiary provinces?

The problem, of course, is that the decisions that defined equalization were – because of long-standing political conditions – dominated by the region that ended up receiving the most. Had the formula been the best one possible, there would have been little room to complain. But was it?

For example, attaching so much weight to natural resource revenues is just one of many possible approaches – and far from the most obvious. Consider how the profits from natural resources already mostly show up in higher income and corporate tax revenues (including income tax paid by provincial government workers employed by energy-related ministries)?

And who said that such calculationsĀ hadĀ to be population-based, which clearly benefits Quebec (nine million residents vs around $5 billion in resource income) over Newfoundland (545,000 people vs $1.6 billion) or Alberta (4.2 million people vs $19 billion). While Albertaā€™sĀ average market incomeĀ is 20 percent or so higher than Quebecā€™s, Quebecā€™s is quite a bit higher than Newfoundlandā€™s. So why should Newfoundland receive only minimal equalization payments?

To illustrate all that, hereā€™s the most recent payment breakdown when measured per-capita:

Equalization 2025-26 –Ā Government of Canada

For clarification, the latest per-capita payments to poorer provinces ranged from $3,936 to PEI, $1,553 to Quebec, and $36 to Ontario. Only Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC received nothing.

AndĀ hereā€™s how the total equalization paymentsĀ (in millions of dollars) have played out over the past decade:

Is energy wealth the right differentiating factor because itā€™s there through simple dumb luck, morally compelling the fortunate provinces to share their fortune? That would be a really difficult argument to make. For one thing because Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. ThoseĀ potential opportunitiesĀ include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the GaspĆ© Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year toĀ notĀ exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light. Perhaps that stand is correct or perhaps it isnā€™t. But itā€™s a stand they probably couldnā€™t have afforded to take had the equalization calculation been different.

Of course, no formula could possibly please everyone, but punishing the losers with ongoing attacks on the very source of their contributions is guaranteed to inspire resentment. And that could lead to very dark places.

Note: I know this post sounds like it came from a grumpy Albertan. But I assure you that Iā€™ve never even visited the province, instead spending most of my life in Ontario.

1

Which has admittedly been challenging since the former primer ministerĀ infamously described usĀ as a post-national state without an identity.

2

This isnā€™t nearly as crazy as it sounds. After all, there are already formal mechanisms through which Indigenous communities get more than a one-person-one-vote voice.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience,Ā upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Banks

Wall Street Clings To Green Coercion As Trump Unleashes American Energy

Published on

 

From theĀ Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jason Isaac

The Trump administrationā€™s recent move to revoke Biden-era restrictions on energy development inĀ Alaskaā€™s North Slopeā€”especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)ā€”is a long-overdue correction that prioritizes American prosperity and energy security. This regulatory reset rightly acknowledges what Alaskaā€™s Native communities have long known: responsible energy development offers a path to economic empowerment and self-determination.

But while Washingtonā€™s red tape may be unraveling, a more insidious blockade remains firmly in place: Wall Street.

Despite the Trump administrationā€™s restoration of rational permitting processes, major banks and insurance companies continue to collude in starving projects of the capital and risk management services they need. The leftā€™s ā€œdebankingā€ strategyā€”originally a tactic to pressure gun makers and disfavored industriesā€”is now being weaponized against American energy companies operating in ANWR and similar regions.

Dear Readers:

As aĀ nonprofit, we are dependentĀ on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider makingĀ a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!

This quiet embargo began years ago, when JPMorgan Chase, Americaā€™s largest bank,Ā declaredĀ in 2020 that it would no longer fund oil and gas development in the Arctic, including ANWR. Others quickly followed: Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup now all reject Arctic energy projectsā€”effectively shutting down access to capital for an entire region.

Insurers have joined the pile-on. Swiss Re, AIG, and AXIS Capital all publicly stated theyĀ wouldĀ no longerĀ insureĀ drilling in ANWR. In 2023,Ā ChubbĀ became the first U.S.-based insurer to formalize its Arctic ban.

These policies are not merely misguidedā€”they are dangerous. They hand Americaā€™s energy future over to OPEC, China, and hostile regimes. They reduce competition, drive up prices, and kneecap the very domestic production that once made the U.S. energy independent.

This isnā€™t just a theoretical concern. Iā€™ve experienced this discrimination firsthand.

In February 2025, The Hartford notified the American Energy Instituteā€”an educational nonprofit I leadā€”that it would not renew our insurance policy. The reason? Not risk. Not claims. Not underwriting. The Hartford cited our Facebook page.

ā€œThe reason for nonrenewal is we have learned from your Facebook page that your operations include Trade association involved in promoting social/political causes related to energy production. This is not an acceptable exposure under The Hartfordā€™s Small Commercial business segmentā€™s guidelines.ā€

Thatā€™s a direct quote from theirĀ nonrenewal notice.

Letā€™s be clear: The Hartford didnā€™t drop us for anything we didā€”they dropped us for what we believe. Our unacceptable ā€œexposureā€ is telling the truth about the importance of affordable and reliable energy to modern life, and standing up toĀ ESGĀ orthodoxy. We are being punished not for risk, but for advocacy.

This is financial discrimination, pure and simple. What weā€™re seeing is the private-sector enforcement of political ideology through the strategic denial of access to financial services. Itā€™s ESGā€”Environmental, Social, and Governanceā€”gone full Orwell.

Banks, insurers, and asset managers may claim these decisions are about ā€œclimate risk,ā€ but they rarely apply the same scrutiny to regimes likeĀ VenezuelaĀ orĀ China, where environmental and human rights abusesĀ are rampant. The issue is not risk. The issue is control.

By shutting out projects in ANWR, Wall Street ensures that even if federal regulators step back, their ESG-aligned agenda still moves forwardā€”through corporate pressure, shareholder resolutions, and selective financial access. This is how ideology replaces democracy.

While the Trump administration deserves praise for removing federal barriers, the fight for energy freedom continues. Policymakers must hold financial institutions accountable for ideological discrimination and protect access to banking and insurance services for all lawful businesses.

Texas has already taken steps byĀ divestingĀ from anti-energy financial firms. Other states should follow, enforcing anti-discrimination laws and leveraging state contracts to ensure fair treatment.

But public pressure matters too. Americans need to know whatā€™s happening behind the curtain of ESG. The green financial complex is not just virtue-signalingā€”itā€™s a form of economic coercion designed to override public policy and undermine U.S. sovereignty.

The regulatory shackles may be coming off, but the private-sector blockade remains. As long as banks and insurers collude to deny access to capital and risk protection for projects in ANWR and beyond, Americaā€™s energy independence will remain under threat.

We need to call out this hypocrisy. We need to expose it. And we need to fight itā€”before we lose not just our energy freedom, but our economic prosperity.

The Honorable Jason Isaac is the Founder and CEO of theĀ American Energy Institute. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.

Continue Reading

Trending

X