Things have been going quite well for us on the energy front in the last 5 years, but this seems a tad on the optimistic side.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/12/us-biggest-oil-producer
Quote
US can become world's biggest oil producer in a decade, says IEA
The US could become self-sufficient, while 90% of Middle Eastern oil could go to China, according to new estimates
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 November 2012 17.24 GMT
The US will shed its long-standing dependence on Saudi Arabian oil within the next decade, redrawing the world's political systems, heralding a new era of geopolitics – and potentially leading to runaway global warming.
In a report released on Monday, the world's foremost energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency (IEA), said the US will benefit from so-called unconventional sources of oil and gas, including shale gas and shale oil, derived from blasting dense rocks apart to release the fossil fuels trapped within.
These sources could fuel the US's energy independence, and make the country the world's biggest oil producer by 2017. But if pursued with vigour, they would also lead to huge increases in greenhouse gas emissions that would put hopes of curbing dangerous climate change beyond reach.
If this happens, more than 90% of oil and gas from the Middle East could be sold to Asia, and chiefly to rapidly developing countries such as China, within the same timeframe, the IEA has predicted.
Fatih Birol, chief economist at the IEA, and one of the world's foremost authorities on energy and emissions, said the outlook for action on climate change was bleak, unless the US changed direction rapidly. "Climate change has been slipping down the agenda," he said. "It is not having a significant impact on energy investors."
Companies were excited by the prospect of shale gas, which has been subject to widespread development in the US in the past decade, and shale oil, which relies on newer technology but is set for its own boom, according to the IEA's analysis.
Birol said the outlook for cutting emissions was doubtful. "I don't see much reason to be hopeful that we will see reductions in carbon dioxide," he told the Guardian in an interview. "We have seen more carbon dioxide emitted this year."
He pointed out that subsidies to fossil fuels had increased, even while government assistance for renewable energy around the world had been cut or thrown into doubt. But he said that if countries outside the US wanted to make their industries more competitive, they should invest in energy efficiency and renewables. He also called for progress at the United Nations climate change talks in Doha, at the end of this month.
Europe could remain shackled to fossil fuel imports if it fails to develop its natural resources in the form of renewable energy, the IEA found in its World Energy Outlook, the definitive annual examination of the world's energy sources. Gas prices in the US are at present about five times cheaper than those of the EU, but that is unlikely to change in the short term because of the difficulty for the US in exporting gas. Instead, most of the US gas glut will be used domestically, which could drive down costs for industry and allow US manufacturers to undercut international competitors. Birol said the EU should exploit its potential for energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, in order to stay competitive.
The IEA said that the result of new technology allowing the exploitation of new sources of fossil fuels would be a redrawing of the international energy map. In the past five decades, the US has relied increasingly on the Middle East for its oil. But if the US were to be self-sufficient in energy, as it could be by 2035, that would mark a huge shift in world politics. The relationships between the US and the Middle East have for decades been defined by the former's thirst for oil to fuel an automobile-driven economy.
George W Bush tried to redraw this relationship after September 11 2001 by encouraging the use of biofuels in the US, made from turning maize into car fuel. But this endeavour has run into serious problems, as this year's drought pushed up grain prices and focused attention on the question of how far food crops could be turned into fuel without raising prices and compromising food production.
Birol said the exploitation of "unconventional" fossil fuels represented the biggest redrawing of the energy map for decades. "This makes a huge difference," he said. But he said there was still hope of avoiding disastrous levels of climate change as a result, if companies opted to pursue energy efficiency, which could yield immediate benefits in cutting energy bills.
Ed Matthew, director of the thinktank Transform UK, warned: "Energy independence will not increase national security in the US if it leads to runaway climate change. Ultimately the majority of fossil fuel reserves will need to be left in the ground. The US is a hotbed of technological innovation. It must use this creative muscle to develop a low-cost, clean energy revolution. It will only achieve this if the massive vested interests of the American oil industry are brought under democratic control."
Rolf Wuestenhagen, director of the institute for economy and the environment at the University of St Gallen in Switzerland, questioned whether the boom in shale gas in the US could continue in line with the predictions: "It seems surprising that IEA still expects half of the increase in global gas production by 2035 to come from unconventional gas. Is this wishful thinking?"
Niall Stuart, chief executive of Scottish Renewables, said that the report showed that renewable energy was still being disadvantaged by subsidies poured into fossil fuels, in the UK, Europe and around the world. He said: "This puts into context the level of financial support given to fossil fuel-based electricity generators such as coal and gas compared to renewable energy. We hope these figures will silence the vocal minority of naysayers who repeatedly claim renewable technologies such as wind power are too expensive."
The IEA also said that renewable energy had become an "indispensable part of the global energy mix" and could become the world's second biggest source of power generation by 2015.
Go Fracking!!!!
Bah.
I thought we already were the biggest oil producer. Did the Economist lie to me? :mad:
Just wait until ohio gets to fully exploit its resources. We might even out douchebag the Texans.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 12, 2012, 05:38:16 PM
Just wait until ohio gets to fully exploit its resources. We might even out douchebag the Texans.
Ohio has never been lacking in the douchebag department.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 05:26:55 PM
I thought we already were the biggest oil producer. Did the Economist lie to me? :mad:
You're 3rd.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 05:41:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 12, 2012, 05:38:16 PM
Just wait until ohio gets to fully exploit its resources. We might even out douchebag the Texans.
Ohio has never been lacking in the douchebag department.
It's actually referred to as the Ohio Secretary of State, not the Department of Douchebag, like other states.
How come China can't do this fracking thing and achieve energy independence? :unsure:
Quote from: Monoriu on November 12, 2012, 10:17:24 PM
How come China can't do this fracking thing and achieve energy independence? :unsure:
From what I understand it is because Fracking takes a shitload of water and China is struggling with water shortages.
Quote from: mongers on November 12, 2012, 05:47:24 PM
You're 3rd.
My latest info was about 2009ish so I guess the Russians and Saudis are coming strong.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 10:19:22 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 12, 2012, 10:17:24 PM
How come China can't do this fracking thing and achieve energy independence? :unsure:
From what I understand it is because Fracking takes a shitload of water and China is struggling with water shortages.
They decided their water assets would be better served by creating geological abominations and sending cranes and dolphins into the extinction column.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 10:19:22 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 12, 2012, 10:17:24 PM
How come China can't do this fracking thing and achieve energy independence? :unsure:
From what I understand it is because Fracking takes a shitload of water and China is struggling with water shortages.
Fracking takes a similar amount of water as regular drilling. China can't do this fracking thing because it wasn't under shallow water 100 million years ago like central europe and the mississippi basin and consequently doesn't have shale everywhere.
That's why china is full of feathered dinosaurs, america east of the rockies is full of fish and europe is full of large sea monsters.
Water has little or nothing to do with it. It's an insignificant blip and water tankers shuttling to and from the location are more than enough. Remember the extra amount of water in liters needed for a frack job is slightly more than the well volume if you choose not to recycle the saline used for drilling.
Flood the global market and put OPEC to the screws.
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 10:37:33 PM
That's why china is full of feathered dinosaurs, america east of the rockies is full of fish and europe is full of large sea monsters.
And you say Christians are gullible . . .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 13, 2012, 02:39:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 10:37:33 PM
That's why china is full of feathered dinosaurs, america east of the rockies is full of fish and europe is full of large sea monsters.
And you say Christians are gullible . . .
Science works beeyotches. Reality is real beeyotches.
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 10:37:33 PM
Fracking takes a similar amount of water as regular drilling. China can't do this fracking thing because it wasn't under shallow water 100 million years ago like central europe and the mississippi basin and consequently doesn't have shale everywhere.
That's why china is full of feathered dinosaurs, america east of the rockies is full of fish and europe is full of large sea monsters.
Water has little or nothing to do with it. It's an insignificant blip and water tankers shuttling to and from the location are more than enough. Remember the extra amount of water in liters needed for a frack job is slightly more than the well volume if you choose not to recycle the saline used for drilling.
So where in europe is the major shale deposits located and why arent we using it? Cost I guess?
Once the Americans Frack up their water supply liquid gold will have a whole new meaning. I got an ice berg to sell you - cheap.
Quote from: Cecil on November 13, 2012, 02:53:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 10:37:33 PM
Fracking takes a similar amount of water as regular drilling. China can't do this fracking thing because it wasn't under shallow water 100 million years ago like central europe and the mississippi basin and consequently doesn't have shale everywhere.
That's why china is full of feathered dinosaurs, america east of the rockies is full of fish and europe is full of large sea monsters.
Water has little or nothing to do with it. It's an insignificant blip and water tankers shuttling to and from the location are more than enough. Remember the extra amount of water in liters needed for a frack job is slightly more than the well volume if you choose not to recycle the saline used for drilling.
So where in europe is the major shale deposits located and why arent we using it? Cost I guess?
http://shalestuff.com/shale-industry/europe-invest-technology-development/article02046
Basically on the really really big unbroken plains stretching from the pyrenees to the urals is sedimentary and the entire set of orogenic mountain ranges that were the bottom of the tethys sea from spain to pakistan not only is sedimentary but was the bottom of a shallow sea 100 -50 million years ago. So, basically all of europe except norway and scotland.
The limitations have been economic and political. Getting permission to drill in inhabited areas is difficult since neighbors who don't own the land get a say and are hard to bribe since you need to compensate for loss of property values associated with having gas production in your cul-de-sac. This costs alot and is difficult. Shale gas operations have to be of a sufficient size to be worth while. The cost of transporting natural gas is expensive on land unless you have a pipeline, which requires a certain amount of throughput to be economical. So, you need to convince alot of farmers and often residents to allow for the drilling and then convince even more farmers and residents to allow the pipeline.
It is difficult from a regulation perspective. The population is too dense and the only country where that doesn't matter already has more gas than it has pipelines for (Russia).
According to the IEA by 2035 90% of Middle east oil will be exported to Asia, mainly China.....
http://www.ogj.com/articles/2012/11/iea-us-to-overtake-saudi-arabia-in-oil-production.html
So we will be able to give the Middle East two fingers and forget about the bloody place, this will provide comfort as I "celebrate" my 80th birthday :D
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2012, 04:05:11 PM
According to the IEA by 2035 90% of Middle east oil will be exported to Asia, mainly China.....
http://www.ogj.com/articles/2012/11/iea-us-to-overtake-saudi-arabia-in-oil-production.html
So we will be able to give the Middle East two fingers and forget about the bloody place, this will provide comfort as I "celebrate" my 80th birthday :D
Mid East oil already primarily goes to japan and europe today.
Stands to reason that as price goes up, supply will follow. That is something a first year micro student could tell you. Yet some of the more extreme proponents of the peak oil theory questioned that apparent truism on the ground of geologic limits. In, reality the total volume of hydrocarbons in the earth is enormous, far in excess of yearly oil and gas consumption. What is limited is the amount of economically recoverable hydrocarbons, and that limit is simply a function of the existing technology and the price paid for oil. The key factor for the US boom is the latter. Fracking and horizontal drilling are decades-old technologies. But using them in the US made no economic sense with oil at $20/barrel. With prices steady and holding at or above 100, it's a different story.
Economists say and do dumb things all the time, but the rudiments of price theory are very simple and very powerful explanatory tools for lots of purposes.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 13, 2012, 06:39:14 PM
Economists say and do dumb things all the time, but the rudiments of price theory are very simple and very powerful explanatory tools for lots of purposes.
Maybe but you have a certain flair for explaining economics so that even I can understand them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 13, 2012, 06:39:14 PM
Economists say and do dumb things all the time, but the rudiments of price theory are very simple and very powerful explanatory tools for lots of purposes.
And yet there are still socialists out there.... sigh.....
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 12, 2012, 05:50:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 05:41:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 12, 2012, 05:38:16 PM
Just wait until ohio gets to fully exploit its resources. We might even out douchebag the Texans.
Ohio has never been lacking in the douchebag department.
It's actually referred to as the Ohio Secretary of State, not the Department of Douchebag, like other states.
Surely they insist on it being referred to as THE Ohio Secretary of State.
A reductio ad absurdum. The free oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere exists as a consequence of photosynthesis, if we could somehow get our hands on all the carbon sequestered by plants and burn it then we would use up all the oxygen and return to a carbon dioxide/nitrogen atmosphere. The limit to fossil fuel consumption is the carbon dioxide level, not "peak oil".
Quote from: Cecil on November 13, 2012, 02:53:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 10:37:33 PM
Fracking takes a similar amount of water as regular drilling. China can't do this fracking thing because it wasn't under shallow water 100 million years ago like central europe and the mississippi basin and consequently doesn't have shale everywhere.
That's why china is full of feathered dinosaurs, america east of the rockies is full of fish and europe is full of large sea monsters.
Water has little or nothing to do with it. It's an insignificant blip and water tankers shuttling to and from the location are more than enough. Remember the extra amount of water in liters needed for a frack job is slightly more than the well volume if you choose not to recycle the saline used for drilling.
So where in europe is the major shale deposits located and why arent we using it? Cost I guess?
Most of Germany and Eastern France. Go nuts.