7 ms·
Center of gravity in oil world shifts to Americas
- ojbyrne 14y agoThat whole Peak Oil thing seems slightly ludicrous now.
- darkestkhan 14y agoNot exactly - it is just another (and more expensive) source of oil, but inevitably there is still a limit to it (and while prolly there is more shale gas in world than oil I doubt it even triples the time before oil supply will end). Inevitably we will have to use biofuels, solar, wind [and in future also thermonuclear].
- modeless 14y agoYeah, except there will be another (more expensive) source of oil after this one, and another after that. Gradually solar will become cheaper than the cheapest oil available, and the world will move to solar, and that will be it. Nobody's saying solar isn't the future, we're just saying there won't be any sudden end to oil. There will be no global catastrophe.
- incredimike 14y agoSolar still has a number of big draw-backs that need to be overcome (namely storage and time-to-recharge), but I suppose we have more time to work it out now. It's kind of a same, though.. I'm not sure the environment can tolerate much more burned fossil fuels.
- ojbyrne 14y agoAs long as coal is still in use, anything that replaces it is a big win.
- redwood 14y agoRight like the coal to liquids tech the Germans used in WWII. Peak coal is FAR off.
- danielharan 14y agoI recommend reading http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/1603580557 http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/... for a clear explanation of why this actually makes peak oil worse.
- ojbyrne 14y agoI actually have read fairly widely and taken courses in Systems Theory, but I'd appreciate a synopsis of your argument.
- danielharan 14y agoAll the technology used in exploiting a non-renewable resource faster only sets us up for a bigger, more abrupt crash. I don't remember if she used the example of oil or fisheries (or both?), the dynamics are the same. In the fishing village I grew up in, they were building massive ships with cutting-edge sonar(?) technology until the stocks collapsed.
- ajtaylor 14y agoPart of the reason these new fields are being developed is that the price of oil will now support them. I wonder what these newer, more expensive methods of production will do to the long-term price of oil? Anything to break the near-monopoly of oil from the Middle East is good, but will it come at a price?
- InclinedPlane 14y agoAs production from a new method ramps up the cost typically goes down, due to amortization of initial fixed costs and efficiencies developed through experience.
- yaix 14y agoSo basically what this is saying is, insteat of burning trillions of dollars in Iraq, killing over a hundred thousand human beings and ruining the credibility of the US on the way, it would have been sufficient to just take 100 billion or so and invent new drilling technologies? Talk about a bad decision.
- incredimike 14y agoWell, the USA hasn't been a beacon for great decision making in recent years. I feel as though oil-wars were fueled by other agendas outside of the simple need for crude. Also, look at alternative energy markets and how they've barely gained any traction outside of grass-roots until recently. There were even cables released on wikileaks showing that USA was supporting the International Renewable Energy Agency being hosted by the UAE (4th largest producer of oil). Counter-intuitive isn't even the word.
- sown 14y agoI think the US's decision in Iraq also had to do with keeping those resources away from her enemies.
- aurelianito 14y agoWow! I didn't expect Argentina to be at the lead! Now I understand the recent statization of the national oil company (YPF).
- maukdaddy 14y agoHighly disappointed in the WaPo. This read like a PR piece released by the oil industry and/or their lobbyists. No mention of the environmental disaster looming from the tarsands? No mention of the effects from fracking? No discussion about how this will only delay much needed investment in renewables by the US Government?
- gringomorcego 14y agovery odd to not mention the downsides of fracking. a quarter of the article is about it, and it seems like the crux of the argument of the new dependency on america comes from resources attained through fracking. very biased reporting.
- joe_the_user 14y agoWell... I'm more a corporate hater than a corporation lover. But while the downside of tar sands are real and horrific, the downsides of fracking so far seem speculative. I haven't heard any strong argument why North Dakota fracking would have the same effect as the fracking described in Gas Lands. If anything, fracking seems possibly scary but not something with clear, proven downsides. It may be, for example, that pipelines carrying oil extracted using fracking and that could cause damage somewhere and that does more damage than the actual fracking. If anyone has a reference to prove me wrong, I'd love to see it (well, maybe not love but appreciate it).
- blutonium 14y agoGreat that you care about this, but the environmental consequences have been largely invisible to Americans for many years. Be it CO2 or destroyed ecosystems in every oil producing country, the damage is largely done. I'd hardly blame this rag for the oversight at this point.
- mkramlich 14y agoI had two reactions. First, I found it odd that in the entire 2 pages there wasn't a single mention of any sort of environmental or health downside to shale oil extraction (the strip mining and toxic chemical ponds, etc.) or of fracking, or carbon emissions and thus no mention of the relationship between fossil fuels and what the overwhelming majority of scientists are saying is a climate change crisis. Even though they clearly cited the increase in fracking and shale oil as a big component in the global oil shift. Instead, just a focus on the money upside for various producers and geostrategic implications like Iran/Hormuz. Second, I saw what I've come to expect in the comments below the post, on their site. I have this theory that there are rightwing groups that pay for people to astroturf (sometimes called sock puppets) by posting comments at the bottom of articles on major media websites. Because so many of them seem too well organized, hit too many buzzwords and talking points, as if all following the same script but given a little leeway to improvise. The ridiculous demonizing of Obama backed up by nothing specific, the apparent total naivete and ignorance about the shared positive health purpose of the EPA specifically and government regulations in general (hint: they're not out to oppress oil companies and rednecks, they're out to hopefully minimize the amount that fellow citizens, perhaps even one's own family or neighbors (or potential customers!), get sick and die from toxic pollution. Or to prevent the killing off of entire ecosystems needed for plants, insects and animals to live, creatures that we in turn depend on for our own survival.) If astroturfing IS truly happening, and there was a technical means of preventing it, and I had the power to do it, I would make it impossible. It worsens our society. Swamps signal with noise. Reduces our ability to trust others, etc. If such comments are NOT astroturfing, then it's depressing to think that with our current voting system in the US, everyone's vote is weighed exactly the same. Whether a logical thinker or not. Whether well read in history or ignorant. Whether you know a lot about human health or very little, a lot about biology or nothing. Whether you picked your beliefs out of thin air one day or arrived at positions after many years of careful observation and analysis: doesn't matter, all votes count the same and can cancel each other out. And then if an election can be split along some other line, perhaps more superficial, abstract or emotional issue or false dichotomy ("gubmint bad, Bible good!"), our voting process is cheapened even further. But yeah, the US getting less oil from Mideast and/or OPEC is good. Still needing it is bad. But since the piece was written in such a way that it seemed to be carefully tip-toeing around saying anything that could be construed as "renewable good, fossil bad" or "pollution is bad" one can't help but suspect they wanted to stay on the good side of various people in the oil industry. Perhaps they weren't ass-kissing the oil industry. Perhaps they just wanted to focus. But why would you focus on the more trivial aspects, and leave out the elephant(s) in the room?
- adaml_623 14y agoThere's a line in the article about the 'unstable' Middle East. My perception is that Central and South America has it's own stability problems that are different but just as serious. Sadly I guess that the US sending troops into the Americas (again) is likely in the next few decades. This is one of the reasons why renewables (despite their problems) seem more sensible to me. The ethical and human cost of chasing the petroleum economy seem too high.
- redwood 14y agoCheck out these INCREDIBLE aerial photos of the Alberta tar sands operations: http://www.businessinsider.com/canadian-oil-sands-flyover-2012-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/canadian-oil-sands-flyover-20... I think mega-infrastructure like this that we're all relying on to some degree or another needs to be seen