Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Now Produces More Oil and Gas Than Russia and Saudi Arabia

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the black-gold dept.

United States 416

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Claudia Assis writes that the US will end 2013 as the world's largest producer of petroleum and natural gas, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia with the Energy Information Administration estimating that combined US petroleum and gas production this year will hit 50 quadrillion British thermal units, or 25 million barrels of oil equivalent a day, outproducing Russia by 5 quadrillion Btu. Most of the new oil was coming from the western states. Oil production in Texas has more than doubled since 2010. In North Dakota, it has tripled, and Oklahoma, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah have also shown steep rises in oil production over the same three years, according to EIA data. Tapping shale rock for oil and gas has fueled the US boom, while Russia has struggled to keep up its output. 'This is a remarkable turn of events,' says Adam Sieminski, head of the US Energy Information Administration. 'This is a new era of thinking about market conditions, and opportunities created by these conditions, that you wouldn't in a million years have dreamed about.' But even optimists in the US concede that the shale boom's longevity could hinge on commodity prices, government regulations and public support, the last of which could be problematic. A poll last month by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that opposition to increased use of fracking rose to 49% from 38% in the previous six months. 'It is not a supply question anymore,' says Ken Hersh. 'It is about demand and the cost of production. Those are the two drivers."'"

cancel ×

416 comments

Importation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45057907)

So is the U.S. still going to import?

Re:Importation (4, Insightful)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 10 months ago | (#45057937)

1) Import as much as possible
2) stockpile it
3) resell later for massive profit

Re:Importation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058345)

+1

Re:Importation (4, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 10 months ago | (#45058459)

That strategy seems to work well for aluminium oxide, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, diamonds, ferrochromium, ferromanganese, iodine, iridium, mica, niobium, platinum group metals, talc, tantalum, thorium, tin, tungsten and zinc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_National_Stockpile_Center [wikipedia.org]

Re:Importation (4, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | about 10 months ago | (#45058625)

THIS is what I believe is the US's plan to remain relevant in the coming economic collapse. As the rest of the world attempts to "route around" the damage caused by the US, the US's energy independence and abundance will make the US into an attractive exporter to control and keep the price of energy lower. At the end of the day, it's energy that runs the world. It is figuratively and literally a "power struggle."

Re:Importation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058643)

Did you notice that:
1) We're talking about production of quadrillions of units of things? It almost doesn't matter how small the thing is. The resulting container for your "stockpile" would be just way too big. The cost of building and maintaining a meaningful stockpile would be enormous.
2) The price of energy is not supply driven, it's currently demand driven? While this suggests that now WOULD be a good time to stockpile, if not for item 1, it also assumes that in the future, prices will again be supply driven. Given the increasing diversity of energy sources and potential for renewables to dominate energy production in the long term, its at least possible that energy will stay a demand-driven market. In other words, prices might not rise much and if it does, there are vast reserves of hydrocarbons to tap into that are profitable to extract when prices rise. This means that there won't be the sharp rise in prices that a stock-piler would depend upon.
3) "Import as much as possible" so the implication is that in the future it will be more expensive to transport energy than it is today. This contradicts the entire history of technology development. The alternative implication is that the world has gone to hell. In which case, who is going to buy your oil and gas for massive profits?

The more interesting subject is:
We're in the middle of a massive energy production boom. Energy production in any one place tends to be a boom and bust business. What portion of our income is coming from this (probably temporary) boom and what investments can we make that prepare us for the inevitable bust, or at least prepare us for a decline?

Re:Importation (4, Informative)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 10 months ago | (#45058051)

2 Factors.

America uses more oil then it produces but produces more gas then it uses.

America has a lot of refiners. IIRC Nigeria exports oil to the US where it is refined into gasoline and shipped back. Also remember that plastic is comes from oil and gas - and we produce and consume a lot of plastic.

Re:Importation (-1, Offtopic)

drakaan (688386) | about 10 months ago | (#45058295)

...America uses more oil than it produces but produces more gas than it uses...

<grammarnazi>"Then" relates to time, "than" is a word that implies a comparison between two things. IHBT.</grammarnazi>

Re:Importation (4, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 10 months ago | (#45058603)

You're more Illinois Nazi than Grammar Nazi. A proper Grammar Nazi would not have used a comma to separate independent clauses without a conjunction. Perosnally, I would have preferred a semi-colon. All the cool Nazis are using them these days.

Re:Importation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058681)

Thank you for that, I find it annoying as well. You would think slashdotters would be a bit more educated, but you see way too many then/than and there/they'e mistakes, and WAY too many grocer's apostrophes (which a grocer would write "grocers apostrophe's"). Some people here are surely 6th graders, or the educational equivalent. It's sad, this used to be a place where literates come.

Kids, READ BOOKS! To paraphrase Twain, an aliterate has no advantage over an illiterate.

Re:Importation (5, Funny)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 10 months ago | (#45058387)

but produces more gas then it uses.

You leave congress out of it!

Re:Importation (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 10 months ago | (#45058703)

In related news, the USA has no plans whatsoever to do anything about the environment [wikipedia.org] .

I guess that's what happens when you let J.R.Ewing, et. al. run the country [opensecrets.org] .

Environmentalists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45057909)

...are shitting their pants.

Re:Environmentalists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45057927)

Obama bumper sticker: Drill Here, Drill Meow!

Re:Environmentalists... (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#45057963)

No. While the long-term implications of increased production are troubling, and there should be local concern regarding fracking(I've changed my mind, real scientific evidence suggests groundwater contamination isn't uncommon), as far as the big environmental concerns go: it doesn't matter where fossil fuels come from, it matters how much are being burned.

Re:Environmentalists... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058053)

That's the problem. If you give the US more efficient ways to get oil, it will be burned. The reason for them is that they increased the amount of oil they are extracting, not that Russia extracts less now.

Re:Environmentalists... (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#45058079)

Yes, but if market forces(sans true-cost of fossil fuel burning) are pushing for more production in the U.S., if the U.S. didn't, someone else would.

Re:Environmentalists... (1)

AGMW (594303) | about 10 months ago | (#45058335)

... real scientific evidence suggests groundwater contamination isn't uncommon ...

Please provide a link to this evidence. Fracking has been industry standard practice for 50 years or so - it is NOT a new invention - and there are no recorded instances that I am aware of where contamination has been proven.

There was a case where contamination was found, but tests that would have shown fracking to have been the cause (the gas that is released has a 'signature' and so can be traced to a specific well) was not done for some reason (possibly because the well drilled to run the tests could have been the problem!).

Re:Environmentalists... (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 10 months ago | (#45058475)

Didn't the EPA withdraw a study from peer review? Something about how the methodology was fatally flawed.

Re:Environmentalists... (2, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#45058491)

Ok, I hope the NIH is good enough for you, because it's what determined my own concern.
here [nih.gov]

Re:Environmentalists... (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 10 months ago | (#45058117)

A religious fanatic will always find *some* sign that armageddon is coming, no matter what. This just means that the whole "We've hit peak oil, now it's all downhill from here!! Doooommmm!!!" scenario is temporarily removed from their vast arsenal of doomsday scenarios. But they'll have a dozen more boogeymen to replace it with by tomorrow. You can't stop Chicken Little from being Chicken Little.

Re:Environmentalists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058249)

Here comes the DEBT LIMIT debate, right on queue.

Re:Environmentalists... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058255)

Religious fanatics running the country are already waging crusades under the guise of "bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East" and defending God's chosen people. They are so reckless because they are trying to turn the book of Revelation into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Religion is lunacy!

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Environmentalists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058133)

Better pants than the people shitting up the ground...and by shit, I mean dangerous toxic chemicals let over from the processes used to extract the oil from the containing membrane.

Re:Environmentalists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058223)

Maybe, but they use only ONE sheet of TP to clean up when they do..

Breaking News! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45057935)

American citizens are now suspected terrorists.... oh wait....

I'd rather all the drinking water was contaminated (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45057939)

..then pay $0.01 more per gallon of gas.

Re:I'd rather all the drinking water was contamina (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#45057979)

It's disingenuous to pretend this represents only a penny difference over decades, but groundwater contamination is apparently a problem.

Re:I'd rather all the drinking water was contamina (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45057985)

fucktard

Re:I'd rather all the drinking water was contamina (5, Funny)

sureshot007 (1406703) | about 10 months ago | (#45058341)

Nobody drinks water anymore. That's what's in toilets. It doesn't have electrolytes. It doesn't have what plants crave.

Re:I'd rather all the drinking water was contamina (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058435)

I saw what you did there. Good reference.

In Related News... (-1, Flamebait)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | about 10 months ago | (#45057945)

Automakers are gearing up their Monster SUV production lines to help suburbanites get their groceries up their driveways.

Geopolitics (4, Insightful)

pr0nbot (313417) | about 10 months ago | (#45057947)

I wonder what this means for geopolitics... will the US continue to support the Saudis etc?

OTOH I expect we'll just see Jevons Paradox in action, which would mean we still need the Saudis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox [wikipedia.org]

Re:Geopolitics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45057993)

I'm worried it might bring even more long term dependency on foreign oil when US supplies are depleted. Right now, if SHTF and all of the ME decided to stop exporting to the US, it would hike prices, but not completely stop the US economy. If the US is empty, then it means a dependency on that area, far worse than now, similar to how if Russia turns off the natural gas to Germany, German citizens will freeze to death by the tens of thousands.

Re:Geopolitics (1)

polar red (215081) | about 10 months ago | (#45058061)

dependency on foreign oil

use wind and solar (and other renewables, like tidal and wave) to avoid this.

Re:Geopolitics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058315)

we need more Tshirts showing redwhiteandblue made in 'murika windmills giving the towlheads the finger.

Re:Geopolitics (1)

khallow (566160) | about 10 months ago | (#45058433)

I'm worried it might bring even more long term dependency on foreign oil when US supplies are depleted.

Price goes up, people switch to other things. That dynamic hasn't changed.

Right now, if SHTF and all of the ME decided to stop exporting to the US, it would hike prices, but not completely stop the US economy.

Doesn't sound like much of a problem then because you're speaking of a temporary thing. Supply shocks would just encourage people to switch over to other systems even if the good is otherwise in plentiful supply.

If the US is empty, then it means a dependency on that area, far worse than now, similar to how if Russia turns off the natural gas to Germany, German citizens will freeze to death by the tens of thousands.

German citizens would not. They can switch over to electric heat.

Re:Geopolitics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058507)

BS! Fossil Fuels would price themselves out of the market!

Re:Geopolitics (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about 10 months ago | (#45058731)

It would stop more than just the US economy. Why can't people understand how the largest economies in the world are intertwined and what effects one effects them all. The new natural gas production off the coast of Israel, Cyprus, and Turkey will give Europe another source of natural gas which nullifies any threat of shut down from Russia.

Re:Geopolitics (2)

SlippyToad (240532) | about 10 months ago | (#45058037)

Doesn't actually sound all that paradoxical, once you look at it.

The more useful a thing is, the more it will get used.

Until it runs out. Fortunately at the same time we're doing this renewable energy is taking off hugely, so by the time we finish rapidly eating the last few bits of the petroleum cake, we'll have a new cake to chow on.

The cake is still a lie, BTW.

Re:Geopolitics (5, Informative)

tnk1 (899206) | about 10 months ago | (#45058067)

We'd still support the Saudis because Europe and China still use Mideast oil. We might not have been independent of Middle East oil, but we've always used much less of it than other places do. The problem here isn't feeding US SUVs as much as it is keeping the world stable and out of an energy crisis. If the Saudis suddenly stopped selling oil to Europe, the US would be mostly okay, but it would trash our allies and seriously destabilize the world picture.

Re:Geopolitics (4, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 10 months ago | (#45058373)

If the Saudis suddenly stopped selling oil to ... it would trash our allies

When you say "allies", are you sure you don't mean "markets"? I don't think the USA has allies any more - just peoples and countries who depend on it for aid and subsidies and TV programmes.

Re:Geopolitics (0)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 10 months ago | (#45058499)

That is a pretty weak argument in favor of the US taxpayer to prop up the Saudi royal family, in my opinion. If stabilizing the Mideast benefits China and Europe, why can't they pay for it with their own blood and treasure?

Re:Geopolitics (0)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 10 months ago | (#45058599)

If the Saudis suddenly stopped selling oil to Europe, the US would be mostly okay, but it would trash our allies and seriously destabilize the world picture.

Awesome, let's let Europe deal with Europe, then. The Marshall Plan is so last century.

Re:Geopolitics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058639)

If the Saudis suddenly stopped selling oil to Europe, the US would be mostly okay, but it would trash our allies and seriously destabilize the world picture.

I thought there is a global market for oil. If so, Middle East not delivering oil to Europe would be felt by US quite a bit as well.

Re:Geopolitics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058083)

Very True!

Domestic refineries (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058181)

Isn't much of the foreign oil refined in the US [businessweek.com] anyway? Strategically that still gives some control over the commodity.

Anyway the article linked to in the summary is short on details. It looks like the oil+natural gas mentioned in the summary really consists mostly of natural gas.

Re:Geopolitics (1)

Frontier Owner (2616587) | about 10 months ago | (#45058323)

Of course we will.

oil is a commodity sold on the open market. If Saudi production goes down that is less on the market. and prices go up. Just because we are producing it, doesn't mean we don't pay for it.

Full circle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45057965)

When clean drinking water is run by a cartel maybe they'll think outside the 20 year box.

So why didn't prices go down then? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45057977)

Why are we still paying $3.50/gal for gasoline?

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, is the process of drilling and injecting fluid into the ground at a high pressure in order to fracture shale rocks to release natural gas inside. Each gas well requires an average of 400 tanker trucks to carry water and supplies to and from the site.

It takes 1-8 million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job.

The water brought in is mixed with sand and chemicals to create fracking fluid. Approximately 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used per fracturing.
Up to 600 chemicals are used in fracking fluid, including known carcinogens and toxins such as
The fracking fluid is then pressure injected into the ground through a drilled pipeline.

500,000 Active gas wells in the US X 8 million Gallons of water per fracking X 18 Times a well can be fracked

72 trillion gallons of water
and
360 billion gallons of chemicals
needed to run our current gas wells.

The mixture reaches the end of the well where the high pressure causes the nearby shale rock to crack, creating fissures where natural gas flows into the well.

During this process, methane gas and toxic chemicals leach out from the system and contaminate nearby groundwater.

Methane concentrations are 17x higher in drinking-water wells near fracturing sites than in normal wells.

Contaminated well water is used for drinking water for nearby cities and towns. There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water. Only 30-50% of the fractring fluid is recovered, the rest of the toxic fluid is left in the ground and is not biodegradable. The waste fluid is left in open air pits to evaporate, releasing harmful VOC’s (volatile organic compounds) into the atmosphere, creating contaminated air, acid rain, and ground level ozone. In the end, hydraulic fracking produces approximately 300,000 barrels of natural gas a day, but at the price of numerous environmental, safety, and health hazards.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058003)

If it makes you feel any better, I'm paying 2.92 in Virginia.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058055)

Up to 600 chemicals are used in fracking fluid, including known carcinogens and toxins such as

SUCH AS??? You can't leave us hanging! Oh, the suspense...

Re:So why didn't prices go down then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058085)

Fracking has been linked with autism [salsalabs.com] .

Re:So why didn't prices go down then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058339)

Fracking has been linked with autism [salsalabs.com] .

So there was a well near your childhood home?

You are going to have to come up with some stats for that one... Then you are gong to have to come up with some verified studies that isolate FRACKING as the cause of the issues you claim. (I'm guessing that you won't be able to, because there are OTHER environmental factors at play here.)

Re:So why didn't prices go down then? (5, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | about 10 months ago | (#45058127)

Why are we still paying $3.50/gal for gasoline?

Because of the deniers who will refuse more stringent pollution control and gasoline taxes. But sooner or later, it will be up to a more normal level.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then? (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 10 months ago | (#45058153)

Why are we still paying $3.50/gal for gasoline?

Because cars don't yet run on natural gas?

Re:So why didn't prices go down then? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45058285)

Huh?
You have been able to buy CNG civics for a long time. Now other manufactorers are doing it too. Ford has trucks and vans powered by CNG. Conversion is not terribly expensive either.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then? (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 10 months ago | (#45058377)

Okay, well perhaps I should change my comment to "Because very, very few cars run on natural gas?" The only sales figures I could find for the Civic CNG indicated that Honda had only sold about 1,600 of them in 2012. Promising, but not exactly commonplace.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45058689)

Yeah, refueling is a bit hard to find, home compression is expensive and energy density is not that great by volume for CNG. Nor is MPG that good. Not only because of the realities of CNG but also because they are just changing the timing on a gasoline ice, not building something more suited to CNG. Kind of similar to the issue with ethanol and high blends of it. Sure gasoline engines can burn it, and it works, but since they are really tuned for something else it is not ideal.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058395)

Why are we still paying $3.50/gal for gasoline?

Because cars don't yet run on natural gas?

http://www.holden.com.au/about/innovation/ecoline/lpg

If the market demanded LPG, Holden (GM in Australia) would be more than happy to export this

Re:So why didn't prices go down then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058175)

Why are we still paying $3.50/gal for gasoline?

Because the leftist environmental movement is powerful in Washington and won't allow us to build new refineries. Crude oil imports/drilling has gone up but refining capacity has remained the same since the 1970s.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058539)

Uh what? Refining capacity has gone DOWN, not because of environmentalists, but because it was deemed not cost effective to upgrade existing facilities to current safe standards. It's about money not environmentalism. They've realized that they have a lock on the supply so they can effectively charge whatever the highest amount the consumer will bear. We've wound down in both wars and are still not out of the recession, the gas consumption has gone down, yet somehow prices have remained the same, even through a strengthening dollar. Yeah sure, I believe that "environmentalism" has something to do with it.

The Propaganda Doesn't Help (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45057983)

When Hollywood is falling all over itself to provide a never ending stream of propaganda flicks, ignorant and uneducated celebrity mouthpieces, and other fodder aimed at demonizing energy production, it's no wonder the public doesn't support it.

Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama? (1, Troll)

Assmasher (456699) | about 10 months ago | (#45057995)

LOL...

That sumbitch is destroying the country!

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#45058115)

How are we going to blame this on Obama?

He's the damn President of The United States! In case you haven't heard, the buck stops there...

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about 10 months ago | (#45058269)

I have no problem with that as long as it applies to ALL presidents, not just the ones you don't like...

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 10 months ago | (#45058685)

How long have you been on the planet? I can't think of any president in recent history that wasn't given a hard time. At least, not while I've been alive and I know it went further back than that.

In Soviet USA (0)

HansKloss (665474) | about 10 months ago | (#45058009)

Russia becomes USA err.
USA beats Russia in oil production, as police country nr. 1, security forces everyhere, shoot and ask questions later... full totalitarian state.

What this world has come to...

Re:In Soviet USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058165)

In americanized East,

america bugs evryone, and the israelis bug the buggers.

Dunno how to read "across the lines", but if america suddenly produces the most oil, surely the Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/Syria conflicts can be ended.

During the `80`s and `90`s BP suggested that there are hundreds-of-billions of barrels juST OFF THE COAST OF GAZA! PALESTINIAN GAS FIELDS

no wonder the american-israelis have sabotaged the peace-process and stirred instability in the region.....

Re:In Soviet USA (1)

Entropius (188861) | about 10 months ago | (#45058545)

You're not allowed to talk about buggering in Russia these days though...

The first consequence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058025)

At the next OPEC meeting, the food will be delivered from Five Guys instead of being sent in from a three-star French restaurant.

Food (1, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | about 10 months ago | (#45058089)

So long term, we're contaminating the underground water table, which will eventually rise to the surface, and contaminate the food supply -- Can't you just wait until corn, even grown for livestock feed starts showing trace amount of these chemicals?

Or should we not worry since America doesn't make anything anymore, not even food, and we'll import all of our food from China?

People right now are all up in arms over Fukishima, but I see this fracking as much much worse for us long term -- so bad that it'll make nuclear energy look incredibly clean by comparison.

Re:Food (2)

cpicon92 (1157705) | about 10 months ago | (#45058403)

So long term, we're contaminating the underground water table, which will eventually rise to the surface, and contaminate the food supply -- Can't you just wait until corn, even grown for livestock feed starts showing trace amount of these chemicals?

Or should we not worry since America doesn't make anything anymore, not even food, and we'll import all of our food from China?

People right now are all up in arms over Fukishima, but I see this fracking as much much worse for us long term -- so bad that it'll make nuclear energy look incredibly clean by comparison.

Somehow I don't see that happening, given that we currently export massive quantities of food to China.

And of course fracking is worse than nuclear. Nuclear energy doesn't pollute the environment as a matter of course, it only does it when accidents happen. That said, shale gas extraction doesn't have to be nearly as bad as you seem to think. The reason it pollutes the groundwater is pure irresponsibility on the part of the natural gas industry. If the EPA cracked down on fracking they would certainly find a way to do it safely.

If I were you I would worry about the government not working more than anything else. The government is the only body that can really prevent negligence in resource extraction.

Re:Food (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058453)

Oh yea, the stuff that they pump under ground is really NASTY right?

You do get that it is nearly 100% water and sand right? With some stuff to make it thicker, xanthan gum and a host of things we USE IN FOOD products too. Yes some of this is toxic, as are food additives used every day. You also get that these things are getting injected thousands of feet below the bottom of any water table, which is covered by impermeable rock (Which I know is true because how would the oil/gas collect if it was not for the impermeable rock formation in the first place.) Some have taken to using waste drilling fluid as part of this, mostly to get rid of it in a way that is safe for the environment. But Oh No, this simply cannot be a safe practice...

Think about this... Personally, I think the damage done by the drilling process is much more significant than FRACKING ever would be. You folks need to get your facts straight and stop playing this "We don't know what's in it" == Fear of the unknown card all the time...

Obama is Awesome (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058097)

Not only has he managed to get every American health care, but he has also made us virtually energy independent.

Way to go, Obama!

Only Republicans can take credit for this boom (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 10 months ago | (#45058149)

And, in the process, tell us how it would have been so much better if the Democrats would just get the fuck out of the way.

Re:Obama is Awesome (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about 10 months ago | (#45058301)

He also invented the internet!

Well, there we have it (1)

delta98 (619010) | about 10 months ago | (#45058131)

FTFA "Tapping shale rock for oil and gas has fueled the U.S. boom, while Russia has struggled to keep up its output." Yes. So, Fracking is a great thing! It puts us..er..I mean U.S. ahead in the output metric. Sweet Crude Almighty $3.00 a gallon of gas is just 'round the conner!

Re:Well, there we have it (4, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | about 10 months ago | (#45058217)

I just paid $3.17 last night, just 5% over your $3 target so I'd say we're getting close. What I don't get is why LSC is still at $109 a barrel, with US production up this much and global demand still slightly below 2007 levels we should be under $80, probably around $75. The only thing I can think of is inflation and speculation, and no other metric shows a 25% inflationary factor for the dollar so it has to be down to speculation and manipulation by the financial players, can we please limit their interaction with the commodities market please so the rest of the broader market can reap some of the benefits of this cheaper fuel.

Re:Well, there we have it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058357)

"can we please limit their interaction with the commodities market please"
LOL. good luck.

Re:Well, there we have it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058579)

I just paid $3.17 last night, just 5% over your $3 target so I'd say we're getting close. What I don't get is why LSC is still at $109 a barrel, with US production up this much and global demand still slightly below 2007 levels we should be under $80, probably around $75. The only thing I can think of is inflation and speculation, and no other metric shows a 25% inflationary factor for the dollar so it has to be down to speculation and manipulation by the financial players, can we please limit their interaction with the commodities market please so the rest of the broader market can reap some of the benefits of this cheaper fuel.

Simple solution yankee...buy a more efficient car.

From EIA September 10, 2013:
Oil supply disruptions in key producing countries are up sharply:

Libya. Protests at many seaport facilities have blocked exports, and, as a result, crude oil supply disruptions averaged close to 1 million bbl/d in August, up from 0.13 million bbl/d in April. Pipeline closures by militia groups at the end of August have worsened the situation, with disruptions rising to 1.35-1.4 million bbl/d by the end of August.
Nigeria. Disruptions in June on key pipelines helped curtail almost 450,000 bbl/d of production, up 100,000 bbl/d compared to May. Production recovered somewhat by August when 290,000 bbl/d were off-line.
Iraq. Persistent attacks on the pipeline from Kirkuk to Ceyhan in Turkey helped push disruptions of Iraqi crude oil production to 250,000 bbl/d in August, up 100,000 bbl/d from April. In addition, September maintenance at the Iraqi port of Basra could further reduce exports by several hundred thousand barrels per day. Although the Iraqi government has stated that exports will not be affected, a preliminary September loading schedule indicates a decline of several hundred thousand barrels per day.

Re:Well, there we have it (1)

afidel (530433) | about 10 months ago | (#45058637)

I'm not worried about fueling my car, I already drive a 1.8L compact sedan, I'm worried about the drag on economic growth expensive fuel continues to cause.

Re:Well, there we have it (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 10 months ago | (#45058615)

no other metric shows a 25% inflationary factor for the dollar

The BLS methodology used from the 1970's to the 1990's does [shadowstats.com] .

The opportunities created (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 10 months ago | (#45058171)

If you don't descend from Political/Capitalist Royalty "opportunities created by these conditions" was not in reference to your family.

Why am I still paying more than $3 a gallon then.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058185)

Why am I still paying more than $3 a gallon then...

More importantly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058201)

Is the joint output of natural gas of Iran and their Ally, Russia. Biggest projected production and supplier to Europe.
Secondly, the projected impact of natural gas on climate change and the long term impact of fracking on groundwater throughout the US. Of course "we're winning" so we don't care, we plan on dying before suffering any consequences, good luck with that...

Master Plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058247)

1-Attack competition alleging Freedom implementation
2-Leave the target in a state of rebuilding
3-????
4-MURICA!

Not about supply / demand, about taxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058273)

Demand for gas has been going down, thanks to the recession. It is not about demand going up, and now it is not about supply going down, it is about governments raising taxes to get more out of the population. [utsandiego.com]

Republicans are irritated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058287)

That their free market is bailing out yet another Democrat.

Yet.... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 10 months ago | (#45058291)

Prices are still high and fluctuate like crazy...

They need to STOP speculation trading on it to stabilize the prices.

Re:Yet.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45058505)

Prices are, and will continue to be, high because the current increase in production can only be sustained by a record high rate of drilling and fracking, which barely breaks even at current prices. Note that Shell announced less than a week ago that they were getting out of the Eagle Ford play (which accounts for the largest part of the recent increase in U.S. oil production), presumably because they aren't making any money from it.

Most fracked wells produce more gas than oil, which accounts for the current low market price for gas. The fluctuations in price of oil (and gasoline) occur because small drops in demand lower the price, making new drilling unprofitable. The drilling rate drops, so the production drops: these new wells decline in production very rapidly, so most of the oil is produced in the first year, unlike traditional oil wells which might decline at only 5% per year. When production drops, or demand increases due to lower prices, the price jumps up again.

Bubble? (5, Informative)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 10 months ago | (#45058347)

I have read several articles and reports by economists and geologists claiming this fracking boom is a bubble. The estimate of 100 years worth of gas is overstated. It seems 25 years worth of gas is more likely, less if gas exports are allowed. Then the bubble bursts. The shale oil bubble is worse, 80% of shale oil comes from two rapidly declining deposits, so unless replacements deposits are found that bubble bursts in ten years or so,. Also, we haven't even started talking about limiting factors like environmental issues and the increasing cost of maintaining production levels as the best deposits are used up. As usual everybody is so busy dancing to the buzz they don't stop to think.

in soviet russia (0)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 10 months ago | (#45058361)

in soviet russia we GAS YOU!

Aye... (1)

Gareth Iwan Fairclough (2831535) | about 10 months ago | (#45058399)

but for how long?

Anti-energy president. (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 10 months ago | (#45058467)

the US will end 2013 as the world's largest producer of petroleum and natural gas

This is what happens when you put an anti-energy president and his horrible EPA regulations in charge.

Disaster, I tell you!

Funny how the additional domestic supply hasn't produced any drop in prices at the pump, eh? And how would a pipeline carrying that supply to ports for export lower prices?

Wow, really? oh.... wait.... (5, Informative)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 10 months ago | (#45058497)

Oil production in Texas has more than doubled since 2010

Huh, that's interesting because I thought that it was more or less established that the lower 48 states hit peak oil a while ago. The price went up, but production didn't, because they couldn't, because it wasn't there.

Oh, wait, yeah, here we go:
It doubled from almost nothing. (linked like it's hot) [wikipedia.org] And here's the larger picture. [wikipedia.org]

Now, the main thrust of the article could be right on the money because it lumps natural gas in with oil and we've got a new way of squeezing gas out of the ground. WOO! Let's here it for technological innovation making the world a better place! But pointing out how Texas has doubled production from 300 to 600 million of barrels per year when it used to produce over 1200, and other than the last few years has been in decline since the 70's.... it's a little disingenuous.

But it's interesting that Texas has indeed ramped up oil production. There's probably a pretty serious story about why they're doing it NOW as opposed to during the massive scare that preceded the econopocalypse cica 2006.

nope, production is just some barrels each day (2)

pereric (528017) | about 10 months ago | (#45058501)

Congratulations on your relatively better energy independance. But alas, I have to correct the article : Fossil fuel *production* (which as far as we know is a biological / geological process) is probably just a few barrels each day (given current reserves and the time it needed to form; conditions favoring formation probably varies with geological epochs). Fossil fuel *extraction* is what the article talks about, and is at an all time high.

You usually don't celebrate that much that your rate of withdrawing funds from your bank account is at record high. Maybe quitting using this euphemism would help a tiny bit getting away from the damaging fossil fuel dependency ...

Oil company profits will rise ... (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | about 10 months ago | (#45058523)

... and little else will change.

Nonsense (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about 10 months ago | (#45058659)

"...even optimists in the US concede that the shale boom's longevity could hinge on commodity prices, government regulations and public support..."

Whatever unicorns & rainbows legislation against current recovery methods will either be
- obsolesced by technology which will allow recovery without using those methods, or
- overturned by a petro-starving public when the prices get high enough.

Difficult-to-recover petro resources are never too far away; more accurately they're just banked for future generations to reach.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...