The United States is soon to be awash in oil and natural gas, positively brimming with the stuff whose scarcity and unreliability of supply has plagued us since the end of World War II. It is a remarkable, stunning turn of events — largely unforeseen just a few years ago yet now an imminent although still hard-to-believe reality. And the implications of this new reality will be dramatic too — almost all of them positive although not without some risks. Remember when the United States once trembled at the power of OPEC? In a short while, we may be running the thing.
Last month the well-respected International Energy Agency declared, “A new global energy landscape is emerging . . . redrawn by the resurgence in oil and gas production in the United States.” Within eight years, the America is expected to be the planet’s largest producer of oil. By 2030, we’ll be producing more than we need — exporting, not importing. The reason is technology. Techniques such as hydraulic fracturing have been invented and improved so that they can now economically unlock the vast stores of oil and natural gas across the middle of the country. The flyover states may finally start getting some respect.
Comments
Interesting that this article runs side-by-side with the one about the effectiveness of young people protesting and leading on the topic of global climate change. Those silly young people, they just haven't discovered the joys of fracking.
This comment has been removed.
There is a misleading statement in this otherwise reasonable column. Fracking occurs thousands of feet below the ground, far below aquifers and ground water. There is a threat to water supplies only if the pipe that releases gas or oil and fracking water from far below the earth's surface ruptures near the surface. We have decades of experience with federal and state regulation of oil and gas drillers to prevent this from happening. This groundwater contamination claim has been concocted by green activists who simply want to prevent any kind of fossil fuel development in this country.
Lost amid the debates about global warming and water pollution is the simple fact that shale oil and gas production came out of private investment and entrepreneurial spirit. The U.S. government has had little or nothing to do with it, other than threatening to fine it for environmental reasons. Indeed, Energy Secretary Chu has stated publically that he wants higher gasoline prices because it encourages use of alternative fuels. As for the President, he prefers to talk about "spreading the wealth around".
Remember the Stimulus of 2009? Hundreds of billions of dollars wasted. Solyndra? Half a billion dollars down the drain. Cash for Clunkers? a temporary blip in sales that had no long term benefit. All that wasted money, borrowed on the earnings of future generations, for maybe a dozen jobs!
Meanwhile, the private sector proves yet again that it's not the government but private investors who create jobs. Will Americans ever get it? Doubtful, given that they voted rather decisively to keep the same president who is anti-investment and anti-wealth.
Your argument about the virtue of the private sector leaves out one thing, you don't take into account the advances and opportunity missed by refusing to fund basic research and development at the federal government level.
This is a joke, right? Where did the Internet come from? DoD/DARPA, etc. Where did the biochemistry/biogenetics industry come from? Nixon's war on cancer/NIH funding helped create it. These are now core Massachusetts industries that had their origins (and with biochemistry, ongoing/continuing funding) in government-funded programs. Obama is not "anti-investment and anti-wealth," he's anti-deadbeat Republicans who ran up the debt under Bush and now refuse to pay for it.
I suggest you do some actual research before making nonsense statements. Start here. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9630. Spend a day, no two hours on the oil drum web site and see if any of you claims (wishes) hold up.
What law prohibits the export of oil? It's my understanding that we export nearly two million barrels of oil a day.
Crude oil cannot be exported, refined can.
It is interesting that Keane ends by applying the word "respect" to an assault on the hydrology of agricultural communities. This is one of many problems with this oddly rosy scenario.
http://environmentalgeography.blogspot.com/2012/12/oil-non-futures.html