Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Sunday December 09 2018, @09:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the pump-and-dump dept.

The U.S. Just Became a Net Oil Exporter for the First Time in 75 Years:

America turned into a net oil exporter last week, breaking almost 75 years of continued dependence on foreign oil and marking a pivotal -- even if likely brief -- moment toward what U.S. President Donald Trump has branded as "energy independence."

The shift to net exports is the dramatic result of an unprecedented boom in American oil production, with thousands of wells pumping from the Permian region of Texas and New Mexico to the Bakken in North Dakota to the Marcellus in Pennsylvania.

While the country has been heading in that direction for years, this week's dramatic shift came as data showed a sharp drop in imports and a jump in exports to a record high. Given the volatility in weekly data, the U.S. will likely remain a small net importer most of the time.

"We are becoming the dominant energy power in the world," said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research. "But, because the change is gradual over time, I don't think it's going to cause a huge revolution, but you do have to think that OPEC is going to have to take that into account when they think about cutting."

The shale revolution has transformed oil wildcatters into billionaires and the U.S. into the world's largest petroleum producer, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia. The power of OPEC has been diminished, undercutting one of the major geopolitical forces of the last half century.

I can see short-term benefits (avoiding another 1973 Oil Crisis), but am concerned about the long-term strategy. Given a fixed supply of oil, isn't the US just racing to deplete its resources and therefore setting itself up for a later "oil crisis"? The only hope I see is a huge and continued emphasis in transitioning to alternative energy sources (be it solar, wind, and/or nuclear) and thus ween itself from dependence on foreign supplies.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @09:59PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @09:59PM (#772094)

    of change in mean ocean water temperature is the difference between having a nice day and cataclysm. From what I understand, we will all be dead before we pump it all. Strategically it is simple. We pump faster than they do, and soffocate everybody to death equally. That way we will get to put gold "winner" stars on our shirts before we go extinct.

    Planetary resource economics has a longer fluctuation cycle than a human lifetime. That doesn't mean it doesn't crash or boom. It just means douchebag bankers and politicians can externalize their expenses to the environment and die before anybody has to pay the piper. The externalized expenses that economists call "tragedy of the commons" need to charged back on a depreciation basis, rather than as a lump sum (aka extiction).

    Traditionally we have accomplished resource demand reductions with war and genocide. Though personally I prefer emissions trading. While there is abundant compelling information on this subject, the derth of it in public debate should not be regarded as accidental.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Monday December 10 2018, @01:04AM (4 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 10 2018, @01:04AM (#772177) Journal
    16 degrees? I assume you mean Fahrenheit not Celcius. Even at the worst extrapolated climate sensitivity of CO2 (4.5 C per doubling), that's four times present CO2 levels. If instead, we use the more likely 2 C per doubling, it turns out to be 4.5 doublings (crudely extrapolates to about 45 times the current level of CO2, CO2 poisoning is going to get you first).

    We pump faster than they do, and soffocate everybody to death equally.

    At present production levels, it'll be over a thousand years before we get to the point where outdoors CO2 poisoning is a normal thing (400 ppm and growing at less than 4 ppm per year versus lowest toxicity level of 5000 ppm). Maybe it's time for future generations to take some responsibility and stop this feeble pretense of thinking out a thousand years for people who can think for themselves.

    Planetary resource economics has a longer fluctuation cycle than a human lifetime. That doesn't mean it doesn't crash or boom. It just means douchebag bankers and politicians can externalize their expenses to the environment and die before anybody has to pay the piper. The externalized expenses that economists call "tragedy of the commons" need to charged back on a depreciation basis, rather than as a lump sum (aka extiction).

    We're already solve most of those resource problems. If resources get low enough that we actually need to recycle them, then recycle them.

    Traditionally we have accomplished resource demand reductions with war and genocide. Though personally I prefer emissions trading. While there is abundant compelling information on this subject, the derth of it in public debate should not be regarded as accidental.

    War and genocide tends to increase consumption and population rather than decrease it because a) war tends to become the highest priority over everything else, including resource management, and b) everyone starts having more kids when they have good reason to expect a high death among their kids.

    I get that you have trouble thinking about the future because of these eco-narratives you've taken on, but cut the crap. This is the best it's ever been for humanity and that is because of those processes which generate CO2 and consume resources.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @04:07AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @04:07AM (#772243)

      "At present production levels, it'll be over a thousand years before we get to the point where outdoors CO2 poisoning"

      A thousand years in relation to the evolution of our species, is not a long time. But it doesn't really matter. You don't have to suffocate mankind, just the fish. Which is what happens when water temperatures rise and oceans are unable to hold oxygen. And it isn't just CO2, it is also the sulfur dioxide from all the anerobic bacteria that is munching on the massive swaths of dead things in the ocean. The way the oil got there the last time, will be the way it gets there the next time.

      But all of that is less of an emmediate issue than the related cascade failures in the food chain, which will probably precede CO2 poisoning by a long chalk. The last time this cycle troughed 90% of all species on the planet went extinct. The apex species, were by and large the ones that didn't make it.

      "This is the best it's ever been for humanity"

      As I said, longer cycles. Maybe it is. But is of no consequence since it is the mean of the overall cycle that matters.

      "feeble pretense of thinking out a thousand years for people who can think for themselves."

      In an economic bubble the falling slopes are steeper than the rising slopes. What you're saying is that people who are suffering less resources per capita than we have now, will be more able to address the problem.

      This is a conservation of energy problem. There is no technology that is going to change the laws of physics. More to the point, you're ignoring the rollout time for workable solutions. When you're talking about environmental engineering, the solutions that most leverage biology (the cheapest) have the longest rollout times. And that isn't taking into account that dwindling resources generally cause wars, which accelerates the rate of decline.

      IOW, you can't build long term solutions if you don't have a long term. And you're not going to be aware that you only have a short term, until you are past the point of no return.

      But I get your point. I got a 12 pack of natty light, a box of camels, and a TV. Fuck the human race.

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @09:32AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @09:32AM (#772290)

        But that is years away. The only thing that matters is next quarter's results. With an oil well in Texas the size of mine, In 3 years time, I'll be richer than Croesus.

        --
        Scrooge McDuck

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 10 2018, @03:25PM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 10 2018, @03:25PM (#772389) Journal

        A thousand years in relation to the evolution of our species, is not a long time.

        It's only longer than the few million years to date. Evolution is relative. We're evolving (not just in a genetic sense) at a vastly faster rate than we ever have.

        But it doesn't really matter. You don't have to suffocate mankind, just the fish. Which is what happens when water temperatures rise and oceans are unable to hold oxygen. And it isn't just CO2, it is also the sulfur dioxide from all the anerobic bacteria that is munching on the massive swaths of dead things in the ocean. The way the oil got there the last time, will be the way it gets there the next time.

        You already stated how much that has to happen.

        "This is the best it's ever been for humanity"

        As I said, longer cycles. Maybe it is. But is of no consequence since it is the mean of the overall cycle that matters.

        Longer cycles don't matter. My view is that we'll have solved this problem when it actually becomes a problem.

        In an economic bubble the falling slopes are steeper than the rising slopes. What you're saying is that people who are suffering less resources per capita than we have now, will be more able to address the problem.

        Completely irrelevant. And not actually true - for example, the latest Bitcoin burst has a shallow slope on its decline than it did on the rise.

        This is a conservation of energy problem. There is no technology that is going to change the laws of physics. More to the point, you're ignoring the rollout time for workable solutions. When you're talking about environmental engineering, the solutions that most leverage biology (the cheapest) have the longest rollout times. And that isn't taking into account that dwindling resources generally cause wars, which accelerates the rate of decline.

        Again completely irrelevant since Earth is an open system. No law of physics states that a) we need to continue to use fossil fuels to be point of extinction, or b) that subsequent generations will be dumber than rocks and require us to do all the thinking for them. Nor do those laws of physics prevent the sun from shining for a billion more years.

        IOW, you can't build long term solutions if you don't have a long term.

        My point exactly. You're thinking short term, worrying about the latest environmental fad. OTOH, I've been proposing long term solutions all along. Let us keep in mind that there's a lot more than one single problem in the world, and as a result climate change is pretty far down the list of problems humanity faces. Where in your thought process is room for poverty, overpopulation, corruption, habitat destruction, resource mismanagement, and war.

        Sure, if we had a magic wand and could automatically fix CO2 levels at a given level without cost, then sure, that would probably help all those bigger problems. But the real world isn't like that. While there are some low-lying fruit, as a whole climate change mitigation has ended up being costly and ineffective with remarkably little thought given to the consequences and little progress to show for it. Actually think about the future sometime.

        And you're not going to be aware that you only have a short term, until you are past the point of no return.

        This is a typical scam line. You're projecting well down the road, and then claiming that we won't see the end coming until "it's too late". It rushes the mark into making foolish decisions. My view is that you need to show evidence for your claims. If you can't, tough. I'm not going to squander the future of humanity, just because there are Chicken Littles in the audience.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:50AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:50AM (#772791)
          omg a long break-down post... now we are really getting somewhere people. revolution in teh brewing, i tell ya