From the GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser
World Awash In Oil Shields Markets From 2008 Price Shock
The US shale boom is shaping a new kind of Democrat in national politics, lawmakers who are giving greater support to the oil and gas industry even at the risk of alienating environmental groups, a core of the party’s base. The trend comes as oil-and-gas production moves beyond America’s traditionally energy-rich states, a development that also is increasing U.S. geopolitical influence abroad. It is a theme playing out ahead of November’s midterm elections, with some Democrats trying to balance environmental groups’ concerns about climate change and an industry they see as carrying economic benefits. –Amy Harder, The Wall Street Journal, 12 August 2014
In the run-up to this fall’s midterm elections, Democrats seem to be stifling some of their green sensibilities and embracing the recent U.S. energy revolution. Fracking has completely transformed the American energy landscape in just a few short years, and environmentalists, a key component of the Democratic base, aren’t happy. Fracking is opening up new oil and gas plays all across the country, and Democrats who previously might have vocally criticized fossil fuel production are finding plenty of reasons to hop on the shale bandwagon. Stay tuned; this is a narrative to watch during this year’s midterms. –-Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest, 12 August 2014
Fighting across Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Gaza, and an accelerating economy, should mean higher oil prices. Yet crude is falling. Six years ago, oil soared to a record $147 a barrel as tension mounted over Iran’s nuclear program and the world economy had just seen the strongest period of sustained growth since the 1970s. Now, West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark price, has traded below $100 for 10 days and Brent, the European equivalent, tumbled to a 13-month low yesterday. What’s changed is the shale fracking boom. The U.S. is pumping the most oil in 27 years, adding more than 3 million barrels of daily supply since 2008. –Lynn Doan, Grant Smith and Moming Zhou, Bloomberg, 13 August 2014
Coal imports to the U.S. are rising sharply even as coal mines close throughout Central Appalachia. A big reason: price. Total U.S. coal consumption is expected to increase 3% to 862 million tons this year. The expected rise reflects frigid weather earlier this year, which boosted demand at all power plants, including those relying on coal. —John Miller and Cassandra Sweet, The Wall Street Journal, 13 August 2014
Energy companies are taking their controversial fracking operations from the land to the sea — to deep waters off the U.S., South American and African coasts. Offshore fracking is a part of a broader industrywide strategy to make billion-dollar deep-sea developments pay off. The practice has been around for two decades yet only in the past few years have advances in technology and vast offshore discoveries combined to make large scale fracking feasible. Fracking in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to grow by more than 10 percent over a two year period ending in 2015. –David Wethe, Bloomberg, 7 August 2014
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
milodonharlani says:
August 14, 2014 at 4:38 pm
SteveT says:
August 14, 2014 at 4:17 pm
Despite Gold’s (& Russians’) intriguing hypothesis that earth makes petroleum abiogenically, most if not all the petroleum actually extracted so far was formed not under the pressure of five to 10 km of crust, but of maybe 10,000 feet (~three km) or less of accumulated ocean sediments, over a long period.
http://www.petroleum.co.uk/formation
etc.
*****************************************************************
I have read previous comments from you on many threads here and taken you for a skeptic from those comments.
Your assertion that most if not all our petroleum extracted so far WAS formed at maybe 10,000ft has no basis in fact. Where it was found does not prove it was created there.
The link you provided above is mainly a repetition of “ it has to be biological because that has been the consensus for ever.” There is not a single verifiable fact in sight. Sure, biological material may be found in petroleum, but that says nothing about its origin, merely what it has been in contact with since its creation. Further, the final paragraphs seem to me to have a warmist tinge to them exposing a need to have our fuels limited in volume in order to agree to an agenda.
As a skeptic myself, the fossil theory is not provable, whereas the pressure/temperature experiment has been done and produced petroleum products.
If you are interested in looking further the best resource I know of is
http://www.gasresources.net/
and it is well worth the time to follow up the topics listed to the right of the main introduction under the PAGES heading, which includes comment on the ‘biological materials in petroleum topic’..
These articles seem also to exclude the production of the higher petroleum products at the levels where it is currently being recovered e.g. drilling,tar sands, shale etc.
While I am very skeptical about the “fossil” theory I am keeping my mind open to the possibility of it being true, but have not seen any evidence that it is the source (or likely source) of our fuels.
As Khwarizmi points out in the post at 6.12pm – where have the hydrocarbons come from in the rest of the solar system? It is worth remembering that our ‘normal’ environment rich in oxygen is not normal in most of the solar system.
SteveT
Co2 does not endanger anything and the US is headed toward petroleum/energy independence.
There is only good news here.
Some crybabies will cry even with a lollipop in their mouths.
Apparently the Saudis are flooding the market with oil because of the lower demand from the US. They won’t decrease production accordingly because they need the revenue to service an ever increasing population which can’t take care of its own upkeep. Prognoses are that in 4 or 5 years time the population’s needs will have overtaken oil income with major civil unrest ahead.
JP on August 15, 2014 at 4:26 am
The problem is NOT natural gas supply but pipeline capacity. Kind of like Keystone XL. There is lots of “locked in” gas that has no where to go and with current LOW prices, there is no incentive to build more pipeline capacity. The MacKenzie River Delta and environs has lots of gas but no pipeline. All through Western Canada there are locked in gas wells. Only those with high liquids content are useful at present. Lots in the US too. High winter prices are due to lack of pipeline capacity during periods of high demand. Then it drops back. With no sustainable cash flow, who would build a pipeline, especially across a border that does want “fossil” fuel crossing it.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm