Shale Boom to Turn U.S. Into World's Largest Oil Producer, Watchdog Says

[mbig]

This is the Game Changer we need.
IMO, the long term economic outlook is only so-so at best without it.
This is our manufacturing advantage/comeback over EU/China etc. Some foreign plants are already planning to locate here to take advantage of our cheap NG.
This will largely free us from M-E fuel and help pay for the inevitable and otherwise impossible Social Spending increases.

Shale Boom to Turn U.S. Into World's Largest Oil Producer, Watchdog Says - WSJ.com
Updated November 12, 2012, 11:49 a.m. ET
By BENOÎT FAUCON

LONDON—A shale oil boom means the U.S. will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer by 2020, a Radical shift that could profoundly transform not just the world's energy supplies, but also its geopolitics, the International Energy Agency said Monday.
[......]
The assessment is in contrast with last year, when it envisioned Russia and Saudi Arabia vying for the top position.

"By around 2020, the United States is projected to become the largest global oil producer" and overtake Saudi Arabia for a time, the agency said. "The result is a continued fall in U.S. oil imports (currently at 20% of its needs) to the extent that North America becomes a net oil exporter around 2030."..."

This major shift will be driven by the Faster-than-expected development of hydrocarbon resources locked in shale and other tight rock that have just started to be unlocked by a new combination of technologies called hydraulic fracturing.

According to Washington's Energy Information Administration, U.S. oil production has increased 7% to 10.76 million barrels a day since the IEA's last outlook a year ago. The agency's conclusions are partly backed by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which last week acknowledged for the first time that shale oil would significantly diminish its share of the U.S. market.".."

 

[Harshaw]

If it isn't regulated out of existence.

 

[mbig]

If it is regulated because fracking is truly untenable.. so be it.
But that isn't the case now.

GAS PRICES FACT: Domestic Oil Production Has Soared Under President Obama | ThinkProgress

The number of oil drilling rigs in the U.S. hit a Record last week, having Quadrupled in number over the past Three years.
Between oil and gas drilling rigs, the U.S. now has More rigs at work than the rest of the World combined.
The current oil boom has buoyed the projections of some leading oil industry analysts:

“It’s Staggering,” said Marshall Adkins, who directs energy research for the financial services firm Raymond James.
“If we continue growing anywhere near that pace and keep squeezing demand out of the system, that puts you in a world where we are not importing oil in 10 years.”​

Here in NY we haven't allowed fracking yet, despite the boom in PA next door, as the Gov/Govt is concerned about the NYC watershed.
There may be some areas like that where it is more problematic, but overall, probably not. To be seen.

France has outlawed Fracking.

 

[roflpublican]

uh oh, this contradicts the america doomsayers, will they troll this thread as well? find out next time on 'america is dead'.

 

[Paul Austin]

Has anyone actually bothered to read the full IEA report?

 

[mbig]

uh oh, this contradicts the america doomsayers, will they troll this thread as well? find out next time on 'america is dead'.

Were it not for this, I would be kinda bearish myself- as I said in the OP.

 

[tererun]

This is not overly new at all. It was somewhere around 1990 when i heard about it for the first time. Technically there is a lot of oil locked up in shale rock. It is also costly to get and fracking is not the great idea some claim it to be. If the technology is improved it may be far more efficient, but it still seems to have problems. It pollutes local water tables with chemicals. It is destructive to the rock formations and may increase the likelihood of earthquakes. The water issue is obviously a problem for farming areas that rely on wells that could be polluted by the process. The eathquake thing would cause it to be problematic in areas with faults or potential underground magma flows. It's long term effects have not been studied very much. I just have a general mistrust of oil companies doing the safe and proper thing, for example BP who dumped millions of gallons of crude into the gulf because they disregarded safety, then forced people to help clean up the oil without safety equipment if they wanted recovery money, and then said bacteria ate up all the oil only to have it washing up on gulf shores after hurricane isaac this year. These are the people we are going to give license to explosively jam hazardous chemicals into rock that contains our drinking water?

I know no one is going to stop the quest for oil until we are all covered in black cancerous sores, but it might be nice if we stopped letting our greed get the better of us and did something like make sure it is safe and not let the modern oil dip****s anywhere near the process. Oh well, the impact in thirty or so years is really not my problem anyway. Enjoy your cancer kiddies it is the gift your loving caring greedy lazy fat ass parents are giving you. All because they don't want to pay extra to drive their 2 MPG hummer to the store to buy a coffee.

 

[tererun]

uh oh, this contradicts the america doomsayers, will they troll this thread as well? find out next time on 'america is dead'.

Oh, and do us a favor. When the government takes your land and gives it to the oil companies due to imminent domain and oil for the masses is more important than your land, don't come bitching to us because they consider fair compensation for your home to be a tenth of it's value. Remember you either take their offer or they will take your land for free.

Think about the consequences and the needs for the massive amounts of land to do this. You do not own the oil underneath your land.

This has nothing to do with the pollution and land damage this process brings. This is what the government does when you are in the way of corporate gas companies and their profits. They do it every day right now, and they are not going to stop tomorrow because you find it unfair.

On a lighter note fracking is more expensive so when you are living in your car you will pay more for the gas they took your house to get.

 

[Mycroft]

Oh, and do us a favor. When the government takes your land and gives it to the oil companies due to imminent domain and oil for the masses is more important than your land, don't come bitching to us because they consider fair compensation for your home to be a tenth of it's value. Remember you either take their offer or they will take your land for free.

Think about the consequences and the needs for the massive amounts of land to do this. You do not own the oil underneath your land.

This has nothing to do with the pollution and land damage this process brings. This is what the government does when you are in the way of corporate gas companies and their profits. They do it every day right now, and they are not going to stop tomorrow because you find it unfair.

On a lighter note fracking is more expensive so when you are living in your car you will pay more for the gas they took your house to get.

Oh, I don't think we need to worry so much about the government taking land for oil production. We should be more worried about liberal governments trying to put roadblocks in the way of people allowing their own land to be developed for oil production,.

btw, I'm not sure what you mean by the highlighted statement. My family has owned land in ND for over a hundred years. Some has been sold off, but I still have a share of the mineral rights on the land. In fact, I'm making money right now from the oil production going on there. So, in that respect...I DO own the oil underneath the land.

 

[tererun]

Oh, I don't think we need to worry so much about the government taking land for oil production. We should be more worried about liberal governments trying to put roadblocks in the way of people allowing their own land to be developed for oil production,.

Fracking sounds great for my land. My well water becomes undrinkable. silica dust in the air at fracking sites is at dangerous levels. That is not to mention the gasses creaping up out of the land. Methane has such a wonderful smell, and then you don't need to go through the expense of finding a bag and an aeresol can of petroleum products to huff. Then there is the other chemical seepage of the prducts used to frack. Then there are the earthquakes that start off small and grow over time. But when your that high off the methane I am sure a little ground shaking won't be a problem. Oh, and all this stuff takes decades to clear up so your property will be worth so much money as long as you don't have to live there. I don't know about the actual effects of fracking on local animals and human life. it seems every study and court case has been sealed for some reason. I am sure they sealed them because it is so healthy everyone will want to do it.

btw, I'm not sure what you mean by the highlighted statement. My family has owned land in ND for over a hundred years. Some has been sold off, but I still have a share of the mineral rights on the land. In fact, I'm making money right now from the oil production going on there. So, in that respect...I DO own the oil underneath the land.

Not every person has mineral rights on their land. In many places they are sold separately, but let us say you don't want to develop your land, you are standing in the way of the progress of the US and they will sell them for you. They love doing that. It is nice you have some oil production going on, but do you live on that land? Do you farm on that land? Do you rely on things like the water table and large patches of healthy ground that is not spewing toxic materials making it unfarmable or unlivable?

I don't really mind if you want to do it, but as far as i am concerned you do it where you live, not where others live while you sit somewhere else peacefully. I am all for the oil companies fracking, but their execs can live right on the land they frack. They executives, their workers, and every investor can all have a little peice of the land they made to live on. They can eat the food that comes from that land, drink the water that comes from that land, and breathe the air that comes from that land. There is one thing that tells me this is wrong, there is not a single one of them that would agree to do that because they know the effects of what they do.

i am actually surprised, weren't you one of those people who don't trust the government, and now you are all cozy with the Obama administration fracking on your land? I guess you are now an Obama supporter.

 

[spud_meister]

Problem with things like fracking is any ecological damage doesn't end where your land does. If you pollute the water table, and there's farms that share the water table with your mining site, things will go worse for them.

 

[Mycroft]

Fracking sounds great for my land. My well water becomes undrinkable. silica dust in the air at fracking sites is at dangerous levels. That is not to mention the gasses creaping up out of the land. Methane has such a wonderful smell, and then you don't need to go through the expense of finding a bag and an aeresol can of petroleum products to huff. Then there is the other chemical seepage of the prducts used to frack. Then there are the earthquakes that start off small and grow over time. But when your that high off the methane I am sure a little ground shaking won't be a problem. Oh, and all this stuff takes decades to clear up so your property will be worth so much money as long as you don't have to live there. I don't know about the actual effects of fracking on local animals and human life. it seems every study and court case has been sealed for some reason. I am sure they sealed them because it is so healthy everyone will want to do it.


Not every person has mineral rights on their land. In many places they are sold separately, but let us say you don't want to develop your land, you are standing in the way of the progress of the US and they will sell them for you. They love doing that. It is nice you have some oil production going on, but do you live on that land? Do you farm on that land? Do you rely on things like the water table and large patches of healthy ground that is not spewing toxic materials making it unfarmable or unlivable?

I don't really mind if you want to do it, but as far as i am concerned you do it where you live, not where others live while you sit somewhere else peacefully. I am all for the oil companies fracking, but their execs can live right on the land they frack. They executives, their workers, and every investor can all have a little peice of the land they made to live on. They can eat the food that comes from that land, drink the water that comes from that land, and breathe the air that comes from that land. There is one thing that tells me this is wrong, there is not a single one of them that would agree to do that because they know the effects of what they do.

i am actually surprised, weren't you one of those people who don't trust the government, and now you are all cozy with the Obama administration fracking on your land? I guess you are now an Obama supporter.

Your posts are full of misconceptions and biases...but I'll deal with just one of them:

"Methane has such a wonderful smell"

Methane actually has no smell. It is a colorless, odorless gas.
What does methane smell like? - Yahoo! Answers

But you are correct...I don't trust the government, especially when it comes to doing things that the free market does better and when it comes to interfering with things the free market does better...like oil exploration. To put it simply, I don't want the Obama administration to be exploring for oil and I don't want them to get in the way of it.

Besides, what ever gives you the idea the Obama administration might be "fracking on your land"?

 

[American]

This is the Game Changer we need.
IMO, the long term economic outlook is only so-so at best without it.
This is our manufacturing advantage/comeback over EU/China etc. Some foreign plants are already planning to locate here to take advantage of our cheap NG.
This will largely free us from M-E fuel and help pay for the inevitable and otherwise impossible Social Spending increases.

Shale Boom to Turn U.S. Into World's Largest Oil Producer, Watchdog Says - WSJ.com
Updated November 12, 2012, 11:49 a.m. ET
By BENOÎT FAUCON

Obama is moving right now to limit its development on federal lands. So you can just forget it. Romney nailed Obama but good on oil during the debates, and now we see he was right. Obama will not support domestic oil development.

 

[ChuckBerry]

American, let's remember that it's Obama that, only months before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, opened up offshore drilling on the east coast.

Given BP's appalling safety record I don't think any president could have ignored the hemmoraghing of oil into the gulf, nor deny that BP, instead of being in public protection role, was in public relations role and minimizing the damage being done.

 

[mbig]

Obama is moving right now to limit its development on federal lands. So you can just forget it. Romney nailed Obama but good on oil during the debates, and now we see he was right. Obama will not support domestic oil development.

The jury is still out I think
The EPA is studying the issue -which does mean there will be possible regs, but that isn't necessarily bad- but prudent.
A small op-ed piece from an area that would benefit - upstate NY.

Science Should Govern Fracking - post-journal.com | Jamestown | Post-Journal

[......]
Good. The EPA's progress report should give scientists, the gas and oil industry, and those worried about fracking a chance to check the agency's methodology.
EPA officials, sometimes accused of bowing to the demands of radical environmentalists rather than basing policy on science, should welcome the oversight.

There indeed are some Valid concerns about fracking, primarily involving well casings used to keep chemicals out of groundwater.
But rejecting the practice altogether, in view of what appears to be an excellent environmental record, makes no sense.

The EPA study should provide solid, Science-based guidance that will safeguard the environment while allowing Americans to get at the gigantic supplies of natural gas underneath our feet.

 

[Sherman123]

This is not overly new at all. It was somewhere around 1990 when i heard about it for the first time. Technically there is a lot of oil locked up in shale rock. It is also costly to get and fracking is not the great idea some claim it to be. If the technology is improved it may be far more efficient, but it still seems to have problems. It pollutes local water tables with chemicals. It is destructive to the rock formations and may increase the likelihood of earthquakes. The water issue is obviously a problem for farming areas that rely on wells that could be polluted by the process. The eathquake thing would cause it to be problematic in areas with faults or potential underground magma flows. It's long term effects have not been studied very much. I just have a general mistrust of oil companies doing the safe and proper thing, for example BP who dumped millions of gallons of crude into the gulf because they disregarded safety, then forced people to help clean up the oil without safety equipment if they wanted recovery money, and then said bacteria ate up all the oil only to have it washing up on gulf shores after hurricane isaac this year. These are the people we are going to give license to explosively jam hazardous chemicals into rock that contains our drinking water?

I know no one is going to stop the quest for oil until we are all covered in black cancerous sores, but it might be nice if we stopped letting our greed get the better of us and did something like make sure it is safe and not let the modern oil dip****s anywhere near the process. Oh well, the impact in thirty or so years is really not my problem anyway. Enjoy your cancer kiddies it is the gift your loving caring greedy lazy fat ass parents are giving you. All because they don't want to pay extra to drive their 2 MPG hummer to the store to buy a coffee.

Just to be clear, shale oil and oil shale are emphatically NOT the same thing. Oil shale which you are talking about refers to the kerogen that is locked up in shale rock which if extracted can then be heated up to release crude oil among other things. Whereas shale oil is a byproduct of exploiting hydrofracking methods in shale deposits which releases light tight oil (LTO) that already exists in the shale but could not previously be accessed.

In other words...

Oil Shale=Kerogen in rock that can be heated up to produce oil.

Shale Oil=Oil that is already present in shale and which innovative extraction methods like hydrofracking can release.

 

[Fishstyx]

American, let's remember that it's Obama that, only months before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, opened up offshore drilling on the east coast.

Given BP's appalling safety record I don't think any president could have ignored the hemmoraghing of oil into the gulf, nor deny that BP, instead of being in public protection role, was in public relations role and minimizing the damage being done.

Chuck, you're off on the public protections role. BP didn't resist one thing in regards to money that was reasonable. They knew they screwed up, they opened the check book to take care of it. And for the most part, partnered with the rest of the responders (Fed, State and local), did a pretty damned good job.

 

[mbig]

Lots of Jockeying before EPA Report Pt 1 before end of year, and then Final report in 2014.

EPA Gas Drilling Study: Top Agency Official Optimistic Before Report's Release
EPA Gas Drilling Study: Top Agency Official Optimistic Before Report's Release
AP | By KEVIN BEGOS
11/09/2012

PITTSBURGH (AP) — A top official with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is optimistic that a nationwide project examining natural gas hydraulic fracturing and potential drinking water impacts will provide comprehensive guidelines to help scientists and the public identify the key issues to focus on. But the industry said past studies have already shown the process is safe.

Glenn Paulson, the EPA's science advisor, said Friday that a progress report on the study — mandated by Congress in 2010 — should be released before the end of the year, and a final report in 2014. He spoke at a University of Pittsburgh conference on health impacts of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

Paulson said the study of fracking and drinking water "is one of the most aggressive public outreach programs in EPA history." He said the progress report will show the "range and depth" of what EPA is looking at, and will be open to public comment.

"It will really be a lot for experts to chew on in their particular fields," Paulson said, noting that EPA is reaching out to geologists, academic experts, the industry, environmental groups, and even Indian tribes.

"I think the drinking water study is going to be useful to local governments, and state governments, too," Paulson said. He added that "a lot of people have their minds made up" about fracking, even though many aspects of research are still in the early stages.

Paulson said the Obama administration is providing enough support to study the issue. The EPA says in the project overview that natural gas "plays a key role in our nation's clean energy future" but that serious concerns have been raised about potential impacts to the environment and human health.
[........]

 

[RDS]

This is the Game Changer we need.
IMO, the long term economic outlook is only so-so at best without it.
This is our manufacturing advantage/comeback over EU/China etc. Some foreign plants are already planning to locate here to take advantage of our cheap NG.
This will largely free us from M-E fuel and help pay for the inevitable and otherwise impossible Social Spending increases.

Shale Boom to Turn U.S. Into World's Largest Oil Producer, Watchdog Says - WSJ.com
Updated November 12, 2012, 11:49 a.m. ET
By BENOÎT FAUCON

Nothing to be euphoric about. Oil shale requires heavy investment and if the price of oil drops the cost of producing will ezcced the price they could obtain for the oil.

 

[mbig]

Nothing to be euphoric about.

It's a potential Game Changer (still) and In Fact, has already Lowered the price of NG for those who consume or would in the future consume.
It gives us a cost advantage over competitors and hasn't even been exploited to it's full potential.. such as Converting (at least) the commercial vehicle fleet to NG. It also cuts emissions v coal.

Oil shale requires heavy investment and if the price of oil drops the cost of producing will ezcced the price they could obtain for the oil.

If the price drops, as it Already Has for NG, that's a net benefit to the country in and of itself... keeping prices down.
It has already had a positive effect on Jobs and the balance of payments as well.
Oil (ie, Brent) and NG sell considerably higher in Europe. If we had to buy our NG from Qatar/no-shale it would be 3x what it is now.

So your post was not only a cynical attempt at 'dissing' but also economically challenged.

 

[RDS]

If oil shale was viable USA would have exploited it some 50 years ago and till today it's not viable.

Scientists’ best estimates of the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of oil shale suggest it is very inefficient compared to conventional fuel and emits up to 75% more greenhouse gases (GHGs. However, differences in the way energy efficiency is calculated can cause confusion over its potential use, according to the US study.

Fully accounting for all energy used is also vital in assessing GHG emissions. Emissions from oil shale, which result from the direct energy input and as a product of the extraction reaction, are estimated to be 1.25 -1.75 times higher than for conventional crude oil. Oil shale production also requires large amounts of land and up to three barrels of water per barrel of oil produced. These environmental costs together with the low EROI lead the researchers to conclude that, although the energy accounting process needs rigourous review, there is little economic or environmental incentive to use oil shale as a fuel source.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/276na3.pdf

 

[Sherman123]

If oil shale was viable USA would have exploited it some 50 years ago and till today it's not viable.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/276na3.pdf

Oil Shale and Shale Oil are emphatically not the same thing. The current boom in production stems from exploiting the vast amounts of Light Tight Oil (LTO) that is locked up in shale but can be released by hydraulic fracturing methods along with gas. Oil Shale is not really oil at all but Kerogen that must be extracted and then heated up to produce longer carbon chain molecules such as among other things crude oil, it may be possible to extract and utilize these resources one day bit it is not commercial yet.

 

[PirateMk1]

If it isn't regulated out of existence.

That my friends is the trick. I am in the oil industry you would think at the prices we are seeing per barrel that we would be pumping like mad. Not so much everything has pretty much shut down because of the election and hasnt picked up. I am hoping it picks up in the new year. We will see. My customers have to deal with the like of California and the EPA. That is not pleasent or cheap. I sincerly dont know whats going to happen.

 

[mbig]

If oil shale was viable USA would have exploited it some 50 years ago and till today it's not viable.

1.You left off/didn't even quote my reply which gutted yours in all it's absurd aspects.

2. Many things weren't "viable" 50 years ago because of Price and Technique.
People used to laugh at Canada's Oil sands 30 years ago.. now a thriving business.

There's NO question Shale Fracking IS viable economically and has ALREADY exploded in usage.
How Ridiculous to bring up 50 years ago (oil was $18) and say if it wasn't viable then it isn't now.

 

[PirateMk1]

If it is regulated because fracking is truly untenable.. so be it.
But that isn't the case now.

GAS PRICES FACT: Domestic Oil Production Has Soared Under President Obama | ThinkProgress

Here in NY we haven't allowed fracking yet, despite the boom in PA next door, as the Gov/Govt is concerned about the NYC watershed.
There may be some areas like that where it is more problematic, but overall, probably not. To be seen.

France has outlawed Fracking.

That was in Feb this year when they wrote that article my understanding is that a large percentage of rigs in North Dakota have been stacked out as well as were I am. That started about September.