One month after President Obama was sworn into office the price of crude oil for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) was $33/barrel. Many thought it an anomaly, but it was a much truer reflection of the real price of oil on a genuine supply demand criteria than oil's price today.
The last few weeks we have witnessed the beginnings of the rout of the oil speculators, together with their comrades in arms, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties (OPEC) who have forever been pushing up the price of oil (and in turn that of gasoline) on the commodity exchange casinos such as the New York Merc and the Atlanta based ICE. Prices have eroded some 24% over the past few weeks to $84/barrel on Friday (but still some $50 over the price in February 2009 of $33/barrel), and that should only be the beginning.
Consider the following: new drilling techniques have located vast new reservoirs of what is designated as "shale natural gas" making us fully gas independent (up to just a few years ago we were importing natural gas at LNG at terminals along the Eastern Seaboard at much much higher prices per mmbtu). Natural gas is priced today at less than $2.50 per mmbtu. At that price the energy deliverable at $2.50 per mmbtu would require WTI crude oil to be priced at $15 per barrel in order to be competitive, less than half the price of $33/barrel at the outset of the Obama administration, thereby raising the emerging prospect of compressed natural gas as a transportation fuel replacing gasoline, first in trucks and then in a growing fleet of flex-fuel cars, in a not very distant future.
And yet, largely unbeknownst and certainly barely heralded by the press, nor our deeply somnolent Department of Energy is the realization that our riches in "shale oil" surpass by far those of our newfound bounty of "shale gas." Even without a federal government program of support, our shale oil deposits are already being accessed through the oil industry's initiative in such locales as North Dakota with its rapidly growing oil production and its resulting and startling economic boom.
Some three weeks ago, on May 10, staggeringly eye-opening testimony was delivered by Annu K. Mittal the GAO's director of natural resource and environment to the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment:
"The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil. And about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions. The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered. At the mid of this estimate almost half of the 3 trillion barrels would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world's proven oil reserves."
In her oral statement before the subcommittee Mittal pointed out what should have been immediately apparent to the administration, the press and the financial community that developing the shale oil "would create wealth and jobs for the country."
The testimony also bore out that most of the Green River shale oil deposits were on Federal Land. That being said and understood, can anyone think of a more formidable national undertaking than the creation of a Green River Authority akin to the brilliant New Deal program, the Tennessee Valley Authority, a national undertaking harnessing the river energy of an entire region of the country and being key to bringing much of the Southern economy out of the Great Depression. As our economic crisis continues to deepen, what better undertaking than a program that would make the entire nation not only energy independent, but have it regain its place a an energy leader. The resulting lower energy prices would be a core stimulant to an economy in dire need of help. Yes, there are and will be issues of environmental impact, but the experience of North Dakota and the successful development shale natural gas throughout much of the nation show that it can be done.
President Obama, President Roosevelt is beckoning.
Follow Raymond J. Learsy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/raymondLearsy
Raymond J. Learsy: Aspen Ideas, Natural Gas, Armenia Unheralded
People" on this topic. You can view and sign the petition here:
http://wh.gov/zJ6
And finally, comparing wild guesses of 3 trillion barrels to proven reserves is the worst example of comparing apples to oranges.
not much political will required- although 2/3 of the resources are on Federal land, that means 1/3 (1 trillion barrels!) are on private land. Why are the oil companies not rushing to lock up that private leases? Maybe because it's not economical.
All you're doing is parroting the same talking points the enviro-wacks said about getting to shale gas. Too expensive...technology doesn't exist....bla bla bla, and applying to oil.
You where wrong then and I will lay money on it that you're wrong now.
That will only increase as we need more and more of oil shale or shale gas. Imagine how much pollution it will generate if we start to replace all our oil with shale...
But oil shale is terrible. Oil must be above $80 to make it worth doing, and it releases almost as much CO2 per kWh produced as coal.
When oil costs 1 barrel for every barrel, then it's game over. Dollars are really petro-dollars, they represent oil and energy.
Until the day we stop letting these non-renewable energy addicts control energy policy, we are doomed to continue to support their destructive habits.
1. It takes almost a barrel of oil to create a barrel of shale oil. It doesn't pump out like light crude, it is rock that needs to be heated up to release the stored energy. Some companies want to crush and heat it up underground and some want to dig it out and then process it. Either way takes a lot of energy. Until the ratio of oil burned to oil gained equals out this will be a tough industry.
2. Climate change doesn't care whether you believe in it or not, but committing to 50more years of a non-renewable and polluting resource is just foolish.
3. If we get the extracting energy costs down these finds can be used to finance the gateway to renewables, but if we stick our heads in the sand and maintain the status quo, this find will be wasted.
Make sure you go all in at the bridge auction on the way.
Now why would this author fail to distinguish or even hint at the difference between the two?
2%?
I guess that is another thing that he got wrong.
Start getting it, and watch the prices drop.
And that give the left time to invest their OWN money into green energy.
http://www.postcarbon.org/book/364387-the-end-of-growth
I personally really need a full size pickup about twice a month. But cannot justify the fuel cost for the other 28 days, and cannot afford an extra vehicle that mainly sits.
translation: big oil wants to drill on OUR land ,I say fine, first post a bond equal to cleanup costs plus say 10% and split the profits 50/50 .
What we should do is nationalize this particular product and create our own company with all federal and state employees.