The future of the US economy

[Crazyhole]

And energy production. Here it is, and it isn't solar, hydro, or nuclear.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2019/12/08/the-us-dominates-new-oil-and-gas-production/

In 2007, due to fracking we discovered 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Balkan which completely flipped the future of gas prices. Today we have over 400 trillion cubic feet that is recoverable. At the time, the break even point for shale oil extraction was just shy of 100$ per barrel, now it is under 50% per barrel, which is lower than anywhere in the world other than Saudi Arabia. It's pretty amazing what has happened in the energy sector over the last 15 years.

Oh, and peak oil always was a joke. It was just a ploy to raise oil prices because of fear.

 

[NinjaKnight]

And energy production. Here it is, and it isn't solar, hydro, or nuclear.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2019/12/08/the-us-dominates-new-oil-and-gas-production/

In 2007, due to fracking we discovered 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Balkan which completely flipped the future of gas prices. Today we have over 400 trillion cubic feet that is recoverable. At the time, the break even point for shale oil extraction was just shy of 100$ per barrel, now it is under 50% per barrel, which is lower than anywhere in the world other than Saudi Arabia. It's pretty amazing what has happened in the energy sector over the last 15 years.

Oh, and peak oil always was a joke. It was just a ploy to raise oil prices because of fear.

You legitimately might be the dumbest person on this board.

 

[UCFWayne]

And energy production. Here it is, and it isn't solar, hydro, or nuclear.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2019/12/08/the-us-dominates-new-oil-and-gas-production/

In 2007, due to fracking we discovered 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Balkan which completely flipped the future of gas prices. Today we have over 400 trillion cubic feet that is recoverable. At the time, the break even point for shale oil extraction was just shy of 100$ per barrel, now it is under 50% per barrel, which is lower than anywhere in the world other than Saudi Arabia. It's pretty amazing what has happened in the energy sector over the last 15 years.

Oh, and peak oil always was a joke. It was just a ploy to raise oil prices because of fear.

all the coal plants will be replaced with natural gas plants in my lifetime.

 

[Crazyhole]

all the coal plants will be replaced with natural gas plants in my lifetime.

Easily, and the expansion of our power generating capacity will finally be affordable.

 

[firm_bizzle]

This is a game changer. We just need to get the infrastructure in place. Bye bye Middle East. Now, I'm more concerned with the future economy in terms of debt, infrastructure, cost of education and trade.

 

[Crazyhole]

This is a game changer. We just need to get the infrastructure in place. Bye bye Middle East. Now, I'm more concerned with the future economy in terms of debt, infrastructure, cost of education and trade.

Game changer is an understatement. By using our natural resources we may have a punchers chance of repatriating foreign held dollars without placing the burden on our manufacturing sector. If we could get to half a billion a year in trade surplus then nothing we've done over the last 20 years means anything. I don't want this to come across as too political, but from a fiscal and monetary perspective we would have to be absolutely insane to elect people that would slow or shutdown the production of oil. This represents a saving grace that nobody saw coming.

 

[ucflee]

“in the 2020s, the state of Ohio alone is expected to add as much oil and gas to global supply as Russia“

While sustainable, renewables, etc. must be developed to the point where they can take over, I always assumed that the strategic long play was to use everyone else’s supply and then tap our own. @Crazyhole, Do you think we are jumping the gun?

 

[NinjaKnight]

Meanwhile we just had the single hottest decade in recorded history, and earthquakes in Oklahoma have increased 1,000x due to fracking.

But hey if we can get slightly cheaper energy it will all be worth it!

 

[UCFKnight85]

Game changer is an understatement. By using our natural resources we may have a punchers chance of repatriating foreign held dollars without placing the burden on our manufacturing sector. If we could get to half a billion a year in trade surplus then nothing we've done over the last 20 years means anything. I don't want this to come across as too political, but from a fiscal and monetary perspective we would have to be absolutely insane to elect people that would slow or shutdown the production of oil. This represents a saving grace that nobody saw coming.

Our energy policy should be all of the above. Oil, gas, nuclear, wind, solar, etc etc etc People who willfully want to limit or ban production of some forms of energy based upon ignorant biases are idiots.

 

[Crazyhole]

“in the 2020s, the state of Ohio alone is expected to add as much oil and gas to global supply as Russia“

While sustainable, renewables, etc. must be developed to the point where they can take over, I always assumed that the strategic long play was to use everyone else’s supply and then tap our own. @Crazyhole, Do you think we are jumping the gun?

Man, that's a good question. I suppose from a strategic standpoint we probably could benefit more by waiting, but I don't think it's a coordinated effort to maximize it. If we were in a position comparable to the Saudis where the state controls production then yeah, 100%. Cripple the competition and then rape their customer base. This seems more like the free market working

It's kind of funny to think back to the 80s and 90s when there was both a political and economic advantage to limiting oil extraction in prudhoe bay or how we thought the strategic oil reserve actually made a difference, and compare it to what's happening now. Or go back even further to the 70s when glut was an actual economic concern. We are closer to having a glut scenario than ever before and yet prices are pretty stable.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Man, that's a good question. I suppose from a strategic standpoint we probably could benefit more by waiting, but I don't think it's a coordinated effort to maximize it. If we were in a position comparable to the Saudis where the state controls production then yeah, 100%. Cripple the competition and then rape their customer base. This seems more like the free market working

It's kind of funny to think back to the 80s and 90s when there was both a political and economic advantage to limiting oil extraction in prudhoe bay or how we thought the strategic oil reserve actually made a difference, and compare it to what's happening now. Or go back even further to the 70s when glut was an actual economic concern. We are closer to having a glut scenario than ever before and yet prices are pretty stable.

Actually, when the Saudis set out to kill competition such as US shale oil extraction, a byproduct is lower gas prices for the consumer. They get OPEC to increase oil output to increase supply and lower prices so that it makes shale unprofitable. The Saudis still make money when a barrel of oil is down around $25 whereas our shale producers need at least $60 a barrel to squeeze out a profit.

 

[Crazyhole]

Our energy policy should be all of the above. Oil, gas, nuclear, wind, solar, etc etc etc People who willfully want to limit or ban production of some forms of energy based upon ignorant biases are idiots.

Limit or ban is only half of the equation. Start by ending subsidies for alternative sources of energy that couldn't survive on their own. It started in the early 90s with the ethanol revolution which has been a complete failure. We moved on from that to wind farms which are better but still not practical for the most part, and yet the government dumped billions of dollars into propping them up. I say that even though my business and family have been huge beneficiaries of it.

 

[UCFWayne]

Limit or ban is only half of the equation. Start by ending subsidies for alternative sources of energy that couldn't survive on their own. It started in the early 90s with the ethanol revolution which has been a complete failure. We moved on from that to wind farms which are better but still not practical for the most part, and yet the government dumped billions of dollars into propping them up. I say that even though my business and family have been huge beneficiaries of it.

i think we need to end most subsidies. i would rather the us gov spend its money researching solar and battery tech.

 

[UCFBS]

all the coal plants will be replaced with natural gas plants in my lifetime.

Most designs since the '70s, even late '60s, do either. The steam-turbine portion is the same, and the boiler/burners are reconfigurable.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Meanwhile we just had the single hottest decade in recorded history, and earthquakes in Oklahoma have increased 1,000x due to fracking.

But hey if we can get slightly cheaper energy it will all be worth it!

Cheap energy is what drives the economy and in the price of everything you see and eat. We should be worried about making it cleaner and more efficient through technology.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Game changer is an understatement. By using our natural resources we may have a punchers chance of repatriating foreign held dollars without placing the burden on our manufacturing sector. If we could get to half a billion a year in trade surplus then nothing we've done over the last 20 years means anything. I don't want this to come across as too political, but from a fiscal and monetary perspective we would have to be absolutely insane to elect people that would slow or shutdown the production of oil. This represents a saving grace that nobody saw coming.

With every policy, you need a gas and brake. The reason why these environment politicians are here is because somebody effed up the water and air before. I am concerned about the quality of the infrastructure to move energy across the country, businesses don't GAF.

 

[UCFBS]

Cheap energy is what drives the economy and in the price of everything you see and eat. We should be worried about making it cleaner and more efficient through technology.

With every policy, you need a gas and brake. The reason why these environment politicians are here is because somebody effed up the water and air before. I am concerned about the quality of the infrastructure to move energy across the country, businesses don't GAF.

Then you do not want states like California in-charge. Their solar-first policy is costing 10x as much as it should for solar. It's also useless when the transmission lines are taken out too, despite people having it on their roofs, 99% could not use it at all.

Even leaders of the IEEE are getting critical of it. Engineers, not politicians, should be driving green energy. The politicians are making it not only useless, but causing it to cost 10x as much! It's enfuriating to an extreme to see 'Progressives' utterly screw something up this bad.

Also ... where is the demand for plug-in hybrids? All the benefits of an EV, with the option of a 'backup generator source.' Plug-in hybrids are EVs, not hybrids, the latter of which are still ICE direct power, with electric motor assist.

Related article on a variety of issues (the author is well-known and has gone very deep into each in his various studies): https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/a-critical-look-at-claims-for-green-technologies

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

With every policy, you need a gas and brake. The reason why these environment politicians are here is because somebody effed up the water and air before. I am concerned about the quality of the infrastructure to move energy across the country, businesses don't GAF.

Well the politicians could meet in the middle to make sure we can support our energy needs and still care for the environment. We need to stay competitive globally and still work on the next generation of tech that is cleaner.

Everything is so political that you're either banning everything including meat to not wanting the EPA around. You can't even be somewhat realistic these days.

 

[UCFBS]

Well the politicians could meet in the middle to make sure we can support our energy needs and still care for the environment. We need to stay competitive globally and still work on the next generation of tech that is cleaner.
Everything is so political that you're either banning everything including meat to not wanting the EPA around. You can't even be somewhat realistic these days.

Of which neither Kyoto (Clinton, shot down by the Senate 0-98-2 -- yes, every Democrat voted against it) nor Paris (Obama, didn't bother sending it to Congress as his own party was not going to support it) address. These agreements will never work as long as India and, worse yet, China are not held to similar standards.

Heck, even Germany isn't able to meet it's agreements. France is ... but they are 60% nuclear. Germany is actually getting far worse as a result of shutting down nuclear, and their solar-wind results have been far from productive, let alone very costly and shorter-term than nuclear, or hydro for that matter.

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

I would like to see us use more nuclear energy. Efficient, clean, etc. You would think the politicians would be jumping over clean and cheap (long run).

 

[UCFBS]

I would like to see us use more nuclear energy. Efficient, clean, etc. You would think the politicians would be jumping over clean and cheap (long run).

They are, and screwing it up faster than engineers can stop them.

 

[goodknightfl]

Well the politicians could meet in the middle to make sure we can support our energy needs and still care for the environment. We need to stay competitive globally and still work on the next generation of tech that is cleaner.

Everything is so political that you're either banning everything including meat to not wanting the EPA around. You can't even be somewhat realistic these days.

personally I want politicians as far away as possible. A bar lined 6x8 cell would work just fine for 90% of them.

 

[UCFBS]

personally I want politicians as far away as possible. A bar lined 6x8 cell would work just fine for 90% of them.

Politicians get to quote how many solar panels they've had installed. It means far less to quote how much it's replaced fossil fuels in actually usable ways, let alone when it sits there, useless, when transmission lines are down.

 

[ShinobiWolf]

Sometimes I wish you inbreds were just a little less inbred, so that way you would be smart enough to see just how fuking stupid you are.

 

[UCFBS]

I would like to see us use more nuclear energy. Efficient, clean, etc. You would think the politicians would be jumping over clean and cheap (long run).

Actually, many European outlets -- not just French -- are absolutely spearing the Germans on how they are not only going to miss their targets, but their fossil fuel consumption and reliance on the Middle East and Russia, has increased in their 'new energy plan.' Even better? Much like California, they installed panels without storage and distribution, and the resulting costs are going to be 10x as much as projected. Plus, just like California, the lifespan of their solar investments are much lower than expected.

Meanwhile, France remains 60% nuclear.

 

[UCFKnight85]

With every policy, you need a gas and brake. The reason why these environment politicians are here is because somebody effed up the water and air before. I am concerned about the quality of the infrastructure to move energy across the country, businesses don't GAF.

Businesses don’t care about the ability to move energy across the country? What fantasyland do you live in?

 

[goodknightfl]

Meanwhile, France remains 60% nuclear.

That short term is the only real alternative to fossil fuels for power production.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Businesses don’t care about the ability to move energy across the country? What fantasyland do you live in?

I should have clarified my statement. Business' DGAF about the environmental impact of bringing their goods to market.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I should have clarified my statement. Business' DGAF about the environmental impact of bringing their goods to market.

Sure they do. What a nonsensical blanket statement.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Sure they do. What a nonsensical blanket statement.

If they could save $.10/unit by being environmental irresponsible and not get caught, they would and you know it.