U.S. is now the world’s biggest oil and gas producer • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. is now the world’s biggest oil and gas producer

#61

Post by marknutter » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 4:07 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #57

marknutter wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't pragmatism produce the results needed? Moving over to Nuclear Power would, without a doubt, solve the climate crisis. Granted, it would introduce other challenges, but we're talking about the lesser of two evils here.

I don't think a rapid wholesale move to nuclear power is any more pragmatic than a rapid move to cut average per capita energy consumption in half.

One solution requires the economy to stall, the other does not. Take your best guess as to which one will have better public support.

Re: U.S. is now the world’s biggest oil and gas producer

#62

Post by snowwrestler » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 4:10 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #42

joshuahedlund wrote: post #19

Commenters bemoaning US running out of resources sooner or ruining the environment by increasing usage should note that US oil demand has essentially peaked[1] and will likely drop in the coming years due to a variety of factors including demographics and the increasing viability of alternative energy sources (solar power + Tesla et. al.) In this context, the US gas/oil energy boom is a wonderful thing, a last hurrah…

There's some uncertainty about whether shale-gas is actually better than coal, due to the substantial (but poorly measured) "fugitive gas" losses direct to the atmosphere in gas recovery. This paper estimates that replacing coal with shale-gas leads to about 20% worse greenhouse-gas impact: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/greeninc/Howarth20... Some commentary on the paper and reactions to it, which conclude…

A study that was just released found lower values for the amount of methane that escapes than the 2011 study.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/10/1304880110.abst...

Not saying this should end the debate, but it's another data point.

Re: U.S. is now the world’s biggest oil and gas producer

#63

Post by ChuckMcM » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 4:13 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #42

joshuahedlund wrote: post #19

Commenters bemoaning US running out of resources sooner or ruining the environment by increasing usage should note that US oil demand has essentially peaked[1] and will likely drop in the coming years due to a variety of factors including demographics and the increasing viability of alternative energy sources (solar power + Tesla et. al.) In this context, the US gas/oil energy boom is a wonderful thing, a last hurrah…

There's some uncertainty about whether shale-gas is actually better than coal, due to the substantial (but poorly measured) "fugitive gas" losses direct to the atmosphere in gas recovery. This paper estimates that replacing coal with shale-gas leads to about 20% worse greenhouse-gas impact: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/greeninc/Howarth20... Some commentary on the paper and reactions to it, which conclude…

From a public health perspective, unless fracking can be tied to water table contamination in a systemic way (as opposed to in the occasional accidental way) its going to be head and shoulders above Coal, both in the extraction, the processing, and the burning categories.

Re: U.S. is now the world’s biggest oil and gas producer

#64

Post by ChuckMcM » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 4:14 PM UTC

known wrote: post #39

Will US stop importing oil and gas?

The US is on track to become a net exporter of natural gas. Is that what you are asking?

Re: U.S. is now the world’s biggest oil and gas producer

#65

Post by Lagged2Death » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 4:32 PM UTC

coldcode wrote: post #28

But it costs more to produce here. Most oil wells in Texas for example are now fairly low volume and require a lot of expense to pump. The Saudi wells are so high volume they spend almost nothing to get the oil out. Also the Saudis generally control the output to keep the price high. If they wanted to they could flood the world with oil. Gas is a different story but currently the price is pretty low compared to oil.

The Saudi wells are so high volume they spend almost nothing to get the oil out. Also the Saudis generally control the output to keep the price high. If they wanted to they could flood the world with oil.

This has long been the comforting conventional wisdom, but there have been contrarians. One wrote a book-length argument:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/047173876X

The argument is more-or-less that the Saudis have in fact been struggling just to keep output more-or-less flat. Their ability to open the taps to control prices is a thing of the past. They've made massive capital investments in the field operations, yet despite very high prices and an opportunity to make staggering profits, their output has only changed modestly and has never hit the peaks they've promised in the past (12 million bbl/day, I believe was what they claimed they could do; 7-8 million bbl/day is about all they've ever done lately).

Re: U.S. is now the world’s biggest oil and gas producer

#66

Post by _delirium » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 4:42 PM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #52

wahsd wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but as much as I want them to succeed too, the "alternative" energies just do not have the capacity to replace the "traditional" fuels. The problem with America is that we have a problem with glut and self-destructive greed, which is why all of our "green" efforts are nothing but window-dressing, facade, and self-delusion while be destroy and consume our way into disaster. There is never any real sacrifice or…

Sorry, I am not into sacrifice and pain. Please continue developing energy technologies so that I can live in a house with lights and running water, and have a car that can get me and my family around.

It would be nice if there were at least more options for people who actually want to forgo some energy usage to do so. Back when I lived in the U.S., I had to have a car and drive everywhere, because everything was laid out in such a car-oriented manner, and the transit was so bad. I didn't find it enjoyable or convenient, more of a kind of pain. I would've happily taken some of my energy consumption off the road, if there had been a decent alternative, but it was expected that I would burn this gas daily whether I wanted to or not, if I wanted a job anyway.

Re: U.S. is now the world’s biggest oil and gas producer

#67

Post by SM_MS » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 5:02 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #42

joshuahedlund wrote: post #19

Commenters bemoaning US running out of resources sooner or ruining the environment by increasing usage should note that US oil demand has essentially peaked[1] and will likely drop in the coming years due to a variety of factors including demographics and the increasing viability of alternative energy sources (solar power + Tesla et. al.) In this context, the US gas/oil energy boom is a wonderful thing, a last hurrah…

There's some uncertainty about whether shale-gas is actually better than coal, due to the substantial (but poorly measured) "fugitive gas" losses direct to the atmosphere in gas recovery. This paper estimates that replacing coal with shale-gas leads to about 20% worse greenhouse-gas impact: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/greeninc/Howarth20... Some commentary on the paper and reactions to it, which conclude…

This paper is actually the start of a very interesting academic brawl. I've reviewed that paper by Howarth and found it lacking in many ways. Howarth is included in a trio of academics from Cornell University that have become popular in the media for denouncing the increasing use of natural gas, and even suggest that coal is cleaner on a short time scale. Since this initial paper was published there has been a flurry of responses from another academic at Cornell, named Lawrence Cathles. Cathles is also the only geologist in the group, Howarth is a prof of ecology and Ingraffea is a structural engineer. This article sums up the history between Cathles and Howarth. [2] So far Cathles has written at this point two or three papers in response to Howarth's original paper, and one of the later ones is a bit of a scientific smackdown.[1] It concludes that the estimates of fugitive gas emissions are very high and other assumptions are made that badly shift the conclusions against natural gas. The response papers by Cathles are very fun to read and I think they provide a great introduction to the current climate science on natural gas.

[1] http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/PeoplePlaces/Faculty/cathles/...

[2] http://energyindepth.org/national/cornell-response-to-cornel...

Re: U.S. is now the world’s biggest oil and gas producer

#68

Post by mseebach » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 5:09 PM UTC

coldcode wrote: post #28

But it costs more to produce here. Most oil wells in Texas for example are now fairly low volume and require a lot of expense to pump. The Saudi wells are so high volume they spend almost nothing to get the oil out. Also the Saudis generally control the output to keep the price high. If they wanted to they could flood the world with oil. Gas is a different story but currently the price is pretty low compared to oil.

Surely if you count the value of not having to pander to the Saudi regime anymore, it can't be that bad.

Re: U.S. is now the world’s biggest oil and gas producer

#69

Post by geoka9 » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 5:14 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #59

wahsd wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but as much as I want them to succeed too, the "alternative" energies just do not have the capacity to replace the "traditional" fuels. The problem with America is that we have a problem with glut and self-destructive greed, which is why all of our "green" efforts are nothing but window-dressing, facade, and self-delusion while be destroy and consume our way into disaster. There is never any real sacrifice or…

may I ask whom you think is taking the lead in this area? Surely some country must meet this criteria? What kind of sacrifice or pain? What steps have you done that constitute sacrifice and pain as part of your contribution? Yeah, being trite here, but I rarely find those professing a need for others to give up rarely do so themselves, they have endless levels of justification, usually starting with how smart they ar…

Not using a car (not even having one, if it matters), conserving, recycling, buying new stuff minding that it'll eventually end up in the landfill. That kind of thing.

If you live on a farm or in the mountains, it's hard to go without a car. But living in a modern city in a first world country, there's rarely an excuse.

EDIT: also, consider stopping eating so much meat, because it's not sustainable either.

Re: U.S. is now the world’s biggest oil and gas producer

#70

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 5:30 PM UTC

geoka9 wrote: post #69

Shivetya wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

may I ask whom you think is taking the lead in this area? Surely some country must meet this criteria? What kind of sacrifice or pain? What steps have you done that constitute sacrifice and pain as part of your contribution? Yeah, being trite here, but I rarely find those professing a need for others to give up rarely do so themselves, they have endless levels of justification, usually starting with how smart they ar…

Not using a car (not even having one, if it matters), conserving, recycling, buying new stuff minding that it'll eventually end up in the landfill. That kind of thing. If you live on a farm or in the mountains, it's hard to go without a car. But living in a modern city in a first world country, there's rarely an excuse. EDIT: also, consider stopping eating so much meat, because it's not sustainable either.

[deleted]