Wind turbines will supply 17pc of UK electricity by 2020, equal to all other
off-shore wind projects in the world combined
Posted on 10/29/2012 12:21:12 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
The wonders of US shale gas continue to amaze. We receive fresh evidence by the day that swathes of American industry have acquired a massive and lasting advantage in energy costs over global rivals, demolishing assumptions about US economic decline.
Wind turbines will supply 17pc of UK electricity by 2020, equal to all other
off-shore wind projects in the world combined
Royal Dutch Shell is planning an ethane plant in the once-decaying steel valley of Beaver County, near Pittsburg. Dow Chemical is shutting operations in Belgium, Holland, Spain, the UK, and Japan, but pouring money into a propylene venture in Texas where natural gas prices are a fraction of world levels, likely to remain so for the life-cycle of Dow's investments.
Some fifty new projects have been unveiled in the US petrochemical industry. A $30bn investment blitz in underway in ethelyne and fetilizer plants alone.
A study by the American Chemistry Council said the shale gas bonanza has reversed the fortunes of the chemical, plastics, aluminium, iron and steel, rubber, coated metals, and glass industries. "This was virtually unthinkable five years ago," said the body’s president, Cal Dooley.
This is happening just as other clusters of manufacturing - machinery, electrical products, transport equipment, furniture, etc - are "re-shoring" back from from China to the US. A 16pc annual rise in Chinese wages over the last decade has changed the game. PricewaterhouseCoopers calls it the "Homecoming".
The revival of the chemical industry is a spin-off from the greater drama of America’s energy rebound, though a very big one. As many readers will have seen, US energy department said last week that the country will produce 11.4m barrels a day (b/d) of oil, biofuels, and liquid hydrocarbons next year, almost as much as Saudi Arabia
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
“Being a shale oil producer means an end to boom and bust economy cycles.”
Boom and bust are natural cycles. The governement trying to artificially control them makes them worse. Nothing will make them go away.
Increasing domestic energy production will help our country, but have no doubt, the libs can spend every dollar coming in and cry about how selfish we are for not spending more.
......The Middle East will then become Europe and China’s problem-——
Increasingly as petrochemical production increases in the Gulf states and Iraq, Europe will be unable to buy feed stock and compete. The industrial states will wither as progress and growth occur elsewhere.
That’s PittsburgH, Brits. To paraphrase the old song, if you try to knock the H out of Pittsburgh it will surely knock the “H” out of you!
Thank you - I didn’t know that it was an EO. I was just telling my kids that when the EPA was created there WAS a huge pollution problem (the Illinois(?) River near Chicago would burn occasionally due to all the gas and oil, many rivers WERE dead of fish, etc.).
But, just like the unions and labor laws were needed back in the 1800’s, they have gone so overboard that it is bad for the workers (no jobs) and our economy. I recall when the limits in air for Benzene came out, there weren’t even instruments on the market yet that could measure that small!
Heck, even if some of the EPA rules were relaxed by only 25% it would be a huge incentive to our economy. Even if those rules were only relaxed for 10 years or whatever to get us back on track.
So far, so good...
War on fossil fuel: 9th Circuit hands greens another victory
yitbos
That would be the U.S. Senate which did not approve the Kyoto Treaty.
President Bill Klinton said at the time that his EPA and his executive orders, with the blessing of the Democrat Party, would adhere to Kyoto.
The Obammunist and his EPA are far worse than the Klintoon Administration, having appointed Carol Browning, a director of Socialists International, as the EPA political commissar with a mandate to enforce the green socialist agenda.
The communist Val Jones was a smokescreen green energy nominee.
Carol Browner required no Senate confirmation.
yitbos
As for the Federal Government, the current administration's hostility toward issuing permits (onshore and off) has created a situation where federal royalty revenues are dropping. Nothing like liberals to figure out how to starve in the land of plenty.
Perhaps more sane management in Washington can help with that problem and increase revenue without increasing the burden to taxpayers by opening up areas closed to exploration and production and collecting the Federal share (production royalties) of oil and gas produced on Federal land instead of releasing token amounts of oil from the SPR to 'show they care'.
Legislating Innovation is much easier than Engineering it.
Why he just didn't make them 1000 MPG is beyond me. If he had, we wouldn't need much Oil at all.
First, it can be done.
Second, the resources exist which can make it profitable.
Third, the price exists which makes that work.
IIRC, Keystone would have about 100,000 BOPD 'excess' capacity which Bakken (or other Williston Basin) oil could fill. That would not stop any current means of transportation, as the trains and trucks carry oil where current and proposed pipelines do not.
With continued expansion of production capabilities, the extra shipment capacity would be welcome to producers.
The Keystone pipeline, if built, will soon be filled to capacity one way or another.
For every dime the libs get their grubby little mitts on, they'll want to spend three. For them, there's never enough.
And conservatives will b*tch about what they do get.
Agreed. If built, it will be filled.
Yes, I realize the extent of the Tar Sands Deposits, and I have spent most of my geological career working in the Williston Basin, and the last 12 years steering Bakken (and Three Forks) wells.
The bitumen resources are tremendous, as are the unconventional reservoirs in the Bakken/Three Forks, and they should be developed at least to the point where we aren't financing our enemies.
>>>>This boom isn’t brought about just by inflation,
The context of my original reply referred to overall “boom cycles” in the economy at large, followed by overall “bust cycles” in the economy at large.
With or without inflation, it is certainly possible (and has certainly occurred in the past) to have a boom in a specific industry that is caused by investor excitement and competition with one another regarding a new technology. Computers were an example of that in the past; fracking may be an example of that in the present.
So I’m not saying that specific booms in specific industries are necessarily the result of mal-investments by those who have been misled by distorted price signals caused by inflation. I’m cautioning fellow fracking enthusiasts about believing that an innovative and profitable new technology will prevent future business cycles from ever occurring again. Business cycles will always occur so long as we have 1) a central bank issuing fiat currency disconnected from an actual commodity like gold or silver, and 2) commercial banking laws that permit commercial banks to lend out more than they have on reserve (”fractional reserve banking”).
>>>>This boom isn’t brought about just by inflation,
I agree. The context of my original reply referred to overall “boom cycles” in the economy at large, followed by overall “bust cycles” in the economy at large.
With or without inflation, it is certainly possible (and has certainly occurred in the past) to have a boom in a specific industry that is caused by investor excitement and competition with one another regarding a new technology. Computers were an example of that in the past; fracking may be an example of that in the present.
So I’m not saying that specific booms in specific industries are necessarily the result of mal-investments by those who have been misled by distorted price signals caused by inflation. I’m cautioning fellow fracking enthusiasts about believing that an innovative and profitable new technology will prevent future business cycles from ever occurring again. Business cycles will always occur so long as we have 1) a central bank issuing fiat currency disconnected from an actual commodity like gold or silver, and 2) commercial banking laws that permit commercial banks to lend out more than they have on reserve (”fractional reserve banking”).
Energy Independence is great, but stating it will be the end to boom and bust is a bit disingenuous. Boom and Bust are the natural cycles of the market.. The US was energy independent until the latter half of the 20th century.. Only then did we need to start importing energy, and we had plenty of boom and busts.
Energy independence does make us a far more stable player, but it won’t end the natural cycles of boom and bust.
I said most people, not you. Haha.
As for this, I don't think this is so much a boom as game changing technology with a place to apply it.
It isn't that fracking is new--it has been around for decades.
The current boom is determined by technological advances in horizontal drilling (and fueling more of these), by having the right formations present with recoverable reserves provided the technologies are utilized, and by having access to a majority of at least one of those geological provinces not blocked by government minerals ownership in the current political climate.
Remove one of those legs, the formation, the technology, the access, and the development can't continue.
We have many geological formations which this technology will work in, from the Marcellus and Utica Shales, to the Eagle Ford and Haynesville shale, to the Niobrara, and especially the Bakken and Three Forks Formations in North Dakota and Montana.
We have the technology, and that is being continually refined.
Access is controlled by a mixture of Federal and private ownership, with State and Federal law controlling that to some degree.
The current Administration is aware of this and has done what it can to stop development. Federal leases are difficult at best to come by, permission to drill entangled in red tape, and the pop culture liberal dirt-worshiper attack on fracking continues, even in the absence of evidence that fracking has caused any harm aside from some surface spills.
The amount of commercial construction in the area (western North Dakota) indicates that investors think this will be long-term, and aside from speculators building motels, there are hosts of well established oilfield service companies building facilities as well. That depth of investment indicates that they are betting on long term development, not just a 'boom'.
Yes, it could be that they are in error, but I don't think so.
This is different from the boom of the late '70s, and driven by different market factors. It wasn't spurred by an oil embargo, rather by a confluence of technology, resources, and opportunity to profit.
I've been in the industry over three decades, and it has been one hell of a ride through boom and bust, and this one has a different air about it.
Keep in mind what Marx said, "Communism means no private property."
EPA is the Democrats best non-legislative weapon against private property, hand in hand with DOJ.
yitbos
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.