Producing more oil than you consume does not, as the article claims, make you truly energy independent. The US will always have to import oil from other countries to meet its needs, because not all oil is the same, and the type of oil that the US produces is not the type that it needs.
A better argument would be whether there are any restrictions at all that, during a world shortage, would prevent companies producing oil from exporting it to other parts of the world to the detriment of local US consumers.
There aren't, so the US isn't independent on anything: the regular citizen will get priced out of the market regardless of their need the moment there's profit to be made elsewhere.
There's no current threat of being priced out, the major oil producers are too busy trying to get market share on low cost oil.
Going forward, will this ever be an issue? Peak oil is coming from societies moving away from oil and adopting renewables. By the time OPEC et Al start raising their prices, they will be irrelevant to most US consumers
I’d love to see a point where drop in oil consumption means plastic becomes expensive, and instead we can finally find better alternatives that don’t harm the planet and people so much.
Having to pay market prices isn't the end of the world; the U.S. is a wealthy country, so we can afford it more easily than a lot of others. (It would, of course, hurt poor people the most.)
I think restrictions on exports are a good idea, but based on climate rather than protecting cheap domestic fuel. I mean, why do we sell coal to China when we know we're eventually going to be paying the externalized cost of CO2 emissions when they burn it, just the same as if we burned it here? Better to restrict sales (especially to countries we aren't getting along well with) except in situations where it makes sense strategically (i.e. selling to Europe to counteract the leverage Russia has because they can turn off a substantial portion of their natural gas supply).
Government can easily restrict international sales, just like they did for vaccines (and routinely do for encryption software/hardware and other goods).
1. A barrel of oil isn't just gas.. About half is for bunker oil, diesel and kerosene that runs boats, trucks and jets. That need isn't going away no matter how many batteries you make. The rest (40-50%) of the barrel is a waste stream that can be used as light gasoline, plastics and chemicals.
We will always have the second half because we always need the first half.
2. As others have mentioned, all oil is not equal. Shale and tar sands (tight oil) are not producing the heavy cuts/blends that we require for bunker oil, diesel and aircraft. US will need to balance export of shale based (or nat gas) energy with import of heavier grades of oil. Probably always. This isn't "independence"..it's codependence at best, and it will require the world burning gas for cars. How's your CO2?
3. Peak oil (conventional) was 2005, and then the shale oil financial stunt (thanks negative interest rates!!) took us to Nov 2018 when -- *Before covid* peak oil, and energy happened.
We're on the downslope of production without massive "demand destruction".
4. The energy price predicament is that below $80/barrel, shale and tight producers can't make money (and there will be no further investment) and above $80 and the rest of the economy gets killed.
None of these ideas are mine. All are easily goog'd.
Ships can be made to burn just about anything as fuel, the main problem is just whether existing ships can burn different fuels without major re-engineering. Even electric shipping is possible, but would require substantial infrastructure investments (e.g. buoys in the middle of large oceans every so often connected to trans-oceanic power cables so the ships can recharge regularly). Electrified shipping will probably happen before electrified long-distance aircraft, anyways.
Something like 40% of global shipping is just moving fossil fuels around, so decarbonizing electrical production and transportation would cut back significantly on the amount of bunker fuel needed for ships even if they continue to run on bunker fuel for the foreseeable future.
> Even electric shipping is possible, but would require substantial infrastructure investments (e.g. buoys in the middle of large oceans every so often connected to trans-oceanic power cables so the ships can recharge regularly).
A lot has been said about hydrogen powered vehicles, but I don't think it will work for general use. Where it may be useful though is in 'industrial' transport.
It's unlikely we'll see hydrogen 'gas stations' for normal people, but for ships, trucks, and maybe airplanes, setting up the infrastructure may be more practical (fewer, more concentrated stations).
I'm enormously biased as someone into sailing, but I do love the idea of re-instating wind power as a secondary or even primary source of propulsion for certain kinds of shipping.
Batteries for ships will not be a thing. But re-tanking them to carry and burn synthetic anhydrous ammonia will be. It will happen because ammonia will come to be cheaper than bunker oil, enough so to pay for the conversion.
Meanwhile, supertankers full of anhydrous ammonia will sail from the tropics to high latitudes in winter to burn in what had been natural gas power plants, because even extracting natural gas will not be competitive.
Cruise ships have started to come as hybrids now because some top destinations for cruising have very strict emission regulations that over time will be even stricter.
> The energy price predicament is that below $80/barrel, shale and tight producers can't make money (and there will be no further investment) and above $80 and the rest of the economy gets killed.
Your numbers here are way off. US shale production costs have improved and are now around $37/bbl (source: Bloomberg, yesterday).
> "above $80 and the rest of the economy gets killed"
You really need to provide sources on claims like this.
Yes, the US imports as much oil as it exports: quality in, shit out.
And the wasted energy is enourmous to even barely preserve the quality of life.
I think Russia is not invading Ukraine as much as the US is slowly (expanding NATO over decades) "invading" Russia because it desperately needs it's high EROEI sources to pretend we have "business as usual".
To no benefit since war consumes too much energy.
For the rest of human civilization we will have to fight against nature to extract less and less energy.
Only 1 solution: Stop using energy, NOW!
Raspberry 4 as desktop, Rasperry Pico as mobile. Small apartement/house (20 square meters per person max.). Work from home (no office to heat/cool). Bike for every day transport, train when too far. Bus only if you have to. Never Car/Fly.
You will have to change, now or later dragged by your hair.
> I think Russia is not invading Ukraine as much as the US is slowly (expanding NATO over decades) "invading" Russia because it desperately needs it's high EROEI sources to pretend we have "business as usual".
This doesn't make any sense and is not in any way a mapping to reality. NATO membership is by request only and its numbers have swelled with ex-Soviet republics who want nothing to do with their former master. There is no NATO "invasion", which is a defensive force only. The only occasion I am aware of where they did not act in defense of a member state was to interdict in a genocide.
Ukraine is doing everything it can to stay out of conflict while remaining self-sovereign but it is literally surrounded by 170,000 Russian troops who are less than 40 kilometers on average from Ukraine's border. If any war breaks out in the coming weeks it will be entirely the fault of Russia.
Ok, interesting that you think anything in life is voluntary. We'll see how history judges the affair, in my experience the only way to disseminate truth is to close down the forum where arguments are held: previously books, now the internet.
NATO is responsible for accepting memberships and keeping their promises, and we are responsible for consuming other peoples energy: mostly our own childrens enegy.
Either way, the only way to avoid conflict is by living frugally. So that holds no matter what.
To think that defence can't be offensive is plain wrong. Do you remember the Cuba crisis?
you mean that crisis that should have been called the Turkey missile crisis? Wasn't the main cause because USA put missiles so close to USSR that they could bypass the early warning system. USSR was just reacting in response.
This sounds like the ranting of a madman. You sound like Energy Thanos.
If you think the modern world is going to grind to the kind of halt that your... "solutions"... would cause, you're seriously mistaken.
The only 1 solution, as you put it, is to innovate our way out of this problem. Nuclear fusion will have to be researched, developed, and implemented worldwide. That's your "only 1 solution".
Are jet engines really that fussy with the fuel? Traditional gasoline Otto engines need high octane fuel because the fuel is injected before compression, so the gasoline should not spontaneously combust even at high compression rates.
Diesels are less strict since the fuel is only injected when it needs to immediately combust. But there are still knocking issues from combustion dynamics. Rudolf Diesel's first engine ran on peanut oil. Ships run on very heavy sulphur rich fuel oil. The range is wide.
But jets? It's a flow process, not back and forth. Historically they were very attractive partly because they were not at all fussy about the fuel they use...
If gasoline was cheap, from first principles one could assume that jets would run just fine with it, with only few modifications.
Wasn't there a turbine-powered car at one point that would run on just about anything and was very reliable but got canned because of the high production cost?
"When JET 1 was launched, the gas turbine ‘jet’ engine was seen as a symbol of modernity and of British technical prowess. Many viewed it as the power source of the future, but test driving showed that its poor fuel consumption and slowness to respond to the throttle made it unsuitable for road transport."
Gas turbines are efficient when they are allowed to run at optimal speed, which is close to the maximal power. Cars starts and stop all the time which is not optimal. In addition, acceleration is poor, which most car owners would find unacceptable. For uses where they can run for a long time on optimal speed, like in power plants, they are a good fit, otherwise not so much.
Yes. In the past turbines were very inefficient. Much higher compression ratio and thus efficiency nowadays. But piston engines have also improved.
One problem with jets is that they don't scale down so well because of clearance issues.
Also they might need a secondary system to take energy from the hot exhaust gases. GE has proposed supercritical CO2 cycles for that. Could get total efficiency close to diesel, maintenance windows might be more frequent though.
> The energy price predicament is that below $80/barrel, shale and tight producers can't make money (and there will be no further investment) and above $80 and the rest of the economy gets killed.
The numbers you cite aren't anywhere close to correct. U.S. Shale Oil producers were making money at $60/barrel when OPEC was trying to squeeze them out a few years back. Their break even price is about $50/barrel (i.e nowhere near $80 as claimed).
Regarding bunker oil, there are ships under construction that will use hydrogen instead of bunker oil. Also interesting is that while large ships burn bunker oil, they do so to power a generator that powers an electrical engine. This is true for modern oil tankers and large container ships.
So, it's not that inevitable that ships will continue to use bunker oil forever. Also, there is a company in the US already selling synthetic fuels to airline companies. I think there was a plane that recently flew with one engine burning that stuff. And finally, battery electric trucks of basically all sizes are now being produced and are shipping in small volumes. Diesel demand is on a slow decline. There is of course some debate on whether hydrogen will play a role in that. IMHO, the early signs are that it is basically not going to be a big role for at least trucking. It works, but has bout 4x the energy cost. Which is not a great value proposition when batteries basically get the job done already.
The challenge with oil is not so much the price but the fact that it keeps changing wildly unpredictably and that these swings seem to be getting more common. Those wilds swings are very damaging to industries that depend on those prices either being high (like shale oil) or low (any company that buys oil or gas in large quantities). Prices can be abnormally high or low for months/years on end if e.g. the Saudis or the Russians decide to flood the market with oil or decide to limit supply when that suits them. The US is only energy independent when prices are very high. And as you note, even then it needs to import oil because not all oil is alike.
High prices are very damaging to economies since you get things like inflation getting out of control when people suddenly have to pay a premium to heat their houses, drive their cars, or have stuff trucked around. I'm including natural gas here as it seems the prices for both oil and gas seem to be suffering from this. And of course it is an important thing that shale oil drilling produces in large quantities as well. And we are seeing quite a bit of inflation lately because of the high prices.
These price swings will drive demand destruction over time and far more rapidly than some people in the industry seem to hope/think. People will want to isolate themselves from supply and pricing issues. That's already happening. People put solar and batteries in their home because they can and to shield themselves from extortion level pricing and blackouts. The higher the prices, the more you will see people try to work around that.
The transport section will largely not be dependent on oil or gas by mid this century. Road traffic probably by the end of next decade. With about half new cars being electric by the end of this decade. That's just extrapolating from growth plans of various manufacturers. At this pace, they'll hit 50% of the market in about 8-10 years. A 50% drop in demand is going to be tough if you have investments in companies that 1) rely on high oil prices and 2) depend on things like gasoline and diesel sales to continue to be a thing that economies spend a lot of money on. Most investors are already voting with their feet because they know this is happening.
> The challenge with oil is not so much the price but the fact that it keeps changing wildly unpredictably and that these swings seem to be getting more common. Those wilds swings are very damaging to industries that depend on those prices either being high (like shale oil) or low (any company that buys oil or gas in large quantities).
Isn't that the point of futures contracts - to smooth variable prices?
Yes - there are a number of financial instruments that large producers and consumers can and do use to hedge their risk. It's not necessarily easy and doesn't always work, and everything has a cost, but these claims of high oil "destroying the economy" (without providing any evidence) are a bit overblown.
> Regarding bunker oil, there are ships under construction that will use hydrogen instead of bunker oil. Also interesting is that while large ships burn bunker oil, they do so to power a generator that powers an electrical engine. This is true for modern oil tankers and large container ships.
That is not the case. They are often direct drive through a reversible engine for maximum efficiency without any clutches and the most minimal gearbox possible. The engines themselves tend to be low rpm ultra-long stroke two-stroke diesel engines. They often even have shaft generators to shut down the smaller more inefficient generators. This further forces a set design speed to have the correct electrical frequency.
Ferries, off-shore vessels and cruise ships are increasingly becoming diesel electric though due to both large electrical loads and larger variations in load due to their operational patterns.
This is a weird article. It is short and lacking detail, does not link any sources, and presents its data as if it's a first (it is not[0]). It reads, to be honest, as propaganda, especially considering the current rise in consumer prices for fuel and news about Saudi Arabia refusing to increase production[1]. What is the purpose of this article and why is it on the front page here?
I don't read it unless linked a story, but I do remember it popping into the scene with long form in depth journalism and interviews I hadn't seen elsewhere, with a style similar to The Intercept. I guess all good things come to an end.
You seem to be correct, at least according to Wikipedia. I may be confusing it with something else similarly named, or exaggerating how Axios on HBO got some exclusives? Not sure.
As a side note, I wasn't aware of the following info (again from Wikipedia) but it kinda explains the OP article to me a little more:
>In January 2017, Axios hired as an executive vice president Evan Ryan, the assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs and a former staffer for Vice President Joe Biden.
What does it explain about the OP? Are you saying it's biased in favor of the Biden administration? What part is biased? The article doesn't even depict the situation as necessarily positive. Do you have evidence that Ryan participated? What about other people at Axios?
Connecting otherwise unrelated dots is the foundation of conspiracy theories, not fact, and (if Wikipedia is accurate) that was five years ago.
Sure. Since my main takeaway from the article is that it's propaganda click bait where the title and topic is to imply that the U.S. is in a strong position, particularly given the timing and related news of the day, I attribute the underlying intent to "someone at axios wants to write a fluff piece about the Biden admin". Yes, that might be what you call a conspiracy theory, OK. I obviously can't prove it absent commentary from the author or other Axios representative in official capacity.
But come on, really. Pretend it was Trump and Fox.
> But come on, really. Pretend it was Trump and Fox
Either there is a factual basis or there's not.
And who are you talking about? Do you have any basis for me saying whatever you are implying? Are you saying everyone says it? Do you have any basis for comparing Axios to Fox? And if it's false for Trump and Fox, isn't it just as false here - you therefore know it's false?
> I obviously can't prove it
There's a lot of territory between proof to empty fabrications. You don't provide any evidence or more than two dots of data on a big graph - which you arbitrarily connect and claim the new line is a trend. Does that person even still work at Axios? In what role? Is there reason to believe they were involved in this article? What about others at Axios - including those directly involved in the article - do they have biases and why aren't they just as likely to affect this article? What about the author or their editor? If Axios had that bias, can you point to other similar articles?
It's absurd to reason, 'this article might reflect well on the White House, therefore it's biased'. Isn't some positive news inevitable?
> What is the purpose of this article and why is it on the front page here?
Because 16 people upvoted it.
The weird thing is that the submitter seems to have a ratio of 100:1 of submissions to comments. They might just have developed a habit of submitting every article they read that they find at all interesting.
> It seems to be a lame argument saying somehow high energy prices no longer affect US consumers.
From the article:
Now, after the shale gas revolution of the last 15 years, the impact is more subtle. Higher fuel prices disadvantage consumers and energy-intensive industries, yes. But there is a counteracting surge in incomes for domestic energy producers and their workers.
The data in the article agrees with your sources. It says there was a surplus in 2020, and that use and production have been pretty balanced since then.
Can someone explain why during the start of Covid lockdowns, gasoline prices didn’t drop to $1.00/gallon? There was no demand, and plenty of supply. The simple supply/demand curve of my high school economics memory, seems to imply prices should have taken a dive to virtually zero. Sure they went down, but nowhere near what the models I’d learned would predict. Just a rant that lit up inside my brain every time I filled up during that time when the streets were as empty as any zombie movie.
Actually many places with real competition, near production and very little regulation in the U.S. did have $1.00 or so gallon gas, i.e. much of the south and near energy producing areas in LA for example.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that gas retailers in California would continue to price their gas at ~$5.00 a gallon when they don't actually have any to sell (or conversely, aren't selling any at all) because of how inelastic and regulated the supply is.
Everyone in CA that I know is ready to be done with gas. Regrettably, Californians also pay some of the highest costs for electricity (more expensive than HI[1]) so we're out of the frying pan and into the fire. Nothing more American than regulatory capture (looking at you SDG&E and CPCU)
The LA in the previous comment is likely Louisiana -- where many refineries are based.
Also, CA has its own refineries that have additional blend restrictions (if I am not wrong). You cannot legally sell, gasoline that is refined in LA or TX and sell them in CA gas stations.
You are right -- there are 5 refineries in LA county and 60% of the California capacity. The possibility of them having $1 gallon in CA did not feel real given the taxes and fees per gallon are near or exceed $1.
I am surprised no one has mentioned it because it's actually very important internationally speaking. Basically what happened was oil demand dropped substantially in China which is one of the biggest and growing consumers of oil. OPEC had an agreement to reduce oil sales and raise prices in response to the sudden decrease in demand.
Russia refused to restrict their supply in defiance of OPEC so the Saudis flooded the market with a bunch of super super cheap oil to undercut Russia. That's what led to the negative prices another commenter mentioned.
The problem was is that most of the US oil production is shale oil production. Shale oil is more expensive to produce than raw crude, which is why it didn't really take off in the US until gas was moving towards the $4.00 mark in the mid oughts. The problem that caused now is that the cheap oil all over the market, combined with the decrease in demand priced out shale oil producers who shuttered and now that demand is returning the companies helping supply don't exist anymore.
As for why it didn't drop lower I was seeing low $2.00 and under in places.
OPEC oil production dropped off a cliff after things shutdown in 2020, so the supply did not remain high. At the same time, at least a little demand shifted rather than disappeared by increasing home deliveries of goods and services.
In the US, gasoline prices still dropped about 30% off their most recent pre-covid prices.
There are also fixed costs involved with transporting gasoline, running a gas station, gas tax, etc that will not change much with supply & demand.
Given all of this, gas prices seem to mostly correspond to what was happening: production plummeted, demand plummeted with some modest shifts, and so prices at the pump dropped by a relatively modest 30%.
I would add that taxes are now a higher proportion of fuel costs - and will probably continue to become so as more carbon and emissions taxes are passed. Of course, this is assuming oil prices don't go parabolic, which they may given our self-destructive energy policies.
I think we've reached a point where prices don't really drop on anything within established industries even when it's expected that they should, unless they're at serious risk of being replaced by a newer, better product.
My country had a massive glut of milk overproduction this year. Well beyond what the country could drink, use in other products, or even export.
Know what happened? Some companies reduced milk container sizes from 1000mL to 900mL and prices went up.
Oil barrel (futures) prices dropped into the negatives in 2020, which meant people were literally paying to give their barrels of oil away [0], driven partially by storage concerns.
So I guess, in a sense, what you're asking about did happen?
(This is a guess, but) I suspect there is a base rate of inelastic demand which either never changes or changes very slowly. This keeps the price from falling significantly.
In Houston, I remember seeing fuel prices at the start of the pandemic at the pump for close to $1.00/gallon (in the ~$1.10-$1.30 range depending on the forecourt).
The current administration cut production soon after taking power. The previous administration had expanded domestic oil production resulting in the energy independence of 2020 mentioned in the article.
Why they are talking about 2020-2021 energy independence as though it applies to the current situation, I do not understand. I expect that there is some truth to the sentiments expressed by other commenters that this article is, in fact, tendentious in its aims.
Yeah, I'm confused about this as well. Two years ago, this claim saying "we're now independent" would make sense, but now it almost feels like we could say the reverse; we've become less independent (less production, more demand) - situations like the current Ukraine problem could cause more trouble, not less
This isn't true. If you can prove me wrong I'd be happy to read about why.
It sounds like we're talking about leases.
talking about future production, the Biden admin allowed more federal lands leasing in their first year than trump did. [1]
They paused new leases at the start but they're back. They are trying to get more money from lease sales but idk where that's at.
And with high covid prices the admin asked companies to increase production back to pre covid levels faster.
Total us production isn't back to pre covid levels yet [2], but all the reporting I've raid says it's because of covid, manic swings in demand and pricing, share price volatility, pressure to reign in spending, and push for renewables [3]
Personally, we do need to get strict with leases. This transition period is going to be painful hard to balance such long term assets (like decades to build and get roi from new large oil development) with a transition that we need to happen as fast as possible.
Going to hurt but could hurt less if we can spend the few T needed to beef up renewables, get new cars on road, replace electric stoves, etc.
This article implies that all energy in the US, including electricity, comes from petroleum, but in the US, very little electricity comes from petroleum-based sources. It comes mostly from burning natural gas, burning coal, nuclear fission, wind, solar, and hydro dams.
Yeah that's the vibe I got. Kinda like claiming record job growth when it's just "people are coming out of lock downs and general fear and also after the economy was on the brink of collapse"
Curiously unmentioned is the precipitous fall in domestic oil production in 2021. Another headline would be "US barely hangs on to coveted net exporter status as production falls dramatically."
It should be noted that the price of oil has only been increasing in 2021. We were somewhere around $60 in Feb of last year, now we're over $90 [0]. When oil prices go up, expensive development processes become more viable. So this drop in production is purely domestic policy, not economics. That makes the article seem all the more out of touch to be published now, aside from making dumb statements about price of oil not impacting us as much. Throw in a token nod to the questionable Ukraine crisis. Yeah, this article seems like someone from the White House called in a favor.
> The impact on geopolitics extends to a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine. Disruptions to European energy supplies would have a less direct effect on the U.S. than they might have in an earlier era.
Put another way, the USA now has less incentive to "keep the peace." Putin's drama and posturing, plus the USA being untethered...that's not a good combination.
That is certainly a consideration. There's what Biden will do (in the context of his unflattering polling numbers). And then there's what Putin would like to see Biden do. If I were to wager I'd say currently Vlad is more than covering the spread.
USA should leave peace keeping and war mongering with Russia to the Europeans who live there and who seem to want to import Russian energy. USA can withdraw from NATO and spend that tax money at home.
It's the other way around. Russia is agitating because they can't support their regime with oil anymore. The US has no obligations in Ukraine but have working overtime to prevent escalation.
It depends on defining 'obligation'. The US doesn't have a treaty obligation to defend Ukraine but does have that obligation to NATO members, and a Russian attack on Ukraine threatens NATO members. Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity - all of which are not only essential in themselves, but essential to the peace and prosperity of Americans - and to the rules-based international order that provides those things. We don't want to return to the first half of the 20th century, with two major wars, but now with far more destructive power.
Negotiations are one thing, but Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is closer to Nato member countries. Who gets to be a member of Nato is a delicate balance, and there’s a reason why countries like Finland and Sweden are not. Russia apparently wants a buffer between itself and Nato (there are some exceptions like Norway). Sending a lot of Nato troops to Ukraine would signal that Ukraine is a de facto Nato border.
> Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity
To find someone that still believes that line feels like finding a time capsule.
> Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is closer to Nato member countries.
This raises many issues: 1) Sending military resources isn't the only response. 2) What is the vicinity? NATO territory nearby (which is happening)? Ukraine itself (which isn't happening)? 3) Finland and Sweden are not members because they choose not to be; afaik NATO would accept them. 4) You say NATO 'can't' send military to the vicinity (though they are) because Russia is closer (which is a clear military risk), but you imply that NATO being closer to Russia is a reasonable concern for the latter. There's also a difference between a revanchist, violent power which has already annexed parts of two countries and threatens many more (Russia), and one which hasn't annexed anything (NATO).
>> Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity
> To find someone that still believes that line feels like finding a time capsule
To find someone who makes replaces evidence and reason with mockery is not, unfortunately, uncommon these days. But regardless, that's all you've provided, which amounts to nothing. Do you have any evidence or reason, or even a clear assertion, or just mockery?
The drama-and-posturing could potentially come to an end if Nato would be willing to negotiate. The US arming Ukraine—or even putting boots on the ground—is not the only solution.
They are negotiating, desperately but Putin's terms are so unhinged as to be ingenuous:
"The Russian draft treaties call for NATO to remove any troops or weapons from countries that joined the alliance after 1997, meaning most of Eastern Europe, including Poland, the Baltic states and Balkan countries. It also calls for the U.S. and Russia to refrain from deploying troops in areas where they could be perceived as a threat to each countries' national security, and a ban on sending their aircraft and warships into areas where they could strike each other's territory. The treaty would also ban the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Europe."
Those countries that joined after '97 are largely ex-Soviet republics seeking succor. Poland would sooner draw a sword through its own belly than agree to the terms of a former autarch with 170,000 troops right at its belly.
Positioning 170,000 troops in a half-circle around Ukraine is not a recipe for diplomacy.
Looks like Putin wants back to the 1990 deal that Gorbachev and President Bush made and that American presidents broke: that Nato wouldn’t expand an inch to the east (to East Germany at the time).
His demands will obviously not be met. But is Nato even considering any concessions? You don’t have to accept the initial demand (it’s supposed to be a negotiation, after all).
"In 2014, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall by noting in an interview that Nato’s enlargement 'was not discussed at all' at the time:
'Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either.'" [1]
Maybe Gorbachev feels embarrassed that he didn’t get any formal guarantees from the West.
In any case, declassified US, Soviet, German, British and French documents[1] show that multiple Western leaders assured Gorbachev himself that Soviet security concerns would not be threatened. And, of course, it was specifically Nato that was under discussion.
For how long? I've seen estimates claiming that at the rate we are depleting the major shale areas the new glut of shale wells will go into a steep production decline around 2024-26.
I dont have all the data but from what I've heard this is pretty temporary.
I’m hoping the transition to electric vehicles will be in full swing by that point. While we use oil for more than passenger cars if the decline in demand could more or less match the reduced supply it would be ideal.
Almost certainly more than 100% bigger in two to four years, if Gartber predicts 50% growth for 2022-2021 alone. And many project more.
What’s more, the growth will likely pick up each year as more and better EVs become available, and more people start considering them as a real alternative.
What percentage of consumers purchase new cars on a < 5 year basis? People who take out leases do, so there could be an uptick of these folks getting into EVs, but the majority of existing car owners aren't likely to hop over just to get on the EV train, I don't think, and the second hand car market is / will continue to be massive. I can't see a significant decline in gas vehicles for a decade or better, probably likely two before a significant portion of gas vehicles are off the road.
It was made this way by the previous administrations efforts. Then sustained by great reduction in energy usage. We'll see how this trends through 2022 but I'm not optimistic.
Yep, lots of people involved. It wasn't being done economically at large scale until 2000 something though. I think the very first things considered fracking were done before the 80's, and various companies/people made improvements along the way...
I think this is all best taken with a pinch of salt... if oil prices rise on geo-political tensions or on OPEC cutting supply, it tends to spike for all grades of oil to some degree. That implies that the price of shale will also spike - and hence you are not truly insulated from 'external' events even if you are self sufficient.
Saudi oil marginal production cost is still the lowest in the world. The main effect will be political instability as the revenue used to keep the population satisfied falls off.
The Saudis could set up solar and start synthesizing anhydrous ammonia to sell to higher latitudes in winter. Marginal production cost would go even lower, as it would not need refining. But they would face competition from west Africa.
I have scanned the comments, but I have not read the article. The title begs an imponderable issue. There is energy used in making every thing we import and in every thing we export. This invisible energy can be shipped back and forth multiple times. How do you add all that up to achieve an answer?
For a better understanding: https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/blog/2018/06/14/w...