Recession or Depression: Everything on the table:

[Hubbs]

BP chief hails American breakthrough in gas supplies from shale rocks

BP's Tony Hayward tells World Economic Forum of 'game changer' technique to serve world's energy needs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/28/bp-tony-hayward-gas-shale-rocks

http://www.salon.com/news/env/energy/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/31/linbd_fossil_fuels

Everything you've heard about fossil fuels may be wrong

Interesting, although I wouldn't go nearly as far as to make such a declarative statement as "we had a big jump in technology that will enable near energy self sufficiency". Most of this is still in the hypothetical stage.

[twa]

combine with advances in the Fischer–Tropsch process and some rather interesting deep drilling results and we have a very different playing field

hypothetical?....No sir,in the last decade the hypothetical has become reality

You want to know why even O changed his tune somewhat....look at the facts available to him

[Hubbs]

combine with advances in the Fischer–Tropsch process and some rather interesting deep drilling results and we have a very different playing field

hypothetical?....No sir,in the last decade the hypothetical has become reality

You want to know why even O changed his tune somewhat....look at the facts available to him

All I'm saying is that history is littered with developments that were "the next big thing" and turned into anything but.

I'm hopeful - exceedingly, incredibly hopeful - that you're right. I just want to feel a bit more secure than I do when listening to a BP exec talk about what could possibly be done in the future if everything goes according to plan.

[PeterMP]

combine with advances in the Fischer–Tropsch process and some rather interesting deep drilling results and we have a very different playing field

hypothetical?....No sir,in the last decade the hypothetical has become reality

You want to know why even O changed his tune somewhat....look at the facts available to him

I don't actually think that is much of a game changer at all in terms of really causing economic growth.

Fracking and deep drilling aren't going to actually lower energy prices probably unless we assume the absolutely best case scenarios.

If we assume the absolute worse case scenarios, they'll have almost a negligible affect on energy prices into the future.

They are most likely a lot like other technological advances. They'll likely keeping us from going down the tubes, but the fact of the matter is that they are going to costs more than energy extraction has. They're will be positives in the fact of diminishing fossil fuel revereves from easily extracted places, but negative consequences in terms of effort, energy, and environmental damage (which will likely be offset by other technology, but that's more real costs) that won't result in a real net positive with respect to the energy sources they are replacing.

If you assume there were no advances in energy related technology, we'd be worse off in not to far into the future, but this technology isn't likely to actually make things cheaper than they are now or increase effeciency/productivity in any serious manner as compared to now (or sometime in the last 20 years).

They'll make the situation better than it would be without them, but not a real improvement over the current situation.

With fossil fuels we have to keep getting better just to stay even, and this represents a step to stay even, most likely.

Actually, that's true generally, as energy consumption globally has only gone up historically.

This isn't likely to have the kind of affect to actually lower energy prices or significantly alter consumption.

[88Comrade2000]

This will be the new norm. The demographics are poised to put Dems in power permanently and it will happen sooner than everyone thinks.

[mardi gras skin]

I don't actually think that is much of a game changer at all in terms of really causing economic growth.

Fracking and deep drilling aren't going to actually lower energy prices probably unless we assume the absolutely best case scenarios.

But it does have the potential to increase domestic production and lower our trade deficit.

[NoVaO]

This will be the new norm. The demographics are poised to put Dems in power permanently and it will happen sooner than everyone thinks.

Are you saying we are in the situation we are in today because of Democrats and that because of demographic changes, Democrats will hold power permanently?

[twa]

I don't actually think that is much of a game changer at all in terms of really causing economic growth.

Fracking and deep drilling aren't going to actually lower energy prices probably unless we assume the absolutely best case scenarios.

.

Creating domestic jobs,expanding tax base,bringing in royalties and ensuring supply are immaterial? .....not worth even mentioning eh?

You are a hard man to please....you must work for the EPA now;)

Will it lower prices?....maybe/maybe not,it does bring other benefits as well as market pressure to reduce energy costs.

Add in the market effects

[PeterMP]

Creating domestic jobs,expanding tax base,bringing in royalties and ensuring supply are immaterial? .....not worth even mentioning eh?

You are a hard man to please....you must work for the EPA now;)

Will it lower prices?....maybe/maybe not,it does bring other benefits as well as market pressure to reduce energy costs.

Add in the market effects

But it does have the potential to increase domestic production and lower our trade deficit.

I didn't say it was worth mentioning or that it wouldn't have an effect.

You guys responded to my post that talked about a jump in technology that would have major economic and lifestyle changes like that tech boom in the 1990s.

Fracking and deep sea drilling aren't likely to have that kind of an effect and in that sense that aren't likely to cause the kind of large scale growth that we need to do something about our debt and really fix our economy (and really the global economy).

(And even the effect of the tech boom at the time was over rated because of the "appearant" effect was not real as seen by the subsequent stock market collapse.)

[mardi gras skin]

(And even the effect of the tech boom at the time was over rated because of the "appearant" effect was not real as seen by the subsequent stock market collapse.)

I agree that the effect of the tech boom wasn't as drastic as it first appeared but it has obviously been beneficial. I don't expect the new domestic energy sources to create a bubble similar to the tech boom but I do hope there is a similar long term benefit.

Since 2003, the cost of natural gas, relative to oil, has decreased by 75%. And we have an enormous supply of the stuff. Assuming that the environmental hurdle is reached, we have the opportunity to become energy independent. And it appears that companies are figuring out how to make fracking more and more environmentally friendly.

The economic benefits that would come from generating our own energy are enormous.

[sportjunkie07]

I agree that the effect of the tech boom wasn't as drastic as it first appeared but it has obviously been beneficial. I don't expect the new domestic energy sources to create a bubble similar to the tech boom but I do hope there is a similar long term benefit.

Since 2003, the cost of natural gas, relative to oil, has decreased by 75%. And we have an enormous supply of the stuff. Assuming that the environmental hurdle is reached, we have the opportunity to become energy independent. And it appears that companies are figuring out how to make fracking more and more environmentally friendly.

The economic benefits that would come from generating our own energy are enormous.

In terms of the USA generating an economic technology based boom, we should become the worldwide leaders in nanotechnology.

[PeterMP]

I agree that the effect of the tech boom wasn't as drastic as it first appeared but it has obviously been beneficial. I don't expect the new domestic energy sources to create a bubble similar to the tech boom but I do hope there is a similar long term benefit. It appears that companies are figuring out how to make fracking more and more environmentally friendly.

Since 2003, the cost of natural gas, relative to oil, has decreased by 75%. And we have an enormous supply of the stuff. Assuming that the environmental hurdle is reached, we have the opportunity to become energy independent. The economic benefits that would come from generating our own energy are enormous.

If the recent fracking advances had the ability to do that, energy prices would already have been driven down and certainly not have gone up the way they did recently.

Your link is already a 1 and half old. Technology that had a reasonable likelihood of making the US energy independent, at current energy prices, would have had massive affects on the global energy market.

[mardi gras skin]

And we should double down on our H-1B visas.

---------- Post added June-5th-2011 at 05:13 PM ----------

If the recent fracking advances had the ability to do that, energy prices would already have been driven down and certainly not have gone up the way they did recently.

Your link is already a 1 and half old. Technology that had a reasonable likelihood of making the US energy independent, at current energy prices, would have had massive affects on the global energy market.

I don't think so. There's still a very high likelihood that our government will not embrace hydraulic fracturing for environmental reasons and it obviously hasn't invested in the infrastructure changes needed to make use of it. If there is a mood shift in Washington on those two issues, energy prices would react dramatically.

[twa]

In terms of the USA generating an economic technology based boom, we should become the worldwide leaders in nanotechnology.

We aren't now?

[sportjunkie07]

We aren't now?

its unsure. we invest a lot in it, so does japan.

i just think it would be something good for our country to heavily invest in. it is applicable to so many fields.

[Hubbs]

its unsure. we invest a lot in it, so does japan.

i just think it would be something good for our country to heavily invest in. it is applicable to so many fields.

Definitely agree with you there. If nanotechnology is even remotely close to what some scientists envision, it could change just about everything.

(Of course, if it's even remotely close to what some scientists envision, it could also lead to the robot revolution that kills us all. So, um, there's that.)

[PeterMP]

And we should double down on our H-1B visas.

---------- Post added June-5th-2011 at 05:13 PM ----------

I don't think so. There's still a very high likelihood that our government will not embrace hydraulic fracturing for environmental reasons and it obviously hasn't invested in the infrastructure changes needed to make use of it. If there is a mood shift in Washington on those two issues, energy prices would react dramatically.

So we should go forward w/ irregardless of the possible environmental problems? How haven't we embraced it? Isn't fracking for the most part going on w/o any regulation?

I'm not sure what you mean by infrastructure.

I don't think there is a lot of evidence that our government doesn't allow safe activities to go forward. Our environmental policy is pretty much reactionary, and I think that is essentially what is happening with fracking.

Just looking at wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas#United_States

"A study by MIT says that natural gas will provide 40% of America's energy needs in the future, from 20% today, thanks in part to the abundant supply of shale gas."

I haven't read the study, but I'll bet they are planning on increased US energy consumption and increased oil prices due to ME output not keeping up with demand (if not and out in out decrease in ME oil). I'll bet they aren't talking about drastic reductions in energy prices.

The other thing about energy is that history tells us that lower the energy prices, the less effecient we are (e.g. people drive bigger cars). If we were talking about some way of producing huge amounts of new energy cheaply that might be different story, or if the government would hold the line on effeciency, but I wouldn't plan on that happening.

[mardi gras skin]

So we should go forward w/ irregardless of the possible environmental problems?

That's not what I said.

How haven't we embraced it? Isn't fracking for the most part going on w/o any regulation?

Right now, there is a fight going on between the States and the EPA as to who should take the lead on regulation going forward. We don't know how this will play out or how the regulations will affect production.

I'm not sure what you mean by infrastructure.

Even at current levels of production, we have a glut of natural gas. Companies are trying to figure out how to ship LNG oversees (where Nuclear power is falling out of favor) because we don't have the means to make use of it here.

With an investment in our infrastructure, we could convert all our centralized auto fleets (state and federal vehicles, taxis, transit buses, company vans, etc.) and 18 wheelers that run along the same routes into LNG vehicles. Electric and battery innovations are never going to meet the needs of 18 wheelers. But domestic natural gas could. If we see commuter cars continue to innovate towards electricity and long haulers move towards LNG, we really could end foreign oil consumption.

[twa]

there are numerous ways infrastructure can be expanded

http://www.itsnotmagicitsscience.com/science.asp?newsid=225

http://hornrivernews.com/2009/10/14/shells-5-billion-floating-lng-platform/

btw converting shipping to NG would do more to clean the air than electric cars.

[December90]

This will be the new norm. The demographics are poised to put Dems in power permanently and it will happen sooner than everyone thinks.

The Dependent class needs to continue to reelect their Robin Hoods to steal from those evil "Rich" to give to the "Deserving" poor.

As the old saying goes, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can pretty much count on the support of Paul.

[DRSmith]

The Dependent class needs to continue to reelect their Robin Hoods to steal from those evil "Rich" to give to the "Deserving" poor.

As the old saying goes, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can pretty much count on the support of Paul.

Do the poor just put money in banks accounts and do nothing or do they spend it, which creates demand which leads to jobs and more revenues and the money ends up where it was before does it not?

[December90]

Do the poor just put money in banks accounts and do nothing or do they spend it, which creates demand which leads to jobs and more revenues and the money ends up where it was before does it not?

So if I steal from you in order to be able to afford to buy what you are selling, you are fine with that because you end up with your money back?

[NoVaO]

So if I steal from you in order to be able to afford to buy what you are selling, you are fine with that because you end up with your money back?

I just don't know what to say to this. This is crazy. The laws and tax code in this country were designed to benefit the very rich. They are the ones who hold all the power in Washington. A return to the tax rates under Clinton is not stealing. It is taking the tax code back to at least some semblance of fairness.

There are 400 families that own more wealth than the bottom 50% of Americans combined. It's hard to even fathom that. The top 1% is the only income bracket where wages have significantly increased over the last 30 years. Everybody else has seen wages that have been stagnant and not keeping up with inflation.

The top 1% is the only income bracket that saw their wealth increase after the Great Recession.

I think it's obvious that the rich have been stealing from everybody else and we want our money back. They have gamed the system with lobbyists and campaign donations to get whatever they want. That has to change.

If I wanted to live in an aristocracy, I would live in Pakistan.