Home » Posts tagged 'us energy information agency'
Tag Archives: us energy information agency
IT’S ALL DOWNHILL FROM HERE: U.S. Oil Production Peak Already In The Rear-view Mirror
IT’S ALL DOWNHILL FROM HERE: U.S. Oil Production Peak Already In The Rear-view Mirror
It’s a shame that the drive for U.S Energy Independence only lasted for about a year. Even worse, U.S. Shale Oil Industry responsible for the country’s energy independence is now in serious trouble as the companies have cut drilling by 75% while they are drowning in debt up to the eyeballs. This is a “No-Win” scenario. So, watch over the next 3-6 months as the mighty U.S. Shale Industry begins to implode in glorious 3D-Technicolor.
Amazingly, if it weren’t for the 135,000 shale wells drilled since 2007, U.S. oil production would have remained virtually flat. Yes, that’s correct. Just about all the U.S. domestic oil production growth from 2007 to 2019 came from shale oil (tight oil). Even though there was oil production growth offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, it offset the declines in the states.
According to the EIA, U.S. Energy Information Agency, U.S. shale oil production increased from 500,000 barrels per day (bd) in December 2007 to 8.3 million barrels per day (mbd) in December 2019:
As we can see, the Rest of the U.S. net production only increased by 0.1 mbd since 2007 while shale oil increased 7.8 mbd. Unfortunately, with the U.S. shale oil industry annual decline rate at nearly 50% per year, at some point, the DRILLING HAMSTERS were going to run out of reserves. While this may have been 1-2 years away, the global pandemic pulled the rug from underneath the U.S. Shale Industry.
While I commend that tens of thousands of workers that helped bring on this much-needed oil production, a 50% annual decline rate is not a long-term sustainable business model. Well, unless the Federal Reserve can print more oil reserves. That I would like to see.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Boston Globe: the false promise of nuclear power
Boston Globe: the false promise of nuclear power
Preface. This article raises many objections to nuclear power. Theoretically it could be cheaper, but the exact opposite has happened, it keeps getting more expensive. For example the only new reactors being built in the U.S. now are at Georgia Power’s Vogtle plant. Costs were initially estimated at $14 billion; the latest estimate is $21 billion. The first reactors at the plant, built in the 1970s, took a decade longer to build than planned, and cost 10 times more than expected. The two under construction now were expected to be running 2016, but it’s now unlikely that they’ll be ready in 2022.
The authors also point out that reactors are vulnerable to catastrophes from extreme weather, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis; from technical failure; and unavoidable human error. Climate change has led to severe droughts that shut down reactors as the surrounding waters become too warm to provide the vital cooling function.
And much more.
***
Jay Lifton, Naomi Oreskes. 2019. The false promise of nuclear power. Boston Globe.
Commentators from Greenpeace to the World Bank agree that climate change is an emergency, threatening civilization and life on our planet. Any solution must involve the control of greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels and switching to alternative technologies that do not impair the human habitat while providing the energy we require to function as a species.
This sobering reality has led some prominent observers to re-embrace nuclear energy. Advocates declare it clean, efficient, economical, and safe. In actuality it is none of these. It is expensive and poses grave dangers to our physical and psychological well-being. According to the US Energy Information Agency,the average nuclear power generating cost is about $100 per megawatt-hour. Compare this with $50 per megawatt-hour for solar and $30 to $40 per megawatt-hour for onshore wind. The financial group Lazard recently said that renewable energy costs are now “at or below the marginal cost of conventional generation” — that is, fossil fuels — and much lower than nuclear.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
