You can always be assured that predictions based on extrapolation in systems like energy are always wrong. The claim (that we'll out produce Saudi Aramco by 2020) is bogus.
You read comments like this "U.S. oil imports will drop to about 4 million barrels a day in 10 years from a current average of 10 million because of new production and stricter fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, which will curb demand, Birol said." and you want to say 'Bzzzt! And thanks for playing' as you consider that people with better gas mileage drive more, they don't 'not drive'. The reason is not intuitive (see the Jevon's Paradox [1]) but it is also not unexplainable either.
It will be interesting if significant chunks of our driving population switches to electrics. That is because the electricity production facilities are built on coal, gas, and nuclear and that could shift our consumption needle off oil toward those other forms. But nobody is yet extrapolating even 10% electric car ownership by 2020 much less the 20 - 30% that would be needed to move the numbers on a national scale.
So the the next question is, "OK if this is bogus, why even write it?" and if I had to guess I would say it was a 'feel good' piece about Fracking to try to offset the ever growing evidence that the dangers of hydraulic fracturing require much more oversight and regulation if we want to do it safely. The extraction companies have not shown a particular willingness to choose 'safety' over 'get it done' yet.
> The extraction companies have not shown a particular willingness to choose 'safety' over 'get it done' yet.
I'm not as negative as most people I know on fracking, but I do have some worry that there's a culture like this in place currently. I've been particularly surprised by surface spills/leaks of fracking chemicals in Pennsylvania, which just seems sloppy. If you're trying to convince the public that a fairly new technology, which people have concerns about, is safe and won't contaminate groundwater, you should definitely be sure to get the "easy" parts completely right, such as competently storing chemicals above ground.
>if I had to guess I would say it was a 'feel good' piece about Fracking to try to offset the ever growing evidence that the dangers of hydraulic fracturing require much more oversight and regulation if we want to do it safely
Fracking is indeed extremely dangerous:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09... and many hard to believe promises of jobs and cost reductions in energy have come from the companies and even government. Check out the gasland documentary.
You read comments like this "U.S. oil imports will drop to about 4 million barrels a day in 10 years from a current average of 10 million because of new production and stricter fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, which will curb demand, Birol said." and you want to say 'Bzzzt! And thanks for playing' as you consider that people with better gas mileage drive more, they don't 'not drive'. The reason is not intuitive (see the Jevon's Paradox [1]) but it is also not unexplainable either.
It will be interesting if significant chunks of our driving population switches to electrics. That is because the electricity production facilities are built on coal, gas, and nuclear and that could shift our consumption needle off oil toward those other forms. But nobody is yet extrapolating even 10% electric car ownership by 2020 much less the 20 - 30% that would be needed to move the numbers on a national scale.
So the the next question is, "OK if this is bogus, why even write it?" and if I had to guess I would say it was a 'feel good' piece about Fracking to try to offset the ever growing evidence that the dangers of hydraulic fracturing require much more oversight and regulation if we want to do it safely. The extraction companies have not shown a particular willingness to choose 'safety' over 'get it done' yet.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox