U.S. Energy Independence

RenovationMan

I've started to see an increasing number of articles on U.S. Energy independence and how some observers think it may become achievable via shale gas/bio fuels, while some feel that securing its energy requirements via more stable countryies such as Mexico, Canada and Brazil is more feasible and achievable.

There are some interesting viewpoints expressed in some of these websites:

Bio Fuels, etc.: http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/
Shale Gas: http://www.thestate.com/2011/12/22/2088805/does-shale-boom-mean-us-energy.html

Given that a lot of the woes of the late 20th and early 21st Century can be laid at the door of the U.S. and their desire to secure their energy supplies, it can surely only be a good thing if the U.S. does achieve some sort of energy independance, even if it just means a reduction in its reliance on Middle Eastern oil?

(I'm hoping AD9898 sees this as I know he'll have some decent insight)

sabretoothtigger

Yes they have enough shale gas but it would mean expense of converting from oil burning.
How many cars do you know running on cooking gas, all of them can but its an upfront extra cost. They dont even use diesel in their big cars

Oil is just the easiest thing to use, until dollar is so weak that they have no choice they are not likely to 'do the right thing'

Fastest growing oil production in 2011 was USA I think, partly due to problems in 2010 maybe but the country has a ton of potential still. Canada is their most likely nearby major source of energy but its harder to get to then the middle east.

There is a big pipeline deal going through at the moment, Obama was kinda blocking it I think. Politics! Like anything it'll take years to take effect.

Bio diesel is real but much more expensive then pumped oil and again it needs investment. Its high technology and development they need to make it from special algae, just using sunflowers wont work sorry

DiggerUK

The USA always has "Energy Security" in every paragraph, of every report it ever does, about it's future energy needs.

And just like other governments, they have shot themselves in the foot with the Global CO2N, and it's resultant green taxes for a solution to a 'problem' that does not exist; they also miss the bigger picture......keeping the lights on.

Shale gas and local oil can be used for a time yet, but the raw materials are finite; nuclear will still be fit for purpose in a thousand years time.

For any looking to invest in future energy suppliers, I suggest you go for anything to do with nuclear power.
My suggestion is based on one premise...it works, and will keep the lights on...simples.
..._

grizzly1911

The US don't really help themselves still hankering after gas guzzling monsters.

By knuckling down on their macho over consumption they might even one day get close to the thread aspiration.

As a PP says as their financial strength weakens they may have no choice but to become mere economical as prices increase relentlessly.

sabretoothtigger

USA has enough Shale gas to replace all power needs for the next 70 years is what I have read. The reserves available are epic, Im sure there is some stumbling points to unlocking it but they have massive oversupply so far as I know

Recently UK has setup a docking point to import liquid gas from Qatar but also USA due to their vast ability to undercut normal European or Russia supply

grizzly1911

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

Recently UK has setup a docking point to import liquid gas from Qatar but also USA due to their vast ability to undercut normal European or Russia supply

Also read they import from the Far EAst too.

That US supply route will be interesting politically and financially going forward. No doubt they will want recompense in some other way.:eek: