Don't count on a US energy boom
Gwynne Dyer says the promise of a new era of cheap and plentiful energy in America is wildly exaggerated, because there is no shale gas 'miracle'
Which of the following statements is true? The US now has a 100-year supply of natural gas, thanks to the miracle of shale gas. By 2017, it will again be the world's biggest oil producer. By 2035, it will be entirely "energy independent", and free in particular from its reliance on Middle Eastern oil.
Unless you've been dead for the past couple of years, you've been hearing lots of enthusiastic forecasts like this, but not one of them is true. They are generally accompanied by sweeping predictions about geopolitics that are equally misleading.
For example, we are assured that the US, no longer dependent on Arab oil, will break its habit of intervening militarily in the Middle East, since what happens there will no longer matter to Washington. We're also told that this new era of cheap and plentiful energy from fossil fuels will also result, alas, in sky-high greenhouse gas emissions and runaway global warming.
These statements are based on quite mistaken assumptions. The original error is the belief that "fracking" - hydraulic fracturing of underground formations of shale rock to release the gas trapped within them - has fundamentally transformed the energy situation of the US. Huge amounts are being invested in the newer shale plays like the Eagle Ford formation in Texas and the Marcellus in Pennsylvania, but the numbers just don't add up.
Production of shale gas has soared in the US in the past 10 years, but it is only compensating for the decline in conventional gas production in the same period. Moreover, while the operators' calculations assume a 40-year productive lifetime for the average shale gas well, the real number is turning out to be around five to seven years.
That means that in the older shale plays they have to drill like crazy just to maintain current production - and since drilling is very expensive, they aren't making a profit. As Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson told a private meeting six months ago: "We're making no money. It's all in the red."
They are hoping to make a profit, of course, once the gas price recovers from the ridiculous level of US$2 per million British thermal units (Btu) that it fell to in 2009, when a great many people believed this really was a miracle. But it's clear that shale gas is no miracle.
In that case, the prediction that the US will be the world's biggest oil producer by 2017 is nonsense. Even on an ultra-optimistic estimate of how much "unconventional oil" it can eventually get out of the shale formations, it will still be importing a large proportion of its oil in 2035.
And the whole Middle Eastern business is a red herring, because the US does not depend heavily on Middle Eastern oil. Most US oil imports come from the Western hemisphere (Canada, Mexico, Venezuela) or from Africa. Only about a fifth comes from Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait, and virtually none from anywhere else in the Gulf. Whatever America's various wars in the region may have been about, they were not about "security of oil supply".
Which leaves the business about shale gas and oil pushing the world's greenhouse gas emissions over the top. They can't do that, because we are already over the top. We need only continue on our present course, without any growth in "unconventional" oil and gas production, and we will be committed to 2 degrees Celsius of warming within 10 years.
So why are we fed a daily diet of misinformation about energy in general, and shale gas in particular? Because a lot of people have something to sell.
Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist