The Future Issue New World Disorder The Next Gen Internet So long, Saudi Arabia

For half a century, the global energy supply's center of gravity has been the Middle East. This fact has had self-evidently enormous implications for the world we live in -- and it's about to change.

By the 2020s, the capital of energy will likely have shifted back to the Western Hemisphere, where it was prior to the ascendancy of Middle Eastern megasuppliers such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in the 1960s. The reasons for this shift are partly technological and partly political. Geologists have long known that the Americas are home to plentiful hydrocarbons trapped in hard-to-reach offshore deposits, on-land shale rock, oil sands, and heavy oil formations. The U.S. endowment of unconventional oil is more than 2 trillion barrels, with another 2.4 trillion in Canada and 2 trillion-plus in South America -- compared with conventional Middle Eastern and North African oil resources of 1.2 trillion. The problem was always how to unlock them economically.

But since the early 2000s, the energy industry has largely solved that problem. With the help of horizontal drilling and other innovations, shale gas production in the United States has skyrocketed from virtually nothing to 15 to 20 percent of the U.S. natural gas supply in less than a decade. By 2040, it could account for more than half of it. This tremendous change in volume has turned the conversation in the U.S. natural gas industry on its head; where Americans once fretted about meeting the country's natural gas needs, they now worry about finding potential buyers for the country's surplus.

Meanwhile, onshore oil production in the United States, condemned to predictions of inexorable decline by analysts for two decades, is about to stage an unexpected comeback. Oil production from shale rock, a technically complex process of squeezing hydrocarbons from sedimentary deposits, is just beginning. But analysts are predicting production of as much as 1.5 million barrels a day in the next few years from resources beneath the Great Plains and Texas alone -- the equivalent of 8 percent of current U.S. oil consumption. The development raises the question of what else the U.S. energy industry might accomplish if prices remain high and technology continues to advance. Rising recovery rates from old wells, for example, could also stem previous declines. On top of all this, analysts expect an additional 1 to 2 million barrels a day from the Gulf of Mexico now that drilling is resuming. Peak oil? Not anytime soon.

The picture elsewhere in the Americas is similarly promising. Brazil is believed to have the capacity to pump 2 million barrels a day from "pre-salt" deepwater resources, deposits of crude found more than a mile below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean that until the last couple of years were technologically inaccessible. Similar gains are to be had in Canadian oil sands, where petroleum is extracted from tarry sediment in open pits. And production of perhaps 3 million to 7 million barrels a day more is possible if U.S. in situ heavy oil, or kerogen, can be produced commercially, a process that involves heating rock to allow the oil contained within it to be pumped out in a liquid form. There is no question that such developments face environmental hurdles. But industry is starting to see that it must find ways to get over them, investing in nontoxic drilling fluids, less-invasive hydraulic-fracturing techniques, and new water-recycling processes, among other technologies, in hopes of shrinking the environmental impact of drilling. And like the U.S. oil industry, oil-thirsty China has also recognized the energy potential of the Americas, investing billions in Canada, the United States, and Latin America.

Dieter Spannknebel/Getty Images

 

Amy Myers Jaffe is director of the Baker Institute Energy Forum at Rice University and co-author of Oil, Dollars, Debt, and Crises: The Global Curse of Black Gold.

THOMAS_PP

1:58 AM ET

August 15, 2011

I sure hope all that oil and

I sure hope all that oil and gas stays in the ground - otherwise climate change might get even worse than projected.

 

LORDMOCK

6:13 AM ET

August 15, 2011

Really?

Do you drive?
Do you own a car?
Do you use any kind of gas powered conveyance?
Do you own a bicycle with tires and plastic parts?
Do you have any plastic cups or plates in your cabinets?
Are you right now using a keyboard with plastic keys?
Are you using a touch screen with plastic components?
Do you use any thing made of plastic?
Do you use any electronics?
Are you using electricity right now?
Our modern society runs on oil and coal, we are nowhere near the level of advancement necessary for us to compete with the rest of the lesser advanced world with just us going green. If we fail and Europe fails than we loose the foundations of our modern world, it will not be pretty, it will not be some hippy love fest, it will be the beginning of a modern dark age and just like the first dark age human advancement will not only stall but go careening backwards. What happens when there is no gps, no functioning cell system, no power grid, what happens when we look at cell towers, and roads, and even skyscrapers in the same way medieval Europe looked at the Roman roads, aqueducts, and the coliseum?

 

AKATHIST

9:02 AM ET

August 15, 2011

Oh, good point, driving our

Oh, good point, driving our cars for the next 100 years is definitely worth the upcoming Holocene extinction event.

 

JAREDTROTTIER

9:05 AM ET

August 15, 2011

Really??

That is what is going to happen if we just continue to use non-renewable resources. The current governments and their policies are not striving hard enough for a better transition into a renewable energies. If we continue to use these depleting resources they will be gone in our lifetime creating not only a systematic shock to our current system, but also a shock to our environment. Scientist predict that with the rising temperatures that the environment that we are used to will change dramatically in the next 100 years.

The article assumes that the United States will become "the world capitol of energy" through further exploration of our on oil resources. What might better give us this title would be through investment and development in renewable resources. but considering the fact that the united states has a capitalist economic system, we will continue to exploit our natural resources, shore's and oceans, as well as the countless environments that have been protected from this sort of thing.

 

LORDMOCK

9:52 AM ET

August 15, 2011

Extinction event

because we all know that the gradual rise of temperatures over the course of decades is far worse than a sudden asteroid impact or mega volcano.

 

LORDMOCK

10:11 AM ET

August 15, 2011

Do it now or you'll die

Ok I agree that the very structure and nature of the fuels we use and the way we distribute and generate power has to change, but to act like it has to be done within the decade or were all doomed is unrealistic, it’s basically like telling a 5 year old he has to grow up in one month or he’ll die.

 

AKATHIST

10:12 AM ET

August 15, 2011

Wow... just wow...

So what if there is a megavolcano or an asteroid impact? If it hits, it hits. It's out of our control. But rising global temperatures are not.

 

LORDMOCK

10:56 AM ET

August 15, 2011

Control is an illusion

That would depend on what you consider under your control?
One we barley even control ourselves let alone the rest of the world.

 

LORDMOCK

11:08 AM ET

August 15, 2011

We are not but a blip

And two what in the history of this worlds fluctuating climate changes gives you indication that we can even accurately measure our impact let alone control that impact. In the large picture that is the timeline of earth we are a plip and so far that massive impact is nothing but an upswing in a graph that has had peaks fare greater in magnitude than now and longer than the entire timeline of human existence.

 

FP_READER

1:29 PM ET

August 15, 2011

Irrelevent

The world civilization will grind to a halt anyway when farmlands become barren, devastating storms make coastal areas uninhabitable and endless wars flare for ever decreasing amounts of clean water.

Fossil fuels are unsustainable in so many ways....

 

LIFEISLIFE

5:11 PM ET

August 20, 2011

get em back

The only support our troops need now is to have a fast withdrawal from Iraq to get them out of harms way. So the point is that the American Enterprise Institute symbolizes the intersection of Oil and War, which are the two most menacing threats to the future of America. We are not talking about trading handmade jewelry, this is about lives we're loosing there...

 

LORDMOCK

2:02 PM ET

August 15, 2011

what is relevent?

What was the last named storm to actually hit the coast?
Countries that purify water and irrigate what was once desert are attacked for their beliefs more than for resources.
Starvation and famine occur more due to government mismanagement and corruption not a lack of food

 

RAPID2

9:52 PM ET

August 16, 2011

"Iran produced more than 6

"Iran produced more than 6 million barrels a day in the times of the shah, but saw oil production fall precipitously below 2 million barrels a day in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It failed to recover significantly during the 1980s and has only crept back to 4 million in recent years."

A comment that doesn't mention the embargoes on Iran that have prevented their increasing exports or improving their extraction infrastructure.

 

IMANT

5:56 AM ET

August 18, 2011

It seems that people find

It seems that people find more and more ways to suck the energy from the earth. But really, how much longer can it go on? How much do we have? I just wonder how much money the goverment spends on the technologies that will help to get the most natural resources and compare it with the sum that is spent on the developing of the renewable resources. The population is growing, we need more and more resources, but they are not bottomless and some day we, or our children will find themselves at the dry well.
howtogetacarloan

 

NULIZ

10:43 AM ET

August 18, 2011

Look to the sky

Why oh why we are looking to the ground instead of the sky? Lets leave that oil to the mother earth and make energy from sun, wind and so on. Oil will end faster than most of us could imagine, it's most likely that will happen in our live time. kreditai.

 

KHUTCH451

11:08 AM ET

August 18, 2011

Idiots

This is my first time in the comment section of Foreign Policy. I had expected intelligent discourse, as one finds in the American Interest. Instead I find sheer idiocy, on both sides of the argument.

You people haven't even the rudimentary skills of spelling and grammar, let alone of crafting a rational argument. Even the right-wing Pajamas Media features more sensible responses than I find here.

I guess I won't be signing up for that subscription after all.

 

STEVEN KOPITS

11:43 AM ET

August 18, 2011

Oil Production Outlook

I think it's fair to say the US technology will drive the oil business in the future. It's probably also fair to say that US producers will validate new drilling and extraction models.

Beyond that, it's less clear. I think we'll see significant shale oil drilling in China, starting in 2012, I would guess. I would also imagine Russia also has significant shale oil reserves. So I think it fair to say that the US may be an early leader, but less clear that others will not up their game in return.

Just this morning, we prepared a model looking at the impact of shales on global supply and demand for a client. It could be big, big enough to keep up with low end demand forecasts by 2020 or so. However, if demand develops as we anticipate, shale oils will fill only about half the gap, even if they're a roaring success.

 

LMADSTER

10:52 AM ET

August 20, 2011

World Capital of Energy? Not Without a New Growth Model

Agreed, Amy.

With all the hand-wringing about peak oil in the headlines and the run up in gas prices, few Americans bother to take the time to do the simple math that shows that the United States is awash in energy resources and is potentially energy self-sufficient. Forget petroleum from oil wells; total U.S. energy reserves that count coal, oil sand, oil shale, natural gas, and offshore gas hydrates inside America’s borders can be measured in the thousands of years. Many of our economic competitors also have vast reserves in one or two of these non-conventional energy sources, but the United States is unique in the amount and diversity of the energy resources within its borders and the technical ability to economically extract that energy, with minimal impact on the environment.

The United States is in fact the “Saudi Arabia” of oil shale thanks to our vast reserves in the Midwest. Gas hydrates off the East Coast of the United States alone hold at least a thousand years’ supply of natural gas.

In green renewable energy, the United States is holding a technically strong hand. While environmentalists today waste their energy touting loud, lumbering, inefficient, unreliable, unscalable windmills that defile the landscape, defoliate the land beneath them and kill off the local bird population, the future of green energy is more likely to be microscopic, oil excreting algae (oilgae) and is likely to come from the same oil conglomerates we know and love today. The United States is the runaway leader in researching and developing sustainable, environmentally benign, low-cost green energy from genetically-modified (GM) algae.

When scaled to production levels, these little critters can soak up massive amounts of CO2 and secrete billions of barrels of light, sweet Texas crude that is burnable in the very same internal combustion engines we use today.
Oil producing algae converts solar radiation most efficiently in the warm baths of undrinkable and unusable brackish water that lies in abundance beneath the remote, unpopulated, sun-drenched, semi-arid steppes of America’s southwest.

The United States is still the leader in the entrepreneurial arts: discovery, innovation, risk-taking, finance, and marketing.

We have the wherewithal to make the twenty-first century a Second American Century.

But if we do not get America off the bench and back in the game, our demographic advantage will be squandered by the unresolved problem of illegal immigration and the political inability to implement a rational legal immigration policy that recruits critical talent and skills from abroad. Our green energy potential and entrepreneurial skills will amount to nothing if we are unable to drive green innovation with a rational price on carbon. And any breakthroughs that we do achieve in green energy or in any other technology are likely to be quickly transferred to and monetized by China and India unless we shift the burden of taxes and healthcare away from production towards consumption.

This is where the LMAD plan comes in.

Plan Blog: letsmakeadeal-thebook.com/

Facebook: facebook.com/pages/Lets-Make-A-Deal-The-Book/143298165732386

Twitter: twitter.com/#!/lmadster

Or just Google “LMADster” for more info.

 

LMADSTER

10:53 AM ET

August 20, 2011

World Capital of Energy? Not Without a New Growth Model

Agreed, Amy.

With all the hand-wringing about peak oil in the headlines and the run up in gas prices, few Americans bother to take the time to do the simple math that shows that the United States is awash in energy resources and is potentially energy self-sufficient. Forget petroleum from oil wells; total U.S. energy reserves that count coal, oil sand, oil shale, natural gas, and offshore gas hydrates inside America’s borders can be measured in the thousands of years. Many of our economic competitors also have vast reserves in one or two of these non-conventional energy sources, but the United States is unique in the amount and diversity of the energy resources within its borders and the technical ability to economically extract that energy, with minimal impact on the environment.

The United States is in fact the “Saudi Arabia” of oil shale thanks to our vast reserves in the Midwest. Gas hydrates off the East Coast of the United States alone hold at least a thousand years’ supply of natural gas.

In green renewable energy, the United States is holding a technically strong hand. While environmentalists today waste their energy touting loud, lumbering, inefficient, unreliable, unscalable windmills that defile the landscape, defoliate the land beneath them and kill off the local bird population, the future of green energy is more likely to be microscopic, oil excreting algae (oilgae) and is likely to come from the same oil conglomerates we know and love today. The United States is the runaway leader in researching and developing sustainable, environmentally benign, low-cost green energy from genetically-modified (GM) algae.

When scaled to production levels, these little critters can soak up massive amounts of CO2 and secrete billions of barrels of light, sweet Texas crude that is burnable in the very same internal combustion engines we use today.
Oil producing algae converts solar radiation most efficiently in the warm baths of undrinkable and unusable brackish water that lies in abundance beneath the remote, unpopulated, sun-drenched, semi-arid steppes of America’s southwest.

The United States is still the leader in the entrepreneurial arts: discovery, innovation, risk-taking, finance, and marketing.

We have the wherewithal to make the twenty-first century a Second American Century.

But if we do not get America off the bench and back in the game, our demographic advantage will be squandered by the unresolved problem of illegal immigration and the political inability to implement a rational legal immigration policy that recruits critical talent and skills from abroad. Our green energy potential and entrepreneurial skills will amount to nothing if we are unable to drive green innovation with a rational price on carbon. And any breakthroughs that we do achieve in green energy or in any other technology are likely to be quickly transferred to and monetized by China and India unless we shift the burden of taxes and healthcare away from production towards consumption.

This is where the LMAD plan comes in.

Plan Blog: letsmakeadeal-thebook.com/

Facebook: facebook.com/pages/Lets-Make-A-Deal-The-Book/143298165732386

Twitter: twitter.com/#!/lmadster

Or just Google “LMADster” for more info.

 

RAUCOUSROOSTER

1:22 PM ET

August 21, 2011

Peak Oil, Peak Oil, Wherefore Art Thou Peak Oil?

This article and many of these comments rest on a foundation of willful ignorance at best. Or, Jaffe's piece is simply another in an endless stream of reassuring lies. They're told so often, so incessantly, reaffirming mainstream notions that we live in a world of infinite resources (if we'd only get those idiotic regulators and enviros out of the way), that they acquire a veil of comfortable respectability and allow the already comfortable to sleep at night.

If finding the truth of the matter and discovering solutions to long-brewing energy problems are the desire, then you simply cannot have this discussion without addressing the subject of oil depletion and the now-fulfilled prophecy of Hubbert's Peak. We are now well beyond that peak in liquid fuels production and the age of cheap and easy oil is gone, rapidly fading in our rear view, if only we'd bother to look.

Without replacement sources of continually growing, cheap energy we will never again achieve anything near the kind of economic growth that post-WWII generations have enjoyed. Nor can our climate afford to have those carbons unleashed. If the Keystone XL pipeline is completed, allowing Petro Canada to ship its oil from the Gulf of Mexico to China and other high demand countries in Asia (it will not be sold to the U.S.), then future generations are cooked. Climate change and oil depletion will kill industrial agriculture whether we like it or not, because the industry is so utterly dependent upon dwindling fossil fuel inputs and lacks resilience in the face of climate extremes and irregularities, which are proliferating. Regardless, however, we will all be significantly poorer in the future than we are now. But if we recognize this fact, there is much we can do to prepare.

None of the shale, tar sands, deepwater oil and other technologically complex, environmentally destructive, expensive oil projects will suffice - their energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROI) is far too low. At the beginning of the oil age the EROI for most wells was around 100 to 1 - it required the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil to produce 100 barrels. Now it's around 10 to one for most newer projects and sinking, as they grow more complex and destructive. As they approach an EROI of 3 to 1 they will simply be abandoned, as they will require far too much capital and energy to return their investment. There are no magical technological fixes to our energy dilemma. Alternative energies and conservation will slow our descent and soften the blow of hitting the energy floor.

It's true there are enough energy resources in the ground on this planet. The problem is, much of that embodied energy will remain in the ground because we won't have the oil or capital necessary to obtain more. Nor can the planet's climate afford it.

If you don't buy this argument, that's fine - healthy skepticism's an intellectual necessity and a great survival tool. But do yourself a favor and look into the mainstream research on the subject of Peak OIl conducted by the Pentagon, GAO, British MoD, DOE, Lloyd's of London, the Bundeswehr and others before drawing your conclusions. Though these reports and others have appeared briefly in the mainstream they ought to be front page news, as we should have been preparing for oil depletion since at least the end of the Cold War. The DOE's Hirsch Report, for example, suggested that we need twenty, or ten years, at a minimum, to adequately mitigate the political and economic collapse and chaos that will be caused as demand begins to greatly exceed supply. And they predicted this would begin to occur in the vicinity of 2012 to 2015. Hopefully they're wrong and a weakened economy will slow the process as we've barely even begun to have this discussion.

But the insurance industry, the Pentagon, oil companies and others are busily preparing for a world of vastly diminished oil resources. Why aren't we?

Foreign Policy has a long and storied history of emitting reassuring lies about our righteous role in the world and perpetuating myths of American exceptionalism. And in that vein this article is a job well done. But I prefer to examine the uncomfortable truths and prepare for the future.

 

ANARCISSIE

6:09 PM ET

August 21, 2011

The Prospects for Empire

Back in the day, one of the motivations for the 'Great Game' of imperial conquest in the Middle East was the oil. The World Wars damaged Russia and Britain, the main contestants, sufficiently to allow the U.S. to take the prize without a great deal of effort.

But if all that other oil pops out of the void, already under U.S. control, will this mean the Middle East, Angola, Venezuela are no longer of interest -- the kind of interest that brings the Marines? After all, if we've got the oil, what do we need them for? No more Empire?

I kind of doubt it. 'The riot squad is restless, it needs somewhere to go' probably applies to the U.S. military machine, too.

 

BABA BOO

2:12 PM ET

August 26, 2011

Perhaps somewhat misleading

Prof Jaffe:

It would have been helpful if you had sourced some of your facts. I take it that your estimate for oil-shale in place in the US is from the 2005 USGS study, "Geology and Resources of Some World Oil-Shale Deposits." (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5294/pdf/sir5294_508.pdf) It's worth noting that the more recent USGS estimate of in-situ shale oil is double that at 4.4 trillion barrels. (http://energy.usgs.gov/OilGas/UnconventionalOilGas/OilShale.aspx)

However, in place oil is not the same as technically-recoverable oil, and the estimates for that in the US, though growing, are far less than 4.4 trillion, or even, IIRC, 2+ trillion barrels. (In order to get that number I'd have to add up all the recent studies, which I don't have time to do just now, but I think I'm on solid ground when I say it's a fair bit less.)

But, beyond that, "technically recoverable undiscovered" shale oil is given as the mean of the estimates between 5%, 50%, and 95%, which ends up as more oil than there is a 50% chance probability of discovering. That is, 50% is less than the mean. Proven reserves, or 95% probability, are much lower than that.

But, beyond that, "technically recoverable," as you know, means oil that is recoverable using current technology irrespective of the cost. The more difficult to recover oil is uneconomical at current prices and technology.

I think you are right to be optimistic that technology will improve making more and more oil economically recoverable over time. But, as more continuous oil enters the system, higher prices making them economical could reverse to as low as $40/b (or even less) which would make much of those reserves uneconomical.

I don't mean to quibble with your broad point, as in "watch this space" or even that the center of gravity of the petroleum business might shift back to the Western Hemisphere. But I'd be surprised if any time soon there would be a full shift, a re-balancing seems more likely.

As others have pointed out, the environmental costs of unconventional oil production need to be addressed. I think you are right to be optimistic about the evolution of technology in that regard--and pessimistic about transportation fuel substitutions (or pessimism I so infer)--but they are valid concerns from the geopolitical perspective on the industry as it goes forward.

 

BABA BOO

2:12 PM ET

August 26, 2011

Perhaps somewhat misleading

Prof Jaffe:

It would have been helpful if you had sourced some of your facts. I take it that your estimate for oil-shale in place in the US is from the 2005 USGS study, "Geology and Resources of Some World Oil-Shale Deposits." (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5294/pdf/sir5294_508.pdf) It's worth noting that the more recent USGS estimate of in-situ shale oil is double that at 4.4 trillion barrels. (http://energy.usgs.gov/OilGas/UnconventionalOilGas/OilShale.aspx)

However, in place oil is not the same as technically-recoverable oil, and the estimates for that in the US, though growing, are far less than 4.4 trillion, or even, IIRC, 2+ trillion barrels. (In order to get that number I'd have to add up all the recent studies, which I don't have time to do just now, but I think I'm on solid ground when I say it's a fair bit less.)

But, beyond that, "technically recoverable undiscovered" shale oil is given as the mean of the estimates between 5%, 50%, and 95%, which ends up as more oil than there is a 50% chance probability of discovering. That is, 50% is less than the mean. Proven reserves, or 95% probability, are much lower than that.

But, beyond that, "technically recoverable," as you know, means oil that is recoverable using current technology irrespective of the cost. The more difficult to recover oil is uneconomical at current prices and technology.

I think you are right to be optimistic that technology will improve making more and more oil economically recoverable over time. But, as more continuous oil enters the system, higher prices making them economical could reverse to as low as $40/b (or even less) which would make much of those reserves uneconomical.

I don't mean to quibble with your broad point, as in "watch this space" or even that the center of gravity of the petroleum business might shift back to the Western Hemisphere. But I'd be surprised if any time soon there would be a full shift, a re-balancing seems more likely.

As others have pointed out, the environmental costs of unconventional oil production need to be addressed. I think you are right to be optimistic about the evolution of technology in that regard--and pessimistic about transportation fuel substitutions (or pessimism I so infer)--but they are valid concerns from the geopolitical perspective on the industry as it goes forward.

 

HANS HOWARD

12:50 PM ET

August 30, 2011

Oh, Really? I dunno if this will make me happy!

Oil is starting to be in demand. Not in demand, but super in demand. We use oil almost everywhere and everyday. I stumbled upon this article when I was about to order watches online for some of my crew. We will be exploring more lands and seas for oil in the next month.

 

BRANDO2012

8:11 AM ET

August 31, 2011

Amy, take note off RAUCOUSROOSTER comment!

Amy,

RAUCOUSROOSTER couldn't be more spot on, Peak Oil isn't on it's way, its already here!

We need all the new oil your talking about the USA producing to come online right now just to mak up for depleting worldwide oil wells and the increase demand. If not not will you only see global economic oblivion from a parabolical rise in the price of oil, but this time you will also see little change in the oil price unlike the oil price collapse of 2008.

I mean Amy, really you've created a feel good story based on hope, misconception and best case senarios, when in reality all mathematical evidence is pointing to an immenent and unyielding oil supply and cost based crisis....but it only takes basic investigative journalism to figure that one out.

 

RHEYANNA

4:28 PM ET

September 2, 2011

Electronics will win

With all the electronic advances in todays world i'm sure that it is all figured out what will power us into the next century.
Whether it is sustainable or not only time will tell, If it is not oil it will be natural gas.
The US is just biding its time waiting for the oil to run out.

 

NMSRJAGMH

10:37 AM ET

September 4, 2011

Shouldn't global warming be the primary concern?

What I am more worried about is global warming rather than shortage of oil. Yes true, oil and energy sources are very important but that is because we have become very dependent to them so much so that we become paranoid when we think about the supply of energy finishing. Instead of worrying if the energy supply is enough, why don't we worry if we are pushing our energy demands too high. I mean just take a look at the numbers of car for junk at the scrapyards. The amount of metal and scrap is astounding and we are still churning cars out in the thousands per year. We should carry out more projects for woodworking to prepare ourselves for the times when we have to depend less on machines and electricity. I am not saying we should go back to the stone ages. What I am suggesting is be kinder to the environment and do not take for granted what we have. Reduce our carbon footprint instead of finding more sources of poison for us to pollute the environment. Humans will never change and their greed will never be satiated. The more energy source we find, the more they will demand. Its a vicious cycle that needs to be addressed. God help us all.

 

LOE

8:02 PM ET

September 5, 2011

The Future of Americas

Good to know that the American behemoth has been in the process of acquiring and enhancing its oil and natural gas reserves in the recent times. Just like the nordic naturals ultimate omega, the Americas will provide all-rounded benefits to their economies by boosting their financial quotient further. Considering the recession times looming ahead, the Americas will have a solid USP to fall back upon now and need not seek bailing out by other countries. With their energy leadership reaching its end, the Middle –East might not have much to threaten the world with, the next time they go to war with ‘big’ nations.