USA Today sees an oily, gassy rainbow on America’s energy horizon.
“Energy independence isn’t just a pipe dream,” read a large, bold headline on Wednesday’s front. It was draped over an image of oil drums stamped “Made in USA,” laid out like bowling pins in front the US flag.
The nearly 2,000-word cover story, by Tim Mullaney, described the current “energy boom” in great detail—from rising oil production and falling oil imports, to the declining price of natural gas, to increasing exports of refined petroleum products—and reported that it promises to deliver a variety of economic benefits, particularly jobs.
The piece began with a snapshot of Williamsport, a “once-sleepy chunk of north-central Pennsylvania” that’s become “a star on the map of an emerging national energy rush,” with the arrival of 100 new companies and 20-year-olds making over six figures a year. According to the article:
Much of Wall Street and Washington is seized by the hope that the US’s energy future will be as bright as Williamsport’s.
USA Today seems similarly seized. Indeed, there are many reasons to be optimistic about domestic energy production and its economic benefits. But the paper chose, as the central thread for its article, the “most enticing” projection in recent months: a Citigroup report released in March titled “Energy 2020: North America, the New Middle East.” The report, as USA Today put it, predicted that “the US, or at least North America, can achieve energy independence by 2020.”
Actually, the report was clear that at most North America could reach zero net oil imports by 2020. The US won’t get there without Canada. But that’s not really the point. USA Today’s article, while nicely detailed, was just a bit too rosy.
As Michael Levi, an energy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, argued in a May 7 blog post, “Oil and gas euphoria is getting out of hand.” Levi criticized The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, National Review, The Hill, and other outlets for publishing a “gusher of increasingly hyperbolic claims about the revolutionary consequences” of the positive trends in US oil and gas production.
While stressing that the benefits of the boom are manifold—from creating jobs to starting to drive coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, out of the electricity sector—Levi rejected assertions that the boom would reduce US vulnerability to the events in the global market:
What would happen if the United States were to produce all the oil and gas it consumed? Set aside whether this is realistic; it still wouldn’t do the trick. Unless we were prepared to abandon the WTO and NAFTA, shutting the United States oil and gas sectors off from the rest of the world with all the consequences that would entail, we’d still be exposed (though less so than before) to price shocks stemming from the Middle East and elsewhere, and would still be competing with China and others to buy resources on the world market, even if those were produced from underneath our own soil.
Ed Morse, the head of global commodities research at Citi, and the author of the report that became the backbone of USA Today’s article, made a different case in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal in March. Not only does boosting North American production insulate the US from events abroad, he wrote, it could significantly reduce the cost of oil. According to his logic:
The US’s growing crude output is affecting the price difference between the traditionally more expensive light sweet crudes (which yield higher-value products like gasoline) and heavy sour grades.
Excess Canadian crude oil produced from oil sands is expanding at a rate of one million barrels a day every five years. The more that’s produced, the less of a market there will be for oil from Venezuela and some other OPEC member countries with similar-quality oil, requiring them to either curtail production or lower prices. Even if oil prices rise in the medium term, we expect 2020 prices to be no more than $85 per barrel, compared with today’s prevailing global price of $125.
- 1
- 2
Yeah..
Demand for energy is "self-destructive" only in Liberal La La Land...
The idea of consuming anything - especially energy - drives the lefties nuts.
Of course, here in Realityville, there is a direct correlation between energy use and the standard of living. Energy = Work (Physics 101) and the liberals hate the notion of any work actually getting done. Liberals are afflicted with a congenital and acute allergy to work or achievement.
Sure, we should exploit any efficiency in energy consumption - doing so only makes economic sense - but the way to improve the human condition is to discover and exploit MORE energy, not less.
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 17 May 2012 at 11:49 AM
The American Petroleum Institute has tried to encourage a dialogue about increased energy security (not independence). At a Vote 4 Energy discussion in D.C. yesterday, Jim Connaughton eloquently explained the benefits of greater U.S. energy production: http://vote4energy.org/american-made-energy-report. The discussion on the world energy market starts at 0:49:15 and Connaughton's comments start at 0:51:25. He sums it up by saying: "The idea is not [that] we should or must be an island with respect to our production, it’s that we are enjoying more of a share of our own use of this resource made here."
#2 Posted by Linda Rozett, CJR on Thu 17 May 2012 at 02:57 PM
Thanks, Observatory, for a breath of fresh air. But even your smart critique overlooks another way in which USA Today is wildly overly rosy.
My day began with yet another report from a resident of Bradford County, PA driven out by gas drilling. People have become environmental refugees in Bradford, Susquehanna, Washington, and other Pennsylvania counties; some people have become seriously ill due to gas drilling, and over 130 cows and calves have died (see peer-reviewed scientific study, Bamberger/Oswald [Cornell] in New Solutions, January 2012).
There are at least 16 different migratory pathways for fracking fluid and toxic fracking flowback to flow into surface and groundwater, not to mention air, during all stages of drilling, fracking, chemical handling, waste handling, dumping it on the roads legally and illegally; trucking the waste, storing it in open pits, slitting the plastic-lined pits so the waste poisons the ground, etc.
But none of the health or environmental consequences, nor the raging debate about a fracking moratorium in Pennsylvania (NJ, NY, MD and the Delaware River Basin all have moratoria right now) made it into this story. It's kind of like writing about the economics of broad-spectrum pesticides without mentioning or acknowledging harm to wildlife, aquatic life and humans.
In addition, low-income families are being, in some cases, brutalized to make way for the fracking industry. Thirty-two Riverdale families near Williamsport are now being evicted to make way for a fracking water withdrawal facility Aqua America plans to build, beginning June 1st. But 11 of those families, who have absolutely nowhere to go and have not been given any justice by Aqua, want to stay put and don't want the fracking water withdrawal facility to go in. Many of the families are elderly; some folks have disabilities; and all are low-income; some work at jobs they will lose if forced out. This is the fracking reality in Pennsylvania: environmental refugees, social injustice, poisoned water, exploding compressor stations, exploding homes, blowouts, drilling mud spills, and asthma-generating fumes -- and that's only in the early days. It's getting worse. Want to talk about that, USA Today?
more info: www.protectingourwaters.com
#3 Posted by Iris Marie Bloom, CJR on Mon 21 May 2012 at 03:57 PM
Your cover story on May 16th greatly distresses me that you only extol the “positive” aspects of gas drilling and none of the detrimental aspects, of which there are a disproportionately many more. You need to live in the gas fields or merely visit them to realize how horrible this industry actually is. It’s Not the bane for America that they want you to believe. There aren’t millions of people becoming rich over this. Most of the jobs created are low paying, non-family sustaining, long hour jobs or they are filled with company employees from out-of-state. With Act 13 that our misdirected legislature has voted for we now have a gag order put on doctors so they can’t effectively treat people who’ve been injured or have become sick as a result of working or living near a gas well. It’s all about the water. We can live without natural gas, but we can’t live for very long without fresh potable water. THIS is the resource the gas companies are so diligently removing from us without a thought t for our future. What do they care anyway because they’ll be gone and we will be left to fend for ourselves.
#4 Posted by Sue Laidacker, CJR on Tue 22 May 2012 at 09:36 AM