Tapping Shale Reserves, US Would Become World's Top Oil Producer By 2017

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that according to a report by the International Energy Agency, the U.S. will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's leading oil producer by about 2017, will become a net oil exporter by 2030, and will become 'all but self-sufficient' in meeting its energy needs in about two decades — a 'dramatic reversal of the trend' in most developed countries. 'The foundations of the global energy systems are shifting,' says Fatih Birol, chief economist at the Paris-based organization, which produces the annual World Energy Outlook. There are several components of the sudden shift in the world's energy supply, but the prime mover is a resurgence of oil and gas production in the United States, particularly the unlocking of new reserves of oil and gas found in shale rock. The widespread adoption of techniques like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling has made those reserves much more accessible, and in the case of natural gas, resulted in a vast glut that has sent prices plunging. The agency's report was generally 'good news' for the United States says Michael A. Levi, senior fellow for energy and environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, because it highlights the nation's new sources of energy but Levi cautions that being self-sufficient does not mean that the country will be insulated from seesawing energy prices, since those oil prices are set by global markets. The message is more sobering for the planet, in terms of climate change. Although natural gas is frequently promoted for being relatively low in carbon emissions compared to oil or coal, the new global energy market could make it harder to prevent dangerous levels of warming (PDF). 'The report confirms that, given the current policies, we will blow past every safe target for emissions,' says Levi. 'This should put to rest the idea that the boom in natural gas will save us from that.'" The folks over at The Oil Drum aren't quite so optimistic: shale reserves may have an abysmal EROI. And, of course, Global Warming is a liberal myth.

Comments

It's a sad sign of the times

[aurispector]

When the partisan political aspect of an issue is already included in the original post.

Bettter to shut down discussions about AGW before they start! It's settled science!

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[jellomizer]

The problem lies in the fact the issue isn't black and white. Yes fossil fuels cause Global Warming. However we can't get get off the stuff, as Fossil Fuels are a relatively concentrated, and stable form of energy, that can moved and transported and held in long term reserves.
We cannot go off fossil fuels. Alternative energy isn't there yet. In the mean time we need to use it, and if we can get it from politically safer areas all the better. If we don't have to buy oil from the Middle east, we can set back and watch them kill themselves over their petty differences without much intervention from us.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[ByOhTek]

I'm a moderate liberal, but I wouldn't say I hate oil. I would rather say that I would prefer an alternative (def. more in the way of nuclear, the waste, while worse, is more easily contained).

However, I am strongly against drilling for American oil now. I think, when oil starts running really low in other regions, then we should start drilling it. By that point, they'll have exported all their oil at relatively low prices, and we'll be able to export it at much higher prices. It's an investment.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[dave420]

Maybe they didn't like drilling because of the ecological damage drilling causes? If it were gravy they were drilling for, they'd still feel the same. Stop looking at things so simplistically. It's really not helping you look rational.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

The main thing that holds back alternative energy sources is their relative price. The potential is there, but it would require vast investments of money which won't happen until that investment is profitable. However, if the cost of fossil fuels included the cost AGW causes then the equation would be different. If fossil fuel sources were taxed to pay for increasingly frequent events like Sandy then alternative fuels would have a chance sooner.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Joce640k]

The problem lies in the fact the issue isn't black and white. Yes fossil fuels cause Global Warming. However we can't get get off the stuff

Can't? Or don't want to?

Why can't electricity be produced without fossil fuels? A fraction of the current investment in warmongering could build some of those next-gen nuclear power stations that have been discussed here many times. The ones with almost zero safety/waste issues who's theory has been known for decades but none have been built...what's going on there?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Ambassador Kosh]

And who is going to pay the costs of not getting off the stuff? All this environmental damage is not free and it has a real cost in terms of our health (and the money it takes to fix it) and also in terms of damage done directly to us in the form of stronger storms.

Saying that fossil fuels are cheaper is just a way of externalizing the costs. It is letting large businesses make a fortune while our tax dollars go to clean up the damage and the money spent to repair the damage dwarfs the money made from the fuels.

Also we can eliminate fossil fuels for most uses already right now and we are doing very little of that. About half the energy used in a house is just wasted due to poor insulation. No matter what kind of fuel source you have if you throw away a significant fraction of your power you are going to have problems.

We have also developed better battery technology, building technology for cars to make them lighter and stronger and companies like BP keep buying up the patents on them like on lithium polymer batteries.

Sure we can't go 100% off fossil fuels but there is no 100% solution. We can still use a lot more wind, solar, nuclear and combine that with better insulation, EVs for most normal commuter driving and still get at least 80% or more of the way to not using fossil fuels anymore.

This attitude seems pretty defeatist. Since we can't do 100% we might as well do nothing. The problem is the costs of doing nothing are enormous. Even if all we did was spend the kind of money we do on various wars on insulating houses in America it would still make a huge impact in our emissions and reduce our need for fossil fuels by a lot. That even has a better payback for the society that then wars do.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[fustakrakich]

Opium wars go father back than petrol wars. The nature of addiction being what it is makes it a very important product to control.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[h4rr4r]

And sometimes they switch aggressor and victim role back and forth.

Like when they want to bomb Iran for fun, or just dole out a little collective punishment to the Palestinians. As far as I am concerned they are all as guilty as each other.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[h4rr4r]

Some small amount of it in the environment.
We released a lot more than would be natural.

Sure the area will recover, but the immediate economic impact on the people in the area is not acceptable. The economic impact in the short term is for me the biggest problem. The extraction operation cut corners and fishermen were stuck with the bill. That part is not liberal or conservative, it is simple reality. When push comes to shove these companies never pay for the damage they cause those around them.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[sumdumass]

I never did get the wait until everyone else runs out argument.

Eventually, the costs of alternatives like wind and solar will go down (patents and licensing fees will expire, manufacturing materials and costs will lessen with time and mature processing techniques plus increased efficiencies). There will be other discoveries where we can store energy better or extract it from interesting materials or processes not in use today (I like the idea of making hydrogen peroxide then using it to power low temp steam turbines in much the same way compressed air is being used by the storage need is much lower and not geographically limited). This will lead to less demand on oil thereby making the price remain cheaper. There is a somewhat strong global initiative to replace oil because of climate change fears (whether true or not) and we aren't to far from being able to if we didn't care about other things like growing food.

It will be like saving that pound of really good meat for a special day and forgetting it can spoil. Or maybe it's more like those guys who built a time capsule out of an old salt mine and placed a car and other items so they would be in mint condition and valuable when they opened it after 50 just to find a water source infiltrated the cavern and they were all rust.

I say use it, use it now. Get our energy security within the US, spend money on developing alternatives and we won't have to spend on our military to procure and protect foreign supplies and we won't have to swallow out pride and play nice with brutal dictators trying to ensure that oil flows our direction, Because if we save that botle of milk long enough, it won't be worth drinking.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[ShanghaiBill]

The ones with almost zero safety/waste issues who's theory has been known for decades but none have been built...?

Lots of things that are really simple in theory turn out to be rather complicated in practice. Pebble bed reactors have been mentioned many times as a panacea for nuclear problems. But when the Germans actually build one they had lots of problems that the theorists didn't foresee. The Chinese are trying again, but nobody sees PBRs as a silver bullet anymore. Since the beginning of the nuclear age people have put forth "simple" designs that will solve all our problems and make energy too cheap to meter, but reality keeps getting in the way.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[microbox]

Eventually, the costs of alternatives like wind and solar will go down

Alternative energy will eclipse some traditional energy markets in the next 5 years. (Red-meat conservatives will almost deny that it is happening even as it happens.)

It will be like saving that pound of really good meat for a special day and forgetting it can spoil.

Once oil is used, it is used, and there is carbon pollution in the atmosphere. It will stay there for 1000 years, and there is no sane way to extract it. Burning oil has a negative externality which has /never/ been factored into the cost.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[rhakka]

but external costs are paid via mechanisms that are NOT included in the cost of the fuel.

the medical and pollution aspects of fossil fuel use... to say nothing of the global warming costs and, up until recently, our geopolitical control costs (military)... are all costs associated with oil that we pay for via taxes, insurance premiums, and other mechanisms that don't dissuade oil usage per se.

until those externialities are captured in the cost of a barrel of oil, the playing field against clean alternatives is not level. thus the need for subsidies on clean alternatives. because the free market simply cannot handle external costs in a legitimate way.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[jez9999]

You're right, but why nuclear? Why not something that doesn't have the chance, however remote, of causing armageddon?

Because modern nuclear doesn't have even a remote chance of causing armageddon. The worst crisis in the history of nuclear power gave a few thousand people cancer. The second worst crisis has killed or injured almost nobody, although caused a lot of inconvenience in the area no doubt. No other nuclear failure has caused any health problems worth mentioning, and the ones whose failures were costly to clean up were old, and would not be produced in this day and age.

Nuclear power is the safest energy source per TWh, bar none. Wind power is more deadly.

Modern nuclear can also process existing nuclear waste, which seems like a bit of a win.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[xtal]

Why is it those who complain about nuclear power plants never bat an eye at the ~4000 nuclear warheads aimed at people all over the world, ready to do harm with the press of a button, held in place with the same failsafes they deem insufficient?

Burning oil is stupid. We should be developing nuclear technologies as fast as we can. Instead we'll wait for the oil to be gone.. but I hope we don't wait until we need to use those warheads over oil reserves. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[drinkypoo]

We have the technology to replace gasoline with ethanol

forget ethanol, ethanol is a scam to put money into Monsanto's pockets. Butanol is a 1:1 replacement for gasoline that is made from any organic material by bacteria. BP and DuPont own a holding company called Butamax which they occasionally use to sue Gevo for having the audacity to try to commercially produce butanol over a bullshit patent they never should have been granted on the basis of obviousness.

To properly use ethanol, we need new engines across the board, every single car on the road. We don't have the resources for that retrofit.

First, that is a lot of horseshit. There's lots of engines out there right now that could run on E100 with an additive. You see them out on the road with a little "flex fuel" icon on the back of them that means they can run on E85, not that you can even get that anywhere, nor should you want to. Second, high-compression and direct-injection engines can be modified by re-jetting or by reprogramming the ECU. And even diesels can be run on E95 (5% gasoline) if their compression is high enough, and they have a turbocharger, with a timing change and some tweaks to the fuel delivery, and of course a lubricity additive. Most any IDI diesel with a turbo will work.

Now, replacing diesel with biodiesel or even straight veggie oil, at least in temperate climates, looks much better. The base fuel is easy to make, engine conversion is relatively cheap, and the fuel can even come recycled from restaurants and food factories.

It looks much better because you haven't done it. Veg oil leads to gumming and coking. Biodiesel is a great solution though, as is "green diesel" which is traditional diesel fuel made from veg oil as a feedstock instead of crude. And you can run on veg if you occasionally run on biodiesel to clean your engine, so it's not actually all bad, it's a real working fuel. But it does decrease service lifetimes of a whole lot of parts, and the blowby (there is always blowby) spoils petro-based crankcase lube over time, and so far I have not managed to locate a source for bio-based diesel-grade engine oil in the USA.

Unfortunately, the "environmentalists" who run California are extremely hostile to diesels.

That is extremely true. They are also fairly hostile to biodiesel; they've recently classified vegetable oil as being something close to gasoline in terms of spill hazard. It's not like it's benign, there are issues, but it's nowhere near that bad.

In any case, you should educate yourself regarding biofuels a bit more before making too many declarative statements about them. You clearly haven't done the research.

"Peak Oil"

[argStyopa]

We've heard it before, and we'll hear it again.

"In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010. In 2003 the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes said he was "99% confident" that peak oil would occur in 2004. In 2004, the Texas tycoon T Boone Pickens predicted that "never again will we pump more than 82m barrels" per day of liquid fuels. (Average daily supply in May 2012 was 91m.) In 2005 the investment banker Matthew Simmons maintained that "Saudi Arabia ⦠cannot materially grow its oil production". (Since then its output has risen from 9m barrels a day to 10m, and it has another 1.5m in spare capacity.)" (and that's just since 1975).

Personally, if the US has these sorts of reserves, we're idiots to tap them today. Use it as leverage to keep the Saudis pumping THEIR oil at moderate prices, and exhaust the supplies outside the US before touching our own.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Personally, if the US has these sorts of reserves, we're idiots to tap them today. Use it as leverage to keep the Saudis pumping THEIR oil at moderate prices, and exhaust the supplies outside the US before touching our own.

Unfortunately that's not how Capitalism works. This would be the definition of collusion or the United States government directing private industry not to make money. We're quite far from China in this respect and that's one area I'd like us to stay away from.

Did you know we get more crude oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia?

You are missing one important point: not all 'oil reserves' are created equal. Some are nice, clean, sweet, crude conveniently buried in relatively uncomplicated rocks at moderate depth. Others are a zillion feet underwater, badly dispersed through some formation that makes geologists cry, or in the form of dubiously flammable shale or tar sands that can be coaxed into releasing just slightly more energy than required for the coaxing if you are willing to put up with ghastly byproducts.

The exploitation of different classes of reserves creates externalities of differing severity. Because markets suck at dealing with externalities, we impose some level of regulation designed either to internalize the externalities or to simply forbid activities that cause excessive negative externalities.

It is entirely possible that, if the US oil reserves are nastier, or if the Saudis need the oil money sufficiently badly to impose the externalities on themselves before we do, we would see a situation where less desirable US reserves remain in reserve until foreign reserves are tapped out.

This would be a situation created by regulatory pressures(which I would argue is hardly a bad thing, if it keeps us from experiencing the... cost insensitivity... that accompanies oil development in places like the Niger delta...); but it would hardly require the establishment of the First People's Patriotic Petroleum Five Year Glorious Plan.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[VortexCortex]

I agree. Furthermore: Burning Oil is BAD -- No, hear me out. We should be using it to make plastics and other neat stuff, not wasting it as a fuel. I agree we need to use it now, but think of the future, when alternative energies are viable -- We'll curse ourselves for wasting all that valuable material used to make everything from medical supplies to computer screens. We won't stop pumping oil until every last drop is gone, even if we stop using it as a fuel.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[i kan reed]

You know, I held the same opinion until I decided to do some research to back up my position, and found that only the heaviest oils in the refinement process are any good for plastics(at least the consumer/industrial grade plastics we're used to). Those heavy oils are also the worst ones for burning for energy, with the lightest ones being converted to jet fuel and gasoline.

I'm also pretty impressed with what we're doing with plant-based plastics these days, which are essentially renewable. Not on par with the oil-based plastics, but getting there.

Suffice it to say, I can't really hold that position anymore.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[TubeSteak]

You know, I held the same opinion until I decided to do some research to back up my position, and found that only the heaviest oils in the refinement process are any good for plastics(at least the consumer/industrial grade plastics we're used to). Those heavy oils are also the worst ones for burning for energy, with the lightest ones being converted to jet fuel and gasoline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil#Bunker_fuel
"... bunker oil is literally the bottom of the barrel; the only things more dense than bunker fuel are carbon black feedstock and bituminous residue which is used for paving roads (asphalt) and sealing roofs."

Everything that gets shipped from China arrives on a boat burning bunker fuel aka "Those heavy oils [that] are also the worst ones for burning for energy".

And I don't know where you got the idea that heavy oils are the worst for energy. In the same way that diesel has more energy content than gasoline, bunker fuel has more energy content than diesel. Bunker fuel just requires a lot more pre-treating before it can be used in an engine... which is why it gets sold so cheaply. Nothing smaller than a boat has room for all the extra machinery to heat and filter the fuel.

Put your money where your mouth is

[Anonymous Coward]

Global Warming is a liberal myth.
 
Ok. So stop being a consumer. It's that simple. Sure, it means paying more and putting up with some things that oil consumers don't have to put up with but if you're so concerned than stop buying what they're selling. If enough people do it and if enough money goes into green tech than you'll be able to end the oil industry.
 
If you're waiting for the government to hold your hand than you're going to wait a long time before they really abandon the oil culture. By a long time I'm talking generations.
 
There's your choices. What's your next move? Grumble and accept your fate at the gas pumps or do you become forward thinking and move on from oil? I can tell you where I'd place my bets.

Re:so let met get this straight

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The idea that the US 'imports' oil is a myth promulgated by isolationists.

We simply 'repatriate' American oil that had the ill fortune to be buried under somebody else's sand.

There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient!

[arkham6]

I hate whenever i hear people say "Well, if we drilled more we could be self sufficient from foreign oil and have oil prices come down.

NO, it does not happen that way.

The US government does not drill oil. They lease out the mineral rights to companies such as shell, BP and Exxon who extract the oil and then __sell it on the world market__. Let me say that again. The oil goes into a central market and could be shipped anywhere if the costs are right. Just because its produced here does not mean it stays here.

Another example was Norway after Hurricane Katrina. Their oil and gas prices jumped significantly after the hurricane in the gulf, yet they are a major exporter and producer. Why? Because supply went down after the storm, so prices had to go up. It didnt matter that they got all their own oil, the world markets made the prices go up.

Re:Except

[ocop]

Oil demand in the U.S. (and the OECD more broadly) has declined and flatlined following the "Great Recession". Even in light of the recovery, petroleum consumption has remained essentially flat, with maybe even a slight decline from 2009. The economic shock of 2008's oil prices has violently reoriented the economy in some ways, and it's hard to think of a reason that oil consumption will ever tick back up as new CAFE standards come into effect. The use of oil for heating and power generation has been in decline for decades--the remaining demand is for transportation and petrochemicals. EIA US consumption data here: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WRPUPUS2&f=W

They'd Sell to Other Countries

[GeneralTurgidson]

This post and a lot of comments make it seem like the oil produced would stay in our country and only used by us. Yea right, it would be sold to the highest bidder on the market, which will probably be China in a couple of years. Meanwhile our country is turned into a wasteland from this and fracking.

Shale - the next bubble to pop

[FriendlyLurker]

From here

"The second thing that nobody thinks very much about is the decline rates shale reservoirs experience. Well, I’ve looked at this. The decline rates are incredibly high. In the Eagleford shale, which is supposed to be the mother of all shale oil plays, the annual decline rate is higher than 42%. They’re going to have to drill hundreds, almost 1000 wells in the Eagleford shale, every year, to keep production flat. Just for one play, we’re talking about $10 or $12 billion a year just to replace supply. I add all these things up and it starts to approach the amount of money needed to bail out the banking industry. Where is that money going to come from? Do you see what I’m saying?"

Did I miss something?

[fearofcarpet]

'The report confirms that, given the current policies, we will blow past every safe target for emissions,' says Levi. 'This should put to rest the idea that the boom in natural gas will save us from that.'

Wait, what? There is an idea that natural gas will curb CO2 emissions? Natural gas may burn "cleaner" and it may have a slighter higher energy density, but that doesn't change the equation: CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O. Are we really so bereft of a basic grasp of chemistry to think that the CO2 released from natural gas doesn't count?

The link in TFA to The Oil Drum questions the whether shale oil can be competitive because of the costs associated with extraction; basically that the oil is too spread out in the shale. Those costs certainly aren't stopping them from trying. Why not put those resources into carbon-neutral energy generation? Fracking? Sure, let's give it a go, I'm like 85% sure it won't contaminate aquifers or cause earthquakes. Deep-water drilling? Sure, I like a good challenge and there's no chance that we'll wreck an entire ecosystem. Shale oil? There's only one way to find out if it's profitable! Solarthermal, biomass, photovoltaic, wind, tidal energy, geothermal? I don't know... sounds risky... and kinda hard... I'm not so sure I can make money with any of those... and I already picked out the paint for my new horizontal drilling rig.

The agency's report was generally 'good news' for the United States says Michael A. Levi, senior fellow for energy and environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, because it highlights the nation's new sources of energy but Levi cautions that being self-sufficient does not mean that the country will be insulated from seesawing energy prices, since those oil prices are set by global markets

Why exactly do we need to ramp up oil and gas production when the prices are set by an international cartel? We start pumping fossil fuels into the market and Saudi Arabia and Russia just turn down the facet; prices rise and they're making the same money as before by producing less. Yay, it was worth raping the environment to have no impact on energy prices because we're "self-sufficient" now!

This headline reads to me like "US Would Become World's Top Phone Booth Producer by 2017." Are we all going to act surprised when that hippie fantasy we call a "green economy" becomes a reality for the EU or China? You know, like we were all shocked that Romney performed exactly as the polls predicted.

Am I missing something here?

We're freakin' drug addicts

[BlackPignouf]

We're freakin' drug addicts :
we need our daily dose, and when our shady dealer doesn't play fair, we look beneath the couch.
We find some dirty old bag of crack, and scream "Yeah! We're saved! We solved our problem once and for all!"

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[serviscope_minor]

. The oil goes into a central market and could be shipped anywhere if the costs are right.

That's a myth.

Refineries are generally built to process oil from a particular field, or a particular class of fields. You can't ship tar sands off to a light sweet crude refinery and expect to actually be able to refine them.

It's particularly bad for the heavier ones, like the sands and shales, since each deposit has a different set of impurities, which mean that different catalyst properties are required to avoid poisioning.

Of course, the end products are interchangable: diesel is diesel and Jet A is Jet A. So a failure in one supply means that the price of end producs goes up, so people can charge more for the feedstocks.

Protecting your ignorance

[microbox]

I'm saying that the very same people who bitch about some endangered fly being harmed by an oil rig don't seem to mind when something they like is built on the same spot.

You will be able to find some wacko that reifies your pre-existing beliefs. Then you can think of /all/ environmentalists as a bunch of wacko hypocrites, and indulge in sick fantasies about how environmentalists really kill people with their stupidity.

And then you feel you know something, and therefore don't need to learn anything about what mainstream environmentalists actually think, and what mainstream science actually says, and also some of the successes of the environmental movement.

Buddhists call this protecting your ignorance.

Re:Protecting your ignorance

[paiute]

protecting your ignorance.

New Slashdot motto?

Why did the stone age end?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Did the stone age end because we ran out of stones? Nah, it ended because we found better materials to make the tools, copper and then bronze. Later iron. Then steel.

The age of petroleum, ushered in by the gusher in Titusville Pennsylvania in 1860s, will end with more than half the oil still left in the ground. Oil prices are very unlikely to top 120$ a barrel for sustained periods of time. It might spike to 150$, but will quickly drop back. Shale oil, tar sands oil, oil from coal, etc are all profitable at prices about 100$ a barrel. Solar and wind beat fossil fuels when oil goes above 100$ a barrel.

The only huge problem is energy consumed at fixed points (homes, offices, factories) can be switched to alternative energy relatively easy. But the transportation sector (gasoline for cars, diesel for heavy vehicles, kerosene for aviation) is very heavily dependent on oil. They don't switch to alternative energy easily. But new technologies are emerging. But as the oil price goes up, things will start to change. 90% of the cars are driven less than 60 miles a day. Trucks can stretch the diesel by switching to more efficient diesel-electrics, CNG/LPG and other forms of fossil fuels that are not from Arabia. Arab oil is managed by the big oil companies who know all this. They keep the price to maximize profits without giving a toe hold for the alternative technologies. So it is very unlikely they will let the price spike much above 120$ a barrel. But all their manipulation will just delay the inevitable.

We will leave most of the coal, natural gas and crude oil, in the ground.

Re:Gas is still affordable so far

[SandwhichMaster]

If it (gas) suddenly doubled in price, our economy might collapse.

This is something that doesn't get noticed enough. You can talk about "Drill baby drill", "global warming is a myth", etc. all you want, but at the end of the day, it is wildly unwise to have our entire economy based around one technology. We are much better equipped to handle change if we're diversified.

We've seen oil prices spike too many times not to know better by now.