Fracking our way back to a republic?

View 768 Sunday, March 24, 2013

The amazing satellite image which shows how one tiny town (pop. 14,716) has fracked enough oil and gas to light up ‘Saudi America’

http://bit.ly/ZkakPo

Lawrence

There is no real shortage of energy, and the United States does not need to keep large armies in the Middle East to have an energy surplus here. We have the technology and we have the resources. Of course this has been true for a long time, since we have alternatives to oil. Developing domestic oil resources has this advantage: it is politically possible. There are powerful lobby groups very much in favor of developing those resources. This will come out more and more, even in California where the state and local governments are desperate for more revenue: at some point they will figure out that the reason the state is broke although it sits on pools of oil is that we have given ourselves unlimited goodies without providing for ways to pay for them. An oil tax system similar to Alaska’s could solve California’s revenue problems without cutting the inflated salaries and pensions that promise doom for the near future if nothing is done.

Of course there is the risk – some would say certainty – that this is only a temporary fix, and the round after round of raises and pensions and health benefits to state and local employees will continue without end. This amounts to a rejection of the notion that we can have a republic: that we need tutelage from wise rulers who will restrain our unlimited appetites. That, of course, is another discussion for another time. But development of our energy resources would be a lot cheaper than keeping expeditionary forces tasked with keeping order in the Middle East. With domestic energy resources we would have a growing economy – cheap energy and economic freedom will always produce economic growth – and have a chance to build a stable republic. At the moment we face looming economic doom with nothing in sight that can bail us out. That is as true of the US as it is of California. Of course unrest in the Middle East has changed the incentives for the masters of OPEC; if the US is seen as recovering from its dependency on imported oil we may expect other crises.

On the other hand, we have already paid for the Legions who can protect us while we get on with rebuilding the republic.

Things have been slow at Chaos Manor, but they are not stopped.

I have this comment:

Iraq

One alternative would have been to mass the troops at the border and negotiate with Saddam. We do not seem even to have thought of that one, which would have been the first move of the older imperialists.

————————

As I recall Bush Sr. did that. He gave him a deadline – Get out of Kuwait. Saddam pleaded for more time, a delaying tactic. As I recall it was March 15? The deadline passed, we moved in. This shows that gunboat diplomacy won’t work. He would have treated it as a bluff until our guys moved across the border. At that point the fat was in the fire.

Even if it worked it would have been a temporary solution. Once we got him to back off and we went home he would be back to his old tricks, then we would have had to go to all the trouble to do it again, build the coalition, get countries like Egypt to support us. Endless saber rattling, deploying armies and taking them home.

B

I doubt that Saddam would ignore us this time.  Had he done so then it’s on to Baghdad where I would instantly have announced that we are recruiting for the American Foreign Legion: non-citizen soldiers who will never set foot on American soil, but who will receive reasonable retirement benefits after twelve years of honorable service. 

At least my study of history shows this would have had a better chance of good results than bringing in Bremer. 

Fracking our way back to a republic?

Dear Dr. Pournelle,

long time reader, first time writer.

Just a short note, what is actually shown in that image is "flaring". That is, oil is produced by fracking, and the gas that is also produced is flared off as it is not economical to build the infrastructure to bring it to consumers or export it. Domestic US Gas price is currently at $4.

At the same time, LNG prices are around $18 here in Asia, so why is it not economical to build a pipeline to Oregon and a liquefaction terminal there? The economics would work, and there are private companies lining up to to so, but exports are subject to approval by the government, and the government has so far only decided to grant one export license, which I assume was either an oversight or started under the previous administration and could only be delayed, not stopped. Construction (actually conversion of an import into an export terminal) of that terminal in Louisiana is well underway.

There are plans for lots more, including in Oregon to ship out Bakken gas, but none of these plans can go forward, as the Department of Commerce is only going to start the approval process for new export licenses next year. I’m pretty sure they have much more urgent matters to attend to. Note also that government would be legally required to approve exports to all countries with which the US has a free trade agreement (e.g. your friends and allies), so it makes sense not to start the process and drag it out as long as possible. And while they are doing it, natural resources are being wasted to light up North, all because of regulatory uncertainty and intentional foot-dragging.

Keystone got some attention, but really, LNG exports are a much bigger issue, we should watch how this develops. But an example for return to republic it is not.

With best regards from Singapore,

Daniel Gebhardt

No doubt someone has thought of that and is even now lobbying for a way to retrieve that lost energy.  Agreed that it should not go to waste. One does wonder why the current administration is not encouraging such projects.  More revenue, more energy, stable taxes… Thank yuou for the observation. I don’t claim to be an expert on everything, but I can say that my readers collectively know a great deal…