Is the U.S. Awash in Decades Worth of Cheap, Abundant Natural Gas and Oil?
We are about to be deluged with news reports that the U.S. is suddenly awash in decades worth of cheap, abundant supplies of natural gas and oil. Why? Because the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has recently released a preview of their 2014 forecasts in which they predict energy trends within the U.S. through 2040.
The EIA (the official statistical gurus of the U.S. Department of Energy) release a similar report each year—and these are eagerly awaited by energy wonks like myself and breathlessly reported upon by any journalist who loves to read an “official government report” and parrot it as if it were news.
The problem is—these projections are without fail wrong.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
If you look back over previous EIA forecasts, they are remarkable in one respect. Their projections are historically well off the mark. Perhaps even more remarkable is that the media each year report these projections as if they were handed down from Mount Sinai.
So what does the EIA predict is in store for us now?
2014 EIA Forecast Highlights
The 2014 forecast predicts that"
"Growing domestic production of natural gas and crude oil continues to reshape the U.S. energy economy, with crude oil production approaching the historical high achieved in 1970 of 9.6 million barrels per day."
U.S. natural gas production, according to the EIA, will grow 56 percent over the projected period (through 2040). Good news for the oil and natural gas industry.
But what about U.S. energy consumption? Here are the projections (in percent of total consumed):
The predictions show that largely things will remain as they are. It seems that EIA officials have a fairly easy task. Simply look at the data from the past two years, and say that these trends will continue for the next 30 years or so. This is a pattern seen in each annual report.
But, unfortunately for these statisticians, while things are happening over here—other things are happening over there. Imagine in 1975 trying to predict the anticipated sales of typewriters for the next 30 years. Imagine back in 1910 trying to project the sales of horse buggies until 1940. Even the best analysis of historic data is not going to change the fact that the underlying technologies are dramatically changing.
The people creating these reports seem blind to the mega-trends that are reshaping the world's energy landscape. And some of their projections simply boggle the mind. How, for example, can they project that nuclear energy output will remain the same for the next 30 years when a nuclear power plant has a life expectancy of 40 years, no new power plants have been built in the US since 1979 (35 years), – and no new power plants are likely to be built during the next 30 years.
So how well has this forecasting process has worked in the past. As an illustration—let's examine what the EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006 predicted would happen over the coming several decades...
2006 EIA Energy Forecast
"the average world crude oil price continues to rise through 2006 and then declines to $46.90 per barrel in 2014 as new supplies enter the market. It will then rise slowly to $54.08 per barrel in 2025."
In the two years following this EIA projection, the price of crude oil rose to $140 per barrel ... the most dramatic increase in history. Nary a word about this coming upheaval in the forecast. Crude oil prices did then in fact decline. They are now at $94.80 per barrel (as of January 21, 2014).
And what about domestic crude oil production? Well, the EIA predicted it would grow slightly, then fall off fairly dramatically. In 2004, the US was producing 5.42 million barrels of crude oil per day. The 2006 report noted production would increase to 5.84 million barrels per day in 2015, then fall off.
The latest figures reported (2012) indicate domestic oil production was in fact 6.48 million barrels per day. EIA now projects production will rise to 9.4 billion barrels per day. The question is—were they wrong then, or wrong now?
"improvements in expected mine productivity … leads to a gradual decline in the average mine mouth coal price, to approximately $20.00 per ton in 2021.” EIA also predicted that U.S. coal production would increase and that coal would continue to dominate electrical production in the US for decades to come.
In 2006, the average mine mouth price of U.S. coal was $25.16 per short ton. By 2013 the average mine mouth price had risen to around $60 per short ton, 300% of the projection. Domestic coal production declined, rather than increased as predicted.
With the exception of renewable energy, no industry sector has been more volatile in recent years than natural gas. For years the price had hovered at between $4.50 to $5.50 per thousand cubic feet (mcf). The EIA projected more of the same. EIA predicted that prices would be relatively stable, within this historic range until 2030. Domestic production would increase a bit—from 18.52 trillion cubic feet per year in 2003 to about 20.44 trillion cubic feet in 2015.
They were once again, very very wrong. Prices spiked almost as soon as the ink dried on the 2006 report (to more than $14 per mcf in 2008), then plummeted, to under $2 per mcf in 2012. The term fracking entered our vocabulary and domestic production spiked to nearly 30 trillion cubic feet in 2012.
The EIA now projects that natural gas production will continue to grow dramatically for the next 25 years. But has this industry really transformed itself so dramatically in just eight years? Again, were they wrong then or wrong now?
But it seems that nowhere does the EIA have a harder time getting a fix on things than within the renewable energy industry. Today they grudgingly admit that renewables will play a role in the future. In fact, they have even gone so far as to predict (in their 2013 report) that “The share of U.S. electricity generation from renewable energy grows from 13 percent in 2011 to 16 percent in 2040”
In fact the share of U.S. electricity generated from renewables actually was 16 percent (15.9 percent, but let's not quibble) within 12 months of this projection, not 27 years. Clearly they had not learned from their 2006 projection when they announced that “Total renewable generation … is expected to grow 1.7 percent per year.”
They predicted that electricity generated from non hydro renewables (primarily wind, solar and biofuels) “increases by 95 percent, from 2.2 percent of total generation in 2004 to 4.3 percent in 2030.” By 2013, however, non hydro renewable had already grown to provide about 7.5 percent of all US electrical generation—and were growing faster than any other energy segment.
In the weeks and months to come, we will be barraged with news reports quoting the soon-to-be released 2014 EIA report. These will be reported as pristine facts, backed by the full faith and credit of the US government.
We will be told that the U.S. possesses nearly unlimited and inexpensive natural gas reserves.
We will be told that the U.S. will produce so much domestic oil that we soon may, once again, become an exporter of energy.
We will be told that shipments of coal will soon be heading in great barges to fuel the growth of China.
We will be told, over and over, that “the Sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow,” so renewables can and will play only an insignificant role in our energy future.
And once again—these predictions will be very very wrong.
Visit EcoWatch’s ENERGY page for more related news on this topic.
OlgaMiltsova / iStock / Getty Images Plus
By Gwen Ranniger
In the midst of a pandemic, sales of cleaning products have skyrocketed, and many feel a need to clean more often. Knowing what to look for when purchasing cleaning supplies can help prevent unwanted and dangerous toxics from entering your home.
1. Fragrance – Avoid It<p>One of the fastest ways to narrow down your product options is immediately eliminating any product that promotes a fragrance, or parfum. That scent of "fresh breeze" or lemon might initially smell good, but the fragrance does not last. What does last? The concoction of various undisclosed and unregulated chemicals that created that fragrance.</p><p>Many fragrances contain phthalates, which are linked to many health risks including reproductive problems and cancer.</p>
2. With Bleach? Do Without<p>Going scent-free should have narrowed down your options substantially – now, check the front of the remaining packaging. Any that include ammonia or chlorine bleach ought to go, as these substances are irritating and corrosive to your body. While bleach is commonly known as a powerful disinfectant, there are safer alternatives that you can use in your home, such as sodium borate or hydrogen peroxide.</p><p>While you're at it, check if there are any warnings on the label – "flammable," "use in ventilated area," etc. – if the product is hazardous, that's a red flag and should be avoided.</p>
3. Check the Back Label<p>Flip to the back of the remaining contenders and check out that ingredient list. Less is more, here. Opt for a shorter ingredient list with words you recognize and/or can pronounce.</p><p>You may notice many products do not have ingredient lists – while this doesn't necessarily mean they contain toxic ingredients, transparency is key. Feel free to look up a list online, or stick to products that are open about their ingredients.</p>
4. Ingredients to Avoid<p>We already mentioned that cleaners containing fragrance or parfum, and bleach or ammonia should be avoided, but there are other ingredients to look out for as well.</p><ul><li>Quaternary ammonium "quats" – lung irritants that contribute to asthma and other breathing problems. Also linger on surfaces long after they've been cleaned.</li><li>Parabens – Known hormone disruptor; can contribute to ailments such as cancer</li><li>Triclosan – triclosan and other antibacterial chemicals are registered with the EPA as pesticides. Triclosan is a known hormone disruptor and can also impact your immune system.</li><li>Formaldehyde – Causes irritation of eyes, nose, and throat; studies suggest formaldehyde exposure is linked with certain varieties of cancer. Can be found in products or become a byproduct of chemical reactions in the air.</li></ul>
Cleaning Products and Toxics: The Bottom Line<p>Do your research. There are many cleaning products available, but taking these steps will drastically reduce your options and help keep your home toxic-free. Protecting your home from bacteria and viruses is important, but make sure you do so in a way that doesn't introduce other health risks into the home.</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://www.ehn.org/how-to-shop-for-cleaning-products-while-avoiding-toxics-2648130273.html" target="_blank">Environmental Health News</a>. </em><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2649054624#/" target="_self"></a></p>
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
JasonOndreicka / iStock / Getty Images
Twenty-five years ago, a food called Tofurky made its debut on grocery store shelves. Since then, the tofu-based roast has become a beloved part of many vegetarians' holiday feasts.
By Jessica Corbett
A leading environmental advocacy group marked Native American Heritage Month on Wednesday by urging President-elect Joe Biden, Vice President-elect Kamala Kamala Harris, and the entire incoming administration "to honor Indigenous sovereignty and immediately halt the Keystone XL, Dakota Access, and Line 3 pipelines."
- Climate Crisis: What We Can Learn From Indigenous Traditions ... ›
- 10 Organizations Honoring Native People on Thanksgiving ... ›
- Biden Vows to Ax Keystone XL if Elected - EcoWatch ›
Returning the ‘Three Sisters’ – Corn, Beans and Squash – to Native American Farms Nourishes People, Land and Cultures
By Christina Gish Hill
Historians know that turkey and corn were part of the first Thanksgiving, when Wampanoag peoples shared a harvest meal with the pilgrims of Plymouth plantation in Massachusetts. And traditional Native American farming practices tell us that squash and beans likely were part of that 1621 dinner too.
Abundant Harvests<p>Historically, Native people throughout the Americas bred indigenous plant varieties specific to the growing conditions of their homelands. They selected seeds for many different traits, such as <a href="https://emergencemagazine.org/story/corn-tastes-better/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">flavor, texture and color</a>.</p><p>Native growers knew that planting corn, beans, squash and sunflowers together produced mutual benefits. Corn stalks created a trellis for beans to climb, and beans' twining vines secured the corn in high winds. They also certainly observed that corn and bean plants growing together tended to be healthier than when raised separately. Today we know the reason: Bacteria living on bean plant roots pull nitrogen – an essential plant nutrient – from the air and <a href="http://www.tilthalliance.org/learn/resources-1/almanac/october/octobermngg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">convert it to a form that both beans and corn can use</a>.</p><p>Squash plants contributed by shading the ground with their broad leaves, preventing weeds from growing and retaining water in the soil. Heritage squash varieties also had spines that discouraged deer and raccoons from visiting the garden for a snack. And sunflowers planted around the edges of the garden created a natural fence, protecting other plants from wind and animals and attracting pollinators.</p><p>Interplanting these agricultural sisters produced bountiful harvests that sustained large Native communities and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/eam.2015.0016" target="_blank">spurred fruitful trade economies</a>. The first Europeans who reached the Americas were shocked at the abundant food crops they found. My research is exploring how, 200 years ago, Native American agriculturalists around the Great Lakes and along the Missouri and Red rivers fed fur traders with their diverse vegetable products.</p>
Displaced From the Land<p>As Euro-Americans settled permanently on the most fertile North American lands and acquired seeds that Native growers had carefully bred, they imposed policies that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/87.2.550" target="_blank">made Native farming practices impossible</a>. In 1830 President Andrew Jackson signed the <a href="https://guides.loc.gov/indian-removal-act" target="_blank">Indian Removal Act</a>, which made it official U.S. policy to force Native peoples from their home locations, pushing them onto subpar lands.</p><p>On reservations, U.S. government officials discouraged Native women from cultivating anything larger than small garden plots and pressured Native men to practice Euro-American style monoculture. Allotment policies assigned small plots to nuclear families, further limiting Native Americans' access to land and preventing them from using communal farming practices.</p><p>Native children were forced to attend boarding schools, where they had no opportunity to <a href="https://doi.org/10.5749/jamerindieduc.57.1.0145" target="_blank">learn Native agriculture techniques or preservation and preparation of Indigenous foods</a>. Instead they were forced to eat Western foods, turning their palates away from their traditional preferences. Taken together, these policies <a href="https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-0802-7.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">almost entirely eradicated three sisters agriculture</a> from Native communities in the Midwest by the 1930s.</p>
Reviving Native Agriculture<p>Today Native people all over the U.S. are working diligently to <a href="https://www.oupress.com/books/15107980/indigenous-food-sovereignty-in-the-united-sta" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reclaim Indigenous varieties of corn, beans, squash, sunflowers and other crops</a>. This effort is important for many reasons.</p><p>Improving Native people's access to healthy, culturally appropriate foods will help lower rates of <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/aian-diabetes/index.html" target="_blank">diabetes</a> and <a href="https://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/ethnicity-health/native-american/obesity" target="_blank">obesity</a>, which affect Native Americans at disproportionately high rates. Sharing traditional knowledge about agriculture is a way for elders to pass cultural information along to younger generations. Indigenous growing techniques also protect the lands that Native nations now inhabit, and can potentially benefit the wider ecosystems around them.</p>
By Jake Johnson
Amid reports that oil industry-friendly former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz remains under consideration to return to his old post in the incoming Biden administration, a diverse coalition of environmental groups is mobilizing for an "all-out push" to keep Moniz away from the White House and demand a cabinet willing to boldly confront the corporations responsible for the climate emergency.