The U.S. alone has less than 5 pct of the world’s population and needs up to 25 pct of world oil production, especially with 250 million passenger vehicles.
BRIC and emerging markets have a total population many times that, and will need extensive amounts of resources and energy needed to manufacture a lot of electric vehicles, especially given the resource and energy costs for manufacturing these products and more.
Overall, the world is already in overshoot (see the ecological footprint article shared earlier), and energy and resources (including oil) needed to manufacture EVs will add to that.
Finally, from what I know, solar does not only not scale readily, it has a fraction of energy returns of other sources (see the EROI article) and obviously cannot support a middle class lifestyle (which needs a return of around 40).
True. But consider how much room oil demand can drop here in the US. See here. Oil demand has dropped ~15% since The Oil Drum articles you post were published. This is NOT the trend they were expecting, from the biggest oil consumers in the world, and hybrid/ev transportation is still in its infancy. Consumption Can drop, and besides, what other option is there?
Brazil for one has discovered huge offshore oil resources, and has a very large sugarcane ethanol industry. They can take care of themselves. India? That may be our biggest challenge since they are so poor. It can look daunting, but again, middle classes there most likely will not consume energy and resources the way the US did in the 90s.
Sure it scales. Remember where I cited that Germany had peaked at 60% of grid from renewables? Much of that was from solar. Or behold the 579 MW Antelope Valley Solar Project. I’m not sure if this thing is complete yet, but 579 MW is enough to compete in scale with a nuclear plant. Coupled with the organic flow battery, solar has the potential to provide a very significant portion of the world’s energy needs.
Here is an EROI chart. The EROI for solar generation ranges all the way up past 70. 2008 was really a long time ago in the solar world. Basically, you worry too much.
[QUOTE=ralfy]
We should probably look at the energy and resource costs of producing, say, a billion cars, with a quarter of that found in a country like the U.S., which has less than 5 pct of the world’s population.
[/QUOTE]
No, we should look at the cost of energy as if it were any other commodity…which it is. We aren’t trying to use central planning to achieve some sort of goal. Countries expanding the number of cars on their roads are doing so organically, not based off of some plan.
It’s interesting that when oil costs so much (according to the Peak Oil types, the current cost should have started the downward spiral, at least that’s my recollection from this exact same debate over a decade ago), that many countries are ramping up their road infrastructure because the demand for new cars has risen rapidly.
:dubious: I’m sorry, but you asserting this doesn’t make it fact. And please don’t attempt to refer me back to something you drive by linked too earlier in the thread…that seems to be your standard response. I’m basing my skepticism over this remark on the commodities market for oil futures and the price of oil. If we were already in ‘overshoot’ you’d see the supply/demand curves shifting, as well as the price rocketing up. It’s not happening. Also, you’d see a large supply/demand spike for EVs and hybrids as people demanded them in large numbers because of the change in price for fuel…not happening either. Instead, what we are seeing is that as global demand for refined hydrocarbon fuels increases (as China continues to put millions of new cars on the road, and India and others do the same), it’s being met and the price is slowly climbing.
No, solar doesn’t scale…nor does wind. But why would they need too? They are niche energy sources. Natural gas is the thing that’s currently filling the gap as we legislate coal away, but that coal is still there. And there is always nuclear, which DOES scale up quite nicely.
Here’s the thing that I think you and other Peak Oil folks are missing. We don’t need to build out a new paradigm of energy tomorrow…or next year. Or a decade from now. In fact, we don’t need to build it at all from the perspective of some Manhattan Project central planning. The market will drive the solutions…as it has in the last 10+ years when these discussions first started to be debated. As the price for oil, say, goes up, many different things will happen. Known reserves that aren’t being exploited will become economically viable to exploit because the price point reaches that level where it’s feasible. New reserves will be found. Alternatives will be researched, and some waiting in the wings that weren’t economical at $4/gallon gas will become competitive and begin being brought to the market. New alternatives will be pursued. Eventually there will be a tipping point…the cost of oil will reach a level where the alternatives are more attractive to the majority of people, and they will begin switching over in increasing numbers to whatever the new paradigm is…or to some interim technology. At that point, production of oil will plummet (cost will probably stabilize, but I doubt it will go down a lot), but by then no one will really care. It will be like the whale oil market, though I imagine there will still be uses for oil at a lower scale production even after we stop refining it into fuel.
The above is exactly what DID happen in the last 10 years, with the exception that we still don’t need to make the shift away from oil yet because, relatively speaking, it’s still a very cheap energy source, despite all the chicken little types saying pretty much exactly what you are saying in this thread. So, why do you think things have changed and suddenly market economics won’t work? Why do you think that all the research and development in alternatives will suddenly fail? What’s different today that wasn’t there 10 years ago when the Peak Oil types were crying gloom and doom?
But the assumption generally seems to be that we’ll find an alternative that’s as cheap as fossil fuels are. However as fossil fuel prices have been rising now for several decades, nobody has found the cheap alternative. Which suggests fossil fuels may be uniquely cheap. We won’t run out of energy sources but we may reach the point where fossil fuel prices rise and all our energy sources become relatively expensive.
Very few people use helicopters for casual travel nowadays. People drive cars for casual travel. But suppose the price of cars was going up. At some point, the price of a car might equal the price of a helicopter.
But that doesn’t mean that people will then switch to helicopters for their casual travel. The people that can’t afford a helicopter now won’t be able to afford a helicopter then either. The difference will be that people that can’t afford a helicopter now won’t be able to afford a car either when cars get as expensive as helicopters. So these people will just not casually travel.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
But the assumption generally seems to be that we’ll find an alternative that’s as cheap as fossil fuels are.
[/QUOTE]
Um, no…not as far as I know. Who’s assumption is that we’ll find an alternative as cheap as fossil fuels? Basically, my own is that we won’t even GET an alternative until fossil fuels and the price of refined fuel reaches a price point where they can even be competitive. Possibly once a new paradigm is adopted the price will drop as competition in the new technology begins, but I doubt we’ll ever go back to the lowest price that fossil fuels were ever at. Those days are done, and have been for a long while now…and yet, our civilization hasn’t collapsed. Nor will it when it costs more for whatever new paradigm we end up with.
But there ARE alternatives, and they become more competitive as the price continues to rise. In addition, new technologies for exploiting reserves that weren’t economically feasible in the past come on stream as well. Companies continue to pour R&D dollars into various alternatives, hoping that their solution will pave the road or be the new paradigm (fuel cells, AEVs, alternative fuels, Mr. Fusion, etc).
They were. So what? We used them to jump start our civilization and get it to this point. The prices have, as you noted, ALREADY been increasing over the last few decades, and continue to do so. As they do, alternatives continue to be researched, and you are actually starting to see some brought to the market place in fact. That trend will continue.
Certainly. I’d say that’s inevitable. But what we’ve seen in the last decade is that the market will bear increased prices for energy and keep chugging along without the world coming to an end. And the thing is, once a new paradigm IS decided (by the market), then you will probably see the prices stabilize and perhaps even drop depending on what we end up going with.
Extremely doubtful. Even if the only paradigm alternative was a Tesla sports car it would be cheaper to buy and use than a helicopter, and that’s a top end price for a high performance car…and there are other alternatives. Really, the price point will be something like ‘when Americans are forced to spend what the Europeans currently do for refined fuels then major changes will happen’…at least that’s my WAG. And that is still quite a ways away.
I think you are wildly overestimating the costs of things, and wildly underestimating even the current round of alternatives and products available today. TODAY you can get an alternative to gasoline or refined fossil fuel vehicle for much less than a helicopter, and this is still early days. The pain point in pricing has yet to be reached, which is why the products you see today are niche oriented towards wealthy environmental yuppies who want status symbols. Take gasoline up another $2/gallon and you’ll really start to see some products hitting the market that compete well at that new price point.
We need to look at global demand. See the article about peak demand for details.
Thus, oil consumption for the rest of the world is negating demand destruction for the U.S., EU, and Japan.
Worse, higher oil consumption is needed to maintain economic growth. See the articles shared earlier about how much oil is needed for economic growth, as well as
Thus, U.S. oil consumption is lower because of economic crisis, which is also the result of higher oil prices, which is one of the effects of peak oil.
We need to look at production rate instead of reserves. According to the IEA, all oil and gas sources will add only 9 pct to total production for the next two decades, and that’s assuming that crude oil production does not drop. The global economy, meanwhile, has to increase oil demand by 2 pct a year to maintain growth.
More details in the IEA report shared earlier.
In order to prove that it scales, we have to assume that much of German industrial infrastructure (not just electricity needs) does not require oil, especially petrochemicals, and that the same can be done for the global population.
The IEA believes that the world can at least replace 70 pct of oil demand increase per annum with renewable energy, but that alone will require extensive cooperation and coordination between governments. More details can be found in the IEA report shared earleir.
We need to look at energy quantity together with EROI, following the article shared earlier. More details are given in my previous post.
I still feel you’re presenting a false dichotomy. You’re saying we’ll keep moving forward - if we run low on fossil fuels, we’ll just use something else. And you seem to be saying that the only alternative viewpoint anyone has is a prediction of the total collapse of civilization.
I don’t see these as the only alternatives. I don’t even see them as the likely alternatives. To me, the likeliest scenario is a reversion.
As you noted, we’ve used fossil fuels to get our economy to its present point. You appear to have the belief that it’s a permanent advance. I’m more pessimistic perhaps. I agree that we used fossil fuels to get where we are now. But I question whether we can stay here without fossil fuels.
Let me repeat once again that I’m not predicting an end of civilization. We had civilization before the age of oil and I’m confident we’ll still have civilization after it. But I think it’s more likely we’ll go back to a pre-oil economy rather than go forward to a post-oil economy.
It won’t be a total return. Fossil fuels were just one of the big factors in our economic advance. The other - electricity - will still be there (albeit maybe not in the same amount). So the world of 2100 won’t like the world of 1900. But I don’t think the world of 2100 will be like the world of 2000 either and that might not be as positive a comparison. People in the 22nd century might look back on our world as a golden age of better times and envy us for the wealth we had.
That’s my point. The problem is that consumption is increasing because of a growing global middle class (see the BBC article shared earlier). In order to meet that increasing demand (see the IEA report shared earlier), we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia or more every seven years (see the article about Miller shared earlier).
That’s because the rest of the world is now spending significantly, and thus increasing consumption and even negating demand destruction due to economic crisis in the U.S., EU, and Japan. See the article about peak demand shared earlier.
See the article about ecological footprint for details. If you have contrary evidence, i.e., showing increasing levels of biocapacity, then please link to it.
Demand for EVs is not increasing because in general EVs still cannot handle heavy loads or climb steep inclines. Meanwhile, cars and more oil are being purchased because of significant amounts of forex reserves held by BRIC and emerging markets.
Meanwhile, accessing new oil is becoming more expensive, which is what peak oil is about.
Thus, we are seeing increasing prices and increasing consumption. The problem is that there is a point when oil prices are so high that people will cut down on luxuries like passenger cars, but will still need to use more oil as that is needed for manufacturing basic needs as well as for food production.
What, then, should be expected? According to the IEA, following what has been happening in the past, oil demand has to rise by 2 pct per annum to ensure economic growth, or the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. More details are found in the article about the amount of oil needed for economic growth.
The problem is that total oil and gas is expected to increase by only 9 pct during the next two decades. See the IEA report shared earlier for details.
all sources of energy cannot provide for living standards of the global population equivalent to that of the U.S. Unfortunately, the goal of a capitalist global economy is to ensure such standards for a growing percentage of the population.
That’s why the world needs energy sources that can scale significantly. Otherwise, that capitalist economy which most support will not last.
Unfortunately, it’s the market that’s causing problems. That is, credit is being increased readily, driving increasing consumption. Any technology that leads to greater efficiency increases consumption further. And the same technology cannot deal with physical facts, as seen in crude oil production now flattening out at 73.4 Mb/d. More details can be seen in the lecture shared earlier.
Also, the problem is being raised not just by “peak oil folks” but by banks, military organizations, insurance firms, energy agencies, and more. Here’s a list of reports from 2004 to the present:
Very few organizations and experts are claiming that there’s nothing to worry about. The most prominent group that is concerned with the matter is the IEA. See the article about the IEA confirming peak oil in 2010 shared earlier, as well as the 2010 report.
Cheap energy source? Oil prices are now triple what they should be, and even with that not only did crude oil production flatten out, production for the five major players have dropped by 25 pct since 2005. Increasing demand is now being met using shale oil (see the article about that shared earlier), and shale oil will not last. (Several articles about that was shared earlier.)
A final point to consider is to see oil production in light of population, which is more logical.
According to multiple sources, oil production per capita peaked in 1979:
Drops in consumption would be expected. As has been noted, the price of oil has been rising steadily. What we’re seeing is the bottom levels of consumption - the uses of oil that depended on the cheapest prices and which can no longer afford to buy oil to use. They’re dropping out of the oil purchasing market and lowering consumption. As the price of oil keeps rising, more oil consumers will fall out of that same bottom and stop buying oil. This isn’t a solution to the problem - it’s a sign of the problem.
The alternatives do not increase in quantity and quality of energy (see the EROI article), not even with increasing credit. Also, the fact that alternatives are needed puts to question the argument that technology increase EROI readily.
Proof of this can be seen in crude oil production no longer meeting demand and flattening out at 73.4 Mb/d.
Unfortunately, the “civilization” being referred to now is over 7 billion, with up to half expected to join the middle class. To meet the energy demands of this growing group, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every three to four years.
Add to that significant environmental damage, long-term effects of global warming, and incredible amounts of credit created:
“Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at $1,200 Trillion Dollars … 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy”
From what I remember, “only” a trillion dollars’ worth of that stemming from subprime lending was enough to crash the global economy, leading to something like $30 trillion vaporized worldwide. The “solution”? Create more money.
The global economy did not recover:
“No recovery until 2018, IMF warns”
Also, I think we need to see this issue not as an either-or, i.e., either there is a collapse, or we’re fine.
The problem is that expensive EVs still require extensive energy and resource inputs, among others:
“Electric cars ‘pose environmental threat’”
The same applies to all sorts of goods, components, and infrastructure connected to alternative energy sources.
One needs to look at the energy and resource requirements not just for powering but for manufacturing and even shipping various goods, and not just manufactured goods but even mechanized agriculture.
For example, consider the oil (not just energy but petrochemical) inputs for manufacturing and shipping not just EVs but even various components for solar energy, and not just oil but even water and various minerals.
That’s why the point about ecological footprint vs. biocapacity is helpful.
all sources of energy cannot provide for living standards of the global population equivalent to that of the U.S. Unfortunately, the goal of a capitalist global economy is to ensure such standards for a growing percentage of the population.
That’s why the world needs energy sources that can scale significantly. Otherwise, that capitalist economy which most support will not last.
[/QUOTE]
And yet, here we are…6 years later. During that time, China has massively increased it’s use of oil. So has India. And while it’s true the cost of oil has gone up, so have global standards of living. With no collapse seemingly on the horizon. Do you have any articles from 2014?
I’m not going to wade through a bunch of reports to try and make whatever point you think you are making. If you have some evidence, please site the link and quote it.
I disagree. The market is what sets the cost and price of a commodity. Increasing costs are the brakes on that market, and also the path to new technologies.
As for crude oil flattening out, the fact that it’s flattened and yet the prices haven’t skyrocketed is an indication that it’s the demand that’s flattened, not production. Basic market economics. You’d need to demonstrate that there is demand that is not being met, yet the market isn’t driving up the price as people scramble for limited supply. You have yet to show that, as far as I can tell, merely assert it and then toss links out that you seem to expect people to wade through to figure out what your point is. So far the links I’ve bothered opening are either old, or they are from obviously biased Peak Oil chicken little type sites (or both in some cases), or they are from actual legitimate sites but you are skewing the data to fit your own preconceptions.
Yes, relatively speaking the price of oil and refined fuels is still fairly cheap. You disagree? Can you name something cheaper? Literally hundreds of millions of people drive their personal vehicles around for work and pleasure every day. Consider that before trying to say the current price of oil is expensive. Then consider…there ARE several alternatives. Hydrogen or methane fuel cells, for instance. AEVs. Yet people don’t buy them in quantity…they are still a niche product, and this despite your obvious assertion that hydrocarbon based fuels aren’t ‘cheap’. Why? Is it some conspiracy? You mentioned the performance envelope, and to a certain degree that’s true…most AEVs don’t match the current gasoline powered envelope, though some are getting there. But if oil/gas were truly at a high price point people would be willing to sacrifice performance for costs. But we aren’t at that point yet…thus, it’s still relatively ‘cheap’.
‘what they should be’?? Based on what, exactly? Your misunderstanding of how the market works? You keep mentioning the flattening of production as if that proves something, yet I’m not seeing it. You do understand basic supply and demand, yes? If a commodity is in demand and the supply flattens out, what happens to the price? Why aren’t we seeing that basic dynamic if your assumption of WHY production has flattened is correct? I mean, shouldn’t we be seeing the price of oil skyrocket? I’m not talking about $100/barrel, but double or triple that. After all, it’s what makes our modern works work. Remember those 100’s of millions of drivers depending on it every day? Shouldn’t countries and companies be in a bidding war for the limited resource that a flattened production would warrant if demand was ever increasing? Well, yeah…it should. But it hasn’t, has it? Instead we see a rising curve with spikes (upward and downward, as the market naturally fluctuates). Why is that?
Feel free to actually speak to these points and not tell me to dig through links. If you have a link to something then please QUOTE the relevant parts. Though I’d be more interested in YOU answering the questions directly and debating the points, to be honest.
Ralfy, you have been pointed to newer data from IEA showing rising production and increasing gap between demand and capacity ( ie capacity growth outstripping demand), your response was to go back point to 2010 data. Why?
Whats the deal with constantly referring to crude oil , and excluding shale and other currently called unconventionals. If we change the name of unconventional to conventional, it would appear all problems go away as crude production is no longer flat. If i can eliminate the problem with a name change, that would be a good indication the problem wasn’t what you thought it was.
Also shale lift cost are falling, refer to my quote from the IEA report (2012).
Again, don’t look for an either-or situation, i.e., either we have a collapse, or we’re doing fine. An explanation of that is found in my previous posts.
For global standards of living, please look at the IMF point about the matter,as well as other factors connected to that, including unemployment:
and more. Take note of the Arab Spring, what happened to Iceland, Greece, Egypt, Syria, and others, etc.
The IMF and other organizations are not taking these events lightly.
The IEA report will do. Read that and the comments I have said about it in this thread.
The market sets the price and leads to more consumption.
Demand did not flatten.
The price of oil adjusted to inflation should only be a third of its current price:
It tripled because crude oil production peaked in 2005.
There are alternatives but they have low energy returns and quanities. See the EROI article for details.
Crude oil production peaked in 2005. See the EIA data shared in the first article I presented.
Oil price tripled. Following high oil prices, global demand should have dropped.
Global demand did not drop. See the article on peak demand for details.
Even with high oil prices, crude oil production flattened out at 73.4 Mb/d, even with increasing capital expenditures. See the lecture shared earlier for details.
All of the points have been explained to you. The links contain evidence.
Your counter-points challenge the evidence that I presented. Feel free to present evidence to prove your counter-points.
The current IEA data shows that crude oil production remains in a 73.4 Mb/d plateau since 2005.
The IEA acknowledged in 2010 that crude oil production peaked in 2005.
It is not my intention to exclude shale oil and others. If any, I am actually showing a distinction between the two to confirm what the IEA acknowledged almost five years ago and which several think has not taken place.
We cannot solve the problem with a change in the labels because the EROI for both conventional and unconventional production are now low.
Finally, U.S. shale oil will last for only a few years and the level of production cannot be repeated easily in other places:
All in all, the IEA forecasts a 9-pct increase in global oil and gas production for the next two decades, and that’s assuming no drop in crude oil production. Meanwhile, demand has to go up by around 2 pct per annum to maintain economic growth.
If crude peaks, but shale and tar sands pick up the slack and more, then we have not witnessed ‘peak oil’. Is oil more expensive? Yes. Does that have global consequences? Sure. Will we see total oil production peak in our lifetimes? I think so, but who knows. But it has not happened yet.
If you want to say the peak in crude is the canary in the coal mine, fine, but at least acknowledge that total global oil production is still increasing.
I am pretty dang sure that we will not find an energy source cheaper than gasoline in 1990. We already don’t have an energy source cheaper than that, gasoline is much more expensive in 2014 than it was in 1990.
I don’t believe electric cars of 2034 will be cheaper to operate or have better performance than internal combustion cars of 2014. But I will bet that electric cars of 2034 will be cheaper to operate than internal combustion cars of 2034. It will be more expensive to operate any sort of vehicle in 2034. If we do use liquid fuel cars in the future we’ll have to manufacture the fuel using whatever power source is cheapest. It may very well be that it’s more efficient to use nuclear power to manufacture octane (or some other arbitrary molecule) and ship that octane to fueling stations to be used by relatively conventional internal combustion vehicles than it will be to use the same nuclear power to generate electricity which travels over the grid and charges the batteries of electric cars.
But even so, of course that manufactured liquid fuel of 2034 is going to be a lot more expensive than gasoline in 2014, let alone gasoline in 1990. And so our transportation ecology is going to have to change. People are going to have to pay more for transportation. They’ll have to bus more, bike more, telecommute more, ride automated taxis more, take the train more, ride a dinky scooter more, and on and on. And this will cost more and be an economic drag, just like everything that costs more is an economic drag.
However, it’s also likely that our economy will continue to grow, and we’ll be able to substitute other technologies for transportation. Even if we spend more to move a kilogram a kilometer, we can do things a lot more efficiently.
Yet newer data shows other wise.
To quote from IEA 2012
“Growth in North American light, tight oil and non-conventional supply has reached game-changing levels”
“developments have challenged earlier assumptions and significantly changed the oil market outlook for the next five years”
So the people who wrote the 2010 report you refer to have updated and said “its all a bit different now” so once again - give up on the 2010 data.
You insist on stating crude is flat, which has been pointed out, really doesn’t matter, total liquids supply to the market is rising. Deep water, tight liquids, NGLs , Oil sands, bio fuels etc
All are liquids that are available , in growing capacity and will meet the demand.
It has some excellent analysis on demand ( by sector country fuel type etc) well worth reading, even has some quotes from Maria van der Hoeven in it. Highly recommend looking at the breakdown of demand by sector, a view on transportation efficiencies by car types, and industrial efficiency gains.
The report has energy demand for the world rising from 500 to about 730 quadrillion BTUs. Of that 730QBTUS by 2040 300 is for electricity generation, of which about 10Qbtu come from oil.
So big a chunk of work energy demand is not needing oil. Transportation using about 75mm boe /day by2040 is the big usage of liquids.
Anyway
On page 38 you will see liquids supply forecast (liquids forecasts not energy - you need to factor in natural gas and other sources for total energy supply)
Conventional crude and condensate stays flat to drops over the 2000-2040 range, so what? Total liquids supply rising to 110mm oil equivalent bbl/day.
North America has a drop from 8 to about 5 mm boe/day across the forecast period, however total liquids for north amerce does not shows a rise from 15MM to 23MM in 2035 after which , at the end of the forecast period shows a slight decline. (US does decline in that North America bundle, see EIA 2014 report http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2014).pdf)
Can you see that the supply of liquids is rising and appears to be meeting demand for liquids? If you can agree on that we can talk development technology and total upstream costs, which would dictate if anyone actually bothers to develop these resources.
On the report you linked there are few down right odd comments from Maria van der Hoeven.
" The land ownership and the resource ownership go together here in the United States – the only country where that is the case."
Going to have to say the middle east countries ( which has some significant shale resources) land ownership and resources are quite heavily tied. Also it’s a bit of a bizarre statement to imply developing shale gas elsewhere somehow requires the land and mineral rights to be tied together. Conventional liquids have the same issue , yet somehow the US oil boom of a long time ago was replicated around the world and managed to deal with the separation of land ownership and mineral rights. About the only technology difference between shale and conventional is the need for a large number of pumping trucks to turn up at the well site ( even this isn’t true for deep water wells, many of which are frac packed for production and sand control reasons).
Also
“. It’s also about having the right gas industry, the right knowledge, the right infrastructure, the water, the human skills, the geological information, etc. And geology in this part of the world, especially where the shale gas boom is, is quite different from Ukraine or Poland. You can learn from it, but it’s not a copy-and-paste”
Is entirely true, and is entirely true for conventional liquids. Yet somehow technology and knowledge transfer for conventional liquids has taken place between different regions and conventional production ramped up, so this is also a bit of a strange statement and really not a barrier that would make the US shale boom difficult to replicate elsewhere. If the price is worth developing the shale liquid, 3rd party suppliers will move in to make money.
