I have now also made a comment on the Editorial in Nature. (Read the Editorial)
2013-01-31 05:57 AM
Report this comment | #54593
Kjell Aleklett said:
When one reads the editorial “Change for good” in Nature one is given the impression that Canada’s oil sands, shale oil and shale gas are good for our climate,
“The Obama administration might be able to put the United States on track to meet its Copenhagen commitment to reduce emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.”
What is not described is the enormous volume of natural gas that, every day, is flared off in association with production of shale oil. During President Obama’s first presidential term shale oil production has increased by 1.5 million barrels per day and the light from flaring off of associated gas in the Bakken and Eagle Ford areas is now is so great that these areas glow like brilliant jewels when photographed at night by NASA’s satellites. Just in the Bakken the volume of gas flared off would be sufficient to meet the combined energy needs of Chicago and Washington DC. To maintain the current level of shale oil production a great many new wells must be drilled every year thus releasing ever more associated gas that must be flared off (since capturing it for use would be too expensive). During president Obama’s second presidential term the intention is to double production of shale oil and this, in turn, will increased the rate at which gas is flared off. The USA is already the world’s leading nation in terms of flaring off of gas and President Obama’s two terms will go down in history as that period when emissions from gas flaring increased most rapidly. The currently low natural gas prices due to shale gas production may reduce use of coal but will also delay development of renewable electricity generation.
(Photos with flaring:
)
Aleklett's Energy Mix 
Gunnar Rundgren
January 31, 2013
Agree. Also, the low EROEI for these sources will in itself lead to more emissions as they have to extract more just to keep net energy supply at the same level. Of course, there is also the chance that the low EROEI will increase prices to a level where demand will be reduced both as a direct cost effect and as a result of high energy costs prolonging the recession.
Michael Lardelli
February 2, 2013
All but one of the comments below the editorial are now highly critical of the ideas put forward and the stance taken by what should be a leading SCIENCE journal !