I can't think of a single example in world history where a glut of anything lasted even twenty years, let alone 200. When the price of oil skyrocketed in 2007-08 there was a glut of articles saying this proved that the market was completely rigged and manipulated. When it crashed in 2008-09 this was then said to be evidence of the demise of capitalism. Now the big fad is fracking, the fountain of youth, perpetual motion, and too cheap to meter. Actually the main reason fracking has become a new fad only recently is that, for most of the last two hundred years, oil was far too cheap and abundant to make blowing up mountains and underground cracks an economically viable way of extracting it. Gelatin, the active ingredient in jello, is somewhat analogous to CO2; it is an invisible trace element, but if it is 40% over or under normal the viability of the whole shebang becomes questionable.

Again some people seem to have conflicting ideas. Making holes in the ground to extract oil is bad but making holes in the ground to store CO2 under pressure where it could possible leak out and flood an area of ground, is good.

Leaving CO2 in the air in small concentrations, 0.04%, is bad, but the possibility of 100% at ground level can be managed even though animal life could be devastated. No need for the Precautionary Principle here. It all makes perfect sense.

Why is it that fracking is always discussed as something new and untested?

From Wikipedia (so it must be right): "Fracturing as a method to stimulate shallow, hard rock oil wells dates back to the 1860s."

Fracked oil is currently only economically feasible with crude oil prices around $ 70. And now that OPEC recently has rejected lowering their production, the price is currently some $5 below that price meaning that all these unconventional, non-cheap oil wells are losing money, big time.

Even when unconventional oil becomes cheaper to extract in the coming years, the fact that its' price is linked to 'normal' oil means that any geopolitical event or merely strategic OPEC decision will affect economic feasibility of these unconventional sources. No matter how much the US uses these solely for domestic consumption, the global market (that neo-conservative darling) will always dictate prices.

The obvious solution of course is switching to energy sources which do not depend largely on events outside one's own borders.

Jim Z nailed it!! I'm a completion engineer, which means I frac for a living. I can personally tell you that we are still fracing at $70, even $60, a barrel. Oil would have to get down to $10 a barrell to make my wells uneconomic. I can frac a well for $100,000 or I can frac a well for $10,000,000 and the lower the price of oil the lower my frac will be and vice versa. If oil gets super low, I'll just go to all slickwater, white river sand, and surfactant at 20Mbbls of fluid and 2MMlbs of sand, that right there costs about $100K

I don't think the increased oil associated with fracking is a big problem, I think you're correct that it will be tapped out fairly quickly. There are some other hazards associated with it, but for the most part they are manageable. Fracking has actually helped the greenhouse gas situation by making cheaper, cleaner shale gas available as a replacement for coal.

We need to move away from fossil fuels, but I don't think fracking will delay that move.

As a geologist who actually studied this topic I can tell you you are way off base but that won't matter to you because you insist on believing in fairy tales. Sure, common sense tells you that a well constructed in shale won't last as long as one constructed in sand or more permeable substance but they will simply drill more. It is a boon for drillers as well as producers.

Gringo suggests that fracked oil is viable only at $70 per barrel. Wrong. It is more like $30 and what you alarmists never seem to grasp is that technology moves on allowing greater production at cheaper costs.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/opec-is...

You people seem to have no idea how much oil we have in shale formations. Much of it is put off limits by wacko leftists such as that in the Monterey Formation in California and still it is too much for even Obama to put a cork in. Fracking has succeeded in spite of leftists attempts to kill it and all fossil fuels. The Moterey has approximately 13.7 billion barrels of obtainable oil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monterey_Fo... and it is just one of many

I remember a computer professor that my sister dated in the 1980s who stated that we were at the limit of our technology and computers couldn't get any faster. That is how I see you alarmists, with heads stuck deep in the sand.

Just where do you get your information from? Al Gore? Ha! Ha! Fracking is just another way of extracting oil from the earth that gets around some of the restrictions of regular methods. You greenies didn't realize it until it was too late. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! You fellas shut down and capped the regular oil wells and didn't realize Fracking was another avenue.

you can bet that the price of oil is on a general upward trend.

yes. it is short term. oil will not be the primary source in 200years

jello asks, "Are you concerned that the current oil glut will mean oil will be the primary source of energy for the next 200 years?"

There was a news piece a couple days ago that stated that fracked wells run dry rather quickly.

So is the comment that we'll have an oil glut for 200 years at all rational?

Rather, should the concern be that the currently relatively inexpensive gas might entice people to buy gas guzzling cars, and that the price of gas will rise pretty dramatically in a relatively few years?

Might this be a good time to be a hybrid, or all electric car, since it's likely that demand will be down a bit, and prices might be a little cheaper now than they will in a few years?