Saturday, November 1, 2014




如今,能源专家再也笑不出来了。根据美国能源信息局(US Energy Information Administration)的说法,到2020年,美国所消费的原油中将有近一半产自国内,其中又有82%来自大西洋沿岸。著名能源分析师维尔莱格(Philip Verleger)指出,到2023年,即尼克松提出“独立计划”50周年之际,美国将实现能源独立——其能源出口将超过进口。

维尔莱格认为,能源独立“可能将世界带入新美国世纪(New American Century),形成一个美国能够以比世界其他地方低得多的成本获得能源的经济环境”。如今,欧洲和亚洲的天然气价格已经比美国高出了4—6倍。







但下结论不能操之过急。能源进出口的平衡只是通往能源独立的第一步。我在近著《实力的未来》(The Future of Power)中指出,全球互助性既具有敏感性,也具有脆弱性。如果美国能源进口量有所减少,那么从长期看它的脆弱性将会减小,但石油是一种可替代商品,而美国经济仍然对世界油价的突然变化所带来的冲击非常敏感。







Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (7)

Please login or register to post a comment

  1. CommentedSugandha Pahwa

    this will be a giant leap to [fast forwarded] macro economics without nuclear proliferation. i just believe the soveriegnity over national "resources" is the giant leap. Not the borders, i can actually see unmanned borders.

  2. CommentedNathan Coppedge

    I was under the impression that oil was a major reason for the conflict in the Middle East. Fluctuations in gas prices almost always seem to be altered by so-called "political influences" in the Arab world, and U.S. prices have been affected by a strong "charity" approach which provides a cushion by pouring huge amounts of capital onto what was originally merely an "energy" issue. The relationship of the U.S. to oil borders on metaphysical, and so it is no wonder that there are gaping military expenses which, while industrial or quasi-permanent in nature, are well in excess of what you mention in your article. I wouldn't be surprised if 50 billion dollars is miniscule compared to the real expense of running aircraft carriers, buying rocket fuel, building missiles, and paying for infantry on passive duty, to say nothing of outright conflict involving vast mobilizations. Much like the domestic economy, what I might call the military economy is not something accurately accounted in the minds of common citizens.

  3. CommentedThomas Granado

    Professor, you nailed it, but to complete the analysis you must give more stock to the opposition. First, there is significant industrial opposition to exportation of gas -- those who benefit greatly from low electricity and feedstock costs (petrochemicals, steel). Second, while the environmental community is split, the anti-Keystone crew is adamant about renewables over hydrocarbons. Damn the economics; for them it's a zero sum game. The evident risk: DOE is holding up export approvals to non-FTA countries while Australia is pressing forward.

  4. CommentedZsolt Hermann

    The title is an interesting oxymoron.
    Indeed the question is can we achieve any kind of independence in an interdependent world?
    This article focuses on energy supplies alone, trying to propose political and economical gains from an assumed energy independence.
    But we are interdependent on multiple levels not only in terms of politics, financial institutions, energy supplies or the usual measures we like to use these days, but on all levels of our lives.
    And we are not only interdependent within the global human society but humanity itself is an integral part of the larger circle of nature surrounding us.
    Even this articles touches upon possible negative environmental effects of increased shale gas production which we have very little information about.
    Also switching from crude oil to gas only postpones the inevitable questions how constant quantitative growth would be possible in a closed, finite system.
    Is it really possible, even just looking at it from political or economical point of view, for a single country to surge ahead of others in a global, interdependent system when others stagnate or fall into crisis?
    As long as we keep concentrating on individual, national benefits only caring about the interdependent system in terms of how we can benefit from it regardless of others, or about environmental consequences (both of which goes against the natural laws of governing interdependent systems), or as long we keep ignoring the very reasons why we need increasing, never ending energy supplies to fuel our insatiable economic model, we will not find long or even short term solutions for our present problems, rather we will create more and newer problems like a drunk person driving on without sobering out recognizing where he is and where he should be going.
    All over the world we keep escaping forward without examining the real causes for the global crisis, but in the global, closed, interdependent system we exist in today we cannot cheat much longer.

  5. CommentedMarshall Kaplan

    Finally some one got it right. Natural gas will play a much more important role in our fuel mix in the future than in the past. Energy independence, however, is not quite an accurate goal and suggest separation. Reducing oil dependence is more accurate . what we need to do is to reduce the monopolistic conditions governing oil and gasoline markets for transportation and allow for flex fuels like natural gas and its derivative methanol. safe..environmentally better., less costs..Let consumers choose. M Kaplan see Over the Barrel at

  6. CommentedAkash Kaura

    USA is becoming increasingly energy independent, and China has significant reserves as well. This would pose a significant concern for India, would it not? Would this mean the India will need to make the transition to a knowledge based economy quicker than anticipated/planned? Looking at, and exploiting, alternative energy resources will require significant R&D which requires the fulfillment of 2 major pre-conditions:
    1. Presence of sufficient educated professionals
    2. Enough investment.
    Considering the current situation, would this mean that if India fails to make the transition in time, the future is not very bright?