Horizontal Drilling Expands Natural Gas Reserves

Using a relatively new new technique, oil engineers and geologist are now able to drill horizontally to extract natural gas from shale.

The technique has been used across Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Pennsylvania for the past decade, resulting in a 40 percent increase in U.S. natural gas supplies in recent years.

The increased production has created a glut of the gas in the U.S., helping to drive down gas prices and utility costs.

Daniel Yergin, chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, calls the new method of producing gas “is the biggest energy innovation of the decade.”

Natural gas produces fewer emissions of greenhouse gases than either oil or coal, making it a favorable alternative.

Now Europe is seeking to expand in its reserves of the cleanest fossil fuel. The hope is that the continent can reduce its dependence on Russian natural gas.

Initial estimates of recoverable shale gas in Europe range up to 400 trillion cubic feet. Though that is less than half the industry’s estimates of what is recoverable in the United States, it could eventually drive down prices, which are sometimes twice as high as those in the U.S.

By some estimates, the horizontal drilling technique could result in at least a 20 percent increase in the world’s known reserves of natural gas.

One recent study by the Cambridge consulting group, calculated that the recoverable shale gas outside of North America could turn out to be equivalent to 211 years’ worth of natural gas consumption in the United States at the present level of demand, and maybe as much as 690 years. The low figure would represent a 50 percent increase in the world’s known gas reserves, and the high figure, a 160 percent increase.

If the U.S. can convert more of its transportation fleets to use natural gas rather than gasoline, it would increase energy independence and security, as well as reducing costs and carbon emissions.

On a global scale, those benefits would obviously be greatly magnified.

Amidst all the dire peak oil news, this at least provides us with some semblance of hope.

Number of Failed U.S. Banks Reaches 130, and Counting

Six more U.S. banks were closed on Friday. These latest failures are expected to cost the FDIC's insurance fund at least $2.3 billion.

A total of 130 U.S. banks have now failed this year. The cumulative cost of all these failures to the federal deposit insurance fund is more than $28 billion, and counting.

The problem is that this fund has been in the red for over two months.

Last week, the FDIC announced that 552 banks are at risk of going under.

This begs the question: Is your bank safe?

The FDIC is counting on struggling banks to pay three years worth of insurance fund fees (amounting to $45 billion) to help offset the continuing losses.

Yes, the FDIC is relying on insolvent banks to come up with money they don't have, in order to save themselves.

It boggles the mind.

Declining Job Losses Nothing to Celebrate

The good economic news today was that the economy only shed 11,000 jobs in November, giving Wall St. cause for celebration.

However, it was the 23rd consecutive month of job losses – the longest losing streak since the 1930s.

Indeed, jobs losses must decelerate before ceasing, and losses must cease before net job creation is realized. But amid all this hubbub, one thing cannot be overlooked: the U.S. economy is still losing jobs every month.

Two years since the start of the Great Recession, nearly 8 million jobs have been lost. In fact, all job creation for the entire decade has been destroyed and is now negative. That hasn't happened since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The fact is, there are twice as many unemployed people today as there were two years ago at his time.

Though the labor market has seen a steady decline in first-time jobless claims, and Initial claims have fallen five weeks in a row, it's not the layoffs that are hurting us as much as the lack of hiring.

In essence, while fewer people are being laid off, fewer are being hired as well.

Nearly six million of the 15.7 million people officially classified as unemployed have been out of work longer than six months. And that doesn't count the part-timers who cannot find full-time work, or those who have simply given up looking.

About 2.3 million persons were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

There are 9.28 million people working part time, but who want a full time job. A year ago the number was 7.3 million. Employers will start increasing the hours of part-time workers before they start hiring full-time workers. This should give us pause.

Truthfully, all of these facts should temper some of the jubilation about a potential recovery.

The so-called U-6 unemployment figure still remains above 17%. This figure counts all the people that want a job but gave up, all the people with part-time jobs that want a full-time job, all the people who dropped off the unemployment rolls because their unemployment benefits ran out, etc.

Many of these job losses will be permanent. Millions of Americans will have to find new jobs or even new careers, which will be a lengthy process. The economy is both restructuring and recovering at the same time.

Service-producing industries added 58,000 jobs, while goods-producing industries cut 69,000 jobs. This is exactly the wrong kind of job creation, and the continuation of a decades-long pattern.

For far too long we've consumed too much and produced too little. We need to recover our manufacturing base in a hurry.

Unfortunately, there are continually fewer high-skill, high-paying jobs. In their place are evermore low-skill, low-paying service jobs.

"Hi, welcome to Wal-Mart," and "Hello, welcome to McDonald's, can I take your order?" have become all too common refrains for far too many educated and overqualified workers.

According to Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard, for every job that becomes available, about six people are looking. That creates an enormous amount of competition and leaves many out of luck.

Here's the reality check:

The government says that 1.3 million jobs need to be created every year from 2006-2016 just to keep up with the growing labor force. The hole we're in is very deep. Experts note that it will take years to reverse these massive losses.

Even if the nation could add 2.15 million private-sector jobs per year starting in January 2010, it would need to maintain this pace for more than 7 straight years (7.63 years), or until August 2017, to eliminate the current jobs deficit.

Washington, Wall St. and the mainstream media should hold of on the celebrating for now. The recovery hasn't really started yet. And whenever it does, there's still a very long road ahead.

Worldwide Economic Instability a Major Threat

The U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, has told Congress that instability in countries around the world caused by the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications, rather than terrorism, is the primary near-term security threat to the United States.

And another leading figure on the world stage has voiced similar concerns.

In March, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund, warned that the global economic crisis threatened millions of people with being pushed into poverty.

At a meeting of the International Labour Organisation, Mr Strauss-Kahn issued this warning:

"'Bluntly the situation is dire. All this will affect dramatically unemployment. And, beyond unemployment, for many countries it will be at the roots of social unrest, some threat to democracy, and maybe for some cases it can also end in war."

He also warned governments against ploughing even more fiscal stimulus into their ailing economies.

"You can put in as much stimulus as you want. It will just melt in the sun as snow if at the same time you are not able to have a generally smaller financial sector than before, but a healthy financial sector at work."

The Federal Reserve didn't heed the warning; instead it has increased the monetary base by 142% over the last two years.

Meanwhile, bank balance sheets continue to deteriorate as home foreclosures spiral, and as the commercial real estate collapse gains momentum.

And people are noticing.

Standard & Poor’s has given warning that nearly all of the world’s big banks lack sufficient capital to cover trading and investment exposure, risking further downgrades over the next 18 months unless they move swiftly to beef up their defences.

Every single bank in Japan, the US, Germany, Spain, and Italy included in S&P’s list of 45 global lenders fails the 8pc safety level under the agency’s risk-adjusted capital (RAC) ratio. Most fall woefully short.

And then there's the Dubai default / debacle, which sent a shockwaves through markets around the world. Dubai is likely the canary in the coal mine, signaling the weakness of the global financial system, and the limits of debt.

It appears that 2010 isn't shaping up to be a very happy new year.

The Cost of Dying

Last year, Medicare paid $50 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients' lives. That's more than the budgets of the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Education.

There's an important distinction to be made here; this spending wasn't geared toward saving lives. All of these patients died within two months.

Such a protocol isn't a matter of prolonging life; it's a matter of prolonging death.

According to Dr. Ira Byock, 18 to 20 percent of Americans spend their last days in an ICU.

Yet, a vast majority of Americans say they want to die at home. However, 75 percent die in a hospital or a nursing home.

Dr. Elliott Fisher, a researcher at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy, says that 30 percent of hospital stays in the United States are probably unnecessary.

The costs are enormous.

Overall, healthcare in the U.S. is the most expensive in the world, costing about $2.4 trillion last year.

And government economists expect healthcare costs to account for 17.6 percent of GDP this year.

Part of the problem is that most doctors get paid based on the number of patients they see, and most hospitals get paid for the patients they admit. This amounts to what might be termed a "perverse incentive."

"In medicine we have turned the laws of supply and demand upside down," says Dr. Fisher. "Supply drives its own demand. If you're running a hospital, you have to keep that hospital full of paying patients in order to, you know, to meet your payroll. In order to pay off your bonds."

In essence, the current system often rewards excessive care. Efficacy and outcomes are not rewarded. But excessive care is.

By law, Medicare cannot reject any treatment based upon cost. It will pay $55,000 for patients with advanced breast cancer to receive the chemotherapy drug Avastin, even though it extends life only by an average of one and a half months.

And it will pay $40,000 for a 93-year-old man with terminal cancer to get a surgically implanted defibrillator if he happens to have heart problems too.

On a national basis, the costs are enormous.

Projections released by economists at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid show health care outlays rising from $2.4 trillion in 2008 to $4.4 trillion by 2018, or 20.3 percent of the GDP.

Comparatively, healthcare costs are considerably less expensive across the industrialized world, ranging from 7.2 percent of GDP in Ireland to 11.6 percent in Switzerland.

The current level of U.S. spending is simply unsustainable.

David Walker, the government's former top accountant, puts it this way:

"The one thing that could bankrupt America is out of control health care costs. And if we don't get them under control, that's where we're headed."

One in Eight Americans Now Receiving Food Stamps

The use of food stamps has reached a record high and is climbing every month.

Due to the recession, the number of recipients has soared. One in eight Americans, and one in four children, are now fed by food stamps. That amounts to more than 36 million people.

Virtually all have incomes near or below the federal poverty line, and include single mothers and married couples, the unemployed, the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks, and workers facing reduced hours and/or low wages.

Almost 90 percent of food stamp beneficiaries live below the poverty line.

However, the federal poverty level has a very conservative definition, and is set according to the number of persons in a family.

1 person: $10,830
2 people: $14,570
3 people: $18,310
4 people: $22,050

Individuals earning $11,000 annually are not considered in poverty. And the government does not define a family of four subsisting on $23,000 as living in poverty either.

Despite the strict definitions of poverty, the number of people receiving "nutritional assistance" has been steadily rising. The program is currently expanding at a rate of 20,000 people every day.

The stigma once associated with food stamps has eroded, and even large numbers of "red state" voters are beneficiaries.

In fact, the food stamp program is now officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

For many recipients, that acronym probably has a much nicer ring to it than "food stamps" ever did.

While the number of recipients of the federal cash welfare program has remained flat, the number of food stamp recipients has been steadily climbing.

According to an analysis done by the New York Times, there are 239 U.S. counties where at least a quarter of the population now receives food stamps.

And in 205 counties, the number of people receiving food stamps has risen by at least two-thirds since the recession started two years ago.

Yet, incredibly, the program will almost surely grow considerably larger; only two-thirds of eligible recipients are presently enrolled nationwide.

As it stands, roughly 12 percent of Americans receive food aid.

Professor Mark Rank, of Washington University, recently found that half of Americans receive food stamps at some point by the age of 20.

In Ohio alone, the cost of food stamps to the federal government was $2.2 billion last year. That's just a microcosm of the larger national cost.

According to the government, in 2008, SNAP served 28.4 million people a month at an annual cost of $34.6 billion.

But since that time, the ranks of recipients have swelled by some six million people.

And with it so have the costs.

Bank Failures Continue to Mount

As of November 20, a total of 124 U.S. banks have been closed by regulators. That's the highest total since 1992, when 181 banks failed at the tail end of the S&L crisis.

An average of 11 banks per month have failed this year. Just 25 banks failed last year, and only three in 2007.

The 124 closings have cost the FDIC's insurance fund more than $28 billion this year. The fund's balance went negative as of the end of the third quarter.

The FDIC estimates that the total cost of failures will be $100 billion from 2009 through 2013.

The number of banks on the FDIC's "problem list" stood at 416 at the end of June. The agency will hold a briefing next week to reveal how many banks are currently on that problem list.

The FDIC says that bank failures will remain elevated through next year. Experts suggest we could be no more than 10% of the way through this cycle of bank collapses.

CreditSights, which tracks bank failures, predicts that in the current cycle, from 2008 through 2011, as many as 1,100 banks will fail. That would wipe out 13.4% of all U.S. banks, representing 7% of U.S. banking assets.

Most of the troubled banks are concentrated at the regional and community level, and are weighed down by commercial real estate and construction loans.

Between now and 2012, more than $1.4 trillion worth of commercial real estate loans will come due, according to real estate investment firm ING Clarion Partners.

However, the collateral value underlying many of these loans is depreciating. That means many borrowers will have trouble rolling over their loans.

"Another wave of prolonged losses driven by weakness in commercial real estate could prove catastrophic to many of these weakened banks," CreditSights said.

The banking system has deteriorated considerably since last fall. Banks that regulators deemed healthy only months ago have started to fail.

This month, three banks that received taxpayer money have failed. The three received a total of $2.63 billion from the $700 billion financial bailout program. All of that taxpayer money will likely be lost.

When the TARP legislation was enacted last October, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said, "there is no reason to expect this program will cost taxpayers anything."

In all, more than two dozen banks that received taxpayer money have faced regulatory actions, suggesting they are not stable and could fail. All were deemed "healthy banks" when that money was granted.

More than $5 billion in taxpayer money could be lost, depending on which of these shaky banks survive.

Hold on to your hats, your checkbooks, and your wallets; the worst is yet to come.