Will natural gas rescue American energy policy?
posted at 1:05 pm on December 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Is the answer to bridging American energy policy from a petroleum economy to a renewables future under our very noses — or more accurately, under our feet? The Obama administration wants to impose a punishing cap-and-trade system onto the US to restrict carbon-dioxide emissions, but a plentiful energy source with at least decades of supply and inexpensive price could both lower emissions and reduce dependence on foreign oil. The natural-gas industry wants people to take notice of an option that could allow for an inexpensive transition and massive job creation:
An unlikely source of energy has emerged to meet international demands that the United States do more to fight global warming: It’s cleaner than coal, cheaper than oil and a 90-year supply is under our feet.
It’s natural gas, the same fossil fuel that was in such short supply a decade ago that it was deemed unreliable. It’s now being uncovered at such a rapid pace that its price is near a seven-year low. Long used to heat half the nation’s homes, it’s becoming the fuel of choice when building new power plants. Someday, it may win wider acceptance as a replacement for gasoline in our cars and trucks. …
Today, about 27 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions come from coal-fired power plants, which generate 44 percent of the electricity used in the U.S. Just under 25 percent of power comes from burning natural gas, more than double its share a decade ago but still with room to grow.
But the fuel has to be plentiful and its price stable — and that has not always been the case with natural gas. In the 1990s, factories that wanted to burn gas instead of coal had to install equipment that did both because the gas supply was uncertain and wild price swings were common. In some states, because of feared shortages, homebuilders were told new gas hookups were banned.
It’s a different story today. Energy experts believe that the huge volume of supply now will ease price swings and supply worries.
What changed? The technology of drilling has advanced to the point where shale deposits can be economically accessed, for one thing. At the same time, more deposits of natural gas have been found, some of them massive, which means the promise of a stable supply for several decades.
But can that supply last that long if we begin to switch our electrical generation and transportation to natural gas? If one believes the renewables industry and the Obama administration, we wouldn’t have to worry. They claim that the US is within 10-15 years of a renewables explosion, figuratively speaking, which is why the cap-and-trade system would only temporarily burden the economy. A move to natural gas would avoid all of the pain and joblessness that artificially hiking energy prices would produce, lower emissions significantly from coal and petroleum use, while keeping those fuels in the game enough to float us to the renewable Nirvana Obama promises.
So Obama is excited about this possibility, right? After all, it’s practically a political harmonic convergence: supply within the continent, lower prices, sharp reductions in carbon emissions, and higher employment, mainly in union jobs. Who wouldn’t leap to seize that moment? Apparently Obama:
In June, President Barack Obama lumped natural gas with oil and coal as energy sources the nation must move away from. He touts alternative sources — solar, wind and biofuels derived from corn and other plants. In Congress, the energy debate has focused on finding cleaner coal and saving thousands of mining jobs from West Virginia to Wyoming.
If Obama doesn’t want to use natural gas as a strategy for an American transition to renewable energy (which John McCain proposed as part of his Lexington Project, along with nuclear power), then it seems rather obvious that he has other motives than a clean, renewable energy future for the US.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Hasn’t that always been rather obvious? Nothing this guy has done is in the interest of a strong and free America.
Our main objective should be consolidating all resistance groups against Obama into a massive force. Our priority needs to be retaking the reins from the government.
darwin on December 21, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Google Otero Mesa and drilling and see what the problem is — the environmentalists don’t really care if companies are drilling for clean natural gas instead of that dirty, grimy oil stuff. They just don’t want drilling, period.
jon1979 on December 21, 2009 at 1:09 PM
This is what T. Boone Pickens has been saying for a while.
I don’t see the leftist idealogues allowing it. It’s still a carbon based fossil fuel. The environmentalists will have a fit, even though it’s cleaner. They will also hate that it’s cheaper, so they will tax it more.
zmdavid on December 21, 2009 at 1:11 PM
ya got that right!
cmsinaz on December 21, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Didn’t Obama say he wanted to get rid of everything coal? Jobs, energy.. everything?
Which makes me think… why is Alaska trying to make a pipeline to the lower 48… when you all have a bunch of “untapped” natural gas?
Don’t you love how infrastructure works with an economy?
upinak on December 21, 2009 at 1:12 PM
I don’t know whether this is because leftists honestly think we can cook all our meals with unicorn farts and solar panels, or whether this is more fetishism for nobly savage grass huts and coconut bras for Americans. Conveniently forgotten is the pollution potential of biomass (wood and dung), which noble savages worldwide burn to cook their dinner.
Sekhmet on December 21, 2009 at 1:13 PM
How is NatGas ‘cleaner’ than liquid hydrocarbons? Fewer carbon atoms per BTU energy output? Or is NatGas just invisible with no dirty carbon dirt to get on your hands and clothes, and no soot out the chimney?
Skandia Recluse on December 21, 2009 at 1:14 PM
We can not have this! These gas companies ‘make’ money and this bho hates it when companies make money. They are ‘fat cats’!
L
letget on December 21, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Al Bore, Osama Obama and the rest of the AGW crowd want one thing: no energy use at all by anyone but the favored few, which includes them, their buddyroos and polluters in “developing” nations, but leaves the rest of us out.
Wind power? Kills birds. Gas? Hey ya still gotta burn it, and that gives the planet a fever. Solar energy might be okay, but there might be something dangerous there, too.
What it all adds up to is that they want us to turn over everything we have to them and then die. Overpopulation, y’know.
MrScribbler on December 21, 2009 at 1:14 PM
The problem with our natural gas is that it takes hydraulic fracturing of the shale to make it economically viable. The enviro-nuts claim that this uses too much water and that it can contaminate the local water table. There is little evidence to support the allegations but that doesn’t matter as their real agenda is anti-capitalist. But look to the media to hype the charges. Especially the “poisoning the water supply” charge.
Fair disclosure….I work for the evil petroleum industry.
toddsts on December 21, 2009 at 1:16 PM
I bet Robert Byrd, Arlen Specter, Frank Lautenberg and Patrick Leahy let out some natural gas in their Depends.
SouthernGent on December 21, 2009 at 1:17 PM
The communists have taken over the green movement.
Prosperity is not allowed in the new U.S.A.
cntrlfrk on December 21, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Democrats promote all kinds of interim solutions (climate, budget, healthcare) but absolutely, positively would never consider an interim energy solution.
vinman on December 21, 2009 at 1:18 PM
If conservatives and/or republicans want to “own” this issue they’d best present it to the voters differently. Not as it is above. Don’t go on and on about the advatages, etc and the lack of dependency on foreigh oil ad nauseum. Speak only and forcefully about the number of high paying, private sector jobs that domestice energy production will produce. And pose the question, “why do democrats continue to stand in the way and block these great jobs!”
Sarah and Newt’s “drill baby drill” inititatives have fallen short specifically because they don’t talk enough about the jobs it’ll produce. DD
Darvin Dowdy on December 21, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Here in AK, the state is already pursuing our own natural gas pipeline that will create 10K+ jobs, yes they are saying 10K+
ConservativePartyNow on December 21, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Obama, Gore, and the enviro-nuts do NOT care about the actual environment. Like with healthcare, it’s about CONTROL. They don’t care about the results. If someone came up with a zero emissions engine that ran on human waste products these people would invent some “science” to claim it would destroy the planet.
These nitwit liberal elites WANT a stratified society that doesn’t have access to cheap energy or universally available transportation. The automobile, and the INDIVIDUAL freedom it represents is their true enemy, not the internal combustion engine. It’s all about their desire to lock you in place. Want to go buy X in Y state where the taxes and regulations are lower? They don’t like that, so make it inconvenient. Ditto with everything else.
wildcat84 on December 21, 2009 at 1:20 PM
I am old enough to remember my old man shoveling coal into the furnace at 5:00 AM before going to work. We live about 1/2 mile away from a natural gas pipeline but the company won’t put a pipeline down our road until the price is high enough to cover their costs. Even bottled gas is better than shoveling coal.
fourdeucer on December 21, 2009 at 1:20 PM
No, the communists pretty much STARTED the green movement. It’s been a green cloak to hide the red from the very beginning.
wildcat84 on December 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Drill baby drill
John the Libertarian on December 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM
If it’s good for the country, you can be sure that Barry and Co. are against it. Hey, he said it in his speech days before the election, but the lemmings never stopped to think about what it really meant: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” The only intention this guy has is to bring this country down as far as he possibly can, and to run the Constitution through the shredder.
Dopenstrange on December 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM
ding ding ding!
+1
cmsinaz on December 21, 2009 at 1:22 PM
No.
enginemike on December 21, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Which we know isn’t true.
upinak on December 21, 2009 at 1:22 PM
You can find example after example where the stated goal is never the real issue for Progressives. Whenever you have to invent an agenda you have no intention of pursuing, you know your real agenda is crap. Why the American people couldn’t see it is clearly a result of public education.
I blame Independents. Sorry to those of you who are- but your inability to chose a clear path and stick to it is what has led to the rise of the Progressive. They sold you a lot of snake oil, you bought it, and now you’re regretting it. Get some principles.
(Okay- maybe that was over the top- I admit it. But there is some modicum of truth there…)
BKeyser on December 21, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Did I hear something about drilling?
Drilling? Are you people out of your minds? It will be a cold day, maybe literally, when we allow expanded drilling. We need all that renewable wind and sun power, not hydro because that’s really, really bad, that doesn’t cost anything because it’s FREE. FREE for mother Gaia and all her polar bears.
Seriously do you really think that we would do anything that required mining or drilling? The liberal and envro wackos would got bonkers. Well more then they are now anyway.
RagTag on December 21, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Were it not for government’s distortion of energy markets there would already be widespread use of CNG in our cars. It makes too much sense to be otherwise.
Bugler on December 21, 2009 at 1:25 PM
This.
phineas on December 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM
They’ve been making the same claim regarding fusion power for about 50 years.
MarkTheGreat on December 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I remember our coal furnace too. Then we converted to heating oil. It seemed to me like coal was warmer heat.
OmahaConservative on December 21, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Obama doesn’t give a rat’s ass about ‘greening’ America. It’s all about CONTROL.
CONTROL of WHO GET’S WHAT AND HOW MUCH.
Comrade.
GarandFan on December 21, 2009 at 1:30 PM
If gas was so cheap… why are many of us paying out the nose to heat our homes? Because the gas companies can.
upinak on December 21, 2009 at 1:31 PM
This is the most likely reason because many of the smaller, independent oil companies (shriek!! OIL!!) are involved in this because it is a byproduct of producing (drilling) oil.
Cannot let those oil companies get any more money!!!
tru2tx on December 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Wasn\’t Pelosi calling natgas an alternative energy last year?
blink on December 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Ah, fusion power…the energy equivalent of Duke Nukem Forever. Except that the software finally got the official call-off.
If there were any profit at all to be made with fusion power, I think we’d have started seeing something besides high-tech white elephants and endless technobabble.
Dark-Star on December 21, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Green is the new Red.
flyfishingdad on December 21, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Yes, this is the bottom line:
Gas and nuclear, not to mention the supply of domestic oil and prospects for clean coal.
Energy independence is readily attainable, if that indeed were the issue. But clearly it’s not.
petefrt on December 21, 2009 at 1:34 PM
My gas bill is less this year. I have an old house with an old gas furnace. The house is so old it has a derelict coal chute and a derelict oil tank in the basement, and not much insulation.
zmdavid on December 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Exactly.
petefrt on December 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Obama: “Help me in fundamentally transforming the United States of America”
The only thing which will rescue America is the removal of this man and his party from power. Period.
bloviator on December 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM
I really hate when the Left says renewables etc will reduce our dependence on oil imports and it’s even more annoying when I read it here.
Oil is imported primarily as transportation fuel and a limited amount is for feedstock for the chemical and pharmaceutical industries of which nat gas is also a big feedstock.
The US has the largest supply of oil, gas, and coal in the entire world according to our own government. What we lack is the political will to tell the eco-Marxists to shut up and stand down from their lies and economy wrecking policies so we can Drill Drill Drill!
70% of US CO2 emissions come from coal fired power plants. If the Left were serious about reducing our emissions they would support the building of nuclear power plants on a massive scale and leave our transportation emissions alone. That they continue to push wind and solar exposes their real agenda, limiting energy and thereby limiting US lifestyles they see as unfair and excessive.
We are choking the life out of our economy and doing it to ourselves.
Exploiting our own resources would provide tremendous benefits including massive inflows of cash to the federal treasury from mining rights, increased income tax collections form the high paying jobs that would be created, and income taxes from the export of US oil (yes we have enough to export the stuff).
We could exert control over the world price of oil and use that control as a weapon against our enemies. We could eliminate our national debt and balance our trade deficit.
The benefits are tremendous and left on the table by the insane Left.
DerKrieger on December 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Green has always been Red.
thomasaur on December 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Depends on where you live. I have little insulation as well and will probably have to gut the whole inside of the house and put in some nice insulation. But, who wants to gut their house?
upinak on December 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM
I’m not sure what Ed is complaining about. Unlike many new energy technologies, natural gas is a mature industry. It does not require government help as it already has well established companies and expertise with lots of captital. The article points out that one of America’s largest companies is already positioning to take advantage of this. I would be surprised if the federal government tries to hamper any development of this cleaner resource. Higher energy prices are making the existing reserves worth going after now. I think it makes sense for the government to provide support for nascent industries which are even cleaner than natural gas which are also limitless in terms of availablilty.
lexhamfox on December 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Probably, about the best jobs left, that don’t require a college degree. Either in the plant, or constructing it.
We need a Republican, on his/her soapbox, spelling out how many jobs, paying $xx,xxx per job, that were lost, when the Big Stone plant (just a Minnesota/South Dakota example) was cancelled, due to lawsuits from the usual crowd.
MNHawk on December 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Nothing short of ridding ourselves of Obama, Pelosi, and her stable of Marxist criminals will set this economy right.
elduende on December 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM
This is
The Sadly Obligatory
“Let’s harness the natural gas from all the gasbags in Congress”
post.
It’s an ugly job, but somebody has to do it.
Bruno Strozek on December 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Wrong link Der. But many in here understand what you are talking about. I also do not believe in Peak Oil. Not one scientist can claim it as they seem to be finding many different pools everywhere and the fact that those “wells” that have been capped, plugged and abandoned so long ago… seem to be reproducing oil and gas.
upinak on December 21, 2009 at 1:41 PM
That just about sums it up.
Dopenstrange on December 21, 2009 at 1:42 PM
global governance
txag92 on December 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM
This is coming in 2010 and 2012, which is why they are trying to ram through the transformation into a national socialist state as fast as they can.
That is, unless ACORN and the SEIU “Purple People Beaters” steal the elections.
wildcat84 on December 21, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Electing people that will allow Americans to become energy independent is the only answer. Drill baby drill, nuclear power and a pragmatic approach to refining and distributing energy is the way it should work.
Hening on December 21, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Ed Lasky at American Thinkier wrote about Cheap Natural Gas and Its Enemies.
He talks about how George Soros along with Herbert and Marion Sandler trying to curtail Exxon’s efforts to extract more natural gas because it would affect both the Sandlers’ and Soro’s profits.
Mark Boabaca on December 21, 2009 at 1:45 PM
But Insulation is so….sexy. /
I’m in the same boat. I have to gut my house and Insulate. The old Oil furnace is killing me this year. $485 bucks to fill the tank.
portlandon on December 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM
That’s a dirty little secret that the ‘Peak Oil’ mullahs don’t want to get out. They treat us like flat earthers when we point it out. Oil is oozing to the surface along the California coast since the harvesting of has been outlawed.
thomasaur on December 21, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Not sure I’m buying it.
Annual NG imports:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9100us2A.htm
Exports:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9130us2a.htm
So, lets run some quick numbers.
Exports – Imports for 200-2008 in Million cubic feet:
2000:net import 3,537,887
2001:net import 3,603,661
2002:net import 3,499,230
2003:net import 3,263,827
2004:net import 3,404,420
2005:net import 3,612,433
2006:net import 3,462,323
2007:net import 3,785,128
2008:net import 2,978,509
So we’ve needed to import 3 Trillion cubic feet per year for the past decade beyond our national production… and the plan is to change so that instead of all our other energy use we use more of this.
It doesn’t ship well, so US, Canada, and Mexico are pretty much our only option (LNG tankers are limited in use, and costly).
Is it too much to ask that we at least show we can get by with current usage without massive imports before we swap the entire energy system over to this?
I’ve seen this claim, but we’re still importing trillions of cubic feet every year… can we maybe get someone to show that this might work? And will the existing pipelines handle the required throughput to make this work? It’s hard to get LNG on a train, I’ve never seen it done.
They don’t have the infrastructure to get the gas where its needed, store enough for this usage levels in winter, or keep a constant supply; and our current production levels don’t even meet our current usage much less seriously ramped up usage… how could it possibly go wrong?
Oh who am I kidding… of course that’s too much to ask that we have some evidence that this can work. We must do this now, and see if it will work later. For the children… or the planet, or the polar bears or whatever the reason is this week.
The plan might not fail; but it would require serious infrastructure work, and some evidence that production could actually be ramped up to meet need. Pardon me if I’m not seeing that yet.
gekkobear on December 21, 2009 at 1:49 PM
+1
CNG Conversion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZdrWoNCUNM
RBMN on December 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM
We need to launch the nuclear energy industry to provide for our electricity needs and natural gas to provide for our transportation energy needs. Nukes will provide the electricity and the hydrogen in the long run, along with natural gas, which can also eventually fuel fuel cell vehicles and homes. Anyone talking about energy independence without these two elements (which this administration is not talking about) is joking around. By the way, Sarah Palin negotiated the largest private sector project in America’s history in the proposed natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48. She is the only politician in America with any clue about how to achieve energy independence. She understands that oil is not just used for transportation and if we move from petroleum transportation to natural gas, we can become energy independent. This will bring about the economy that can significantly raise our living standards and pay down our national and international debts.
milemarker2020 on December 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM
MARXIST/WHITE HOUSE TAKEOVER OF U.S. NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY COMING IN 5……..4……..3………
PappyD61 on December 21, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Because you cant drill for it everywhere, its expensive ergo no competition. Make it easier or less of a hassle to get and you will see more than the “Big Boys” able to get it and the price will come down. Its basic market principles which this administration and the greens have been trying to destroy for years.
Koa on December 21, 2009 at 2:01 PM
George Soros is opposed.
Wethal on December 21, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Not sure how big your tank is. I and the BF pay 4.00 a gallon at least (not sure of the amount) and it is usually 350.00 or more and it is never empty. 100 gallon tank. This is his cabin. My house costs about 300 a month in the peak of the year. Thank God it is Solstice today!
To bad it is the “impressionable” college kids that are figuring this out by doing a “side by side” drilling inquiry to recieve their Ph.D’s in some geological industry when they learn the truth.
upinak on December 21, 2009 at 2:05 PM
When measured as energy per unit of Mass, ‘Natural gas’ and ‘gasoline’ are pretty much the same(though ‘gas’ has lots of additives and impurities so that’s a bit broad). Pure methane actually has a slightly higher energy content than ‘gasoline’ from the charts I’ve seen.
Methane is a simpler molecule so it burns ‘cleaner’ across the board however. It’s just that since ch4 is normally gaseous, it’s hard to carry around enough of it.
Fighton03 on December 21, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Yeah I know… I was just pointing out the obvious. I guess it wasn’t so obvious though.
upinak on December 21, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Would it be OK if the drill was solar powered?
Kafir on December 21, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Obama doesn’t care about America’s energy resources (nor does he care about the disastrous effects his policies will have on the American people). We can live in caves with torches for all he cares. He wants a tax so he can redistribute America’s wealth (or what’s left of it). Period.
Buy Danish on December 21, 2009 at 2:15 PM
I think it might work better if it was powered by cow farts. More “Obama-esqe”.
upinak on December 21, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Tom
marinetbryant on December 21, 2009 at 2:23 PM
I agree with Danish. Obama doesn’t know or care about how America will address its energy needs. He just wants more power, and to hurt the rich. And he doesn’t mind hurting the poor, as long as the rich are included in the suffering. It’s a common human sentiment, actually. I thought the job of the president was to lift us above petty jealousy, but apparently that’s a trite, outmoded reading of the role of our chief executive.
hawksruleva on December 21, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Sorry Wethal, didn’t read far enough down.
Tom
marinetbryant on December 21, 2009 at 2:24 PM
NO!
Drilling will pierce the skin of mother Gaia and I just don’t want to think about sucking the life gas out of her. What if the earth deflates? All that million degree magma will cook us alive.
No, drilling is out even if done with renewable power.
RagTag on December 21, 2009 at 2:26 PM
I live in southern MA, (it does make a differance), and have a 225 gallon tank which I just had filled on Nov 2 at $2.27 per gal.
I the coldest months I use a tank a month to heat the house to 62 degrees. This year I’m supplementing with wood heat which has helped as I might make it into the first week of Jan before I have to buy oil again.
YES!
I love it when we pass winter Solstice because it means the darkest days are behind us. I also like Spring Equinox because it’s my birthday. :) Well except for next year when it’s on the March 20 rather then March 21.
RagTag on December 21, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Abundant energy means prosperity for the country. The progressives only want prosperity for their lefty-corporatist friends and the political elite.
CP on December 21, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Natural gas will rescue American energy policy, once we remove the idiots in charge of policy.
Vashta.Nerada on December 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM
You don’t get it: we have lots of energy we could develop, but we won’t, because we’re America and we have to de-develop to SAVE THE POLAR BEARS! Oh, and to give money to
tyrants“developing” nations.PattyJ on December 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM
We will never get rid of fossil fuels. the middle east pays the BEST speakers fees for former presidents!
Bicyea on December 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM
I’m goint to yell now so cover your eyes if you must:
HYDROGEN POWER!!! It’s “green” (blech, I hate the word),
renewable (I kinda hate that one too, and sustainable (ugh..I’m making myself ill), GM was making hydrogen powered cars that apparently used WATER as fuel and the first thing the b@st2&D in chief did when he took over GM was CANCEL the program. It’s not about green folks. It’s about passing laws so he can grease some palms and keep his power alive. This by far the stupidest administration in the history of the country. Is the balloon going up?
Driefromseattle on December 21, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Uh, you do realize they won’t let us DRILL? Thats why we are still importing Natural Gas?
Case in point, Bush let some NG leases out here in Colorado… HUGE field… but our Leftists Governor got the drilling permits cancelled “until further research”…
Oh, and for those who do not know… almost ANY modern vehicle can be converted to run off of Compressed natural Gas for only a few hundred dollars… and in Germany they have EXISTING cars which can run off of either Gasoline, or CNG, at the flip of a switch.
Romeo13 on December 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM
You may want to keep that hydro to yourself.
It only works where it is wet and doesn’t freeze (hmm Seattle does freeze so it won’t work there)
Did I make my point yet?
upinak on December 21, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Australia as well.
upinak on December 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM
The solution for the nation’s energy problems is to rename coal as ‘natural coal’ and oil as ‘natural oil’. It likely that natural gas, natural coal and natural oil are kissing cousins of one sort or another coming from old dead life forms of one sort or another…
drfredc on December 21, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Where did all this natural gas come from anyway. Dinosaur farts?
RobD on December 21, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Adding to the evidence that whatever Obama wants, it’s not about energy independence:
The nat-gas industry uses water for hydraulic fracturing, which is an efficient process to extract gas from shale formations. The industry currently has an exemption from safe-drinking-water rules so they can use water from lakes or whatever.
The EPA, however, is likely to rescind that exemption, citing a fear that the process risks contaminating ground water:
If nat-gas producers have to comply with EPA mandates, that will of course mean huge cost increases, which will lead to less production.
Paul_in_NJ on December 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM
What’s the point of this article? If natural gas is so widely available then sell it. If it is the new fuel to use then where are these companies conversion strategies? Are they trying to lobby for subsidies like these green scams? What’s the gimmick, what do these companies want?
LevStrauss on December 21, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Anyone else remember when they were pushing all electric homes, boy it was so clean and cheap.(bait, hook and SUCKER.
The few billionaires that control everything have this all thought out so nobody wins but them.
1) OPEC
2) NAFTA
3) UNITED NATIONS
4) WORK IN PROGRESS(climate warming,population control(you sure that’s really a flu shot:)world dominance by the chosen few) it has been in planning for at least 60 years.
Sorry for the gloom and doom, so MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR, and may God Bless us in the coming years.
concernedsenior on December 21, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Sarah Palin, you magnificent bastard!
NoLeftTurn on December 21, 2009 at 3:59 PM
There’s this car…and it runs on water, man! It’s got a fiberglass air-cooled engine and it runs on WATER!
alwaysfiredup on December 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Ok, I’ve got no problems with opening up drilling (although I’m not in the 52% so that might be a problem getting it permitted).
But before I trust that this is a solution I’d like to see three things.
1) An increase in supply to meet at a minimum our current usage. (which drilling might do, should easily do if the reported numbers are correct)
2) An increase is the pipelines used to move Natural Gas so they could conceivably cover the transportation of the new expected supply and demand.
3) An increase in the Natural Gas storage so we don’t run storage empty.
Our current max storage (3.8 TCF approximately) will get us through a cold winter *(probably, we haven’t pushed this in a few years; but we haven’t run very low either, we haven’t dipped under 800 BCF in over 5 years) without running out (or running so low the system loses pressure, arguably 300-500 BCF, nobody knows for sure at what point it stops) before we hit the spring season to start rebuilding storage.
I recall the (not reported much, but those watching) concern when the assumption was the system needed 600-750 BCF to pressurize the system, and the monthly spot number hit in the 690′s. Hypothetically we could run down to (or about) 0, but to do so you’d have to pump air into all the lines to use the nat. gas; and then you’d have to spend some serious time clearing air from the lines.
Also if you put all your eggs on one basket… if the pipe breaks during some winter; you could see an entire area of the country without an alternative if natural gas is your only electricity/heating/etc. solution. Do you ship coal in and encourage electric heaters instead of nat. gas for the emergency? Evacuate a couple of states? How do you even handle that from a national perspective?
Oh; and BCF billion cubic feet, TCF trillion cubic feet; I guess I didn’t label those.
gekkobear on December 21, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Soros is a robber baron for the 21st century. Like a parasite sucking the life out of its host, Soros and his ilk would destroy humanity in its entirety if in so doing, they could gain more power and wealth for themselves until the last person dies.
They do not want anyone else to be successful or wealthy. They hate it.
If I were the next President, I’d be sorely tempted to declare Soros an “enemy combatant” under the new Supreme Court rules that Obama’s DOJ just received…
Wanderlust on December 21, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Some of you may not remember that President Jimmy Carter banned contruction of new Natural Gas Electical plants in favor of West Virginia’s low sulfur coal.
Those of us in the Tuscaloosa Trend remember it well.
barnone on December 21, 2009 at 5:36 PM
There is some really bad info being passed off as factual.
1. Halliburton is not a drilling company or an oil or gas company. Quit spouting off the libtards ignorance. It is an oil well service company which offer directional drilling (that is a consultant with some software and tools) wireline, and fraccing services along with other services to owners and drilling companies (who actually own the oil rigs to drill)
2. CNG as a fuel is not as good as gasoline and especially as diesel. There is a drop off in horsepower.
3. Fraccing (as it is called in the oil patch) is performed in several ways, one of which it the use of nitrogen. Fraccing the gas shales usually involves a polymer coated sand. in the mix.
4. ConocoPhillips tried to auction off ALL of its gas to liquids research, technology and pilot plant over a year ago. There were no takers even for the low opening price of just over $1 million. That issue is a deadend.
Kermit on December 21, 2009 at 5:44 PM
upinak, I live in Melbourne these days, and yes, the Australian govt has pushed hard to convert automobiles to “autogas” – it’s a tiny bit different in composition than LNG, but natural gas is plentiful here; very cheap.
While LNG/CNG conversions result in a bit less efficiency and range for automobiles, LNG is now plentiful at petrol stations across Australia.
Also, don’t forget that LNG conversions have two distinct “clean burn” advantages:
* CO (carbon monoxide) pollution drops down to levels so low that you can operate an internal combustion inside a large closed area without health risks – for example, look at all the LNG/propane powered forklifts, floor polishers, etc. used in closed warehouses and supermarkets in the US; and
* Unburned hydrocarbons are also significantly reduced, allowing for higher fuel efficiency (less friction) and longer periods between oil changes.
I also recall that Ford has been designing engines for dual-fuel use for the better part of the past 20 years.
Finally, existing diesel engines can be converted to run a 20% LNG mix, which raises HP and eliminates particulate emissions without requiring expensive muffler soot traps.
But remember, the Green Communists only tout an “alternative” fuel so long as it is practically unobtainable in large quantities – hence San Fran Nan’s comments about LNG earlier this year. The moment that a “green” alternative becomes practical to use, however, they find a way to stomp it (e.g., Kennedy’s objections to a wind farm sited off Martha’s Vineyard).
“Green” for them means horrifically expensive and married to Federal subsidies into perpetuity, so that someone can be paid off.
/SIGH
Wanderlust on December 21, 2009 at 5:45 PM
I remember that too: “malaise” boy thought that “peak Gas” had been reached, and that the US was just about to run out of it. In his case, I really believe he was stupid enough to fall for that crap.
Jimmah was just plain incompetent, I think.
Obambi, however, is an incompetent who actually believes the bullsh!t spewing from his mouth, while ignoring his Chicago mob and Soros puppetmasters.
Wanderlust on December 21, 2009 at 5:48 PM
In addition to my last post if you want to sound intelligent, quit using “papers” as a source. They are many times not worth the paper they are printed on. See Glowarming…
As to refining of oil, there are many other things that come from a barrel of oil. It is the gasoline portion which keeps those costs of other products low, like lubricating oil, pharmaceuticals, and a whole host of other things. Sure natural gas can and is used for a great many things that we touch, see and ingest on a daily basis. Just like any
“Lite” bread or pastry product which is nothing more than hydrocarbons, woods chips and trace amounts of chlorine to replace the flour.
Kermit on December 21, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Lots of farmers went for the butane conversions for their pickup trucks and some lighter duty tractors. It did not last long, efficiencies dropped like a rock and price to operate went up.
Up north in the U.S., gas electric generating stations have to add LPG to the mix during winter months to make up for lost BTU’s.
Cinton/Gore destroyed the Western Canada petrochemical industry by forcing new power plants to be built using natural gas. It did however allow pipeline companies to build new pipelines from Western Canada to the U.S. at these higher “mandated by regulation” rates which the petrochemical industry could not afford there.
Kermit on December 21, 2009 at 5:55 PM
<blockquote>There is some really bad info being passed off as factual.
1. Halliburton is not a drilling company or an oil or gas company. Quit spouting off the libtards ignorance. It is an oil well service company which offer directional drilling (that is a consultant with some software and tools) wireline, and fraccing services along with other services to owners and drilling companies (who actually own the oil rigs to drill)
Kermit on December 21, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Wow. where I made is bold is a lie.
Sperry Sun Inc. is a division of Halliburton. As it is not a “Oil Company” it IS a Product and Drilling service TO Oil Companies which you stated and then said it wasn’t.
Please do not give out false information. I work with many drilling companies, including Sperry Sun.
I have a few friends Down Under and they say that it is worth the petrol (as it sounds to me) to convert as it is cheaper for them to run.
upinak on December 21, 2009 at 6:05 PM
It is cheaper right now because there is still a $1750 govt handout for anyone who converts their personal vehicle from petrol to LNG. Last year it was $2000. The program phases out in five years.
Regardless of how good it is, I prefer a tax reduction over a handout administrated by the govt.
That being said, I can remember wanting to convert my Nissan truck to dual-fuel use back in 1991 when, during Operation Desert Storm, gas prices in North Carolina peaked at the stratospheric price of $1.31/gallon.
SIGH…those were the days.
Wanderlust on December 21, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Liquid fuels are exceptionally suited for motor vehicle use. They are less hazardous in case of collision and pose less hazard in the case of leaks. You can usually see a gasoline or oil leak; you cannot see a gas leak.
It would make sense to direct the natural gas to stationary uses and preserve the liquid fuel for motor vehicles, except where there are special considerations (propane-powered forklifts indoors, for example). There are many neighborhoods where natural gas pipelines could be laid to reduce the need for heating oil.
As far as storage and production: with a more robust production system, we might not need as much storage. And storage can be created, just not in the city areas. We do need more pipelines, although we may be able to improve old ones with liners. And there should be local storage near power plants so that they can run for a little while when there is a pipeline disruption, and so that the grid can be adjusted when they must be shut down, or reduced to an idling state.
njcommuter on December 21, 2009 at 8:55 PM
I’m old enough to temember shoveling coal into a stoker to feed the furnace.
I remember, too, the day when we got a gas furnace.
Let’s go natural and use it while we “Drill Here; Drill Now.” The ‘letric companies can burn coal until we get sme nukes online.
First we need to get rid of the leftist luddites.
davidk on December 21, 2009 at 9:50 PM
The benefits are tremendous and left on the table by the insane
Left. RightDerKrieger on December 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM
FIFY
This could be such a beautiful, elegant use of an concept whose time has come. Republicans could win by using this issue if they got some energy and some backbone and started courting conversatives. If they stick to priciples they’ll also get substantial cross-over support from the middle third.
I’m still waiting for the GOP to articulate a plan. I fear they’re still running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to figure out what hit them. While the Dems are already planning their next new voter block. You can’t say they’re not ruthlessly efficient.
I want a clear concise definition of where the Republicans want to lead our country, and the principles they want to follow. What do they want to do about our primary concerns, which I place in this order: Economy, National Defense/Security, Immigration Policy, SS and Medicare, Size of Govt., Education. I’m still waiting.
But to get back to my original point, every thing DerKrieger says is correct, and true about Rebpulicans as well as Democrats.
The Republicans could run with this and create incredible excitement. If they only allowed themselves to dare…
CSK on December 22, 2009 at 12:07 AM
I know this sounds quaint, but Obama is an evil person. He does not want a solution.
He wants control.
scotash on December 22, 2009 at 3:03 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »