Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jag Edge on September 9, 2008 at 13:05

PG, you must be a mind reader! I was thinking the same thing...why not us? I would rather windmills (they look a little bit artsy too) than a rig on my property any day. Can we write Mr. Pickens and make a proposal or something. We're a relatively intelligent group. We have large connected units. If we were thinking this, maybe the two of us actually represent a whole bunch of people thinking the same thing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on September 9, 2008 at 13:27

Well I'm not the one to be leading any groups but it only makes sense that the kick off of the cng autos to be happening near the source of the fuel. We even have a GM plant that's laying off because no one is buying their autos due to gasoline and diesel prices. It would be nice to see them rev back up to full employment by producing cng cars and trucks, huh?
Perhaps industry that depends heavily on N. Gas or as a raw material could locate here as well. They certainly wouldn't have to worry about any shortages.
Maybe even put Shreveport on the map to the rest of the nation as well!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bandit, UMO on September 9, 2008 at 13:19

Let's build those cars here! :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wolverine on September 10, 2008 at 8:02

Yes Sir, I agree!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on September 9, 2008 at 13:48

Great idea! Nowhere better to start then a place where everyone has a lot of interest in natural gas. Other areas of interest would be Ft. Worth/Oklahoma City/Fayettville-Ft. Smith/Cities in the Marcellus. Make us put our money where our mouth is. My mouth would have a big :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Bennett on September 9, 2008 at 15:46

I like everything said... now someone needs to take the ball and run with it!!
This is a great idea and could really catch on.
Just think of the national publicity this would get!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on September 10, 2008 at 3:05

Most of all, Shreveport is cheap in a good way. Cheap labor and cheap cost of living. LA needs to be very aggressive in cutting individual and industrial taxes in order to lure some regional or even national HQs here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on September 10, 2008 at 2:24

Now if only someone would let the Mayor in on this, huh?
Of course he doesn't wield enormous political clout, but he was once a representative who likely has friends who has friends who could take the message in the correct way to Washington DC and perhaps let Shreveport become the first test bed to get this cng/auto thing off to a start, huh?
And with the news of all this floating out nation wide, industry, who has a nose for profits, would catch wind of all this and hopefully one thing would lead to another and so forth and so forth, etc... and before we know it.....

And of course the plus side of this for us, the OGs will have to drill multiple wells in our sections because of all the demand and start mailing out those checks, right?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SharonB T18N R15W S8 on September 11, 2008 at 14:08

I think the Mayor should talk to Pickens and ask for him to make us the Poster Child for his plan, like P.G. suggested. It can't hurt to ask can it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SharonB T18N R15W S8 on September 10, 2008 at 3:07

I have also been thinking Shreveport should take the lead on the CNG automobiles and Pickens plan. The city and parish could put some of the HS lease bonus money they got into establishing tax credits or some other incentives/discounts for gas stations and car owners to convert.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gil Lawton on September 11, 2008 at 12:30

In Keynesian terms, there is a supply-demand (marketing) dilemma.

On the retail (supply) side, it won't pay any seller to go to the trouble of establishing CNG pumps (retail station to vehicle) until there are enough customers with CNG enabled vehicles to purchase from them. On the consummer demand side, it won't benefit anyone to purchase a vehicle that can run on CNG until there is a retail pump within a "reasonable' distance of his home or place of employment.

For this no supply/no demand deadlock to be resolved, some way must be found to
spread the cost.

On the one hand, some conservative-minded individuals and businesses are reluctant to support any kind of cost spread that involves government intrusion into any market. This might be called "big brother anxiety." The argument on this side is that goverment involvement in any market tends to come with government controls, expanded bureaucracy to emplement and police those controls, and the well-known tendency of bureaucratic institutions, once established, to become self-perpetuating.

The other side of this argument, however, has some sound reasoning behind it, also. It is the argument that SOME things, at least, are better off being subsidized (as to infrastructure costs) and regulated by government, and alternative fuels fall into this category -- not only by reason of the high start-up costs (including initial infrastructure) but, also, because of an increasing realization by all that importation of fuels raises issues of national security. The argument on this side is akin to the argument as to why costs of public utilities (gas for heating, electricity, water system -- and, in some respects, telephone systems) would cost consumers MORE if they were NOT tightly regulated. Due to the fact that so much is required to be invested in infrastructure (gas lines, electric cables, water pipes and much much more) there would NOT be any economic benefit to anybody by having multiple retail competitors each building their own infrastructure. In addition to the multiplication of startup costs, which would have to be passed along to fewer than the entirety of consumers, there also would be an untenable super complication of infrastructure clutter. (Imagine, for example, five sets of telephone poles or underground cables, instead of just the one set we now contend with. So, there are a plethora of reasons why economists have referred to public utilities as "natural monopolies." There just cannot be found any feasible way for competition to work in such a scenario. And, instead of reducing costs, competition in such a scenario would multiply them.

It must be factored in, also, that ANY and EVERY monopoly, if price is not regulated on it, can virtually name its price, with the consumer having no alternative to either pay that price or go without -- in the case of CNG, pay the price or WALK. So, some government intervention is indespensible, to keep gouging from occurring.

The best solutions to either and both extremes (conservative or liberal) might be
subsidies to both businesses that purchase and maintain CNG retail pumps, and buyers of vehcles that will run on CNG.

Special kits can convert existing gasoline engines into hybrids (which can run on EITHER CNG OR gasoline (including gasahol). The only problem is that hybrid engines are not quite as efficient in miles per unit ubic volume of CNG (or so I have been told), as compared to engines built to run only on CNG. Many consumers who would be willing to buy vehicles built to run strictly on CNG, however, would assume the risk of running out of fuel at an inopportune place, until and unless retail CNG sources were so abundant as to saturate the same geographical areas as current gasoline pumps have saturated.

Costs of that level of start-up infrastructure (CNG retail outlets) would be far more costly than merely having, say, a dozen such CNG outlets ratably distributed at a space of about one every five miles in a city and one every thirty miles along rural traffic arteries.

There is no question that CNG, as an alternative fuel, is ultimately going to be imminantly feasible. The transition period, between where we are today, and a time when CNG vehicles and CNG retail pumps will saturate the countryside, is going to be a period requiring inconveniences, extra costs, lots of careful planning on part of retailers and consumers, and some unpleasant learning of new habits, together with some unpleasant consequences of absent-mindedness (when, for example, one starts out on a long trip and forgets to refuel, or plan a route with available refueling stops in advance. (Some clever entrepreneurs, one might well imagine, might make a living just being available in rural locations to drive to a CNG vehicle and refuel it at roadside.)

No doubt you have realized, in reading to this point, that these are merely brain stormings. But these are, I belief, some reasonable musings likely to materialize into real issues, requiring real solutions. And thinking in advance about drastic changes relating to transitioning into alternative fuels uses, might help us to make
business decisions and consumer decisions that result in minimum inconvenience to us all.

(Please forgive absence of spell check or rigorous editing.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SharonB T18N R15W S8 on September 11, 2008 at 14:03

Gil Lawton,
I loved your post and there is only one thing you failed to mention... the Philly.. an at home filling station that refills the car overnight. Reduces the problem of CNG retail pumps somewhat, but no doubt the need for retail pumps would still exist. With substantial incentives I think people would buy or convert the vehicles and get a home filling station that adds to your existing monthly gas bill (if you already have gas to your home).

I think the community sentiment expressed here is a valid one, in that it would set a wonderful example for the city to make a commitment to convert as a geographical place where CNG became abundant in a short period of time to demonstrate that it can be done here and now. Someplace in the nation needs to be first, it may as well be here and now. We stand to gain a market for our product, just like Pickens and CHK, etc....

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page