While different members post and debate bonus pricing and differ on the effects of the market conditions. One area that all members can agree (it has seemed) is the need for natural gas as the fuel of the future or at least a bridge fuel. I have listened to T.Boone, Aubrey, even members of the Democratic party on this and it seems like inserting NG into more areas of America's daily life is a no brainer.

So my question for discussion is, if this is a no brainer (which I agree), what is the argument against it? And why is the movement being overshadowed? I know its the election's focus on other issues: economy and national defense. But NG's future can be beneficial to both of those issues. I just hope that once we get past next Tuesday, there will be more focus and discussion on this issue.

Views: 138

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

they talk, they talk we generally pay two dollars or more a gallon than any place in the country
Those are the rants of eco friendly "sounding" polititians. Clean coal is an oxymoron.Mining coal makes drilling for oil look like a cake walk environmentally wise.Yet we dont here near the crazed speech of this practise.Drilling for oil, or a lack there of has simply become a talking point for one side while the other side has theirs.

Whats the big difference in drilling for oil vs drilling for gas ? Why would one form of drilling be o.k. while the other be so terrible ? Seems contradictory for a person to despise one form and embrace the other.
Big coal and big oil are against NG. In my opinion it will be up to states with shales to start implementing plans for NG transportation by converting their fleets to CNG. The states with shales such as Tx,Pa,Ky,La,Ak,Ark,Wy,Ut, etc. should form a pact to enact legislation to promote NG as a primary fuel for energy and a major source for transportation if the federal government does not. LA should do everything it can to promote natural gas since there is so much potential future revenue for the state and it's citizens.
North LA, I have to beg to differ. If you check the major oil & gas companies (Big Gas) you will find they make more money off natural gas than oil. The national oil companies are the ones reaping most of the profits from oil production.
KB, the major O&G companies are ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Shell & ConocoPhillips. National oil companies are Saudi Aramco, ADNOC, Kuwait Petroleum, National Iranian Oil, PEMEX, PDVSA, StatoilHydro, etc.
don't get me wrong, my vote for president would be for whoever is with me for the natural gas
All this is good. And the clean coal lobby is a very involved factor. What other argument can be made against NG? I'm just not seeing why it does not get more airtime. And why would both candidates avoid it as a repeated talking point? The Marcellus Shale runs through a pivotal electoral college state (Penn.) which many say has pursuadable independants, and many, many Lessors with NG companies, yet we aren't hearing it.

T. Boone only has a few good years left on him. And Aubrey is not folksy enough to be the best spokesman for the "everyman" like T. Boone.
I'm semi-new at blogging. Explain "bump"?
Stripper term ?
When a new thread (list of post made) is created, previous threads are moved down the main page. Eventually, older threads will disappear from the page, leaving only new threads to be displayed. A person can "bump" an older thread so that the thread is repositioned to the top of the list. The same effect can be done within a thread, so that an older post can gain more exposure.
Thanks KB and Grice.

You are right KB. The ladies at the Deja Vu have not been the most informative when I ask them blog and computer related questions.
Save your pennies. Your fuel ration card will provide your "fair share" of fuel. :)

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service