Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by essay on August 18, 2009 at 6:11

Skip in many ways I completely agree, but think about it this way... would T Boone have amassed such bipartisan support without at least making a good faith effort to incorporate something like wind energy for the tree huggers?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 18, 2009 at 7:19

IMO, there was more than enough environmental benefit in the increased use of natural gas as a replacement for dirty energy sources, especially coal, to garner the support of the tree huggers without any alternative energy adjuncts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on August 18, 2009 at 8:05

Except for the fact that there is a rabid contingent of greenies out there who are opposed to using any fossil fuel. None, nada, zero, zilch... and they don't want to hear that we can't make such a leap to sustainable energy without using a transition fuel like natural gas to get us there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 18, 2009 at 8:10

Yes they do exist but they have little or no real political influence.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on August 18, 2009 at 15:51

Now I don't know this for a fact but I have heard that T-Boone was securing water rights along with wind mill sites in West Texas. If this is the case then T-Boone was trying to pull a slick one along with making a green stand. Big money wants more big money be it T-Boone or Donald Trunp or Bill Gates.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on August 18, 2009 at 16:02

Skip - I would think that the process of effective & successful negotiations means the parties involved don't begin at exactly the point that they hope to end those negotiations.. :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on August 19, 2009 at 3:44

Skip:

T. Boone gets a lot of airplay for his profile and his willingness to come to the table with a ‘forward-thinking energy policy’ despite the fortune he made from O&G production. The wind power leg of the platform gives him traction with the progressives, as a platform built substantially on natural gas would get him dismissed as a just a guy promoting goals which satisfy his own established interests.

Let's think about this: Americans desire energy that is cheap, energy-dense, convenient and portable, because most Americans want to do what they want to do, and go where they want to go, when they want to go there. It is the primary reason that petroleum was such a solid choice for fuel so long. Gasoline and diesel are easily manufactured and transported, and the infrastructure has been built out so as to make refueling as simple as hopping out of your car, pulling a nozzle and squeezing a lever on a handle. The available technology was not available to make natural gas a viable alternative for this type of use until the last few years, at least in the way of the automobile. Now that carbon-fiber pressurized tanks are becoming more available as an alternative (so that you don’t have a car capable of efficiently carrying a heavy steel pressure vessel around to transport your fuel source), the infrastructure required to refuel such a vehicle in a safe, timely, and convenient manner is the remaining requirement to jump to the NG economy as far as personal transportation. NG can also satisfy another increasingly important energy requirement: individuals have the ability to store and/or stockpile their own energy source.

With wind power, the primary medium of energy transport is already in place: the power grid. Thanks to urban demand and decades of subsidization through the Rural Electrification Act, electricity is by and large available to even some of the most remote inhabited areas. Additionally, it is a zero-emissions source of energy. Unfortunately, it is neither substantially built out to some of the best ‘wind fields’ in the country (N TX, much of the rural upper Midwest and West) as far as source transmission lines, nor has its capacity been upgraded particularly as to interregional flow.

IMO, inclusion of both of these into the TBP platform and the delay of NG interests to enter the fray as to their industry’s inclusion into energy policy are interrelated. The House is dominated by Democrats, a substantial bloc of which are invested in urban and enviro interests. Much of the population is concentrated in Democratic strongholds, and is similarly represented by proportionate representation in the House. To stay in line with their voter bases and please their contributory special interests, support of fossil fuels of any type would be nearly indefensible. The groups that help put them in office can be mobilize quickly and in great numbers, and they have to run every two years. Introducing legislation which would include NG as an ‘alternative’ energy source has proven to be a nonstarter. The Senate, however, is represented on a state basis by equal representation. There are several states which would qualify as major NG producers (especially now with the Marcellus Shale and its location, see PA and WV) which are represented at least in part by Dems (our own sentaor Landrieu is in this group) . While they may recognize political and political contribution sources keep them in office, they must also answer to a statewide constituency. They are also more invulnerable to transient political attack, as they hold six-year terms. Thus it is more defensible for a Democrat senator to vote on what will prove to be a progressive energy policy that includes a NG alternative. That doesn’t get the lobby ‘all the way there’, though. The inclusion of wind power into the platform will help mollify enviros, as well as bring other Democratic senators into the play that would have a vested interest in infrastructure expansion and expanding tax bases in their home states (like IA, NE, ND, SD, possibly even NM). Thus the inclusions of both legs of the platform would likely need to be considered in order to pass an energy policy relying on either.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 19, 2009 at 4:32

Dion. No bi-partisan solution? LOL! Many of the states you mention as possibly benefiting from increased use of natural gas are also states where coal is mined. Rational logic is one thing. Political reality another. Bottom Line (IMO): The coal lobby is more powerful than the natural gas lobby. Even with a little help from wind.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on August 19, 2009 at 12:38

Skip:

IMO, the coal lobby is also fueled by a profitable coal industry, and its product can never be used to power modern transportation (at least, not directly); thus it will benefit the coal industry to have natural gas price levels to equate above the feasible marginal cost for coal use in power generation to prevent the building of excess coal inventory (leading to coal prices falling below profitability levels).

With added costs for clean coal initiative improvements (including emission controls and/or CO2 sequestration processes), having higher ng prices will serve to continue a 'big box power plant' preference for coal use. Bill Buckner's discussion on Progress Energy is a typical snapshot reflecting the number of permitted ng power plant units online in the next few years (TBC as economy and demand allows).

Bottom line (IMO): Coal producers will not want to see ng continue at current price levels anymore than gas producers will, and they would much rather see ng stay out of the power generation business as much as possible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ez on August 19, 2009 at 10:17

looks like were going to make boliva rich next according to the late night news a week or to ago there going to start mining the worlds largest salt flats there to produce lithium batteries for cars so once again our gov. is going to screw us again. i think we need to fire the gov. then start over theres got to be smarter people in the usa. I really think my sons second grade class could make better choices than the current gov.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MTMersman on August 18, 2009 at 11:13

Thanks Skip!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 18, 2009 at 11:35

You are welcome, MT.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page