Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sesport on December 25, 2009 at 15:39

Not sure I like the part about "no push from public policy," though. In terms of EPA regs, yeah, I say let each state do it's thing. As far as overall policy, what R&D to fund, what tax credits/incentives to give, maybe a push IS needed? I'd like to see a little more equitable consideration & treatment being given, I don't see enough of the words "natural gas" being used in the proposed legislations for energy & industrial consumers ... yet.

thanks for the input 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on December 26, 2009 at 5:52

I think, with about 30 years of Barnett being the "guinea pig" in these developments, natural gas production has more quickly come further in technology & lowered costs than either the renewables or nuclear. Add to that I don't think I've yet seen (but that doesn't mean there already isn't) a source for renewable technologies that doesn't at least in some small part rely on a hydrocarbon fuel. I haven't yet found a TOTALLY hydrocarbon-free plant for production of materials or energy.

I think a lot of countries/governments are also thinking, hmmm, maybe we should try to be more energy independent, that any depenency should be in diversified markets as much as possible. Asia seems to be fishing in all kinds of places to satisfy it's needs & commitments to reduce emissions.

I just hope Mr. Yergin is at least 50% correct about what he expects to happen. If it turns out that his opinion has a higher "reliablility" factor, lol, I'll be ecstatic because I'll consider it to be lagniappe gravy.

Thanks, JT 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on December 26, 2009 at 12:24

lol 80) P&D

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on December 26, 2009 at 5:46

The only mining going on in DC is for new revenues..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on December 26, 2009 at 6:12

PG - There are many who are "mining" for new revenues ...

the politicians
the manufacturing & energy sectors
the investors
the LO/MO's

New revenues are what seem to make the world go around for a lot of folks. Gee, imagine that. I think it's called "capitalism."

Thanks for the thought 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VSC DeSoto South on December 27, 2009 at 6:29

This article caught my eye this morning also, thank you for posting it. I then searched on the author and found another article he wrote for the WSJ. It is more basic, for an audience that is probably not aware of what has been going on in the NG industry in the last few years. It's informative in a basic way and he, again, is positive about the outlook for US Natural gas.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574507440795...

While wandering around the web also, found this interesting Congressional report, published in Oct 2009, I focused on the NG statistics.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&Fi...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on December 27, 2009 at 6:53

Thanks, VSC. I just hope some of those who exert influence will at least read the WSJ article before lining bird cages & litter boxes. lol

My initial thoughts about the epw doc are that it has a nice conversion chart for BOE (Table 4), not sure if it's accurate, we may need to get someone in here who has better than "fuzzy math" skills. I'll be reading that further.

BTW, anyone around here read Yergin's book?

Thanks again - 80)

• ▶ Reply