Add a Comment

Comment by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 23, 2009 at 8:24

So, I'm curious. Why has he President been so slow to utter the words, "shale-gas?"

Comment by Two Dogs, Pirate on November 23, 2009 at 8:17

The Chinese aint dumb. Why do they need a bunch of clowns out of DC telling them anything about drilling shale wells? That would be a screw up. All the Chinese need to do is swallow CHK and they got all the info they need to drill the shale. Damn better investment than buying junk US debt at present. They may already hold a large ammount of CHK, may have bought it for under $10.

Comment by Alamo on November 23, 2009 at 8:06

Both the President and the Secretary of Energy, Dr Chu---Nobel Laureate in Physics--are proponents of natural gas. As for the red state/blue state argument, utilization of natural gas is an American issue pure and simple. Since most of the natural gas reserves are in "red states", it would seem to make a lot of political sense to win a bunch of red staters' hearts by implementing their gas reserves as much as possible. The major problem in transitioning the national transportation system to natural gas is the major resistance presented by Big Oil (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell and ConocoPhillips,etc) who were "late" to the party. Those powerful corporations literally dictate what fuel we use. Some time ago, Ralph Nader made the statement ,"If Exxon owned the sun, you can bet we'd be using solar energy"! The same thing applies to our dependency on crude oil---although they don't control the world crude market, they and their "Big Oil" brothers are ready buyers of OPEC oil at the prices OPEC dictates. Then they load it in their super tankers, add their "surcharges" and send it to American refineries where WE pay ALL the costs attendant to this utter thirst/addiction to crude. Of course the American taxpayers have to pick up the tab for keeping the straits of Hormuz open and Somalian pirates off those tankers. Economists place those "costs" at about $2.00 for every gallon you purchase in addition to the pump price. When you have to rely on mostly unfriendly nations for your fuel it is expensive. Last year's run up in crude prices is increasingly being pinpointed as the straw that triggered the economic collapse---it simply put an additional burden on the economy that the mortgage/Wall Street shenanigans could not accommodate.

Our primary national needs are national security, jobs, clean air and water and a sustainable source of energy as well as a healthcare system that treats sick Americans affordably. Natural gas fits this picture well---very well. No more funding worldwide terrorism to the tune of a quarter trillion dollars annually. Circulating that enormous sum of money in this economy will create a million or more jobs, divert significant funding from Islamic terrorists, increase tax revenues and clean up our air and reduce our dificits that can go a long way toward funding healthcare. This transition will give us the time our scientists and engineers need to solve the problems currently associated with solar, geothermal, wind, etc which will last indefinitely.

All we need is the national will to make it happen----ExxonMobile and Brothers will not do it for us. They like the current arrangements regardless of the consequences for America.

Comment by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 23, 2009 at 7:49

Mark, come now, are you calling Iran and Iraq democratic. Perhaps I should have qualified democratic? Maybe, "respectors of freedom" could be a qualifier? Certainly there are plenty of "democratic" regimes that have done grave damage to their people.

Comment by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 23, 2009 at 7:44

Hey Rick, true he has addressed it as a tool to address climate issues, but is it a tool for the U.S. to address climate issues? The U.S. after all, is leading the way in this industry. Also, I am looking at this from more of a national security issue. As a nation you are given certain resources & talents to maximize. The first thing that pops into my mind is the steel industry. We used to make it. Now, we have export this placing ourselves in a precarious situation should we ever need to generate steel for a WWIII scenario. In continuing to cozy up to a Red-Capitalist China, via the sharing of energy resources, are we providing China with another feather in their cap?

Comment by Rick on November 23, 2009 at 6:08

Hey, there's no way this is anything but positive. (1) it's the first public recognition by PBO since his campaign rhetoric that natural gas is a major tool in addressing climate change (since this was included in a "climate change collaboration initiative"); (2) it could be a major first step in China deciding to tilt its generation portfolio away from coal, once China's somewhat confident it won't get over-dependent on LNG--this could help balance world markets to support US producers; and (3) this doesn't give away the technology, it creates a forum for exporting it for mucho dinero.

Comment by Mark Pomeroy on November 23, 2009 at 6:03

I'm not sure what you mean by "we used." Historically, we have supported regimes that were supportive of the US regardless of "democracy." Many times we have suported the overthrow of democratic regimes or have shored-up dictators, often to our long term detriment. Iran and Iraq are obvious examples. Perhaps in the future we can be more supportive to democratic regimes.

Comment by Headly on November 23, 2009 at 5:46

If the shale were in Illinois the results would be different. Obama has it out for redstaters.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page