Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by drilltheshale on June 29, 2010 at 3:48

The article references a blog pondering the twilight of the coal era:

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/twilight-of-the-coal-era/

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on June 29, 2010 at 3:56

What would Natural Gas prices be if it were at parity with gasoline prices? How about parity with coal?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ken hatcher on June 29, 2010 at 5:22

I've noticed in the past when n/g is 5 or lower the power plants are o.k. with it, above 5 then some want to use coal. Shale exploration is tough at 5.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by drilltheshale on June 29, 2010 at 5:47

The guy over at the haynesvilleplay site has mentioned this and that the link might hold shale gas around $5 because when it rises, utility company demand falls off.

The article does point to changes for some companies (in some states) that are more or less permanent switches to NG because they are concerned with increasing regulation of Mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides (issues with coal).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on June 29, 2010 at 6:00

Just from what I've read (I'm no expert), wouldn't more long term contracts of 10+ years, at a set (therefore NOT volatile) price, make NG much more attractive to utility companies who have shied away from the extreme volatility of price in the past?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 29, 2010 at 8:07

Jffree1, the issue is most PUC's will not allow the LDC's to sign long term fixed price agreements. They prefer for the LDC's (gas & electric) to buy natural gas at "market" price.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 29, 2010 at 9:22

Les - Wouldn't ng be more favorable for fuel source IF more co-gen power were to be implemented, giving consumers more bang for their buck even if ng prices rise?

Just a random, quirky thought. Seems Con-Ed has thought of that, too.

80)

• ▶ Reply