Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Camp on March 2, 2011 at 1:36

Laurie,

 

The short answer is that the price of gasoline & diesel is related to the price of oil, not natural gas. So the increased gasoline prices will not impact the price of natural gas. And the price of natural gas is what drives interest in these gas shale plays - Haynesville, Barnett, Marcellus, etc. Since the price of natural gas is still so low (and likely will be for the next few years), interest in the gas shale areas will only be luke warm for the time being.

 

Until demand for natural gas increases substantially (via increased natural gas power plants or to a lesser extent by the increased number of natural gas powered vehicles) or the supply is significantly reduced due to fewer rigs drilling for shale gas (unlikely given the amount of foreign joint venture money driving the big operators to drill the gas shale wells), the price of natural gas will remain low - as will interest in the gas shales.

Permalink Reply by Laurie on March 2, 2011 at 16:09

thank you very much....I appreciate your easy to understand response....Laurie

Permalink Reply by little ole 1st grade teacher on March 2, 2011 at 18:13

Laurie, I've been wondering the same thing.  So, NO it was not a stupid question..... THanks for asking it.  And, thanks to Eric for responding to your question.

Unfortunately, Eric's answer was not what I wanted to hear; however, I have come to realize in the last four years that the ups and downs are going to rear their heads. And again, I have seen more downs than ups during this time.  Hopefully, sometimes in the future the downs will become ups.  I certainly pray that they do.

Permalink Reply by GoRicky on March 2, 2011 at 19:11

Don't know - it's well known that we are sitting on a humongous amount of Nat'l Gas & it's CHEAP & abundant.  Operators are drilling wells with only the expectation of holding OLD leases, and are possibly drilling these wells at a net loss ... "use it or lose it".  Oil's great, but exploring for brand new reserves is very low - the Bakken Shale is as good - BUT the naked truth is we have very little 'oil' left & are burning it up much faster than we can produce / replace.  The HOT SPOT is down in S. Texas in the Eagle Ford Shale, where hundreds of barrels of light oil are also produced with Nat'l Gas.  Funny - Nat'l gas has benn called "the fuel of the future - very affordable, produced here (jobs and royalty - taxes)"... but O'Bama is NOT doing NEARLY enough and actually punishing the "dirty oil and GAS companies".

Permalink Reply by Alamo on March 11, 2011 at 12:11

If Barack Obama intends to win a second term he must do something meaningful to turn the economy

around. What would a "meaningful" policy be?

 

A meaningful policy would be to actively support  increasing the use of American natural gas in the US transportation system. It's probable that the US House of Representatives would support such a policy...maybe not as vocally as we all might prefer, but sufficient to gain passage in the House. The Senate would be a close vote , but entirely possible...remember Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D-NV) signed on to S 1408 which was the senate version to the NAT GAS Act (HR 1835 that died in committee)  and introduced by US Rep Dan Boren (D-OK).

 

The event that is most likely to get the transition to CNG moving is an uprising or revolt in one of the major crude exporters in the middle east...Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Iran come to mind.  Nigeria is hardly the poster child of stability and Hugo Chavez is an unknown quantity in Venezuela.  A dictator who could die by the sword he lives by.

 

While we sit and do nothing toward switching our dependency on foreign controlled crude to domestically produced natural gas as America's primary transportation fuel, we run a monumental risk of being caught up short if an upheaval in one or more of the major crude producing countries  occurs. As recent events have demonstrated, more of the same may become the norm. Meanwhile we continue to import a billion dollars of crude daily....that's 350 billion dollars annually that by transitioning to CNG we could keep here in this nation and  provide ourselves an economic benefit amounting to upwards of an annual trillion dollars by application of the "multiplier effect" that all economists readily recognize. The stimulous to the American economy through using our own energy resource rather than one from a foreign controlled world oil market, could multiply that 350 billion dollars by a factor of 2, 3, 4, 5 or more times...and 5 times $350,000,000,000 is 1.75 trillion dollars of potential economic benefit to America that our present "arrangement" is likely costing us each year. That's a mind boggling sum of money that would  have a materially  positive effect on virtually every facet of our economy....jobs, education, medical research, healthcare, national infrastructure...you name it and this could provide the means to achieve it. Using American natural gas (as CNG) has the potential to add huge efficiencies in our transportation system and there is virtually no product or service all Americans use that don't have a transportation/distribution  cost inherent in them. (Even those seeds or plants we use to grow our vegetable gardens were subject to distributive costs)

 

We have the means to restore American prosperity and if our erstwhile "leaders" fail to act, we need to.

 

How can anyone anywhere, fail to see the insanity in our present transportation fuel "policy"? If it can be called a "policy" it's one where we race toward economic ruination by taking a billion dollars a day out of our economy for the privilege of fueling our cars, trucks, buses, etc, for the further privilege of going from point A to point B. This is idiotic madness when we can have an  alternative provided by the utilization of using a cheaper, cleaner, abundant American energy resource that is about 2 miles under our feet, but nevertheless, readily accessible. We need to use it or at least  begin the transition necessary to do so.

Permalink Reply by cicero on March 12, 2011 at 5:54

Alamo, your statement of what a "meaningful energy policy" could do for America is great.  The question is,  how can we communicate your message to others?   Why not begin by sending  it to all of our elected officials, newspaper editors and television newscasters.  Change will only come from the "grassroots" of America.