Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by P.G. on June 4, 2009 at 2:57

Why would the only reason to use NG be to reduce emissions?
How about using it to get the Arabs out of our business?
How about to keep energy markets honest and as an affordable alternative to petroleum?
This whole GW nonsense is way over blown considering all of man kinds existence amounts to so little of the total of CO2 in the atmosphere.
All this GW talk is only a pitch so the government can get their hands deeper into everyone's pocket!
Lower emissions should be considered a side benefit of NG, not the sole reason for it's use. Our National security and economical benefits of NG makes a better argument.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 4, 2009 at 5:06

PG - I agree with all of the reasons you state! However, if the gov't. wants to pitch & sell it (ng) as one of the answers to global warming, let them.

For the Eco friendly /scientific citizens - Let's reduce emissions & GHGs (if that's the concern of some) by transitioning with ng. Let's increase the quality of the air we breathe by using our own ng, which burns cleaner than coal (right now).

For the financially minded - Let's reduce energy costs by transitioning with ng. Let's increase the $$$$ in our own coffers & pocketbooks by transitioning with out own ng.

For the true-blue, never say die, patriotic Americans (no disrespect intended ... EVER) - Lets reduce dependance on foreign imports by transitioning with ng. Let's increase the use of our own "home grown" resource.


There are as many arguments for harvesting & using our ng as there are special interests groups. The GW group is but one, no argument is any better than the other, really. Why not sell the idea to all the groups and garner even more support?

But apparently the gov't thinks that right now the GW group is the squeaky wheel, so they're tackling that first (that's my guess).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 4, 2009 at 5:15

sesport. Ditto. Numerous reasons for supporting an emphasis on natural gas as the bridge fuel. Those who prefer to fight may do so. Those who care about the outcome should concentrate on building a winning coalition. The ends justify the means. You are now discharged from probation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 4, 2009 at 5:20

Thanks, Skip - I believe in equitable treatment of all the groups, lol Just a side note ... why keep arguing which reason is most valid? If GW peeps want to believe ng can address some of their concerns, I don't want to tell them they're wrong. If financial/econmic groups want to put out data that says the economy will benefit, I don't want to tell them they're wrong. Let them bring on all the supportive analysis they want to bring to the table. I'll even help them find it and maybe even carry it to the table for them.

Can I keep the cute ankle bracelet? ha, ha

Best - :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 4, 2009 at 5:37

Yes, you may keep the ankle bracelet. But you must return the GPS tracking module. LOL!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 4, 2009 at 5:45

Thanks for letting me keep the momento, I was going to wear it to the beach.
What!!!!!!!!!!!!! Somebody's been tracking me????????????

BTW - Pipeline companies ... any idea how many we have around here? Do most of the energy cos./operators have their own affiliate like Petrohawk?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 4, 2009 at 6:16

There are quite a few "midstream" companies finding niches in the play. Many operators (especially small to mid-size) would prefer to invest in drilling especially if their leasehold is not currently HBP. And where numerous operators are drilling in the same general area, paying for midstream transportation may be a better option than spending limited development capital on gathering systems.

Permalink Reply by P.G. on June 4, 2009 at 5:20

I don't have any problem how NG uses are promoted or marketed except if it involves the government needlessly sticking it's hand into my pocket!
It makes me ill every time I hear talk about that Cap-n-trade fraud!
High energy prices, taxes, or inflation only reduces citizens ability to participate in the economy and only serves a lucky few. I'd rather see folks purchasing NG and products than be forced to hand those dollars they would have spent over to the government!
The only help I want to see the government doing is helping get markets established such as with infrastructure. They'll get their money back and then some if they'd do that!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 4, 2009 at 5:30

PG - Re. Cap & Trade fraud ... go back to page 1 of this discussion, see third post from the top.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on June 4, 2009 at 4:00

Oh there are alot of reasons we should be using more NG, but global warming isn't on of them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pipeliner on June 4, 2009 at 6:34

10 questions for Al Gore.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31584

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pipeliner on June 4, 2009 at 6:46

Al Gore Slammed by Congress Over Global Warming Hoax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54qbSoH3G0U


If Ken Lay of Enron met in 1997 with Al Gore at the White House to discuss a Cap and Trade scheme, Enron must have seen a money-making opportunity.

• ▶ Reply

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