Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by ALongview on September 9, 2009 at 3:49

I follow this author at seeking alpha. He is great and a big supporter of NG. Thanks for adding it here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on September 9, 2009 at 7:31

pure politics - maybe this can inch our way as shale plays become developed, Natural gas needs a ground game that goes beyond executives.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Terry L. Antee on September 9, 2009 at 8:04

Government run any thing, how to turn it into their idea, how they can personally make money off of it, how to tax it control it and screw it up.
Clunkers..... I guess I must be on the wrong page. A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline. A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. They claim 700,000 vehicles so thats 224 million gallons/year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels of oil is about 1/4 of one days US consumption. And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $375 million dollars at $75/bbl. So we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $375 million. How good a deal was that????
Obamanomics at work, or is it the New Math? A thought We need to start limiting all US politicians to two terms: One in office and one in prison. Illinois already has begun that plan.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by alleyboy on September 9, 2009 at 8:36

taking your figures at face value, in ten years that would be a savings of $3,750,000. Even then, if we could have put the 3 billion in bonds, we could have reaped a bonanza in ten years. GO FIGURE

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on September 9, 2009 at 8:58

Terry:

Break even (cash basis) is approx. 8 years, which is also the approximate age of a personal vehicle on the road, based upon your calculations (Using 5.33 mmbbl actual, reduce that to 7.5 years) . This was rolled out as a short-term auto industry stimulus with a nod to the environmentalists, which would view the long-term CO2 reduction as having value far in excess of the cash. IMHO, it was never about the cash, and more about the bones thrown to those groups.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Terry L. Antee on September 9, 2009 at 10:49

I see your point and it is a good one........ I would be a lot more frugal with tax payers money when you either have to print it or barrow it. As far as the CO2 it has been higher during previous ice ages than now and the earth has been warming up for 10,000 to 15000 years from the last ice age.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on September 10, 2009 at 3:46

Terry:

Understand, I do not endorse the "anthropogenic global warming" theory. look at the newly rechristened "Climate Change" movement as disaffected Global Warming fka Global Cooling alarmists wanting to play economic house rules with a two-headed coin.

And I don't look at government dropping money-filled briefcases from the sky as being stimulative; quite the opposite, I look at money that you collect from me that you have to give partially back to me in order to get me to behave in a certain manner not as stimulus, but as a refund (and why is it that you needed this money again?).

IMHO the administration's goals with Cash for Clunkers were as I outlined, and had nothing to do with being fiscally responsible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on September 9, 2009 at 10:52

It usually takes bribes to get action out of Congress. Sometimes you can get action out of Congress with public support, but it takes a lot of public support to counteract a small amount of bribes.

The natgas companies have to start paying their bribes to Congress the way the oil and coal boys do.

Campaign contributions are bribes, plain and simple.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on September 9, 2009 at 11:57

Our president does not like oil and gas companies, at least not the ones based in the United States. Well hell, he doesn't like any other big company for that matter. So they refuse to think about NG being any kind of a saviour to our present situation. I mean, for the love of all that is sacred, if that happens, a big company may make some money. And then we would have to figure out how to "redistribute" those profits. Or heck, we could just tell them to quit making money or the government would take them over. That happens to be the popular idea these days.

The sad part is, until this misguided administration wakes up (which I do not believe they will ever do) the mineral owners in northwest Louisiana and northeast Texas are screwed.

Thanks, Uncle Sam.

And no, don't throw up the previous administration to me. He was hardly anti business.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J. A. on September 9, 2009 at 14:20

We need a government option for masonry, carpentry, Concrete work etc.
Also Gov car insurance.
I surrender.
were f===ing broke
How can we pay for more?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on September 10, 2009 at 2:12

J. A.: didn't you hear last night: the time for bickering is over!! ha ha! If you disagree with the Chose One, it is bickering! P.S.: Obama is very open to other ideas...so much so that he has not invited a SINGLE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATOR to the White House to talk to him about healthcare since April. Yeah, he cares what other ideas are out there! Rep Smith was right: He does Lie!

Nat Gas should be a centerpiece of the energy plan, but it is an afterthought. Maybe one day someone will wake up and smell the coffee.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on September 10, 2009 at 3:49

What we need is more taxes on natgas. Then it will find its way into the government's plans. 8-)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page