[ColossalContrarian]

I hate to hear people beat up on NG so much. . .

that would be me

because I think it has transition potential.

to what?

To more wiggle room for trains and trucks, although this cheap energy being used wisely and efficiently could be debated, it's still an excellent store of energy. What's better?

Everyone who thinks NG is still doomed should look at how well it's working for FedEx and UPS...

It won't last forever but has certainly been beneficial to those who jumped on the gravy train early!

Does anyone think UPS or FedEx would still be in business if they didn't switch?

those are two companies. Granted, they are important companies 'cause they deliver ipad batteries and other neat stuff. But still?

Food can be transported also and ipad batteries have a really long life!

Don't forget there are many municipal natural gas utilities that produce clean(er) energy.

[Lore]

You're making the erroneous assumption that production will always keep up with demand and that somehow the output will remain cheap. Which is the same wall we've hit with oil.

[ColossalContrarian]

You're making the erroneous assumption that production will always keep up with demand and that somehow the output will remain cheap. Which is the same wall we've hit with oil.

I think the early adopters who've learned from the past will fare better than those who change later.

Is it a solution? No, will it buy time? Yes.

It seems more cost effective than switching to solar or wind!

[Plantagenet]

New York City pushes for construction of a NG pipeline into the city.

NYC wants NG for years to come

Some cognitive dissonance there----liberals in NYC oppose fracking, but they want a pipeline built to supply NYC with cheap NG to replace the heating oil they use now to heat their apartments.

[ralfy]

As the IEA puts it, all oil and gas resources worldwide will add 9 pct to global energy production for the next two decades. However, energy consumption has to go up by around 1 to 2 pct a year to maintain economic growth. To make matters worse, the 9-pct increase was based on the assumption that conventional oil production will not drop, which means whatever is used to replace conventional oil production has to increase even more to make up for a drop in conventional production. With that, the IEA estimate of around one Saudi Arabia needed every seven years to maintain economic growth may be too low.

[Scottie]

You're making the erroneous assumption that production will always keep up with demand and that somehow the output will remain cheap. Which is the same wall we've hit with oil.

Yes, but during the modern growth phase of the resource (1930-1970), supply did keep up with demand and price stayed stable during that time period. Natural gas was a waste product of oil production until only about half century a go. Just like oil, there is plenty of room to run yet for the price to stay low, more supplies to come onllne as use of the commodity is expanded.

[Revi]

New York City pushes for construction of a NG pipeline into the city.

NYC wants NG for years to come

Some cognitive dissonance there----liberals in NYC oppose fracking, but they want a pipeline built to supply NYC with cheap NG to replace the heating oil they use now to heat their apartments.

Awesome quote. I agree with you. People hate the fracking, but don't mind cheap energy. That's how it is in the empire. We don't care what's happening out there really, as long as we're warmed and cooled and have lots of stuff to eat.

[Pops]

Which is the point. The drilling was so successful it created an outrageous surplus, even while the country was consuming more of it than ever. Too successful is a rarity nowadays, the consumers should just appreciate it I suppose.

Surprisingly, drillers can add. So it follows that they were well aware of how "successful" they were about to become.

So why would they drill themselves into near bankruptcy?

Simple, they were not drilling to secure gas but to secure leases - the right to drill. But one company has sold $15 billion of those leases this year alone on the strength of what are described by some as exaggerated claims.

Also note, at current consumption there are about 11 years worth of NG for sure, and 20 years probably - just because someone says it's there doesn't mean it will ever be burned.

[SelfGov]

Natural Gas is a good investment

I can see you haven't done much math on the subject.

Natural gas has been a TERRIBLE investment-----fracking has found so much NG that the price in the US has plunged to record lows.



If the world does indeed go through a population bottleneck in the near term, it isn't going to be due to a lack of natural gas.

It "has been" a terrible investment. Buy low, sell high. It is low. Either way I don't invest.

[AdTheNad]

Yes, but during the modern growth phase of the resource (1930-1970), supply did keep up with demand and price stayed stable during that time period. Natural gas was a waste product of oil production until only about half century a go. Just like oil, there is plenty of room to run yet for the price to stay low, more supplies to come onllne as use of the commodity is expanded.

Shorty?

[Plantagenet]

President Obama proclaims the US now has a 100 year supply of NG, thanks to frakking. Some folks think there is so much NG available in the lower 48 that the US can become a major energy exporter again---and that doesn't even include the huge NG resouces at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska that have been re-injected for the last 30 years.

While frakking has so far mainly been used in the US, frakking can also release NG in other countries around the world---China, Argentina, maybe Poland appear to have some NG that frakking could help develop.

[Laromi]

The argument being, NG in a way, is analogous to the petrol/kerosine situation pre Henry Ford when "NG" was burnt off at the well site and refinery (still is), and petrol was an unwanted by-product. Then in Australia, at least, LPG and Diesel were advocated by Gov. as the way to a cheaper future. Arguably, LPG and Diesel are now no less cost effective and expensive than petrol. My thoughts are; what over all effect to the established mix will over supplies of NG have in respect to the petrochemical industry as a whole in the near future? And, will the excess "supply" of NG eventually lead to cheaper domestic fuel supplies and chemicals? And what of NG's effect on Agriculture and food production?

[Pops]

Good questions.

The conundrum is that NG is a cleaner fuel for electrical generation than coal but unfortunately it's current low price hurts deployment of renewables. Perhaps burning more NG now for generation will put off the day we need to burn more coal until the effects of GW are more apparent?

My general worry is that the illusion of cheap fracked NG causes a large investment in infrastructure based on the possibly mistaken idea that the resource is very large and affordable.

Not really suer what the topic is...

[SelfGov]

...My general worry is that the illusion of cheap fracked NG causes a large investment in infrastructure based on the possibly mistaken idea that the resource is very large and affordable.

Not really suer what the topic is...

I'm not sure what the topic is either. My saying, "hi!" was controversial it seems.

I agree that natural gas is very cheap right now and that that low price is very, "transitory." I also agree it would be a mistake to rework our infrastructure on the assumption that the gas will always be this plentiful and cheap.

[Plantagenet]

it would be a mistake to rework our infrastructure on the assumption that the gas will always be this plentiful and cheap.

We already have to rework our infrastructure because peak oil has occurred and gasoline is getting more and more expensive.

What would you suggest to replace gasoline if not NG*?



*with help from solar, nukes, biofuel, wind, etc.

[Pops]

Is it too late to say I didn't realize this was the Welcome forum? LOL!

Anyway, Hi, welcome, persevere!

[SelfGov]

What would you suggest to replace gasoline if not NG*?



*with help from solar, nukes, biofuel, wind, etc.

What in the world makes you think it is a good idea to replace gasoline? The infrastructure is not going to have to change it will have to be dismantled and used for something more sustainable.

You seem to be under the impression that the only way forward is with fossil fueled personal transportation.

[dinopello]

What would you suggest to replace gasoline if not NG*?

[Plantagenet]

What would you suggest to replace gasoline if not NG*?

You seem to be under the impression that the only way forward is with fossil fueled personal transportation.

Not all all.

You seem to be under the impression that the only alternative to fossil fueled personal transportation is an end to motorized transportation. I suggest you try traveling in Europe---you'll find they have this wonderful infrastructure there set up to facilitate what they call "mass transit".

You can go almost anywhere in Europe without using "fossil fueled personal transportation". Its a revelation to see how fun and easy it can be to use trains, buses, light rail, cog railways, trams, funiculars, etc. for most travel instead of the car There's no reason we couldn't do the same here in the US, if we had smarter policies out of DC.


Most people in Europe have cars, but high gas taxes encourage heavy use of mass transit there.

[vision-master]

Besides, they already have Obamacare........ lsol