A Natural Gas Bounty Is Turning Against Producers
click for ginormous graphic

Source: NYT
 

Category: Digital Media, Energy

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

10 Responses to “Too Much Natural Gas?”

  1. with such a Question..

    never hurts to peep ‘the Forwards’..

    http://quotes.ino.com/exchanges/contracts.html?r=NYMEX_NG

  2. ConscienceofaConservative says:

    Unless we have a super-unusually warm winter. I think we’ve seen the low in natural gas prices. However it would be wise if instead of coming up with high tech and expensive solutions to design electric vehicles which based on grid math are fed 44% coal based electricity, we found ways to see more fleets built around natural gas. One small step would be for the U.S. postal service to embrace and considering the natural gas price advantage, it would also save money.

  3. murrayv says:

    The graph showing production through 2007 is consumption. We were producing about 19 Tcf and importing the rest, mostly from canada, but also significant LNG. If that is wrong, what else is wrong?

  4. murrayv says:

    Also intraday NG spiked to well over $20.00/MBtu

  5. Iamthe50percent says:

    Not a bad idea, ConscienceofaConservative, except the Postal Service is dead broke and has exhausted it’s borrowing limit. Congressional action would be needed but your fellow conservatives in the House are determined to drown the USPS in the bathtub. All odds are that the Republicans will retain control, perhaps with Mitt Romney as President and Paul Ryan breaking ties in the Senate. Hang on for a four year slide into the pit.

  6. Frwip says:

    The next big development in natural gas is going to be LNG export terminals. There are quite a few projects in the deals Cheniere Sabine Pass, Cheniere Corpus Christi, Freeport LNG, Shell Kitimat, Dominion Cove Point, etc. Some will fall through, others will get to completion.

    But for US consumers, if the LNG export capacity becomes a significant portion of the continental natural gas production capacity, say 10%, it means the end of the beautiful isolation of the US market and a fairly tight coupling with the rest of the world. Count $7 to $10/MMBTU as a baseline price.

    It’s going to hurt…

  7. ToNYC says:

    CostCo could roll-out Natty Gas fill- up zones and there will be snap, crackle, popping in the US animal spirits game.

  8. bman says:

    The fracking is not worth it. That sort of thing was only done in third world countries when I was a youth. The fact that it’s going on in the US now speaks volumes.

  9. socaljoe says:

    Natural Gas Bounty?

    Then why is the US is still an importer of natural gas (1,949 BCF or 8% of consumption in 2011)?

    Do export terminals really make sense if we don’t even produce enough for our own consumption?

    How much of the price collapse was due to the warmest winter in the last 100 years?

  10. DeDude says:

    @ ConscienceofaConservative

    The current price is caused by the inability of US producers to get their product out on the world market. That will not last for very long. Making large scale changes based on this short-term phenomenon is not a good idea.

    Electric vehicles are the future but not feed by coal-based production and a grid. With a 10-fold increase in solar cell efficiency you could drive forever on a sunny day using panels that were integrated on the hood and roof of the car. With a 10-fold increase in battery efficiency you would never run out of juice and never have to connect to the grid.

    The future is with energy harvested directly from the sun (skipping that stupid 50 million year incubation of hydrocarbons deep in the crust of the earth). It is much cleaner and more efficient to harvest solar energy directly by the end user than to have this expensive polluting infrastructure to make hydrocarbon producers rich at huge social costs (covered by society).