US SWIMMING IN NATURAL GAS

Whoa Inventor...
I read the title of the thread "Natural As(s)", and thought my goodness I must be missing something here...LOL

quote:

Originally posted by interventor1:
The bad news: Using natural gas produces CO2, which Obama is sworn to cut. Look for the Dems to slow production and try to cut availability of this valuable source of energy. A source located in the USA.

Yeah, that's exactly what the oil companies want you to think. I am from Louisiana and know many people in the oil and gas industry. They turned their noses up at natural gas and shale drilling for decades because they could not make as high a profit.

In addition, according to the very article you cite:

A climate-change bill being pushed by President Barack Obama could boost reliance on natural gas. The bill, which could emerge from the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May, is expected to set aggressive targets for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent man-made greenhouse gas.

Meeting such goals would require quickly moving away from coal-fired power plants, which account for substantial carbon emissions. President Obama wants the U.S. to rely more on renewable energy such as wind and solar power, but those technologies aren't ready to shoulder more than a fraction of the nation's energy burden. Advocates for natural gas argue that the fuel, which is cleaner than coal, would be a logical quick fix. In addition, billionaire energy investor T. Boone Pickens has been touting natural gas as an alternative to gasoline and diesel for cars and trucks.

"The availability of natural-gas generation enables us to be much more courageous in charting a transition to a low-carbon economy," says Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, who was a senior adviser to President Obama during the campaign.


It goes on to say:

The dual message of energy security and environmental responsibility has helped Mr. Pickens win powerful allies, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and dozens of elected officials from both parties. A bipartisan bill providing tax incentives for natural-gas cars looks likely to pass this year.

In fact, Obama's own energy plan stated the following:

Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas - An Obama-Biden administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska…

Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline - As president, Obama will work with stakeholders to facilitate construction of the pipeline. Not only is this pipeline critical to our energy security, it will create thousands of new jobs.

And finally, according toMyBossier.blogspot.com

The Obama administration may be a shot in the arm for Haynesville Shale producers and for The Pickens Plan. Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois worked with Democrat Dan Boren of Oklahoma on a bill to help increase domestic production. Barack Obama introduced a very similar bill in the Senate.

quote:

Originally posted by teyates:
Whoa Inventor...
I read the title of the thread "Natural As(s)", and thought my goodness I must be missing something here...LOL

That's right, no matter how large they are, they are real...

quote:

Originally posted by MOBY:

quote:

Originally posted by interventor1:
The bad news: Using natural gas produces CO2, which Obama is sworn to cut. Look for the Dems to slow production and try to cut availability of this valuable source of energy. A source located in the USA.

Yeah, that's exactly what the oil companies want you to think. I am from Louisiana and know many people in the oil and gas industry. They turned their noses up at natural gas and shale drilling for decades because they could not make as high a profit.

In addition, according to the very article you cite:

A climate-change bill being pushed by President Barack Obama could boost reliance on natural gas. The bill, which could emerge from the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May, is expected to set aggressive targets for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent man-made greenhouse gas.

Meeting such goals would require quickly moving away from coal-fired power plants, which account for substantial carbon emissions. President Obama wants the U.S. to rely more on renewable energy such as wind and solar power, but those technologies aren't ready to shoulder more than a fraction of the nation's energy burden. Advocates for natural gas argue that the fuel, which is cleaner than coal, would be a logical quick fix. In addition, billionaire energy investor T. Boone Pickens has been touting natural gas as an alternative to gasoline and diesel for cars and trucks.

"The availability of natural-gas generation enables us to be much more courageous in charting a transition to a low-carbon economy," says Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, who was a senior adviser to President Obama during the campaign.


It goes on to say:

The dual message of energy security and environmental responsibility has helped Mr. Pickens win powerful allies, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and dozens of elected officials from both parties. A bipartisan bill providing tax incentives for natural-gas cars looks likely to pass this year.

In fact, Obama's own energy plan stated the following:

Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas - An Obama-Biden administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska…

Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline - As president, Obama will work with stakeholders to facilitate construction of the pipeline. Not only is this pipeline critical to our energy security, it will create thousands of new jobs.

And finally, according toMyBossier.blogspot.com

The Obama administration may be a shot in the arm for Haynesville Shale producers and for The Pickens Plan. Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois worked with Democrat Dan Boren of Oklahoma on a bill to help increase domestic production. Barack Obama introduced a very similar bill in the Senate.

Well said Moby.
Interventor and I are polar opposites in our politics, but I on occasion enjoy a debate with him because it is obvious he is intelligent.
Too bad he also takes every shot, correct or not, to flame Obama.

The Obama budget contains a $646 billion dollar cap and trade tax spread over 10 years. Cap and trade only works if CO2 production is reduced. Using NG produces CO2. How do you cut CO2 and use more NG?

"Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline - As president, Obama will work with stakeholders to facilitate construction of the pipeline. Not only is this pipeline critical to our energy security, it will create thousands of new jobs."

You mean the same pipeline Governor Palin is negotiating? And, was attacked as not being feasible when she was a VP candidate! Will Obama strech forth his mighty hand, strike the earth with a rod and cause NG to flow?

Flaming is a denial of service technique best suited to Chinese and Russia cyber sabotage. I do not participate in such attacks. Now, a nice portable EMF projector, perhaps!

Amazing, the Dems try to steal the pipeline from Governor Palin, after deriding her part in the project. NEVER! NEVER! NEVER! Trust a democrat!

Howard,

As I've stated, before, I'm a paleo-conservative, rather, than an objectivist, like yourself. However, I must, in the main agree. From the posts, its obvious that the Dems are either ignorant of cap and trade specifics or are playing a nasty demoggogic game. I hope its ignorance.

For the Dems, in power, its obvious they are looters, thieves or simply parasites. They have no idea of capital formation and, if their plans reach fruition, in ten years government spending will be the major portion of the GDP.

As government only collects taxes, where are the funds to come from? Taxes would reach confiscatory levels, with nothing left for investments -- its literally eating the seed corn and still expecting a new crop.

Under these circumstances, what foreigners would continue to buy stocks or treasuries?

quote:

Originally posted by interventor1:
The Obama budget contains a $646 billion dollar cap and trade tax spread over 10 years. Cap and trade only works if CO2 production is reduced. Using NG produces CO2. How do you cut CO2 and use more NG?

NG produces far less CO2 btu for btu than does coal. I'm surprised you were not aware of that.
Yes, it is a hydrocarbon, and does produce CO2, but as it turns out, if we were to use more NG and less coal , we would cut carbon in the atmosphere.
My personal preference would be to standardize a limited number of nuclear power plant designs and assure the power industry that if those specific units were built to those specific designs, the plant would be licensed. More nuclear power plants would be built, and older coal plants could be phased out. As more wind turbines are built in the plains, and more solar pannels are installed in the sun belt, along with the Pickens plan to run trucks, especilly fleet vehicles on NG, the carbon load may in fact be drastically reduced,

One more thing that the Democrats have done since being in power that the Republicans would not allow during their reign of terror, is tax credits for you and I as homeowners to put in in solar or wind generation . Them tax cuttin' Democrats ! Cut taxes now, and save on power bills from now on.
Check it out - what you can do now to help the situation and your self (well not YOU interventor as it probably wouldn't apply to your house in Europe), but you get the idea.

Link

excelman,

I, too, am in favor of nuclear power surplanting coal fired plants. Once more, France produces 88 percent of their power with nuclear power.

However, the Dems are totally enthralled by environmentalists who would not allow this.

I fail to see why you compared coal and NG. All the plans I've seen suggest replacing diesel/gas vehicles with NG, not coal. Environmentalists will fight even this conversion.

My home is in Virginia. I've been working in Europe for 15 months and return to the US on Monday.

Dems may allow tax credits for a few pet projects, but will cut taxes when pigs fly, not when swine flu.

I guess I mistook your opening remarks at the start of this tread. I thought you were saying Obama , and by association the Dems, were opposed to NG because it would increase carbon in the atmosphere, and they wanted to decrease it.
Coal fired power is the most carbon expensive way we produce power, although it is a cheap fuel, and so I made the jump that if , as you pointed out in the article, the country is "swimming in NG", then they would be opposed to using NG as a replacement to coal for power production. Sorry, after re-reading your comment, I made too much of a jump.
I might add that I didn't much like the idea of burning coal for power in 1952 when I first realized that my dad worked for TVA and was building Widdows Creek, at the time one of the largest coal fired power plants . Can't say why I had those inclinations, sure didn't get them from my parents. Guess I was born an environmentalist.
At any rate, the use of NG for power production has historically been a very clean and easy way to produce power, problem is that it has been very expensive to purchase as a fuel, and when the deregulation of power started happening, these little independent power companies started putting combustion turbines ( one of the most expensive ways to burn that expensive NG) it seems almost everywhere a power line crossed a NG pipeline. This use (possibly overuse)of NG to supplement the baseline power (government said we had to buy it per Reagan), caused the price of NG to skyrocket for the average home user. We hear about this every winter when folks get their Jan and Feb heating bill - read this forum back a couple of months.
Tax credits for solar power and other small scale power savers/producers were started by Carter, but Reagan cancelled them for what reason , God only knows. (he also took the solar panels off the White House that Carter had installed). Kinda looks like his actions were to foster the energy companies.
Clinton tried to get them back during his term (not hard enough in my opinion) but the Republican Congress had a firm stand not to allow them. ( Again, God knows why)
As I understand it, these tax credits may expire in 2016, but we would all be very wise to take advantage of some part at minimum . I personally plan to put vinyl windows in my Mom's house up to th $1600 limit, and on my own house may install a solar water heater if I can find one. (Before Reagan canceled the program, there were lots and lots of small businesses installing these in Memphis where I lived). My Son in considering putting in a wind turbine and solar panels on his house as a result . Just think, he can get a tax credit for 30% of what he puts in. Maybe some of it is alligator mouth , but if we all did take advantage of this program, we could possibly cut the amount of power needed substantially, thereby saving ourselves a lot of bucks, and saving a lot of carbon in the process.
At least the Dems are trying, something the former bunch wouldn't consider.

I love how CO2 is the evil pollutant, which, if we eliminate it all, we kill all green plants.
Kill the green plants, no 02 producers. We die.
I love simple.

Use any renewable resource we have but don't cut out the existing lines. Utopia is many decades down the road.