Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. expected to be largest producer of petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbons in 2013
US Department of Energy ^ | October 4, 2013 | Hannah Breul and Linda Doman

Posted on 10/06/2013 12:51:25 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration Note: Petroleum production includes crude oil, natural gas liquids, condensates, refinery processing gain, and other liquids, including biofuels. Barrels per day oil equivalent were calculated using a conversion factor of 1 barrel oil equivalent = 5.55 million British thermal units (Btu).

The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States will be the world's top producer of petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbons in 2013, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia. For the United States and Russia, total petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbon production, in energy content terms, is almost evenly split between petroleum and natural gas. Saudi Arabia's production, on the other hand, heavily favors petroleum.

Since 2008, U.S. petroleum production has increased 7 quadrillion Btu, with dramatic growth in Texas and North Dakota. Natural gas production has increased by 3 quadrillion Btu over the same period, with much of this growth coming from the eastern United States. Russia and Saudi Arabia each increased their combined hydrocarbon output by about 1 quadrillion Btu over the past five years.

Comparisons of petroleum and natural gas production across countries are not always easy. Differences in energy content of crude oil, condensates, and natural gas produced throughout these countries make accurate conversions difficult. There are also questions regarding the inclusion of biofuels and refinery gain in the calculations. Total petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbon production estimates for the United States and Russia for 2011 and 2012 were roughly equivalent—within 1 quadrillion Btu of one another. In 2013, however, the production estimates widen out, with the United States expected to outproduce Russia by 5 quadrillion Btu.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Russia; US: Louisiana; US: North Dakota; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 113th; bhodoe; bhoenergy; carbontax; energy; europeanunion; gas; gazprom; kenyanbornmuzzie; oil; opec; russia; saudiarabia; top10
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

1 posted on 10/06/2013 12:51:26 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
What foreign countries are we shipping them to, China?
2 posted on 10/06/2013 1:03:55 AM PDT by JimmyMc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc

I don’t think we care who buys our oil as much as we care about what they buy it with.


3 posted on 10/06/2013 1:11:52 AM PDT by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

My wife had Mexican style black beans with various peppers for dinner.

Now she is the world’s greatest natural gas producer, for the moment.

Glad I don’t smoke.


4 posted on 10/06/2013 1:40:47 AM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc
What foreign countries are we shipping them to, China?

I thought FReepers were smarter than this?

Liberals love to make this argument. We are destroying our environment so we can export gas and oil to other countries.

I am waiting for greater export of oil, gas and coal. It is about time we turn this nation into a net exporter again.

We have a near unlimited supply of hydrocarbons that we are extracting safely, using American workers earning above-average wages.

We have discovered, extracted and transported this abundance without any government assistance.

Abundant energy means lower costs for US companies, a return of manufacturing to our shores and yes, lower energy costs for the poor and elderly.

Again, we did all this without a single dime from the government!

So, it pisses me off when stupid, short-sighted, uneducated people lament the export of something that will the be engine of our economy for the next 200 years.

5 posted on 10/06/2013 1:45:40 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
No Way:
Jimmah "The sweater" Katah said we would run out 20 years ago.
You mean rabbit Boy was wrong?
He was a real smart man. Just ask him & Amy.
6 posted on 10/06/2013 2:20:12 AM PDT by DeaconRed (I want my FREE health Care Now like you promised ZERO. What? It's Not Free?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeaconRed
Seems like I remember others besides Jimmy Carter.

This all happened since 2008?

That's just about the time all the libs were calling Sarah Palin a brain dead moron. I think they said it would take 20 years to see the results of new drilling.

Ya think they'll apologize?

7 posted on 10/06/2013 2:47:50 AM PDT by j. earl carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Hydrocarbon has been made into a dirty word. I suggest we rebrand them with something different to make them sound more environmentally friendly. How about greeniedoodles?


8 posted on 10/06/2013 3:38:56 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

9 posted on 10/06/2013 4:15:25 AM PDT by CommieCutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The attorneys obama used to kill the coal industry have now been told to kill natural gas. The EPA will do it just as surely as they killed coal. It’s the 4th arm of government that obama has enacted to carry out his mission.


10 posted on 10/06/2013 4:21:03 AM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc; Erik Latranyi
"What foreign countries are we shipping them to, China?

It is illegal to export oil, except to Mexico and Canada. Mexico doesn't need oil but exports of shale oil to eastern Canada are spiking, to replace the more expensive imported Brent crude from the north sea and Africa. Congress has to change the law to allow exports to other countries.

But we are exporting record amounts of refined oil, gasoline and diesel, to Latin America. And if the Alberta pipeline(Trans-Canada) to the gulf coast gets built, the export of refined product would increase.

As for natural gas, we are exporting larger and larger amounts to Mexico via pipeline. FERC and the Energy dept have permitted 4 companies to export natural gas to other parts of the world, 3 on the gulf coast and 1 on the Atlantic coast. The first of these is scheduled to begin exporting in 2015. Supposedly, more will be permitted, but the US manufacturing sector is complaining about this.

Also, because of the natural gas shortages back in 2000-2001, several companies were permitted to import natural gas in 2002. By the time that gas began to arrive(2010), the price of natural gas in the US was so low, the importers began diverting it to other parts of the world. The price of NG around the world is much higher than it is in the US.

11 posted on 10/06/2013 4:34:44 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freeangel
"have now been told to kill natural gas"

Obama has permitted four companies to export natural gas. Cheneire, Freeport, and Southern Union on the gulf coast and Dominion in Maryland. Natural gas exports to Mexico are surging.

The majority of new electrical generating capacity being added in the US is natural gas fired. Wind is a distant second and coal is a distant third.

Obama loves natural gas.

12 posted on 10/06/2013 4:44:48 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Absolutely NO thanks to the anti-fossil fuel cult in the government and media for this blessing. This is entirely due to the U.S. oil companies and private land owners who developed these fabulous resources, while the EPA and the government’s lapdog media fought the energy industry tooth and nail. The Keystone XL pipeline is Exhibit A, when even the unions, begging for jobs, couldn’t get Obumbles and the tree-huggers to change their minds.


13 posted on 10/06/2013 5:08:46 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
You had me on board until this: Obama loves natural gas.

No Liberal tolerates, let alone loves, abundant, cheap energy. Especially in the hands of the peasants.

14 posted on 10/06/2013 5:30:34 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Damn ObamaCare, full speed ahead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’m in PA surrounded by anthracite. Might as well be ice in Antarctica.


15 posted on 10/06/2013 5:42:40 AM PDT by HomeAtLast (The original Tea Party entailed a willingness to do without some tea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
Do a google search of Obama Natural Gas.

Scroll thru the listed articles and you will see words like love, embrace, promote, praise, etc.

I realize that this doesn't match the rightwing rhetoric, and I know that the freepers love rhetoric, but reality is reality.

Let me throw you another one:

Obama opened the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic to drilling for oil.

Obama opened more of the Alaska Strategic Reserve to oil drilling.

Obama opened the Monterey Shale in California to oil drilling.

Obama has allowed the California offshore platforms to frack, and dump their fracking fluids in the ocean.

16 posted on 10/06/2013 5:58:24 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
I realize that this doesn't match the rightwing rhetoric

Neither does it match the history of Liberalism/Marxism.

Nor am I recognizing the the list as either acceptance or concessions by the President of his wish to provide cheap, abundant energy to the country.

Without proof they are little more than simple window dressing, and without meaning.

At best, I'd say they are more likely proof that crony capitalism is the order of the day.

17 posted on 10/06/2013 6:24:52 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Damn ObamaCare, full speed ahead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
"Neither does it match the history of Liberalism/Marxism"

Correct.

The left, Marxists, enviros, etc, don't like Obama anymore than you do.

They think that candidate Obama lied to them over CO2, War, drilling, national healthcare, and many other things.

18 posted on 10/06/2013 6:42:55 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

I’m not sure what your point is?


19 posted on 10/06/2013 6:44:49 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Damn ObamaCare, full speed ahead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HomeAtLast

Don’t worry future generations will exploit that coal.


20 posted on 10/06/2013 6:58:10 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
You "nose" what I'm saying.

There is left wing rhetoric, right wing rhetoric, and reality.

The lefties think Obama is no different from the Clintons. He's a DLCer, a third way compromising new democrat, a war mongering interventionist, and a corporate/Wall Street suck up.

21 posted on 10/06/2013 6:58:23 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Good post.


22 posted on 10/06/2013 7:02:01 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

I quite sure I covered your last point in my post #17.

You have offered no reasonable proof that Obama likes NG.


23 posted on 10/06/2013 7:59:10 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Damn ObamaCare, full speed ahead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
BACT is the best available control technology. BACT is determined on what is technically feasible and economically reasonable. Natural gas is a technically feasible and economically reasonable technology to replace coal.

So says the EPA.

This is not to say that clean coal technology is not BACT.

The cost of clean coal can't compete with the current low price of natural gas. If and when the price of natural gas goes up, clean coal can and will become competitive.

As for Obama loving natural gas, I'll go back to what I said in reply #16.

Do a google search of Obama natural gas and look for words love, embrace, promote, praise.

And while you are there, try to find articles where it says that Obama hates natural gas, or is trying to curtail natural gas, or prefers something else. Point them out to me.

24 posted on 10/06/2013 8:30:01 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Hey, that's pretty impressive for a nation that only has 2% of the world's oil reserves.
Oh, wait.
It was the serial lying sack of crap in the White House, Odumbo, that made that claim.
Nevermind.
25 posted on 10/06/2013 9:12:03 AM PDT by Amagi (God Save the Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc

the US is shipping refined gasoline products — not crude — mostly to latin america.

However, a couple percent of US natural gas output mainly from the eagle ford formation—is going to Mexico. that percentage is likely to grow for the next couple of years. mexico has lots of natural gas but its oil companies don’t have the technology to exploit it. they don’t have the legal and regulatory framework to allow foreign companies to extract their natural gas. they’re currently working on modifiying their laws enable natural gas extraction by foreign companies


26 posted on 10/06/2013 10:49:32 AM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

I used to be opposed to shipping oil and natural gas overseas. But lately I have become convinced that the US needs to produce and export as much gas and oil as possible while the prices remain high—now I believe prices will remain high — overseas for 5-10 years because of falling production and rising demand. that is only the USA canada and iraq around the world are raising production. most other fields face falling production. economic growth feeding oil/gas demand remains strong.

While both russia and china have enormous shale gas and oil reserves —its going to be a decade before they master the technology and create the infrastructure to move the oil and gas.

Meanwhile there are some seriously disruptive technologies just over the horizen in the form of electric cars and fourth generation portable nuclear power plants that could just kill the hydrocarbon industry. This is not a certainty—or even a probability. but only a medium level possibility at this point. We’ll know more in 3 years. For example if tesla comes up with a 30k electric car. or if for example a couple companies come out with beta portable lftr nukes in 3-5 years.


27 posted on 10/06/2013 11:04:55 AM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DeaconRed

Yeah those chats by the fire side on national TV wearing a sweater telling Americans to turn down those evil thermostats to save on energy cost when people were freezing already back in the late 70s.


28 posted on 10/06/2013 6:44:43 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

That would be one way to cut down our debt...


29 posted on 10/06/2013 7:16:47 PM PDT by Rides_A_Red_Horse (Why do you need a fire extinguisher when you can call the fire department?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
Obama may “love” natural gas according to “news” stories from his media lap dogs. However his minions at the EPA are still doing their best to curtail natural gas production through regulation based on studies known to be flawed. This would seem to contradict your claim. Obama is a megalomaniac whose only true love is political power.

If Obama and his minions found that increasing coal production somehow would increase his political power we could count in days if not hours how long it would take for industry stifling restrictions on our nation's most plentiful energy reserve (109 Billion Proved Recoverable Tons). Suddenly coal would be considered the new green energy. Of course since the United States has the world's largest coal reserves and the left still feels that the best way to keep their hand on the jugular of the world's economies is by restricting and taxing energy sources I don't expect any change in policy in the near future.

30 posted on 10/06/2013 11:15:49 PM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: fireman15
Sorry for the typos. It should have said,

"If Obama and his minions found that increasing coal production somehow would increase his political power we could count in days if not hours how long it would take for industry stifling restrictions to be lifted on our nation's most plentiful energy reserve (247 Billion Proved Recoverable Tons)."

31 posted on 10/06/2013 11:28:57 PM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: fireman15

245 Billion Tons means there is approximately 1.7 million pounds of coal for every man, woman, and child currently living in the United States.

How would you like to use your 1.7 million pounds of coal? You could burn it to generate electricity, or you could convert it to a liquid fuel to put in your car. You could also convert it to to a gas to heat your home in a furnace. Regardless... 1.7 million pounds will probably last you for quite a while. Maybe you could trade part of it to the Chinese to buy an extra iPhone or new computer.


32 posted on 10/06/2013 11:42:17 PM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Cue EPA A$$holes making sure we can’t utilize any of it because it might hurt the Panda bears. Or something.


33 posted on 10/06/2013 11:58:51 PM PDT by freedom462
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fireman15
I understand the rightwing rhetoric.

Run against Obama/dems by running against the EPA.

But it is all being driven by court decisions. Everything the EPA does gets litigated, and often it is like ping pong. A particular court decision generates a second lawsuit, which when decided by the court, generates a third lawsuit. And so on.

Some of these issues take decades to resolve in the courts. Congress passed New Source Review in the late 70s. The case was in and out of court numerous times but it was not until 2007 that SCOTUS made a decision that supposedly finalized it. Then Texas found another avenue to go to court, and they will delay it in Texas for a while longer. But the rest of the nation moved on.

Sometimes these coal plants get cancelled for other reasons. The White Stallion coal plant in Texas fought off the enviros and nimbys, only to lose a legal battle with the rice farmers over water rights. The coal plant was cancelled because they couldn't get the water to run it.

34 posted on 10/07/2013 6:17:52 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
It is illegal to export oil, except to Mexico and Canada.

It is more complicated than that:

Crude oil exports are restricted to:

(1) crude oil derived from fields under the State waters of Alaska's Cook Inlet;

(2) Alaskan North Slope crude oil;

(3) certain domestically produced crude oil destined for Canada;

(4) shipments to U.S. territories; and

(5) California crude oil to Pacific Rim countries.

See notes at the bottom of the page at:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbbl_m.htm

- - - - - -

And if the Alberta pipeline(Trans-Canada) to the gulf coast gets built, the export of refined product would increase.

Those refineries are not going to produce more oil due to the Keystone XL pipeline. They will however refine more oil from Canada & North Dakota while replacing oil imported from overseas.

- - - - - - - - -

Also, because of the natural gas shortages back in 2000-2001, several companies were permitted to import natural gas in 2002.

We have been importing Natural Gas for decades and still do today.

U.S. Natural Gas Imports
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9100us2m.htm

35 posted on 10/07/2013 6:37:43 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: thackney
"It is more complicated than that"

Of course it is, but the general thrust is correct.

"We have been importing Natural Gas for decades"

Because some parts of the country had an aversion to buying NG from TX, LA, & OK. They were willing to use fuel oil for home heating and other applications. And beneath the surface, some of the resistance to producing NG in parts of the Marcellus is being driven by that industry.

I admire your attention to detail and early on working in the lab and operations, I did too. But I moved into sales where you don't sweat the details, you just push that off on the engineering dept.

36 posted on 10/07/2013 8:18:32 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
Because some parts of the country had an aversion to buying NG from TX, LA, & OK.

No, because even without those switching from Fuel Oil, we still consumed more Natural Gas than we produced ourselves.

Building pipelines in the existing crowded Northeast is far more expensive than building new pipelines in areas of new construction.

37 posted on 10/07/2013 8:35:28 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Bravo sir. That was a hell of a post.


38 posted on 10/07/2013 8:36:49 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
I understand the rightwing rhetoric.

You little scallywag! So the poor EPA is being forced to write regulations based on completely disproved studies against their will by the courts. Yea that's it! That's the ticket! You don't seem to understand anything at all.

Do you actually pay attention to current events at all before you start making stuff up??? The EPA is now run by left wing ideologues. Look at the previous head of the EPA Lisa P. Jackson... she resigned to protest Obama’s support of the “Keystone Pipeline”. Obama nominated her because she was a left wing ideologue and she quit because she wasn't willing to accept that a political compromise was being made.

No one has to force the EPA to take irresponsible actions against the citizens of this country. The regs are conceived by people with left wing ideology but the victims do not generally have no political motivation.

Everything the EPA does gets litigated.

That is a lie! That is absolutely not true! The vast majority of people who should be filing lawsuits against the EPA do not. This is because it is basically always futile to to get in a legal battle with an entity with unlimited resources.

My own family found out this the hard way. I am not going to go into detail here, but my parents are in their late 70s. They lost almost everything they had in a legal fight with a Transit Authority who took their land worth approximately $2,000,000 and gave them no compensation.

You are living in a fantasy world. People like my parents are the ones who are victims of EPA actions and they lose everything when they take on the government. For their trouble they get the pleasure of intentionally made out to be villains in the press by the government agencies they have challenged.

39 posted on 10/07/2013 8:41:11 AM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: fireman15

Sorry for all of the typos in my last post! One of the biggest challenges we face as a nation is that the agencies that make up our vast federal government are led by left wing idealogues and a majority of government employees are also left wing idealogues.

Obama doesn’t have to make a direct order to shut down monuments to our nation’s veterans; his minions know what he wants. Obmama doesn’t have to tell the EPA to shut down coal fired power plants and the Keystone Pipeline; his minions know what he wants.

The EPA is not governed by science... it is governed by political ideaology. The EPA has become one of the regulatory arms of the left. The funny thing is when the pendulum swings back in our favor... the extreme financial crisis that is being created by irresponsible government spending will give our side all the justification we need to castrate all of these agencies.


40 posted on 10/07/2013 8:55:24 AM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: thackney
If you exclude those areas that have or had been using LNG, and possibly even including those areas, the US has probably never used more natural gas than could be domestically produced.

There were the shortages in 2000-2001, but many still say that happened because Enron was gaming. The post Katrina shortages were from loss of infrastructure.

But the general consensus was that as the US used more and more NG to generate electricity, then domestic demand would exceed domestic supply. As you pointed out there were regions already using imported LNG, such as the NE and thru the Sempra terminal in Baja, but it was the 2000 shortages that pulled the trigger. I don't really recall exactly how many import permits were issued in 2001 and/or 2002. But it seems like Exxon, Cheniere, and Freeport.

Now it is how many export permits will be issued. Either way, a world market for natural gas gets expanded. I still remember buying into a natural gas lease in Indonesia in the mid 70s.

41 posted on 10/07/2013 9:38:25 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
If you exclude those areas that have or had been using LNG, and possibly even including those areas, the US has probably never used more natural gas than could be domestically produced.

Not true, simple math shows this year after year. LNG imports are tracked separately from Pipeline imports. LNG imports were running about 10% of what we imported by pipeline.

U.S. Natural Gas Imports by Country
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc_s1_a.htm

42 posted on 10/07/2013 9:56:05 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

43 posted on 10/07/2013 10:03:16 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: fireman15
"You are living in a fantasy world"

Actually, I had 31 hours of college chemistry and a career in industrial chemicals, working in both consumables and capital equipment. I've been retired for a while now.

The first time I worked in pollution control and abatement was before the Clean Air Act. My employer transferred me to CA where Rule 66 was being implemented. I had decades of experience dealing with both federal and state environmental codes as well as OSHA, fire, and electrical code

44 posted on 10/07/2013 10:03:26 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: thackney
I'm not really talking about pipelines because the North American energy markets are highly integrated, nor was I talking about preexisting LNG terminals.

So actually I am only addressing those LNG import terminals that began as result of the 2000 shortages. And on the flip side of that are the export terminals where the gas originated. One of the delays was construction of the LNG trains in Qatar.

Your chart shows it well. After the domestic shortages, LNG imports rose sharply. That didn't have any thing to do with new terminals being built, the increase in LNG imports was thru pre-existing terminals.

So just to make sure you approve, let me reword my statement. Including the natural gas that was entering the US thru pipelines or could enter the US thru pipelines plus the LNG that was entering the US thru pre-existing LNG terminals or could enter the US thru the pre-existing LNG terminals, the US never had to supplement her supply with new terminals. It is also very possible that the increase in pipeline imports were more than adequate to cover the shortfall, that the increase in LNG thru the pre-existing terminals was not actually needed

Would you happen to know what the percentage of total NG use in the US was being fulfilled by the import pipelines and the preexisting LNG terminals?

45 posted on 10/07/2013 11:08:45 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

Here is one of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of such articles;

“U.S. Dithers while World Feasts on New Energy Discoveries “

From the column

“Yet here in America, our administration continues to view oil and natural gas development – and U.S.-based technological advances – with hostility. During President Obama’s tenure in office, his administration placed a moratorium on U.S. offshore oil and gas production, refused to approve the Keystone XL pipeline bringing oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries, issued a five-year drilling plan that puts 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off-limits to energy development, and repeatedly proposed to raise taxes on the oil industry, which would have the effect of reducing the industry’s ability to invest in the search for energy.”

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2012/10/04/us_dithers_while_world_feasts_on_new_energy_discoveries


46 posted on 10/07/2013 11:19:47 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Damn ObamaCare, full speed ahead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

One needs to look no further than the “debate” over “global warming” to see how far the EPA has gone off the tracks since you retired. The surface temperature data that we have available even as manipulated and flawed as it is... still shows no statistically sinificant warming for approximately 18 years. Yet our EPA and Obama still insist that CO2 is a harmful polutant that is causing irreversable damage. Where is the measurable data that supports this belief? It does not exist.

Yet you call this type of argument, “rightwing rhetoric”. I actually work on a hazmat team. My interaction with the people I come into contact with, the technicians who work with the EPA have mostly been positive. Unfortunately, the technicians make up only a very small percentage of people working for the EPA. I have had conversations with some of the technicians and in some most they are as appalled as I am over what is going on at the administrative level.


47 posted on 10/07/2013 11:22:53 AM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
I would also like to add that the EPA was started to address real problems. I remember when I was a teenager and my family drove to Disneyland for vacation. From the hills surrounding Los Angeles I can still remember seeing the huge layer of smog in the valley... and that was a bad thing. Unfotunately the government bureaucracy that was spawned by President Nixon morphed into something that has gone out of control and whose leadership has lost touch with the original intent... They need to be reigned in and I can guarantee that Obama is more than sympathetic to their new agenda has no desire or intention to do anything about the problem.
48 posted on 10/07/2013 11:32:39 AM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
Including the natural gas that was entering the US thru pipelines or could enter the US thru pipelines plus the LNG that was entering the US thru pre-existing LNG terminals or could enter the US thru the pre-existing LNG terminals, the US never had to supplement her supply with new terminals.

It is easy to say that today. In 2000 almost no one would have agreed. That is why the majors were willing to spend billions for the new LNG import facilities. George Mitchel probably would have agreed with you at the time.

Would you happen to know what the percentage of total NG use in the US was being fulfilled by the import pipelines and the preexisting LNG terminals?

You can do the math by comparing the above data (charts link to data) combined with the breakdown per LNG location at:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/xls/NG_MOVE_POE1_A_EPG0_IML_MMCF_A.xls

Then compare to total usage at:


49 posted on 10/07/2013 11:45:32 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Then compare to total usage at:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm


50 posted on 10/07/2013 11:45:59 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson