Posted on 02/10/2011 2:10:44 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Ten years ago, few crystal balls foresaw the lightning impact and development of shale gas on the world’s energy scene. In the last 10 years – during which shale gas became commercial in the US – its use has grown from near zero to about 20% of the already enormous US gas stream. Booked shale gas reserves, at present rates of production, may still be onstream 100 years into the future, a figure that will increase if gas begins to approach oil on a price parity basis.
Many likely changes will result from shale gas development. But the most important ones reflect the economic impact of shale gas on global politics and today’s energy producers.
.....The distribution of shale gas is so widespread that locally produced shale gas may become the standard fuel in many places. Traditional gas imports (by pipeline or as LNG) may become incremental sources.
The potential of shale gas implies a loss of political leverage for some sellers. For example, Russia has used threats of interruptions – and actual interruptions – like old-time gunboats, notably with Ukraine, but with other European countries too.
... The Poles share with other Europeans concerns about fracking, water recycling, and environmental issues. They have no tradition of American-style entrepreneurship. What they do have is reliance on Russia’s Gazprom in a power-constrained economy. They want to accelerate the development of their shale gas reserves. This story is repeated many places.
....Because shale gas can be distributed through existing gas facilities, it can decrease the urgency with which some countries pursue solar and wind projects. But these renewables have been supported by global warming concerns and benefited from deliberately high subsidies. So a commitment to renewables is likely to remain even if gas availability is explored and ultimately adopted.
(Excerpt) Read more at pennenergy.com ...
[excerpt] And here, as Bishop Hill has also noted, are some of the expert from this morning’s shale gas inquiry.
Who will give evidence?
At 9.45 am
* Nigel Smith, Geologist, British Geological Survey, and
* Professor Richard Selley, Petroleum Geologist, Imperial College London
At 10.45 am
* Jenny Banks, Energy and Climate Change Policy Officer, WWF, and
* Professor Kevin Anderson, Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester
Yep. A geologist and a petroleum geologist. Fair enough. But Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre – the deep green activist group which recently called for a “managed recession” in order to curb the economic growth which is supposedly harming our environment? And a woman from the World Worldlife Fund? [end excerpt]
[excerpt] HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (NYSE:EPD) today announced several new construction projects that will further extend and expand its natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGL) infrastructure in South Texas and Mont Belvieu, Texas to accommodate growing production volumes from the Eagle Ford Shale play. As part of the initiative, Enterprise plans to install 350 miles of pipelines, build a new natural gas processing facility, and add a new NGL fractionator at the Mont Belvieu complex near the Houston Ship Channel. In addition, the partnership recently completed several key, previously announced projects, including the initial 34-mile segment of the east-west rich gas Eagle Ford mainline and the final leg of the 62-mile White Kitchen Lateral. As a result, Enterprise soon will be able to fill the existing 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of capacity at its seven South Texas natural gas processing facilities.
Included in the planned construction, is an expansion of Enterprise’s east-west rich gas mainline that will involve adding three additional pipeline segments totaling 168 miles. The first phase will involve the installation of 26 miles of 24-inch diameter pipeline extending the mainline to the far western reaches of the Eagle Ford Shale. The remaining 142 miles, to be built in two segments, will be comprised of 30-inch and 36-inch diameter pipelines that will serve the eastern portion of the Eagle Ford Shale. Upon completion, the Eagle Ford Shale rich gas mainline system and associated laterals will consist of approximately 300 miles of pipelines representing gathering and transportation capacity of more than 600 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d).
The east end of Eagle Ford mainline will terminate at a new natural gas complex Enterprise plans to build that will feature multiple processing trains designed for deep ethane recovery and production of mixed NGLs in excess of 60,000 barrels per day (BPD). Following completion of these projects, which is expected in early 2012, Enterprise’s Texas assets will have the capability to gather, transport and process almost 2.5 Bcf/d of natural gas and produce more than 150,000 BPD of NGLs.
Takeaway capacity for residue gas from the new processing facility will be provided by a combination of existing Enterprise infrastructure and construction of additional natural gas pipelines. Specifically, Enterprise is planning to construct a new 64-mile, 30-inch diameter residue gas line from the cryogenic facility to its Wilson natural gas storage facility in Wharton County, Texas. Wilson offers access to major interstate pipelines, including Trunkline, Tennessee Gas, Transco, NGPL, Gulf South and Texas Eastern. An expansion project to increase capacity at the storage facility by 5 billion cubic feet is currently under way.
Transportation of mixed NGLs from the new processing facility to the Mont Belvieu complex will be accomplished by expanding Enterprise’s infrastructure, highlighted by the planned construction of a new 127-mile, 12-inch diameter pipeline. The new NGL pipeline will have an initial capacity of more than 60,000 BPD, readily expandable to over 120,000 BPD. The project is scheduled for completion early in 2012. [end excerpt]
A search crew found the body of Richard Shaw at about 6:30 p.m., said Rick Rainey, a spokesman for Enterprise Products. An accident at noon Tuesday at the Mont Belvieu company produced a towering fireball that burned for hours before diminishing as the sun set......Chambers County emergency management coordinator Ryan Holzaepfel said he was told by officials at the plant when he arrived Tuesday the cause of the explosion likely was a failed pump in an above-ground pipe rack area.
In addition to trained Enterprise staff, workers from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Texas Railroad Commission, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency responded to the incident, Rainey said. [end excerpt]
I’ve heard the argument that while American’s cannot compete with the extremely low labor costs in other parts of the world we have geat potential with having cheap energy that we could be so much more economically competitive.
Yet our government blocks the development of our known
energy sources.
"The ruling highlights the disparity between President Obama's stated policy objectives -- to grow jobs and promote American energy independence -- and his actions, which instead deliver higher unemployment, higher fuel prices and greater dependency on foreign energy sources. This ruling demonstrates the President is more interested in shutting down our domestic oil and gas production than he is in establishing clear rules to enhance safety and environmental protection. President Obama's policies are destroying American jobs and exporting American technology to countries that value safe offshore energy production," said Jim Adams, president and CEO of the Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA).....
The Oil Embargo did not significantly decrease the amount of oil available in the United States or any affected European countries due mainly to a lack of solidarity and uniformity in embargoing specific countries. The embargo was effectively ended on September 1 with the issuance of the Khartoum Resolution. [end excerpt]
[snip]
On July 15, 1979, President Jimmy Carter outlined his plans to reduce oil imports and improve energy efficiency in his "Crisis of Confidence" speech (sometimes known as the "malaise" speech). It is often said that during the speech, Carter wore a cardigan (he actually wore a blue suit) and encouraged citizens to do what they could to reduce their use of energy. He had already installed solar power panels on the roof of the White House and a wood-burning stove in the living quarters. However, the panels were removed in 1986, reportedly for roof maintenance, during the administration of his successor, Ronald Reagan, and were never replaced.
Carter's speech argued the oil crisis was "the moral equivalent of war". Several months later, in January 1980, Carter issued the Carter Doctrine, which declared that any interference with U.S. oil interests in the Persian Gulf would be considered an attack on the vital interests of the United States.[13] Additionally, as part of his administration's efforts at deregulation, Carter proposed removing price controls that had been imposed in the administration of Richard Nixon before the 1973 crisis. Carter agreed to remove price controls in phases; they were finally dismantled in 1981 under Reagan.[14] Carter also said he would impose a windfall profit tax on oil companies.[15] While the regulated price of domestic oil was kept to $6 a barrel, the world market price was $30.[15]
In 1980, the U.S. Government established the Synthetic Fuels Corporation to produce an alternative to imported fossil fuels. [end exceprt]
The White House declined to comment on the reports Wednesday, saying that the administration did not divulge what other leaders said to Obama.
However, it later said that Obama had discussed Egypt during a phone call with King Abdullah on Wednesday, saying the U.S. leader stressed the need for a meaningful and lasting political transition.
The news came as testimony gathered by the Guardian newspaper claimed that the Egyptian military, despite maintaining an appearance of neutrality in the ongoing crisis, had secretly detained hundreds and possibly thousands of suspected government opponents since mass protests began weeks ago.
Egyptians continued to demonstrate across the country Wednesday in a 16th day of protests against longtime leader Mubarak despite warnings of a crackdown by the regime if the continued uprising creates chaos.
Obama's most senior national security aides also met with Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Wednesday to discuss the situation in Egypt. [end excerpt]
running to the post office for RR stamps today...bump
To Cincinatus’ Wife
OOPS about my previous #11 post.
Wrong thread!!!
Hadn’t gotten my coffee yet!!!
“
Shale Gas: Global game changer (and why some will block it)
“
Obama, The Sierra Club and other fellow travelers will do all they can to
defeat American self-sufficiency in energy.
And that includes building enough nuclear plants to power all the
new electric/hybrid cars like the Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt.
Freedom for the masses just doesn’t fit in with program for Obama and
his fellow travelers.
These cats are all about making every “citizen” a dependent on the
ever-expanding federal bureacracy.
UGH!!!
[excerpt] Oklahoma U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe promotes global warming skepticism and his book at House hearing
Republicans aiming to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases.
......The concern of Republicans, who now control the House, is that the EPA is setting out to curb carbon emissions through a series of regulations, both for vehicles and stationary sources, such as power plants.
The U.S. Supreme Court effectively gave the EPA the authority to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act, and the EPA took a major step toward that regulation with a finding that carbon, like the pollutants already regulated, poses a danger to human health.
Inhofe and two House Republicans, including the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, have drafted legislation that would effectively bar the EPA from issuing regulations to reduce carbon emissions.
Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, the Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, said regulations would raise energy prices and kill jobs.
But Democrats on the panel and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson countered that the U.S. economy boomed in the 1990s after more stringent Clean Air Act amendments were approved.
Reducing emissions
The history of the Clean Air Act shows, Jackson said, that “our economy can grow and thrive while we reduce pollution and increase energy efficiency.”
Republicans invited representatives from several industries to testify about the harm EPA regulations would do. Jackson said agriculture wouldn’t be affected, but a witness for the American Farm Bureau Federation countered in written testimony that farmers and ranchers would be affected by anyway by increased energy costs.
Rep. John Sullivan, R-Tulsa, a member of the subcommittee, said in his statement that compliance costs would “trickle down to the farming and ranching community, resulting in higher costs of production and food costs for American families, exactly what we don’t need in a struggling economy.” [end excerpt]
Thanks for these posts. However, you left out the 1973 oil crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
Wonderful montage. Thanks. I’m saving the URL for this thread for future reference.
Congressional Republicans choose to just ignore science and attack the EPA. [excerpt] So what about the EPA’s new greenhouse gas rules that were being discussed at the hearing? The basic story is fairly simple. Back in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act if the agency found that those gases pose a threat to public health and welfare (which, most scientists agree, they do). As it turns out, even George W. Bush’s EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson, conceded that the agency would have to start regulating carbon-dioxide. And, under Obama, the EPA has been putting forward new rules to control pollution from cars and stationary sources. (Here's a full primer on the topic.)
Republicans, for their part, are trying to argue that these regulations will crush the U.S. economy. At Wednesday's hearing, they invited Steve Rowlan, a representative from Nucor—a major U.S. steel producer—to explain how his company had to build a $750 million plant in Louisiana instead of a $2 billion one because of “the uncertainty created by these regulations.” Likewise, Jim Pearce, an official from soda-ash manufacturer FMC Corp., warned that new pollution controls could drive businesses offshore.
All these examples may be true (and certainly there's room to quibble with the EPA's new study suggesting that forthcoming clean-air regulations will actually create jobs). But, then again, no one suggests that these carbon rules are free—companies will have to spend money on pollution controls and efficiency upgrades. The environmentalist argument is that the benefits outweigh the costs. And that's something Republicans would rather not confront head-on. At one point, Representative Ed Whitfield of Kentucky informed EPA head Lisa Jackson that her agency’s new fuel economy standards would add $948 to the cost of a car by 2016. But that’s only a decisive argument against if you ignore the fact that the rules will save consumers far more than that amount in gas costs—to say nothing of whatever clean-air benefits ensue. (All told, EPA estimates the benefits at $240 billion.)
That brings us to the nub of the debate. If you don’t believe climate change is a problem, then most of these new carbon rules are pointless. And, within the Republican Party, the belief that global warming is a made-up non-problem has become thoroughly ingrained—so much so that it’s no longer even worth justifying. [end excerpt]
---------
I'm happy to say it looks like the GOP isn't just going to "ignore nature" or just yawn in the face of the EPA and warmists.
As Gen George Patton famously put it to the troops "....."I don't want to get any messages saying, "I am holding my position." We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!"
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.