| When Clinton was asked what he thought of foreign affairs he replied, "I don't know, I never had one." (As usual, he lied) |
 |
|---|
| Free Republic |
| Your donations keep us laughing at liberals |
Posted on 07/13/2003 2:28:59 PM PDT by arete
Richard W.
| When Clinton was asked what he thought of foreign affairs he replied, "I don't know, I never had one." (As usual, he lied) |
|
|---|
| Free Republic |
| Your donations keep us laughing at liberals |
Comments and opinions welcome.
Richard W.
I have as much faith in Congress to know what consumers 'should' do with natural gas as I do in the New Economic Policy, the Five Year Plan, and the New Deal. We'll have a crisis once they've applied enough government 'solutions'.
What that sentence FAILS to state, is that any attempt to build a new nuke would br tied up in court with enviro/nazi lawsuits for years, if ever allowed.
It would parcel out nearly $10 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to oil and gas companies that will not erase falling production but instead enrich oilmen and investors.
This is pure unadulterated bullhillary. Tax incentives (Section 29 tax credit) resulted in over 5000 wells being drilled in N Mich., which supply roughly 1/3 of Michigan's needs, and that is just in Michigan. These breaks, far from enriching oilmen, will bring a tremendous increase in drilling, ergo, more natural gas, DUH. It's called incentive, stupid.
At the same time, the President's proposed budget slashes spending on wind research by 5.5%, zero-energy buildings by 50% and biomass by 19%. To add to the insult, the Administration took the money to print its 170-page 2001 National Energy Policy out of the budget for renewable fuels.
None of these 'alternative fuel sources have shown themselves, even with huge subsidies, to be anywhere near commercial or reliable (read about solar failure in the article itself).
In short, to answer your question, there is and will be a natural gas shortage for at least two years. THE MAIN REASON THAT THE AUTHORS' FAIL TO MENTION, IS CONTINUAL LAWSUITS FROM ENVIRO/NAZI GROUPS IN EVERY STATE WHERE COMPANIES TRY AND DRILL.Never forget that.
I could go on forever dissecting this piece of CLINTON, but it is so bad it would be a waste of my time. This will, howeverm be a RAT campaign issue, mark my words.
Note that all three of those industry giants are now compound names. Note also that their US upstream capital spending has withered ever since their mergers, despite the fact they have been piling up mountians of cash, paying down debt to unheardof levels (XOM has negative net debt).
The US natgas production declines for these three companies can account for a very large percentage of the perceived supply shortage. Their US gas production declines over the past couple of years have been on the staggering scale of 5% or more. This despite exceptional strong prices, improved drilling success rates, quicker payback periods on new gas wells from improved stimulation, and overall netbacks on falling finding and development costs at historic industry highs.
The "problem" is squarely with the US industry leaders, who refuse to reinvest properly and niggardly refuse to farm out or sell ther vast US acreage positions that blanket the most promising gas production regions.
Which makes you wonder why smart businessmen would leave so much money on the table in favor of essentially negative returns on their cash hoards. My belief is that they have, in fact, been tacitly encouraged by the US government to persue exactly this strategy as a means of supporting world oil prices. The reason: to force the Chinese (now huge importers) to upward revalue the Yuan and play ball with the West on a myriad of economic and geopolitical issues.
Cheap US natural gas would be a drag on world oil prices by encouraging fuel switching and reducing already weak oil demand. To keep oil prices above $30/bbl, where they have the potential to hurt the Chinese, the US needs to play the role of a defacto OPEC cartel member, which it certain HAS in Iraq. It fomented the Venezula revolt that took 2-mil b/d of production off the market last winter. And I believe the US stands ready to brutalize (with the "rubber hose" treatment) any other producing country that tries to capitalize on these high pirces by cheating on their quotas.
Make no mistake, there is a high-stakes geopolitical agenda behind these high oil and gas prices. And it is aimed at China. High prices annoy us. But they criple China's growth plans and could eventually topple their brittle regime.
Funny how the private sector doesn't want to invest money in this. The concept is just promising enough to spend other people's money on it.
Sounds nice and simple, but totally untrue. The current crises is multifaceted, declining Canadian exports which comprise roughly 15% of US supply(Ladyfern field falling 40% faster than espected), Gulf decline ratios are around 30% greater than anticipated and new gulf wells and fields take at LEAST a year or two to get online (Gulf wells supply roughly 25% of US supply), and higher usage for electricity generation (one of the only things the article got right) and of course the Lawsuits, the never ending lawsuits.
I don't care if the 3 companies you mentioned farmed out their entire US acreage position (which is not as big as you claim), or filed 10,000 permits to drill tomorrow, they would be descended upon by the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, et al, like a horde of friggin' locusts.
For a good look at the supply problem, check out the below website. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngs/ngs.html
You're exactly correct. The 5000 wells I mentioned in MI were all drilled by small independents. "Little oil will see those benefits if these incentives are passed."
Another little tidbit, over 90% of onshore US production and wells drilled are by Indepndents, not the MAJORS, as you so correctly pointed out.
Maybe we should ask Sen. Dorgan if he would mind if we COVERED his state with windmills to make that cheap, inexhaustible supply of which he speaks.
Getting at it is the problem. Not insoluble.
--Boris
Correct. Thank you for saving me the trouble of pointing this out.
A question about hydrogen powered vehicles. Since it does seem rather expensive to produce hydrogen by electrolysis, the preferred method of producing hydrogen is by thermolysis of natural gas, or petroleum hydrocarbons. Will we need to continue to import natural gas or petroleum to produce the hydrogen for our cars, trucks, SUV's, buses, trains and etc.?"
You pay sooner or later. Electrolysis requires lots of energy and typically runs at 70% efficiency. The best way to make H2 by elecrolysis--especially if you want lots of it--is using nuclear reactors. Other methods--as you correctly say--use hydrocarbon fuels as feedstock.
More importantly: Hydrogen is a liquid at about -421 F. Its density is 4.41 lb/ft3, versus 50 lb/ft3 for gasoline. Hydrogen combustion liberates about 3.5 times the energy per pound as gasoline, but only about 1/3 on a per gallon basis.
So LIQUID hydrogen fuel tanks would need to be ~3 times LARGER than gasoline tanks for the same energy content and hence range.
The insulation requirements for storing a deep cryogen like LH2 are enormous and would make the storage density even worse. Finally, imagine citizens pumping fluid at ~40 degrees above absolute zero into their vehicles. Spilling it on their feet...
With gaseous H2 it becomes even worse. And, of course, high-pressure GH2 tanks are also known as "bombs".
--Boris
--Boris
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.