There is enough recoverable natural gas in the US that it could help boost the world economy, not just our own. That's what some analysts are saying.
By harvesting the abundant supply of shale gas here at home, it would all but eliminate the Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) imports that have been coming into the US. That would make much more nat gas available for other countries, thereby creating a 'buyer's market'. That means lower energy prices and more disposable income, a winning combination to help revive sputtering economies around the globe.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Dreamers and NIMBYs
Supporters of natural gas development are occasionally confronted by those who have different ideas in terms of the direction we as a nation (and world) should be going. They are opposed to further oil and natural gas development, citing Wind, Solar, Wave and Geothermal as better solutions to our energy problems. Others also mention plain and simple energy conservation. The fact is, we need all of the above.
Here's the situation. Renewables currently account for only about 10% of our energy supply. By 2020 it is assumed that number will be up to 20%. Even if that does happen, what about the other 80%. It has to come from either oil, gas, coal, or nuclear. This isn't rocket science. And when you look at the environmental impacts of each of those four sources, it is absolutely clear which one is the better energy source. Natural gas.
That is not to say that it will be problem-free. It is an industry and there will be incidents and accidents, the same as in any industry. Those who think there are energy sources that are problem-free are living in some kind of dreamland. How do I know this? Because the Environmentalists have told me so.
There isn't a single energy source that hasn't encountered the protests of Environmentalists ... including the ones they tout as being better alternatives.
Environmentalists are against:
- Oil (drilling, carbon)
- Natural Gas (drilling, fracing, carbon)
- Coal (mining, carbon)
- Corn Ethanol (lost food source, carbon to produce)
- Large Hydro (kills fish, natural habitat disruption)
- Nuclear (disaster threat, nuclear waste)
- Wind (unsightly, kills bird & bats, needs gas backup plants)
- Solar Farms (unsightly, natural habitat disruption)
- Wave (threat to marine life, habitat disruption)
- Geothermal (drilling)
So, let's get this straight ... you don't like oil, gas, coal, ethanol, hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, wave, or geothermal. What else is there? What do you like? Maybe these people should stop screaming about what's wrong with everything if they can't come up with a real, workable, commercially viable energy plan themselves.
The U.S. is currently buying foreign oil, draining a billion dollars a day from our economy! This country is committing financial suicide and they could care less. They are NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard). They would rather see you out of work and the economy crumbling to the ground rather than be exposed to any of the unpleasant aspects or risks of energy production. And yet, they are perfectly willing to use that energy. They're like the guy at the office who's right there to drink the coffee every morning, but never offers to make the coffee, complains about how it tastes, and never puts any money into the coffee fund. It would serve them right to pay a hefty 'nonsupporter surcharge' on any energy that they use.
The next time you hear someone blasting the idea of regenerating the U.S. oil and gas industry, ask them three questions:
1 - What do you put in your gas tank?
2 - How do you heat your home?
3 - What is your plan? (one that isn't from dreamland)
Here's the situation. Renewables currently account for only about 10% of our energy supply. By 2020 it is assumed that number will be up to 20%. Even if that does happen, what about the other 80%. It has to come from either oil, gas, coal, or nuclear. This isn't rocket science. And when you look at the environmental impacts of each of those four sources, it is absolutely clear which one is the better energy source. Natural gas.
That is not to say that it will be problem-free. It is an industry and there will be incidents and accidents, the same as in any industry. Those who think there are energy sources that are problem-free are living in some kind of dreamland. How do I know this? Because the Environmentalists have told me so.
There isn't a single energy source that hasn't encountered the protests of Environmentalists ... including the ones they tout as being better alternatives.
Environmentalists are against:
- Oil (drilling, carbon)
- Natural Gas (drilling, fracing, carbon)
- Coal (mining, carbon)
- Corn Ethanol (lost food source, carbon to produce)
- Large Hydro (kills fish, natural habitat disruption)
- Nuclear (disaster threat, nuclear waste)
- Wind (unsightly, kills bird & bats, needs gas backup plants)
- Solar Farms (unsightly, natural habitat disruption)
- Wave (threat to marine life, habitat disruption)
- Geothermal (drilling)
So, let's get this straight ... you don't like oil, gas, coal, ethanol, hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, wave, or geothermal. What else is there? What do you like? Maybe these people should stop screaming about what's wrong with everything if they can't come up with a real, workable, commercially viable energy plan themselves.
The U.S. is currently buying foreign oil, draining a billion dollars a day from our economy! This country is committing financial suicide and they could care less. They are NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard). They would rather see you out of work and the economy crumbling to the ground rather than be exposed to any of the unpleasant aspects or risks of energy production. And yet, they are perfectly willing to use that energy. They're like the guy at the office who's right there to drink the coffee every morning, but never offers to make the coffee, complains about how it tastes, and never puts any money into the coffee fund. It would serve them right to pay a hefty 'nonsupporter surcharge' on any energy that they use.
The next time you hear someone blasting the idea of regenerating the U.S. oil and gas industry, ask them three questions:
1 - What do you put in your gas tank?
2 - How do you heat your home?
3 - What is your plan? (one that isn't from dreamland)
Friday, July 1, 2011
Finally!
It looks like New York State is finally ready to move forward. The DEC has released a 4 page memo that includes some of the changes and key provisions of their latest SGEIS. It also states that the final 2011 SGEIS will be available July 8 on the DEC website (www.dec.state.ny.us).
Among the statements contained in this release are the following:
- high volume fracturing will be permitted on privately held lands under rigorous and effective controls
- drilling would be prohibited within primary aquifers and within 500 feet of their boundaries
- surface drilling would be prohibited on state-owned land
- high volume fracturing would be prohibited in the NYC and Syracuse watersheds
- approximately 85 percent of the Marcellus would be accessible
In addition, the DEC has hired independent researchers (at taxpayer expense?) to thoroughly research the community and socio-economic impacts
According to DEC Commissioner Martens, "This report strikes the right balance between protecting our environment, watersheds and drinking water and promoting economic development".
The DEC plans for another 60 day public comment period commencing in August. Lord knows, they don't want to move too fast. After all, it's only been three years!
Among the statements contained in this release are the following:
- high volume fracturing will be permitted on privately held lands under rigorous and effective controls
- drilling would be prohibited within primary aquifers and within 500 feet of their boundaries
- surface drilling would be prohibited on state-owned land
- high volume fracturing would be prohibited in the NYC and Syracuse watersheds
- approximately 85 percent of the Marcellus would be accessible
In addition, the DEC has hired independent researchers (at taxpayer expense?) to thoroughly research the community and socio-economic impacts
According to DEC Commissioner Martens, "This report strikes the right balance between protecting our environment, watersheds and drinking water and promoting economic development".
The DEC plans for another 60 day public comment period commencing in August. Lord knows, they don't want to move too fast. After all, it's only been three years!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)