tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post8665393091673451571..comments2024-03-24T11:01:27.668-04:00Comments on Resource Insights: The questionable logic of U.S. natural gas exportsKurt Cobbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05330759091950742285noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-9936147299652338482013-02-26T00:48:58.556-05:002013-02-26T00:48:58.556-05:00Why do we have a "Strategic Petroleum
Reserve...Why do we have a "Strategic Petroleum<br />Reserve" but not not a "Strategic Natural Gas Reserve" abet LNG. This would promote price stability and lower energy prices for the USA. <br /><br />One benefit of LNG export would be to help the balance of trade. The downside would be we are exporting our cleanest fuel taking out nuclear, hydroelectric, wind and solar. <br /><br />We can and must move the USA back to the forefront of world wide manufacturing technology. We have been down the globalization cheap labor road. This is manipulated by currency trading. We now have a viable offset to the "cheap" labor globalization approach. We now have a opportunity to bring real jobs back to the USA with lower energy costs. This would support virtually every manufacturing and transportation industry. <br /><br />Let's support both the export of LNG but do so on a WIN-WIN for our manufacturing, utility and transportation industries. This means many more jobs for middle class Americans. With our technology advantage and 'reasonable energy' costs we can regain our status as a world class manufacturing leader. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-62650453049436967692013-02-25T23:06:45.646-05:002013-02-25T23:06:45.646-05:00What the first commenter understands that the next...What the first commenter understands that the next two do not is that the federal government is going to make a policy decision about exports soon, probably a legislative decision. My argument is not that exports shouldn't be allowed, but that any decision about exports should be based on accurate information.<br /><br />Right now that decision is being made in the context of a claim that cannot possibly be verified, namely that we have a 100-year supply of natural gas--at current rates of consumption.<br /><br />As I've pointed out in my piece, the evidence that we have suggests that this claim is entirely without foundation and that, in fact, natural gas supplies are likely to be much smaller. Moreover, since, as I point out, the natural gas producers are suggesting that we vastly increase the rate of consumption, even their 100-year claim wouldn't hold up under their own assumption since that number is premised on absolutely no increase in the rate of consumption. (For a sense of how quickly that number shrinks in the face of just a 2 percent per year growth in consumption, the claimed supply would only last 56 years and assuming a peak when 50 percent of the resource has been consumed, the decline in the rate production would begin 35 from now.)<br /><br />But, of course, the evidence suggests that we have far less natural gas than that and so even those numbers would shrink quickly if we considered only a possible 23 years of supply.<br /><br />My point is that the uncertainties about supply are vast. We simply don't know how big our future supply will be. To make a decision about exports pretending we do know the future when clearly we don't and can't would be sheer folly.<br /><br />Now if the policy decision is based on the drillers' logic that they should be allowed to sell natural gas to the highest bidder no matter what amount is available for domestic consumption, then at least that decision will be above board and accept that we can't know what future supplies will be.Kurt Cobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05330759091950742285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-70985020281551461682013-02-25T18:48:34.485-05:002013-02-25T18:48:34.485-05:00Embarrassed: I must correct my post. In the first ...Embarrassed: I must correct my post. In the first line, "export" should have been "import" and in the 3rd line from the end, "should" ought to have been "shouldn't". Apologies.Bonanza959https://www.blogger.com/profile/03620869767296958325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-72728475977252588312013-02-25T18:44:48.337-05:002013-02-25T18:44:48.337-05:00Kurt: Your article simply puts lipstick on a pig o...Kurt: Your article simply puts lipstick on a pig of a case. For instance, on 1 hand you say we export from Canada and Mexico and that's bad. On the other you say we export to the Canada, and that's good. You know the reason is due to pipeline location and little else. You also should know that gas is not being drilled now because there is a 100 year glut. Way too much gas is being flared (burned) at the well site because all our storages are full. Do you believe it's better to waste a resource than find a profitable market for it that reduces our balance of trade and increases income for federal and state taxation? Also, you mention a "fleet" of export terminals. You should know only one (Cheniere) has been approved and it seems unlikely more will be so until the first one proves out. Since only Cheniere is under construction, and all the rest of the "fleet" are mired in the regulatory and political approval process, and they would take decades to build out if ever approved, the scenario you predict is way into the future, if ever. I think it's "never." Basically, you underlying motive in this argument is that gas is an ethane and even though it creates less carbon when burned, it's still carbon and therefore should be burned...period. While the Left in this country has fooled themselves into believing this, I don't recall that China, India, Japan, and Europe have signed on to that belief. It's really better to tell the truth than twist facts to suit your purpose.Bonanza959https://www.blogger.com/profile/03620869767296958325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-25495973075285303842013-02-25T18:30:06.637-05:002013-02-25T18:30:06.637-05:00What a bunch of .... stuff. If you let the price ...What a bunch of .... stuff. If you let the price go up, any supply whether recoverable or non-recoverable will last longer. Let the prices go where markets take them. <br />2nd-ly, there are so many loose-ends in this 'story', it's impossible to argue them here.fietsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00374878380806079489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-90305749771941025672013-02-25T08:30:25.403-05:002013-02-25T08:30:25.403-05:00Kurt,
An intriguing and informative read - thank ...Kurt,<br /><br />An intriguing and informative read - thank you for writing this article. <br /><br />As you rightly mention, we all need to "wait and see" the real size of the natural gas pie before deciding if and how to export<br /><br />Obiocha A. IkezogwoUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17598922998153114807noreply@blogger.com