This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The Obama Administration's Natural Gas Policy Is Tragically Misguided

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Chris Martenson of Peak Prosperity,

The Obama administration has come out in support of the idea of exporting U.S. natural gas. This stance is counterproductive and shortsighted, and if followed, it will prove harmful to domestic manufacturing (i.e., value generation) and to future generations of Americans.

While exporting natural gas would certainly prove to be an economic boon for a very select minority of companies and individuals, it makes no sense from an energy standpoint and undermines our national interests. All it will do is enrich a few while boosting prices for all domestic consumers and shortchanging the energy and environmental inheritance we pass along to our children.

First, the news:

Obama backs rise in U.S. gas exports

May 5, 2013

 

The Obama administration has signalled support for more plants to export liquefied natural gas, as the US embraces its surging energy production as a key new element of its national security policy.

 

Barack Obama said at the weekend the US was likely to be a net gas exporter by 2020, the strongest sign yet that the president is swinging his support behind higher energy sales overseas.

 

The Department of Energy is studying applications for new liquefied natural gas terminals, with approval of one in Texas likely within months. It would be only the second such approval granted for sales to countries without trade agreements with the US, such as Japan, the world’s largest importer of LNG.

Let's start with the most obvious blunder of such a policy.  Again, while exporting natural gas may result in short-term profit economically, it doesn't make any energy sense.  Here's why.

In order for natural gas to be turned into a liquid (a.k.a. liquid natural gas or LNG), it has to be compressed and refrigerated all the way down to an astonishing -260 degrees Fahrenheit.  If you have a refrigerator, you already know that it takes energy to cool something down. And the deeper the cooling, the higher the energy required.

In order to export LNG, it takes energy to simply turn that energy into a liquid.  How much?  Roughly 25%. That's right; a quarter of the embedded energy in the natural gas is lost before it even makes its way to a customer.

Here's the thing. The natural gas that we are currently fracking out of shale beds was laid down over tens of millions of years, and it is a one-time resource that we only get to burn once.  That is, it has a defined amount of energy that we can use in the form of work to do things such as move vehicles, erect buildings, fertilize crops, re-build a crumbling national infrastructure, or build out an infrastructure for our alternative energy future.

One thing we cannot do is burn it twice. You get to use the energy in natural gas exactly once.

That the Obama administration thinks that the best use of that embodied energy is to waste fully one-quarter of it on the act of refrigeration and compression so that we can ship those BTUs outside of our borders tells me that they do not really understand or appropriately value this finite resource.

Using the energy in natural gas to turn it into a liquid might be economically profitable, but it is energetically wasteful.  It's our view that the very last thing we can afford to be at this point in history is wasteful with our energy resources.

The Carbon Fallacy

In trying to pitch the idea, one of the oft-cited statistics politicians offer in favor using natural gas is that it lowers carbon emissions. This is true, but only if the natural gas offsets coal consumption for electricity production AND only if this occurs in isolation AND only if this offset is permanent. So if we just burn the natural gas now while it's cheaper, but then later get back to burning coal, the fracked natural gas will actually enhance, not decrease, total carbon emissions.

Despite these complexities, the current administration uses 'carbon lowering' as a reason to use more natural gas and presumably to support the export of LNG.

Rise in U.S. Gas Production Fuels Unexpected Plunge in Emissions

Apr 18, 2013

 

U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions have fallen dramatically in recent years, in large part because the country is making more electricity with natural gas instead of coal.

 

Energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that is widely believed to contribute to global warming, have fallen 12% between 2005 and 2012 and are at their lowest level since 1994, according to a recent estimate by the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the U.S. Energy Department.

And this:

Natural Gas Is Key To Low-Carbon U.S., DOE Nominee Says

Apr 9, 2013

 

U.S. energy secretary nominee Ernest Moniz affirmed his commitment to President Barack Obama's "all-of-the-above" energy development strategy during his Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday, including the increased development and use of natural gas as a bridge fuel to a low-carbon future.

 

Moniz would have a say over the production and export of liquefied natural gas. The DOE is weighing whether to approve 16 applications to ship domestically produced natural gas to countries with which the U.S. lacks free trade agreements.

 

When pressed on whether he would approve LNG exports as energy secretary, Moniz said he favored the deliberate approach taken by current Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

 

"In the overarching public interest criteria, the status of the domestic natural gas market is right up there," Moniz told the panel. "I think we have a responsibility to make a judgment license by license."

To claim credit for lowered carbon emissions due to natural gas and then also support the idea of exporting LNG (where fully 25% of the base energy is combusted in order to simply liquefy the product) is hypocritical. These are two ideas that work against each other.  Either you use natural gas wisely and efficiently as you move away from coal resources and claim a carbon credit for these actions, or you support throwing 25% of natural gas' energy right into the atmosphere just to cool it for transport.  

So it's a fallacy to imply that exporting natural gas will help lower carbon emissions. In all honesty, total emissions will most likely be higher than otherwise because let's be realistic; the most likely path is for humanity to burn up all the natural gas and then burn up the coal next.

Further, where the U.S. carbon emissions have gone down due to less coal being burned, that happy circumstance resulted in Europe doing exactly the opposite:

Shale Boom a Bust for Europe's Gas Plants

May 8, 2013

 

FRANKFURT—The ripples of the North American shale boom continue to spread, as a growing number of European utilities are forced to mothball modern gas-fired power plants that can't compete with growing imports of cheap coal dislodged from the U.S.

 

Norwegian state energy company Statkraft said Wednesday it has idled a gas-fired power station in Germany that couldn't compete with its coal-fired rivals, while German utility E.ON  SE said it is seriously considering mothballing more gas-fueled plants, including a state-of-the-art facility in Slovakia.

 

Other European utilities have taken similar action, presenting policy makers with a dilemma—cheaper coal-fired power could provide some relief for the region's struggling economies, but might be incompatible with long-term goals for carbon emissions and renewable energy.

 

The closures across Europe are another example of the far-reaching effects of the North American energy-supply boom. Surging supplies of natural gas in North America, unlocked from shale rock by a new combination of technology known as hydraulic fracturing, have prompted many U.S. power generators to switch away from coal, pushing increasing amounts of the fuel into Europe as cheap imports.

 

In 2012, U.S. exports of coal to Europe rose 23% to 66.4 million short tons, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Does natural gas help to lower carbon emissions?  No, it merely pushes the carbon emissions elsewhere while the U.S. feasts on relatively cheap natural gas domestically.  The only thing that lowers carbon emissions is NOT burning coal, natural gas, or petroleum collectively. 

100 Years of Gas

In his 2012 state of the union address, Obama said, “We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years, and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.”

The idea that we have nearly 100 years of natural gas is quite powerful and comforting, because, after all, 100 years is pretty far out into the future.  The only problem with this statement is that it is not even close to correct.

As usual, the all-important caveat at current rates of consumption was left off.  The way you get 100 years' worth is you take 2010 consumption and you divide it into the total possible reserves and estimated resources, no matter how speculative or improbable their eventual extraction may be.

That is, 100 years is the highest possible number. But once you factor in increasing consumption (which is a sure thing, by the way), you get a much lower number.  How much lower?  Well, if we increased our consumption by 7% per year admittedly a high figure, but not unthinkable, especially if we use more for transportation purpose the 100 years collapses to just 29 years.

Such is the miracle of compounding.

To continue, we might not be able to extract all of the possible and speculative resources that are part of the 100-year calculation.  If it turns out that we're only going to be able to extract, say, 75% of everything we think is there, the rest simply won't be economically extractable.  If we combine this 75% figure with a yearly increase in consumption of 7%/yr, then we discover there's just 25 years of natural gas left.  That's just simple math.  While 25 years is at the extreme end of the dismal view, it does help to bracket the "100 years" claim. 

So let's say total gas left is somewhere between 25 and 100 years let's assume a mean value of around 50 years and this is before we entertain any thoughts of exporting LNG.  Any exports will only eat into these figures, possibly quite dramatically.

How dramatically?

Here is a partial list of the LNG export terminals that are in some stage of approval by the U.S. government:

(Source)

If we add up all of the proposed projects, inlcuding an equal number not on the above list, we discover that their collective export capacity is just a hair under 30 billion cubic feet per day, or a whopping 43% of current U.S. production. 

Now I realize that they can't all be approved, or maybe I should say won't be approved, because that would absolutely destroy the domestic U.S. natural gas supply. But if they were, just for the sake of running the numbers, here is what happens to the "100 years of natural gas":

Assuming that the exports come out of increased production and not at the expense of domestic consumption, meaning that the ability to export just drives the gas drilling industry absolutely bonkers and they are able to meet that additional 30 billion cubic feet of demand (highly unlikely, by the way), then we get some very startling results.

Holding domestic consumption constant (which is, again, unrealistic), and assuming we get 100% of everything out of the ground including even the most speculative of resources, we find that exporting 30 billion cubic feet per day reduces the "100 years" to just 30 years.

But let's make this more realistic.  If we add a quite realistic 4% per year increase in domestic consumption to the equation, the 30 years falls to 25 years. If we then apply a modest haircut to the natural gas resources of 25%,  we find that the U.S. natural gas supply falls to just 19 years.

Nineteen years. That's quite different from 100 years, now isn't it?

Okay, it stands to reason that any export driven demand for natural gas will drive up the domestic price of natural gas, which will slow down if not reverse the recent trend of manufacturing concerns returning to U.S. soil.  They have done so because of the cheap price of natural gas.  End of story.

Rapid Depletion

In fact, it may be too early to yet claim that the U.S. has an energy bonanza that is so large we should plan on exporting it. The reason is that the shale plays are a very recent development.We are learning about them in real-time, and, unfortunately, a lot of what we know about them comes to us from the very same producers that benefit from telling a good tale.

The simple fact is that shale wells deplete at horrific rates, such that they lose anywhere from 80% to 90% of their initial production after just 3 years.  As long as we keep drilling them at a faster and faster pace, we'll have more and more natural gas until we begin to run out of new drilling spots, that is.

Consider this story: The largest shale gas play in the U.S., the one that produces more than any other spot, is the Haynesville shale play in Louisiana.  Let's travel back, way back in time, all the way to...2008...and hear what the CEO of Chesapeake Energy had to say about that particular play:

CEO: Haynesville Shale is fourth largest in the world

Jul 3, 2008

 

The Haynesville Shale is likely to become America's largest natural gas field and perhaps the fourth largest in the world, Chesapeake Energy Chairman and CEO Aubrey McClendon disclosed Wednesday in a conference call with its newest partner, Plains Exploration and Production Co.

 

McClendon's confidence in the Haynesville Shale's ability to produce such volumes of natural gas is based on two years of research. More than 70 well penetrations into the deep shale in an area considered the core were analyzed, along with hundreds outside of the core, he said.

How exciting!  Indeed, the Haynesville play turned out to be a monster producer and Chesapeake Energy was in there as a major player.  The hype was only true for a very short while.  All of that excitement back in 2008 had evaporated by 2011 when the Haynesville play hit its peak of output...just three years later.

(Source)

Wow.  That was fast.

For its part, Chesapeake alone hit 2.0 billion cubic feet (bcf/d) per day from its Haynesville wells just about a year ago and is now producing just 1.3 bcf/d.  Part of the reason for the rapid decline is that very few wells are being drilled in the play right now because the price of natural gas is well below the cost to drill and produce natural gas from this formation.  But the dynamic is illustrated well by the Haynesville example; these shale plays produce quickly and decline just as rapidly.  In other words, making long-term plans on our energy export markets based on a few years of data with a brand new energy reservoir about which we know relatively little seems hasty at best.

One more example, this one from the first and formerly largest shale gas play in America, the Barnett Shale in Texas, shows a similar story.  From inception of significant drilling operations to peak was just 11 years.

(Source)

Again, the story here is that even the very best shale gas plays are relatively short-lived, which is exactly what we’d expect from an energy source that depletes so rapidly.  The summary is that a commitment to export becomes a commitment to drill at a faster pace.

Conclusion

Without any question, exports of natural gas from the U.S. will simply accelerate the day when that finite resource runs out.  Further, there cannot be any question but that as additional demands are placed upon the domestic supply, prices will rise.

This will hurt our resurgent domestic manufacturing industries as well as future generations that will have to contend with less domestic energy than they might otherwise have had available to them.

In all of this, there is a very obvious and demanding issue of generational stewardship.  Is it really our 'job' to extract a finite natural resource so quickly?  Can we not think of anything else to do with these "one-time use" BTUs besides wasting 25% of the embodied energy simply to export it for money?

Imagine if the Americans of 100 years ago had figured out a way to export all of the U.S.'s natural gas bounty, and we were now struggling with the aftermath of those actions.  I, for one, would look quite unfavorably on those who so utterly failed to appreciate the limited nature of that abundance that they literally wasted it.

Perhaps our job is not to extract things so rapidly that it creates pricing problems for the overproducers.  Perhaps instead it is to use our finite resource as judiciously and as wisely as possible. 

My proposal would be to retain all natural gas for domestic use, and couple that abundance to a rational and forward-thinking energy policy that delivers a robust and resilient energy infrastructure to future generations.  They will thank us for giving them efficient buildings and rational transportation systems at a time when energy finally becomes truly scarce and proportionally expensive.

The time has come to give greater weighting to energy matters than to economic and political desires. To continue to be energetically wasteful at this time in history, when so much data is telling us that the effluent of our activities is measurably altering our support systems, is beyond embarrassing.  It's tragic.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:02 | 3549869 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

FOR PRESIDENT AND COUNTRY!!! FAARRRTTT!! FART GODDAMNIT!

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:05 | 3549880 Kiss My Iceland...
Kiss My Icelandic Ass's picture

"Obama Administration's Natural Gas Policy Is Tragically Misguided "

Pardon me for laughing but are any of Obama's harebrained ideas anything BUT misguided? SMH.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:13 | 3549902 freewolf7
freewolf7's picture

"All it will do is enrich a few while boosting prices for all domestic consumers and shortchanging the energy and environmental inheritance we pass along to our children."

Check.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:18 | 3549922 Doubleguns
Doubleguns's picture

Unfortunately we are running out of things to export. 17 trillion needs to be paid off with something. Wonder if we could at least start with Obama. Stamp him "Return to Sender" and send him to Kenya. 

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:48 | 3550008 TheSilverJournal
TheSilverJournal's picture

Whoever wrote this article sounds like a central planning loving socialist. Pump that natural gas out of the ground and export it to wherever's most profitable.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 19:26 | 3550123 negative rates
negative rates's picture

Never let a good tragety go to waste.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 09:10 | 3551178 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Why do we make these logical arguments, I fully 100% agree with the author, when the heart of the matter is very simple.

What is best for Israel?

What is best for Israel is for America to be as dependent as possible on Middle East oil so the USA will be constantly bogged down in wars to keep the energy supply lines open.

The more wars, the more troops in the Middle East the better it is for Israel.  America energy independence is a threat to the Israeli state.

All our foreign policies and domestic policies are dominated by what is best for Israel, Warren Buffett, JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs. 

It’s so pathetically simple. 

Until the Federal Reserve is ended the world revolves around Israel policies will continue.

Any questions?

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 00:44 | 3550810 PGR88
PGR88's picture

You are right.  Everyone wants to tell everyone else how to manage their property.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:51 | 3550016 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

This is a steemng pile of wookie doo.

The Libs have nothing coherent left to say on any subject, and this sort of brainless, inaccurate, and contradictory crap is a prime example.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 19:20 | 3550102 epwpixieq-1
epwpixieq-1's picture

Sure. We can export him, but, who will pay for the pleasure of having him, we may end up with more debt based on this trade, compared with just decommissioning him

You know, sometimes you have to pay the other side to take something you do not want (lake toxic materials, etc) .

The problem is that even with garbage, people know how to deal with, I am particularity sure that no one knows how to deal with such a clown, or for that matter any brainless politician that is trying to rule/work things they do not understand.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 19:07 | 3550056 AmCockerSpaniel
AmCockerSpaniel's picture

It all depends on how much of the stuff we have after what we need??? We have this issue called the balance of payments. This has been running in the red big time, for a long time. We have to export something, or stop just buying. I would like the government setting limits on how much can be exported per year, with out an export tax to cut in.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:06 | 3549885 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

This fucking administration is destroying the United States of America by every means possible.

"Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, along with the rest of the regime players, murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens. It was a hit. It wasn't incompetence. It wasn't deer-in-the-headlights collective inaction. It wasn't a kidnapping plot gone wrong. It was a hit."

Http://barnhardt.biz

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:14 | 3549906 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

I read Ann's stuff for my daily dose of Catholic guilt but her Islamophobia is extreme.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:26 | 3549939 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Extreme? Maybe. Factually correct? Definitely.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:53 | 3550009 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

Really? 1.6 billion rounds of HP and 3000 MRAPs means you have more to fear from DHS/LE goons than some goat herder from Afghanistan. Which one might kick in your front door w/o a warrant at any time? Know who the real enemy is.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 19:30 | 3550131 August
August's picture

As an astute hedger wrote a few days ago....

 

War is when the government tells you who the enemy is.

Revolution is when you figure it out for yourself.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 19:43 | 3550180 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

I saw that also and it is one of the most profound things I have ever read.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 22:13 | 3550592 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Fucking banner-worthy

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 20:41 | 3550334 gwar5
gwar5's picture

Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR) is in the White House, so does it really surprise you DHS is targeting American Christians, Tea Partiers, Ron Paul supporters, gun rights advocates, and little old ladies in airports, while they they miss the obvious threats like the Ft Hood shooter and Boston bombers whom they had repeated warnings about? 

 

Bill Ayers has been marching with Hamas in ME with Hamas, the marxists have found common ground with the MB to kill the Great Satan. The Boston bomber was spilling the beans when DOJ suddenly rushed in and mirandized him to shut him up.

Obama is organizing and arming Al-Qaeda in MENA. That was the mission of the outpost in Benghazi. Your muzzies are killing non-muslims and moderate muslims all over the world from Thailand/Phillipines/India/Africa and this adminstration will not even say the words "Islamic extremists".  That's a big green light.

You watch too many fucking Sinbad and Alladin flying carpet movies.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 21:45 | 3550507 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

Spoken like a true mossad disinformation agent

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 02:46 | 3550880 Augustus
Augustus's picture

Sure.  Mossad disinformation.

That is why western embassies were burned because of publication of a cartoon.

That is why there was a bombing of trains in London.

That is why the mullahs appove and encourage screwing goats.

Last report on Arafat's health stated that he remained dead.  Mossad.  Mossad.  Mossad.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 02:21 | 3550871 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Bingo. And isn't it interesting that we only target secular Arab states for destruction, and not the states run by Islamic fundamentalists? It's almost like we want to turn the entire ME into an Islamic extremist superstate.

The wars in the middle east are bullshit, but not for the reasons that most zero hedgers seem to appreciate, unfortunately.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 02:47 | 3550882 Augustus
Augustus's picture

Buckaroo,

There are no Secular Arab States.  You don't seem to appreciate that, unfortunately.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:28 | 3549945 Rustysilver
Rustysilver's picture

Buckaroo B,

Hillary herself said that she doesn't 3 AM phone calls. Besides, it doesn't matter what she said because the guys are dead.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:09 | 3549890 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

       I miss Intrade.

      With all the nat gas/LNG deals going on, I'm sure something spectacular will happen over the next 3-5 years. the Australians are exporting out of the "Sea of Carpentaria".

                                                                  What could go wrong?

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:43 | 3549989 Doubleguns
Doubleguns's picture

An LNG ship explosion by terrorists could go wrong. 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/12/20/ap-lng-tanker-attack-would-be-devastating/

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 02:49 | 3550887 Augustus
Augustus's picture

Probably less damaging that an oil tanker as the gas will not pollute the water and wash to shore.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 14:14 | 3551636 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

It's comforting that Rupert's Retards & the AP Asswipes just got around to getting the Sandia Report this week, since the report has been out since December of 2004 and the summary Report to Congress was published in May 2012  (my copy & paste job was from December when I went off on the F'ING FLNG)...  As to what can go wrong, think of Texas Fertilizer Plants - only bigger- much, much bigger.

 

 

A picture of the proposed FLNG next to one of the LNG tankers it would load
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yQKIWU_R490/UFsL12SCfrI/AAAAAAAAMHk/mTVew6467L...

CFR (Terrorist Briefing Book) Liquefied Natural Gas: A Potential Terrorist Target?
http://www.cfr.org/port-security/liquefied-natural-gas-potential-terrori...

SNL (Sandia Nerdspeak) Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large LNG Spill Over Water
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/storage/lng/sandia_lng_1204...

Youtube - a 34,000 gallon train tank car going boom (imagine over 1,850 of these going off simultaneously)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf3WKTwHpIU

 

Sweet dreams.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-02/fling-aint-what-it-used-be#comm...

 

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 18:24 | 3552197 fnordfnordfnord
fnordfnordfnord's picture

So, what? Burn wood to keep warm so that the terr'ists dun blow us up?

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:09 | 3549892 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

We should fuel our cars w/ nat gas like we do with corn to drive the price of heating our home w/ NG sky high.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:13 | 3549899 thisandthat
thisandthat's picture

I stopped at carbon emissions - is it possible anyone still falls for that fallacy (bad carbon, bad...)?

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 23:46 | 3550746 Matt
Matt's picture

It is important whether you believe in it or not, because it is one of the key justifications for the administration's policies.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 14:48 | 3551801 thisandthat
thisandthat's picture

When a policy is based on fraudulent arguments, any article decent and honest enough to deserve being published should first and foremost focus on exposing said fallacy.

Replace energy policy with monetary policy and carbon with QE and tell me what you think about this article.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:13 | 3549900 THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

Burn the gas

Export the coal.

 

You see we need it as we killed off the miners so as to extract labour value.

It was not very nice of us............but it was a mistake - water under the bridge and all that.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:18 | 3549916 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

       Mr. Cork, is a man with insight...  While we're at it, lets export some unrefined crude oil to.

   What Keystone pipeline?

 

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:25 | 3549932 THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

Steam coal will be fine...............

 

The carbon tax thingy is fucked anyhow.

 

Watch this space.............

England needs coal............

 

Global warming is all about the methane don't you know - not fucking carbon - who the fuck came up with that idea.

 

ITS THE COWS I TELL YOU - KILL THE COWS.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPhlvgoy2_E

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 19:13 | 3550078 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 

           You guys are getting killed across the pond. Leave the European Union,  if you have to. . The mayor of London is an ass hole!

        F/X flows are propping London in an insane way. M/E flows love London. (london Law, for bond/cds contracts)....ect

         Big time "cow bells" in London.

 

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 02:52 | 3550892 Augustus
Augustus's picture

The Obama EPA had regulation ready to go that would hae required farmers to control cow farts.

There is a pretty funny article complaining about the EPA reg that did away with the vents in the small gas cans.  The fact that the gasoline will not flow from them properly was of no concern.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 20:16 | 3550278 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

What was that crazy lady's name again?   Erhm......

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:14 | 3549908 kill switch
kill switch's picture

What isn’t tragically misguided in this administration ,,,give it up for the sealed records at Columbia University, this fuck has his finger in the thermal nuclear button of this country and his records are sealed????? I want to know everything about this guy, yet he gets a pass on his total fucking history.

 

MSM IS THE DEMON IN THIS CLUSTER FUCK!!

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:19 | 3549925 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

um,

"The Obama Administration's XYZ Policy Is Tragically Misguided"

First, there is no "Obama Administration." It's the Rockefeller / Rothschild / Schiff / Warburg / Bush Administration. (BTW the Clintons thought they could murder their way into the club, but alas, you can't. Just google Arkancide.)

Secondly, nothing is tragically misguided. The Plan is right on schedule, and doing very well on most accounts.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:24 | 3549935 SILVERGEDDON
SILVERGEDDON's picture

Well, look at selling short like a motherfucker in about 3 years. And, go long on coal about the same time.

Save gas - fart in a jar. 

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:26 | 3549940 howenlink
howenlink's picture

As though a President should come out in support of economic anything.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:38 | 3549978 chistletoe
chistletoe's picture

the spot price of natty in Japan is now well north of $20/therm ....

 

we gotta give them something for all of those Toyotas ...

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 18:38 | 3549979 All Out Of Bubblegum
All Out Of Bubblegum's picture

The muppets don't understand it yet: America is the new Zimbabwe and the vampires are in the process of selling ALL of America to the rest of the world. Barring divine intervention or an immanentizing of the eschaton, in ten years, whoever is left living on the industrial Gulf Coast will be wage slaves for the energy interests that will be shipping product overseas and selling it for a fortune back to what's left of the consumer class in the good ol' USofA. 

People who are saving even lowly copper now will be looking like geniuses in five or six years.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 22:19 | 3550603 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Yep.  When it comes to sheeple awareness of NWO strategies to de-industrialize, rape, loot and export energy and economic independence from North America they're a couple of pegs below this guy:

http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy85/jmadisonbiii/farside8.gif

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 19:02 | 3550049 The Matthaus
The Matthaus's picture

AHHHH, would be scary if it were close to true. To put things in perspective, a 7%/yr growth rate for 25 yrs is extremely high for nat gas. The last 12yrs have been closer to a 1.25% avg   ( 2001 - 2012 using the EIA consumption data). Also I dont think Chris realizes just how much gas is actually used. 2012 vehicle consumption was roughly 33 bcf for the year. Total gas consumption for the year in the US was  25.5 TCF. Vehicle use being  0.13%, half of a quarter percent.

Resource nationalism is another thing entirely but its likely better to let markets sort out the allocation of scarce resources than politicians and bureaucrats.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 02:56 | 3550895 Augustus
Augustus's picture

There is only one approved method for generating heat.  Rub your hands together briskley.  Breathing warm air on the hands is prohibited as it releases CO2.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 18:54 | 3552234 Professorlocknload
Professorlocknload's picture

"...better to let markets sort out the allocation of scarce resources than politicians and bureaucrats."

 

Yup. The problem is "Policy."

All one needs for proof is to look at "Monetary Policy, Defense Department Policy, Rent Control Policy, TSA Policy..." 

Bureaucratic "policy" is nothing more than a means of control over individual decision making processes.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 19:18 | 3550093 RopeADope
RopeADope's picture

Manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas to lower domestic energy consumption. Exporting our energy resources is a slap in the face to middle class Americans that made that sacrifice. The Obama Administration has no idea what it is doing.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 19:32 | 3550142 snblitz
snblitz's picture

This article argues that trade is bad.  If I have more of something than I need it is good if I can trade it to someone who needs it more.  Both sides win.

Trading on the basis of a belief in future shortages is a fools errand. Just look a peak oil over the last 150 years.

Substitution is also available.  If we run low on natural gas we have a pile of money or whatever we traded for to invest in another form of energy.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 23:24 | 3550579 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

lol!

Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself.

The best part of your comment is the paradox it presents for the oh so many confused useful idiots that infest ZH who are slowly, but ever so unwittingly, being 'externalized'.

All those reddies you're picking up for so deeply perturbing them are marks of honour to my eyes, even if you're in the club.

I sincerely hope they continue to get more of what they keep asking for because,

"...they're the ones who like all our pretty songs, and they like to sing along, and they like to shoot their guns, but they don't know what it means, don't know what it means; and I say AaaaaAAAAhaaaaaaHHaaaaaaHhhaaa..."

Enjoy.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 19:50 | 3550210 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

Exporting natural gas, oil, raw materials, and farm products is a fine first step toward third worlding America.  We should all go along willingly as peasants to the illuminati.

 

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 03:00 | 3550901 Augustus
Augustus's picture

Stuck on ignorance.

Current production methods for grains and raw materials are darned sophisticated.

Maybe you still mine coal with a pick and poney cart while planting the crops one seed at a time with a stick.  Your low workplace quality and meager diet are damaging your brain.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 19:52 | 3550220 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Anyhow the idea is to get rid of the cheap gas so the world will have to pay for the ultra expensive and completely monopolized thorium reactors coming down the pike.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 19:58 | 3550239 CEOoftheSOFA
CEOoftheSOFA's picture

I thought we lived in a free country. Martinson is sounding like a central planner.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 09:29 | 3551192 SmallerGovNow2
SmallerGovNow2's picture

must be a lot of fucking socialist progressives trolling this site for you to get four down votes on your comment... i give you plus one...

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 20:14 | 3550271 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

Just so folks know, there are raging fights going on about this issue amongst our corporate overlords.  You can get either side of this story in spades, on steroids, and with rainbow sprinkles on top.

It's doubtful that enough volume could get exported to matter for domestic prices for the next, say, decade or so.  Global natural gas markets are years away from developing pricing hubs...somewhere...and arbitraging into fully fledged regional pricing regimes. 

And God only knows what else might happen by then.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 20:25 | 3550299 buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture

"while boosting prices for all domestic consumers"

Precisely why the policy is being pursued - it may or may not affect domestic prices adversely, but just in case it will, President Puke is all for it. Americans don't get it yet. Obama doesn't like us, unless we're brown/black, hate guns, want to toss his salad, or are on the dole. If you're brown/black and respect the idea of constitutionally limited government, you're a race traitor and can also f*ck off. And the older whites who are on the dole can F*ck off too as far as he's concerned. See, they're only in the position they're in beause they exploited black and brown people for generations. Never mind that when left alone, blacks have done precisely jack squat with the richest continent on the planet - any and all failures are whitey's fault. Get it, whitey? They think your day is done, and they're all about dispossessing you so that they can pay black and brown people to f*ck off all day at  your expense. Obama's a hater, pure and simple. And an incompetent POS - the only thing he does well is wrecking things. To him and his ilk, it's just a delicious coincidence that the real powers that be are after the same ends. Other than all that, I love the guy.

 

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 20:26 | 3550305 QQQBall
QQQBall's picture

The Obama Administration's ________________ Policy is misguided.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 20:28 | 3550309 NoWayJose
NoWayJose's picture

Right up there with the Keystone pipeline debacle. Instead of stopping Canada from creating any pollution from oil extraction, all it does is to encourage the oil to go to China.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 21:45 | 3550506 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

I can't believe that people missed the most obvious point in the article and the claim that we have '100 years of natural gas' is absolute and utter BS with the DOE having revised the initial claims on which the '100 years of natural gas' is based downward now 3 times since that initial claim. If you go in and actually look at some of the various state and their records, you find huge disrepancies between what the DOE publishes and what the various state added up combined tally. 

This issue is also really complex too because you have a lot of powerful interests on both sides lining up pro/con for exporting natural gas not to mention the extreme difficulty that it is going to be to get LNG exporting facilities approved & in places that are economically viable for export near existing pipelines & infrastructure.

Basically what it comes down to is that Obama's policy on this really doesn't matter because it will be the next guy in the White House that really decides, the supply of natural gas in the US is completely overrated unless there is another huge breakthrough in fracking technology in the next 5-7 years, and some of the powerful interests in the US including some odd bedfellows are going to turn up the heat to backtrack on the exporting policy as the price of natural gas inevitably creeps up.   

Really much ado about nothing.

 

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 09:27 | 3551190 SmallerGovNow2
SmallerGovNow2's picture

"that Obama's policy on this really doesn't matter because it will be the next guy in the White House that really decides...

therein lies the biggest fucking problem.  no central government should be "deciding" jack shit about this.  let market forces fucking work!!!

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 10:07 | 3551230 Element
Element's picture

Exactly!

As always, the largest fields with highest grades and easiest to extract, the cheapest, and to transport, will get developed first.

And that in many cases may not be within the US at all.

As then its all about how cheaply you can supply to export. So if the US LNG can't compete economically in export markets, then the US producers may or may not develop LNG for domestic use.

But only if the domestic production and supply can compete against reliable import supply.

I don't know why people keep getting their knickers in a knot about this stuff, it's pretty straight forward, and what the govt "decides" to do, or wants to do, is usually the least significant economic driver in what is economically possible (except in negative and counterproductive effects that is).

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 21:56 | 3550542 boooyaaaah
boooyaaaah's picture

Peak oil is based on running out of dinossauur bones

They were so big

We will never run out

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 22:29 | 3550622 atomicwasted
atomicwasted's picture

"The time has come to give greater weighting to energy matters than to economic and political desires. "

 

So just more collectivist bullshit.  Glad I skipped to the end.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 23:05 | 3550682 Catullus
Catullus's picture

So it's a fallacy to imply that exporting natural gas will help lower carbon emissions. In all honesty, total emissions will most likely be higher than otherwise – because let's be realistic; the most likely path is for humanity to burn up all the natural gas and then burn up the coal next.

That's really just idiotic. Were you around 100 years ago claiming that humans would just burn all the petroleum and then promptly switch back to wood or whale oil?

1/3rd of the coal plants in the eastern US are about to be shutdown forever. They're 1930-40s vintage plants. The oil burning plants in New England? Gone. And even if someone does have the future capability to actually build a coal plant in the future, it's guaranteed to be Combined Cycle.

I suppose we should just ignore that gas is $4 in the US and $10-16 all over the world. We should also forget about the geopolitical dynamics of central Europe having limited sources of natural gas. We should also just let the islands of Japan give it another whirl with nuclear or just the country go dark. God forbid someone make a profit.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 03:01 | 3550903 snblitz
snblitz's picture

Doing anything to reduce carbon emissions is a fallacy unless you are part of a certain economy consuming 47% of the worlds output of coal and intending to grow  by 10% per year.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 23:23 | 3550715 the grateful un...
the grateful unemployed's picture

i would say the obama people have no natgas policy, but their electric car policy is a comedy of the worst sort. while you consider all the reasons why the crudeoil to gasoline industry is far more expensive and difficult than natgas distribution, and the electric grid just adds layers of waste and national security issues. (since most states have some natgas, its not clear that a national distribution system for natgas is needed) ignore the supply demand equation for a minute, if natgas were to become universally applied to our energy needs the value would double, (right now you can buy the same BTUs for about half as much) which is why i agree with you that exporting our natgas at the currently depressed prices would be an insane waste of our resources, said resources breaking the cycle of energy dependence.

Fri, 05/10/2013 - 23:27 | 3550725 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

When you export raw materials you are exporting jobs.  Much better to fashion the raw materials into products and sell those.

 

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 02:36 | 3550876 Augustus
Augustus's picture

The exported NG will primarily be used for heating or power generation.  The US can not produce that and deliver it as a finished product.  US sourced NG will still have at least a $3 to $4 price advantage for domestic processes as that is the cost to liquify and ship the gas.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 02:32 | 3550874 Augustus
Augustus's picture

It is uncommon to find someone who will take such efforts to make themselves look foolish.

The leveling off of production from the Haynesville Shale is a result of low prices and terrible gas development economics.  The conclusions drawn from the chart are the result of ignorance of the subject.  Those who expect to continue to recieve adequate gas supplies while paying $2 for the product are simply not very knowledgeable.  Haynesville is primarily a dry gas play.  The price at the welhead needs to be about $5 for the economics to work.  It should also be noted that some of the shale basins have high liquids or oil content.  Those remain economic drilling targets, producing both oil, liquids and NG.  The Eagleford is of that type and develop,emt continues.

The gas being developed is owned by private entities and people.  It has long been known that the hydrocarbons were there.  It was not economically feasible to recover them.  Now that private energy companies have developed the methods, leased or bought the minerals, and can produce them, we find that the misguided control freaks want to claim that they have an interest in where it is sold and for how much.  Denying the export facility development is the same as enforcing an embargo and refusing to sell the product to Europe, Japan, and other customers.  Does anyone remember the loud response to the Chinese restrictions on the export of the rare earth metals?  Supposedly the Chinese wanted to have the value added activeties performed in China.  Now we have this poorly written article proposing that the US do the same thing.  Note though, the gas is still sold in foreign markets, but as fertilizer or other chemicals.  It is not saved.

In recent days I have read several articles promoting this flawed thinking and poor energy and economic policy.  Evidently the author has been tasked with adding to the barrage of nonsense intended to restrict US energy development.  This is an adjunct operation apparently associated with the denial of permits for several US - Canada oil pipelines and also with denial of permits to drill in the GoM.  Same actors, same economic nonsense.  Getting over 250 power generating facilities shut down has not been sufficient for the worshipers of Mother Gaia.  They will not be satisfied until their proposals have actually achieved population reduction from any method possible.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 03:34 | 3550919 Catullus
Catullus's picture

No one can tell them it's mercantilism, because no one calls them out on this. Apparently it's energy policy to allow you export "our" energy.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 09:43 | 3551174 Element
Element's picture

 

 

"The price at the welhead needs to be about $5 for the economics to work."

The economy will in the end always use the cheapest source of energy available, regardless of ideology or belief about "bad carbon", or good Chinese solars, etc. In the end we will burn the coal instead, if not the NG, and we will create synthetic hydroCarbs from coal, and gasification from coal as well. The imminent death of coal has been very much exaggerated - it's staying, bank on it.

But first, we still have a stack of crude to get through. mmm ... yummy!

Anyone who objects or obstructs on environmental grounds, or such, is going to get mowed-down by the real-politic and market realities of this. No one is ultimately going to listen to a whining minority of unemployed under-achieving parasitic dykes and poofs in ultra-left green parties, talking pie-in-the-sky about greenhouse-effect, using some pretty dodgy sense of personal 'morals', and ethical and social outrage.

That's just how it will play out, to the end of this century. People need to come to terms with this, and they will, because all else is fluff.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 09:44 | 3551201 Element
Element's picture

 

 

" ... Does anyone remember the loud response to the Chinese restrictions on the export of the rare earth metals?  Supposedly the Chinese wanted to have the value added activeties performed in China. ..."

All valid market behavior by them.

And what happened? Massive reserves of REs are coming into production in Australia and US, as needed.

All valid market responses.

The importer who is buying the LNG is going to determine if its export is viable at the price point, relative to other energy types and supply.

All valid market behavior.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 04:52 | 3550975 Sandmann
Sandmann's picture

US should sell natural gas cheaply to Britain, subsidise it even.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 07:19 | 3551062 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

This is a very uninformed article.  The blend of gas, coal and oil burned is not a function of production but of the composition of the infrastructure around the globe.  If you are producing only coal, but your country's generation infrastructure is 90% natural gas-fired, you are a net importer of gas and exporter of coal.  That's it.

Price shifts and regulatory policy over time create a mismatch of indigenous supply with infrastructure.  If that were not so, the U.S. would have even more coal-based generation than it currently has.  There is still some dual-fuel capability - mostly gas-or-oil turbine generators - but there is less substitution capability than in the past.

From the standpoint of maximizing the utilization of energy, exporting is not the best choice because of the energy consumed in converting and shipping.  But if the U.S. became a net natural gas exporter (won't happen, btw), one would have to look at the net export traffic world-wide to determine if there was a net loss of energy.  That is, would the LNG leaving the U.S. be greater than the volume currently being liquefied elsewehere and coming into the U.S.? 

Very broad strokes coming from someone who seems not well versed in the industry.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 07:47 | 3551086 Black-Man
Black-Man's picture

OK... everyone knows this guy is just an anti-fossil fuel tool, right?

 

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 09:20 | 3551186 SmallerGovNow2
SmallerGovNow2's picture

so chris the US should put itself inside a border bubble and refuse all trade with all nations and simply live within the confines of the lower 48.  brilliant strategy...  sarc/

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 09:50 | 3551216 csmith
csmith's picture

Sounds like this guy works for Dow Chemical.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 17:46 | 3552140 fnordfnordfnord
fnordfnordfnord's picture

Yeah, he and Dow can pound sand, they've been getting cheap natgas for too long. Let everybody pay the market price.

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 10:49 | 3551273 MFLTucson
MFLTucson's picture

 

"Tragically misguided"......  Understatement of the year!

 

Sat, 05/11/2013 - 13:33 | 3551618 OpTwoMistic
OpTwoMistic's picture

Ah,  29 year life.  8 track didn't last that long.  Want to buy a player?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!