When I read this nonsense, I had the feeling that this was a plant from someone with ulterior motives. I thought about Iranians, crazied farout leftists and/or rightists. Most likely I thought this was the product of environmental extremists who had totally gone berserk. The insane implications that the drinking supply of NYC were going to be poisoned goes along with this, and the stuff about Bolivia would also implicate the far left.
Message 25670673
But I had not thought about the coal industry.
<Currently in Washington, the coal lobby is winning in “a game of trying to buy enough votes. And the game is getting rigged; the coal industry is better at playing that game than the natural gas industry. And my concern right now is that we’re going to see legislation that has the unintended consequence of allowing the continued use, and perhaps greater use, of coal to the disadvantage of natural gas.
“If you left the playing field level…natural gas will win. But politicians will have a way of gaming the rules so market-based outcomes are not always the ones that are realized.”>
Message 25671786
Makes some unfortunate sense. I would not be surprised if the coal industry was behind that article.
Once again that article is off the wall nonsense. Most of the drilling is so far deep in the ground that it would be impossible to affect the NYC drinking water. And the water that is removed can be treated and recycled.
Message 25403961
Sure there are some environmental problems but for me they are minor glitches. They represent easily solvable technical issues.
Message 25419015
And there is no comparison with the violence of coal mining literally blowing off mountain tops. And there is no comparison with the air pollution and inefficient use of carbon involved with coal combustion.
<We are talking in here about the cleanest fossil fuel that can be burned; four atoms of hydrogen for one atom of carbon. An H/C ratio of 4:1. By way of comparison the average H/C ratio for oil is 2:1, for coal 0.5:1 and for wood and other agricultural residues 0.1:1. Thus the ratio provides a reasonable proxy to environmental quality, and shows that natural gas is more benign to the environment as compared with other fossil fuels and at the same time more convenient to the user. And the gas endowment in both countries [USA and Canada] is gigantic and will lapse for several decades.>
Message 25669950
<The “real inconvenient truth,” Hefner says, is that government subsidies are impeding the adoption of abundant, cleaner and cheaper natural gas by extending the life of oil and coal well beyond what otherwise would have been their natural rates of decline. If government policy instead allowed the full external costs of coal and oil (military costs to secure supply, health care costs due to toxic emissions, environmental costs, efficiency costs, etc.) to bleed through to the consumer, the superior energy solutions of natural gas, wind, and solar would come to the fore. Natural gas would then attain its destiny as the “go-to” fuel of choice and accelerate the decline of coal and oil consumption while significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.>
Message 25669941
<The natural gas industry can win on the product’s favorable environmental profile.
“Many (environmental) groups despise drilling for natural gas more than they fear the impact of climate change. It’s a sad reality. What we as a natural gas industry have to do is reach out to responsible environmental groups. We have, as an industry, every right to claim the moral high ground on this issue.
“We find, produce and deliver a clean, safe and environmentally friendly fuel to 65 million American homes and businesses in this country. And by choosing not to develop our most environmentally benign fuel—and I stress that word “fuel”—the unintended consequence is that we are going to burn more coal, import more oil and run our aging nuclear plants harder than ever.”
Aggressive climate-change policy will be difficult to effect if the Obama administration wins in its quest to eliminate oil and gas producers’ tax credits for intangible drilling costs (IDCs).
“We need to have policies that allow the industry to consistently invest in development of new supplies…IDC expensing has been part of the U.S. tax code since, I think, 1913. (Eliminating it) will have the effect of reducing U.S. producers’ cash flow by somewhere from 20% to 30% in the first year. Most U.S. producers operate under a simple rule: Cash flow equals capital spending.
“If you eliminate the expensing of IDCs—and I believe that is a wrong-headed policy—you will have the unintended consequence of reducing investment in natural gas supply.”
He urges producers to at least “do just one thing when policy-makers talk about sweeping changes in the way we use energy in this country and that is to do the math. Do the math.”>
Message 25671786 |
