Shale Natural Gas, Oil and NGLs and ESA Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Shale Natural Gas, Oil and NGLs and ESA

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: jrhana who wrote (854)	7/11/2009 5:40:01 PM
From: jrhana	of 6160

Another example of how thinking from 5-1-0 years ago about US energy supplies is so way out of date. Again it has literally been only a couple of years that the extreme amount of NG available in the lower 48 states has become known. It does make you wonder if we even need that Alaskan Pipeline. <Here's a better idea for the North Slope gas. The industry should build a pipeline right next to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), which runs to Valdez and carries oil from the North Slope. Then, build a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility and ship the gas to Europe, which is desperate to reduce dependence on Russian sources of energy.> But even that makes you wonder. To me it seems that the Haynesville, Barnett and the just emerging from the shadows Eagle Ford deposits could handle LNG exorts to Europe in addition to local needs. I imagine the Marcellus will be dedicated to the very large nearby population centers. Actually the Fayettville might also help from Arkansas.where its output could be shipped down the Mississippi into the gulf. Intuitively it makes more sense to me to ship LNG to Europe from Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas than from Alaska.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next