Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (273732)	2/13/2006 3:06:56 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575184

re:Finally, in your article, they discuss how Canada has 1/3 of the world's potential reserves of NG. Where did you see 1/3, I read about 1%. The colors on the pie charts are misleading. re:First of all, natural gas in other parts of the world does the US little good. True, they are developing LNG ports but they are very costly to build and their production will be limited WTF - the industry is growing and the shipping is expanding, ports will be constructed as needed. True there is a compatibility issue for off loading, but that's easily fixed. WTF??? Huh? Did you not read the damn article you posted? And this article is being nice when it comes to LNG. Why? Because it will be more expensive than oil to pipe NG to a LNG port; it will be more expensive to hold NG at the port; it will be more expensive to transition the LNG to the tankers and the tankers are more expensive to build. The only reason we are talking LNG is because NG is over $7. And if we become 100% dependent on LNG, NG prices will go through the roof. "Tankers currently cost $150 to $160 million for a 138,000-cubic-meter ship, more than double the price of a very large crude oil tanker which carries 4 to 5 times as much energy. One reason for this high cost is that LNG ships require expensive, insulated cryogenic containment for the cargo." re:Secondly, when you look at the US's proven reserves, we have roughly 60 years left at current consumption rates. Most of the other NG talked about in the article you presented is pontential NG, not actual. There are a lot of questions whether that NG even exists, and if it does, whether its extractable. Currently, every available NG rig has been deployed in the US, but production continues to decline from one year to the next. That should concern you, but of course, it won't. It concerns me a bit - but it appears we're on track to expand our dependance on foreign sources - that's what concerns me, we're not going to run out anytime soon. Long before we run out, energy prices will go through the roof. What do you think that will do to the US economy?