America Needs a Natural Gas Transportation Infrastructure

Natural gas prices are trading at under $4.50 per million BTU despite a fairly cold winter. US natural gas production has increased from around 1,400,000 cubic feet per month in 1985 to over 1,700,000 cubic feet per month in 2008 as new drilling technologies have brought new gas production online from the Barnett, Haynesville, Bakken, and Marcellus shale formations.

In addition to new shale developments in the lower-48, a joint effort by ConocoPhillips (COP) and BP called Denali – The Alaska Gas Pipeline, LLC, will deliver 4 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily from Alaska’s North Slope to North American markets. Denali, LLC has recently awarded a contract to Fluor Corp’s (FLR) WorleyParsons Arctic Solutions for initial design work on a natural gas-treatment plant needed to process gas in order to feed the pipeline. It would be the largest gas-treatment plant in the world. Gas deliveries could start as soon as 2018. There is a competing pipeline project in which the state of Alaska chose TransCanada (TRP) to build. That pipeline would carry 4.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. It should be noted that TransCanada does not produce the Alaskan natural gas that would fill the pipeline. The producers would presumably be ConocoPhillips, BP, and Exxon Mobil (XOM). Either pipeline would transport roughly 7% of the nation’s daily natural gas demand.

The North Slope has known reserves of some 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Many geologists and energy experts agree there is much more North Slope natural gas yet to be discovered. Potential natural gas reserves have been estimated at 5 times current proven reserves. Even these estimates could prove conservative given the lack of exploration due to regulatory issues and the lack of an economical delivery system.

A good overview on natural gas recoverable estimates can be found here. Factoring in expected future demand growth, experts estimate the US has enough natural gas supply to last 40-60 years. Some geologists estimate the US has a 90 year supply.

From a US consumption perspective, here is the breakdown for 2007 (data from EIA):

US Natural Gas Consumption by End Use (2007)

(Million Cubic Feet)

Total Consumption	23,047,229	Percentage of Total (End User)
Lease and Plant Fuel	1,198,648
Lease Fuel	833,325
Plant Fuel	365,323
Pipeline & Distribution Use	622,893
Volumes Delivered to Customers	21,225,688	92.1 %
Electric Power Generation	6,841,408	32.2 %
Industrial	6,624,846	31.2 %
Residential	4,717,311	22.2 %
Commercial	3,017,105	14.2 %
Vehicle Fuel	25,016	0.12 %

We can see from this chart that roughly 7.9% of US natural gas production is used for lease, plant, and distribution fuel – that is, just producing the natural gas and getting it to market. The percentages shown in the table are based only on the total volumes delivered to end use customers. Electrical power generation and industrial usage are the two biggest consumers of US natural gas and combined use 63% of total supply.

One reason natural gas prices are so low today is because industrial demand simply fell off a cliff toward the end of 2008 as the financial and economic crisis worsened. Residential home heating uses just under one quarter of total end user supply. Interestingly enough, natural gas providers across the country are reporting that, despite a much colder winter than last year, residential home heating demand for natural gas is down year over year. This proves that the economy is indeed affecting middle class American’s spending habits in a very real and chilling way (pun intended).

Highlighted in green is the component of consumption I would like to discuss today. At 0.12% of supply, US demand for “vehicle fuel” to power natural gas transportation can only be described as anemic. For a country that imports 65% of its oil from unfriendly foreign countries like Saudi Arabia (the real 9/11 perpetrators), Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela one could consider this small usage of natural gas for transportation “criminal neglect”.

Boone Pickens’s website has begun reporting monthly oil import numbers. For January, the US imported 408.7 million barrels of oil at a cost of $17 billion. This amounted to 67% of the total US oil consumption. Annualized, this is over $200 billion US citizens send out of the country every year. Many of those dollars end up in countries that support terrorism. We are truly funding both sides of the “war on terror” by bankrolling a military for oil wars and fighting terrorism while at the same time funding our enemies by buying their oil. The numbers above are for oil at around $40/barrel. Imagine the numbers when oil was $145/barrel. Only a nation of category 5 morons would continue on a path such as this.

Why Isn’t the US Using Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs)?

Natural gas cars and trucks have been around for decades. As I have mentioned in several previous articles, the Honda Civic GX (HMC) is an excellent example of an NGV.

Even more impressive is the Toyota (TM) Camry natural gas/electric hybrid.

Natural gas vehicles in operation worldwide number in the tens of millions. Natural gas fleets for buses, commercial vans, and municipal garbage trucks have been in use around the world and even in many US cities for decades. Frustrated car and truck owners in Utah have made a mini-industry out of converting gasoline powered vehicles over to natural gas. So too are people in Latin America, Asia, and Iran. Natural gas vehicle technology is proven and it is mature. The perception that natural gas technology is “new” is simply not true.

The economics of natural gas are very advantageous. NGV users around the world are currently refueling their NGVs at less than $1/gallon on a gasoline equivalent basis.

So, if natural gas supply is adequate for decades into the future, if NGV technology is proven and mature, if NGV fuel is economical, and if the US is going bankrupt buying foreign oil, then why aren’t Americans using natural gas powered transportation? There are several main reasons:

• Lack of NGV availability
• Lack of natural gas refueling options
• Lack of adoption of a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy
• Lack of adequate political, public, and media support
• Misplaced environmental concerns resulting in a focus on unrealistic alternatives

Let’s examine these issues one at a time.

Lack of NGV Availability

The Honda Civic GX is, so far as I know, the only NGV for sale directly to consumers in the US today. Yet, even this car is only available in California and New York. Toyota’s press release announcing the Toyota Camry natural gas/electric hybrid vehicle was troubling. After listing all the reasons why the car makes sense (high gas prices, lower emissions, foreign oil imports, etc.), the company said it had no plans to produce the vehicle nor make the vehicle available to consumers in the US (!). GM and Ford (F) both make natural gas vehicles and sell them in Asia and Latin America. They do not sell them in the US. So, the issue is not one of technical feasibility.

The auto makers cite the lack of natural gas refueling options as an impediment to mass consumer adoption leading to economically viable vehicle volumes. As a result, the price of a Honda Civic GX is about $4k greater than its equivalent gasoline powered counterpart. However, given volume production levels, there is absolutely no reason this price premium cannot be reduced to near zero. That said, my favorite solution, a natural gas electric hybrid vehicle would be slightly more expensive than its gasoline counterpart. That expense would quickly be recouped by much lower fuel costs.

Lack of Natural Gas Refueling Options

Here we have the classic chicken-and-egg problem. Which comes first? NGVs or natural gas refueling stations? The answer is: they both need to become available at the same time with a coordinated energy policy. It is amazing that the US could put a man on the moon yet fail at such a simple problem.

There is currently only one manufacturer of a home natural gas refueling appliance – the “Phill” by Fuelmaker. This device allows overnight fueling in your garage (or outside if you have safety concerns). Not surprisingly, like the Honda Civic GX, the “Phill” is only available in certain states. Like any sole-sourced widget, the price is artificially high due to a lack of competition – it cost around $4k installed to connect to your current natural gas line.

Currently, the “Phill” connected up to a Honda Civic GX, would refuel the car overnight and the driver would have a range of 200 miles the next morning. This model works well for over 90% of the average Americans driving habits. That said, most Americans don’t want to own a vehicle incapable of making longer range trips for vacations, pleasure, or work. Abundant public refueling stations are an absolute necessity for mass public adoption of NGVs.

Refueling time at public refueling depots must also be acceptable. I have researched this issue a little bit, and have found no technical reasons why CNG refueling need be significantly longer than current gasoline refueling time. An excellent article on this issue can be read here.

Lack of a Strategic Long-Term Comprehensive Energy Policy

As I have written about many times on Seeking Alpha, the biggest policy failure in American history is not adopting a strategic long-term comprehensive energy policy in the face of importation of 65% of our oil, fighting oil wars, and going bankrupt in the process. Since the US government and media seemed incapable of developing this policy on their own, I even went so far as to document such a policy for them.

This policy has been refined over time and includes some excellent feedback from Seeking Alpha contributors. That said, despite my best efforts over the better part of 4 years, this policy has not be published in any major news media publication. I have contacted Barron's, Business Week, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal. None of these publications responded positively. I find this very interesting considering the toll foreign oil importation has taken on the country’s economy, equity markets, and competitiveness.

Lack of Adequate Political, Public, and Media Support

Every US president since Harry Truman has been concerned about American dependence on foreign oil. Every US president since Jimmy Carter has announced plans to make America more energy independent. Jimmy Carter’s speech in 1977 is worth re-reading today.

Jimmy Carter’s excellent energy policy reduced foreign oil imports by 50% between 1977 and 1982. This led to a reduction of oil prices in the 1980’s and a subsequent economic recovery. Since then, American energy policy under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush has been nothing short of abysmal. The US today imports 65% of its oil, a high of $145/barrel was reached in 2008, we are fighting oil wars at the cost of much treasure and human life, and our economy is in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

In spite of all these facts, the American media is partly to blame. It seldom sheds light on the real reasons we went into Iraq (oil), seldom publicizes the national security and economic threats posed by foreign oil, and as I have already mentioned, never publishes strategic, long-term, and comprehensive energy policies. The media seems to take delight into lambasting Boone Pickens’s efforts by painting him as a profiteering oil-man as opposed to the patriotic American whose purpose of reducing our foreign oil imports by moving to natural gas powered transportation and wind energy is spot on.

In spite of every US President since Carter saying the US will become less dependent on foreign oil, the simplest, quickest, most economical way to do this is to use more US produced natural gas in the transportation sector. Yet, it has been almost completely ignored. We could, conservatively save 2-5 million barrels of foreign oil imports within 3-5 years by migrating gasoline powered cars and trucks to US produced natural gas.

The politicians had an excellent opportunity during the big 3 auto bailout hearings to questions the CEOs on a lack of NGV initiatives. They had an excellent opportunity to require NGV manufacturing as a condition of US tax-payer money, yet the words “natural gas vehicle” were not uttered once during Congressional questioning. Likewise, Obama’s stimulus package, while containing some good legislation with respect to energy, completely missed a grand opportunity to hit the nail on the head. There is very little in this package in the way of incentives to promote natural gas vehicles and the corresponding infrastructure to support them. This was very disappointing as yet another big opportunity was missed.

Misplaced Environmental Concerns Resulting in a Focus on Unrealistic Alternatives

Folks who have taken the time to read my energy policy and my previous Seeking Alpha articles know that I am a big supporter of electric vehicles, wind and solar energy to feed them, and initiatives such as Project Better Place and the PickensPlan. In a future in which worldwide oil supply will not keep up with worldwide oil demand, I believe these efforts are the future not only economically, but environmentally and from the viewpoint of future gasoline (oil) cost and availability.

All that said, I believe the recent focus on hybrid and electric vehicles has in my mind done very little to reduce foreign oil imports and greenhouse gas emissions. The promise of electric vehicles, like the hydrogen fuel cell craze of the 1990’s, has been just another tool by the auto and oil industries to keep Americans addicted to gasoline powered internal combustion engines. We are wasting very valuable time here. Let me explain.

I love the Toyota Prius. That said, the Prius still requires gasoline. I love the thought of electric cars. However, electric cars are simply not available in quantity. Even though electric cars are well supported by environmentalists, the true impact of electric cars on the environment does not appear to be well understood. Suppose electric cars were available today in mass volumes. It will be a decade before adequate wind and solar energy generation and the transmission lines to transport this clean energy efficiently will be available to charge these vehicles. Meantime, since our nuclear energy infrastructure is not being built out, more coal burning will be required to charge these electric cars. Since the emission requirements on coal burning plants have actually been reduced over the past 8 years, the truth is that electric cars at the end of the day could well cause just as much, if not more pollution, than their gasoline powered counterparts!

Another problem is battery technology. I’m certainly not an expert on current battery technology (read Seeking Alpha contributor John Petersen for some excellent articles on this subject), but several things are apparent to me today:

• The US is falling behind in battery technology and manufacturing.
• Batteries for a plug-in vehicle of sufficiently long range are not yet economically available.
• It will take some time for battery technology usage in fully electric cars to mature.
• Like NGVs, PHEVs will also require a significant refueling infrastructure.

Perhaps I am missing something with the above impressions. However, given these impressions, I conclude the following:

• A shift from gasoline to all electric vehicles today would currently result in a shift from foreign oil addiction to foreign battery addiction.
• A shift from gasoline to all electric vehicles today would not significantly reduce greenhouse gases and could quite possibly increase emissions.
• Due to economic limitations of battery technology and fully electric vehicle range, the best short term vehicle options continue to be hybrids, which still require gasoline.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, CNG vehicles really shine:

• They reduce carbon monoxide emissions 90 to 97 percent.
• They reduce carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent.
• They reduce nitrogen oxide emissions 35 to 60 percent.
• They potentially reduce non-methane hydrocarbon emissions 50 to 75 percent.
• They emit fewer toxic and carcinogenic pollutants.
• They emit little or no particulate matter.
• They eliminate evaporative emissions.

Since each gallon of gasoline burned in an internal combustion engine released 19 lbs of CO₂, and since the US burned 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline per day last year (both from the EIA), the environmental benefits of switching to natural gas powered vehicles are readily apparent. When compared to burning more coal to power electric vehicles, the case for migrating to NGVs, today, is compelling.

Now, all that said, I do still support going full steam ahead with the deployment of wind and solar energy generation and the electric lines to efficiently transmit this energy from source to consumer. I still support battery research and development and of electric vehicle development. However, in order to quickly and significantly reduce both foreign oil imports and greenhouse gas emissions quickly I strongly suggest the US do the following:

• The US government should pass legislation requiring any company selling a gasoline powered vehicle in the US to also offer a NGV vehicle or NGV/electric vehicle available.
• The US government should pass legislation requiring NGV/electric hybrid vehicle manufacturing be a condition for receiving future “Big 3” bailout money from US taxpayers.
• The US government, partnered with natural gas providers and local nat gas utility companies, should begin a massive build out of high speed natural gas refueling stations along the US interstate highway system.
• The US government should require each automotive manufacturer of NGV to also manufacture and sell a natural gas home refueling appliance.
• The US government should give incentives by way of low interest loans in order to insure the trans-Canadian Alaskan to lower-48 natural gas pipeline(s) be built at an accelerated pace.

(NOTE: these policies are only those associated with natural gas initiatives. For a strategic long-term comprehensive US energy policy, please see here.)

I can hear the criticisms now: Fitzman, you want government to take over!? Well, in this area I certainly do. Besides, in that last year of the Bush administration we saw the government take over the insurance, banking, financial services, and national mortgage markets. Why then shouldn’t the government actually do something productive for the economy and for middle class Americans and take a proactive position to get the natural gas transportation sector jump started? American automakers have proven they can’t manage themselves and build the right vehicles for the country. This way, at least we’d get something for our tax dollars as opposed to making the ultra rich bankers, investment “professionals”, and car executives wealthier. It is also the only way I can think of to solve the chicken-and-egg problem with respect to the availability of NGVs and nat gas refueling stations.

The declaration that it would take auto manufacturers years to retool in order to build NGVs is invalid. Today you can drive your gasoline powered auto or truck into many shops in Utah, Iran, Brazil, and Asia and in less than 4 hours leave with a car that runs on CNG. So, the automakers can do it, they just don’t want to do it. The government, since it is now bankrolling these companies, should require it.

Others will say, “Fitzman, you just want the energy companies you have supported these many years to profit off natural gas!” Well, who would you rather enrich with your money? US firms like ConocoPhillips, Chesapeake Energy (CHK), and Exxon Mobil; or Saudi Aramco, Petroleos de Venezuela, Gazprom, and Iran Petroleum? The choice is yours. You already know who I would prefer to send my energy dollars to. Either way, you will pay. It’s just of question of whether your money will stay with companies headquartered in the US, or, to companies controlled by anti-American foreign governments.

On the other hand, the natural gas policies suggested above would do many positive things for the American economy and for Americans:

• Reduce foreign oil imports.
• Keep our energy dollars in America.
• Provide many good paying jobs in the energy industry.
• Reduce green house gas emissions.
• Build an infrastructure that would pay dividends for decades.
• Reduce the cost of NGV ownership.
• Reduce the cost of NGV home refueling appliances.
• Reduce the cost of transportation.
• Produce jobs in the area of compressors, pumps, steel, pipe, and other solid manufacturing industries.
• Make America competitive again in auto manufacturing and basic industries.

Think of the jobs to be created at local natural gas utilities, companies like US Steel, GE, the energy and energy services firms, as well as to auto makers Ford and GM.

What are the negatives aspects of this program? Honestly, I cannot see them. Just think how much better off the country would be today if the $700 million dollars in bonus money that was paid out to Merrill Lynch executives with US taxpayer “bailout” money provided by the Bush/Paulson/Bernanke $350 billion package if the money would have instead been used for building natural gas refueling stations.

Imagine if instead of giving millions of dollars to executives at bankrupt AIG if instead that money had been used to set up another company to manufacture the “Phill” home appliance in order to bring competition to that market and bring the price of the appliance down. Imagine the benefits if instead of giving the “Big 3” billions in dollars with no strings attached, the government had instead mandated they build NGV/electric hybrid vehicles in return for the money. Finally, imagine if the US government told Toyota if it wants to sell its gasoline powered cars and trucks into the US market, it will have to make that NGV/electric hybrid Camry available as well.

In other words, economists and policymakers say they don’t know what effects all these various bailout packages and stimulus bills will provide. However, it should be clear that investments in natural gas transportation won’t be “busy jobs” or a waste of time and money. This work would pay the American people dividends for decades.

America is at the economic crossroads in so many ways today. Due to years of unsound fiscal policies, we are a country that depends on foreign capital from China, Japan, and the Middle East to buy our bonds and finance our fiscal debt. At the same time, unwise energy policies have deepened our reliance on foreign oil. Combine the two, and the country is going on its way to permanent bankruptcy and a fiat currency. Some say we are already there.

It is very unwise for American policy makers to attempt to solve a commodity problem (oil) with financial, fiscal, and military policies. They simply aren’t working. Meanwhile, the US is the world’s largest consumer of worldwide oil supply (25% of the total supply) and faces a grave risk entering a future in which worldwide oil supply will not keep pace with worldwide oil demand. That is, the price of oil in the future will spike much higher than the highs seen in 2008. Current low energy prices are not due to huge supplies coming online. They are the result of collapsing demand due to the financial crisis.

Instead of taking advantage of the current situation and using the low cost of energy, steel, and the low employment rate to put people to work at building out a natural gas infrastructure, the Obama stimulus package is “natural gas lite”. That is, there is very little in the package to promote NGV’s and the required infrastructure to refuel them. Obama and Congress missed a golden opportunity to address the US’s biggest national security and economic threat: its addiction to foreign oil.

In summary, US natural gas supplies are adequate for at least the next 50 years. Natural gas vehicles have been used for decades. NGVs are a proven, mature, and viable transportation technology. Natural gas vehicles are much cleaner than gasoline powered internal combustion engines and can be cheaper than gasoline powered cars and trucks. Natural gas vehicles can be quickly and advantageously utilized while the research and development of electric battery technology, PHEVs, and fully electric vehicles continue forward. NGVs can be used today in order to reduce foreign oil imports and greenhouse gas emissions while we wait for the wind and solar energy infrastructures to be built out. NGVs can revitalize the US economy, provide good paying jobs, and will benefit multiple basic industry sectors.

Natural gas transportation is a no-brainer. We merely need our policy makers to engage and make it happen and get us over the initial chicken-and-egg problem of vehicle availability versus refueling stations.

Comments

[sabre_jenn:]

Fitz -- lose the tinfoil hat and stop whining about all your imaginary conspiracy theories. Do you still think Bush took down tower #7 at the WTC site? That was your bizarre theory last summer
seekingalpha.com/artic...

How embarrassing for you!!! And even more ridiculous: you even wanted to suggest the NY fire department was helping Bush to conceal the truth!!

No one stopping NG usage, and there is no conspiracy this time either. Quite the contrary, people like T Boone Pickens have been pushing NG in vehicles for years. Firms like UPS and FedEx (whose trucks always return to base at the end of the night and thus don't need to worry about a NG station being available) have converted parts of their fleets to use NG.

All have found that NG is not economical-- there is a **SMALL** cost savings, but it is too small to pay for all the added expenses during the expected life of the vehicle. In places where NG has to be brought in (ie there is not a NG pipe to supply the gas) -- NG vehicles cost more than gasoline.

NG vehicles are only economical for short burst / occasional use applications.

We don't need immature pie-in-the-sky conspiracy theorists like yourself figuring out new ways to waste taxpayer money. Congress does fine on its own.

Feb 18 01:09 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

Coolsool and ilk - big oil has rightfully reduced domestic oil production from north of 10 mbd to 6 mdb while consumption increased to 19 mbd.

Right thinking reduced the production and burning of our own more and more difficult to produce oil (it has not bubbled-up at the surface for 100 years - shortly after Drake started digging).

Dumb thinking (greed is dumb thinking) increased consumption to 19 mbd.

Now you want to repeat history with natural gas.

Right thinking would say let's use the easy stuff (like lumber was cut until the hills were bare; picking coal from hillside outcroppings; scooping oil from bubbling pools at the surface; capturing the natural gas that was causing the bubbles in the oil pools; cutting whale blubbler oil where appropriate; Dutch windmills; early US farmers/ranchers windmills; cow pies!!; neanderthal solar.........). Do the easy smart thing (even if it takes an energy tax, like Europe, etc., to lock-in persuasion with good LEADERSHIP for and by the people).

The easiest switch for automobiles and commercial trucks and all the ones Fitz mentioned is to go to biofuel (cellulosic) and biodiesel hybrids.

Renewable feedstock crops we can currently grow on the surface using exisitng resources of equipment and trained labor on the farms. The processing equipment may have to be modified a little but the commplete distribution system infrastructure exists (even along the exisitng interstates, if need be).

First, with biofuel/biodiesel hybrids economy we automatically need 1/2 to 1/3 of the gasoline consumption Fitz keeps talking about. Even less again if we put more interstate cargo on electrifed rails, and beltway people on electrified transit systems, and the high speed trains along the east and west coast or NY-Chicago, etc., INSTEAD OF LAS VEGAS TO LA - there must be enough cactus along that route to play the velcro stick-em game to hang the politicians and friends that put that expediture into the spending bill!!).

Sceondly, we have 34 million acres of idle land (7%) in the US, which we pay farmers $3,000,000,000, yes 3 billion, every year to NOT FARM IT. That $3 billion is just a part of the $13 Billion we pay farmers every year in subsidies. Over the past 12 years the Govt has given nearly $100 Billion of subsidies to farmers (and too much of it to do NOTHING, and the most to do CORN! right-thinking says go cellulosic!!).

So let's give the farmers/producers some of those subsides to work the land and grow cellulosic biofuel and biodiesel for hybrids, ships, trains, planes, trucks and off-road construction equipment, including farm equipment (which is approaching perpetual motion). Hey, farmwork even puts real shovels to work.

Now, if we also stop subsidizing other "neanderthal" ideas and focus just on the BEST, like the rest of my above "cut and paste" plan indicates (yes, sometimes repeated messages begin to be accepted as truth - only repeating history!!!).

Anyhow, can you imagine how much we could subsidize the right things if we stopped spending money on oil shale, tar sands, coal liquifaction and gasification, deep drilling exploration and production methods, for oil, gas and coal?

And then, if we actually made the switch of asset and resource utilization from industry and government (well, actually, my dollars, both!) to the BEST plan (again, like mine, above), we'd be independent and energy free forever within a decade.

Right-thinking required!!

Feb 18 01:14 PM

[sabre_jenn:]

SkippinCA -- you are correct. Fitz had a big math error in his article. He plans to make up the shortfall with "go power" -- also known as the stuff that powers Matchbox cars.

Of course, taxpayers will end up footing the bill to actually make this pie-in-the-sky nonsense "work".

Fitz complains about Bush constantly -- and we have all heard about the lady that doth complain too much. Fitz has WAY more in common with Bush than he is willing to admit

Feb 18 01:15 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

Oh Fitz- I forgot. The existing rail trains are already electrified hybrids - they just use diesel fuel which could easliy be biodiesel (if not pure electric).

And if you've been staying current, airplanes are about to become hybrids.

Feb 18 01:17 PM

[sabre_jenn:]

I'll throw Fitz a bone if he promises to lose the tin-foil hat...

The shortfall in NG production currently gets solved by NG imports from Canada. Canada has loads of NG, a stable government, and at least post War of 1812 they have been our allies.

The gotcha is that the Canadian government has dramatically increased taxes on energy production (both crude and NG). This is needed to pay for all the "free" healthcare they have in Canada. The US already subsidizes all the pharmaceutical drugs in Canada (we pay 100% of the research costs, plus part of the production costs for Canadian drugs) -- so I guess Fitz wants the US taxpayer to pay for the rest of Canada's costs?

Of course, he also wants to destroy the water tables out west with lots of shale oil drilling. With less potable water to go around, we don't need to worry about our health

Feb 18 01:34 PM

[Old Wizard:]

Fitz, I will read the article you suggest. I don't believe your big oil conjecture in explaining the resistance to the use of natural gas. I believe the resistance to T boone is political and partisan. I also believe that strong opposition is coming from the global warming zealots and the environmentalists who see all fossil fuel as the enemy. Their position is emblematic of the one variable solution problem. I also don't agree with the comments that evaluate all potential solutions with what is cost effective today. Some vision is needed and geopolitical dependency and future economic survival need also to be part of the evaluation. Had we had that vision 30,20 or 10 years ago, how different would our foreign policy and the country's operational cash flow be today. The bill just passed seems not to have any sense of urgency, stresses developments that may make our dependency on foreign oil less in 10 years, but states no concrete goals on any trackable time table

Feb 18 03:50 PM

[Mmarrkk:]

Electric train from LA (Calif) to Las Vegas (NV). Let's see, why is that in there? Hmmm, Dirty Harry Reid is the Senator from Nevada and Nasty Nancy Puuhhllleeezzzosi is from California. Hmm, guess that's why that's such a "stimulator". I'm guessing there are other large parts of the "Steal-from-Us" bill that look and smell just like that. Pork and ear marks. And the things that are worthwhile won't be implemented fast enough to make a difference. There will be tie ups in environmental studies, making sure the union goons get their in's, etc.

And for a "stimulus", the bill got rid of the E-verify program because the lobby group supporting illegal border jumpers wanted it out. You got to pay back each and every one of those votes, you know.

I need to do some more digging on Jimmy C's reduction in oil imports. Could it be due to other macro factors...like him driving interest rates up to 20%, or was it from the Ahab's cutting off our supply? I'll check. I do know that when our buddies in the Dem party shut us out of access to huge portions of the US, our domestic production stopped increasing.

Fitz: you are right; we gave too much money to the bankers and the exec's. But now the current administration is doing the same thing, only they are giving it to ACORN (crooks incorporated), unions and illegals! I know I won't see any of it!

Feb 18 05:40 PM

[Old Wizard:]

Fitz, Didn't realize it, but I'd already read John Peterson's article when I commented on yours. In fact, I commented on it and had a good interchange with John. His articles, I find, are informative and a true attempt at quantitative analysis. There are some beneficial initiatives in the bill as he points out. He agrees, however, that there is no comprehensive plan and that significant pilot programs with time specific goals would be preferable. i won't repeat my points here, but you can read them in the comments to his Feb 16 article which you referenced.

Feb 18 10:57 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

thanks again for all the comments. i will dive back into the water...

koolsool: as i mentioned in a previous comment, although the big oil companies do indeed produce alot of natural gas, their profits and investments in oil exploration, production, and refining dwarf their natural gas operations. this is the only reason i can think of for why the migration to NGV's is being thwarted.

SkippinCA: yes, you are correct - i obvioulsy left out the "million", but at least it was on the figure so do i get half credit? thanks for pointing this out. so, yes, 1,700,000 million cubic feet per month of production in 2008. if i take the total consumption (yearly) from the next chart and divide it by 12, i get monthly consumption of 1,920,602 million cubic feet, or, a "shortfall" of 220,602 million cubic feet/month. however, note that i said "over 1,700,000 *million* cubic feet", the real data on EIA can be seen here:

tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...

regardless, any difference is made up of imports, the most significant being from canada, but also a big slug of LNG interestingly from trinidad. the data natural gas imports can be found here:

tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...

so, yes, we do import some natural gas. canada has been a cheap provider of nat gas to the US for decades. that said, the US has all the reserves it needs, but if we can get it cheaper from canada or LNG fine. regardless, you would agree that the situation is much different than with oil, yes? anyhow, thanks for the comment, as i should have mentioned the foreign component of natural gas production. good catches and very constructive - thank you! i hope you are right with obama...pickens seems to thinks so too..but, if one were to judge from the stimulus package, natural gas progress has a *long* way to go.

sabre_jenn: answer me this:
1) why did bush sit on his butt during the attacks?
2) why did bush arrange the plane to fly out the saudi arabians out of the country during the airspace lockdown with CIA or FBI vetting of the passengers?
3) why did he then lie to the press about the flight's existence?
4) why did he resists to investigate the huge short positions taken on wall street in the S&P500 and S&PTransport indexes in the 3 or 4 days prior to 9/11?
5) once he widows of 9/11 shamed him into the investigation, why did he shut it down when all fingers pointed to the Carlyle Group of which his father and the Saudi king are two large shareholders?
you can support bush all you want, and i can criticize him all i want. but why can you not stick to the article? i am not embarrassed in the least. but had i supported a president that put our country in the shape it is in today, like you, i *would* be embarrassed. and, i never suggested the NY fire dept worked with bush, your interpretation skills are lacking.
wrt cost savings, if you can't understand the cost savings by reducing our foreign oil import bill, then you are as uninformed about economics as you are about politics. your assertion that NGV are only economical for "short burst/occaisional use applications" is also simply ridiculous with no data or facts to back it up because your assertion is simply false.

naked: you don't want to use readily available US produced natural gas for which vehicle technology has existed for decades, yet you propose we used cellulosic and biodiesel hybrids? with all due respect, this kind of "right thinking" is reminds me of the hydrogen or fully electric promises: they simply keep us addicted to foreign oil and spewing CO2 into the air.

sabre_jenn: i find it amusing a huge bush supporter such as yourself is going to lecture me about the environment. your comment on canadian gas imports was the first actual contribution you have made.

old wizard: well, big oil is the only logical reason i can come up with. not sure about political and partisan as both parties have yet to take action. bush had a republican controlled congress his first term (nothing done) and obama has a democratic controlled congress now (nothing done, at least not in the stimulus plan or in his first major energy speech in which natural gas was not even mentioned). as i mentioned in the article, the environmentalists, by waiting for a fully electric car which will be recharged by coal are doing a HUGE disservice to their cause by refusing to acknowledge the benefits of natural gas transportation usage until the green generation and transmission infrastructure can be built, which will take 10-20 years. meantime, 19lbs of CO2 per gallon of gas. i agree with your comments on vision and geopolitics. on your last point, i agree the bills items wrt batteries, wind, and transmission initiatives are
not optimal, but what coming from congress ever is. however, you do agree that at least the change in attitude and funding compared to the prior administration is at least moving in the right direction, yes?

Mmarrkk: say what you will, Jimmy Carter is the only president to have an meaningful energy policy. Jimmy Carter is the only president that reduced foreign oil imports, and very significantly. for all the "freedom" and rhetoric of every president since (reagan, bush, clinton, bush) all we have done is sold our "freedom" down the river with our ever increasing addiction to foreign oil (now at just over 65% of our total usage). it is quite simply bankrupting our country and putting our national and economic security at risk. simple as that. you may not like Carter for a multitude of reasons. but on this issue, i believe the facts are much in his favor, so, please - do some digging.

Feb 19 08:01 AM

[Michael Fit...:]

SkipinCA: after a cup of coffee, i realized my previous response to you:
"the US has all the reserves it needs, but if we can get it cheaper from canada or LNG fine" seems quite hypocritical without explanation, i.e. it sounds as though i am supporting a switch from foreign oil addiction to foreign natural gas addiction. for the record, i am not. however, we need to be realistic here. i don't think a US natural gas transportation policy works without Alaskan nat gas. BP and COP have decided on a pipeline versus LNG, and i suppose they know best. the pipeline is projected to be completed in 2018. now, a switch of a significantly number of vehicles to CNG would obviously add a huge demand component that today doesn't exists at all (only 0.12% as the chart shows). while the shales are a great source of supply and should keep us with supply in the shorterm. however, i support LNG terminals in my energy policy because it is an insurance policy and enables diversification of supply. in the long run, the energy challenge posed to the US will require all sources of energy supply. however, let there be no doubt, the objective here is to utilitize US produced natural gas as much and as economically as possible. the alaskan factor makes it work, which is why i support low cost gov loans to get that pipeline built earlier if possible. this should get us through the next couple decades until the electric vehicle and green electric power generation infrastructure is more mature and built out. hope that helps explain my earlier somewhat hypocritical response.

Feb 19 08:33 AM

[sabre_jenn:]

Fitz -- I don't know if you know how to do a text search within my earlier comments, but I did not mention Bush -- pro or con -- except to ridicule your hatred of the man. Your conspiracy theories about 9/11 ranks right up there with the idiots who think the moon landing was faked.

The reason this country doesn't have a better energy policy is because people like George Bush and yourself are involved in the debate. You can protest all you want, but you and he are EXACTLY alike

Feb 19 10:20 AM

[Old Wizard:]

Fitz, The increased rhetoric concerning energy independence can be a step in the right direction, yes, if it is followed by an implementation program that drives the country that way in 8 years or less. As I commented on John's article, the stimulus plan after interest represents over 7% of the country's annual gross national product. This is perhaps the largest investment the country has made in its history on its domestic economy in one year. Given its debt status, it may not be possible again without great dislocation. To not implement a significant set of pilot projects and set forth a comprehensive plan with trackable and near term milestones does not display a sytems grasp of the problem and its solution. Not including natural gas in the plan is a sympthom of the inability of our Gov.to respond in the problem solving mode required. As in the past it appears to be a reaction to diverse single issues that the pressure groups of the constituencies that elected the party in power have articulated. We should not be satisfied with the buckshot approach embodied in the stimulus plan even if the component R&D is diserable, because it will take too long to solve our country's urgent economic and strategic energy problems. As I said before, I think several of us should get together and lay out the complete plan and then drive to publicize it. The plan would include near and long term milestones, large scale pilot projects,funding requirements as a function of time, R&D in enabling technology, new contracting agency characteristics for letting and monitoring the pilot projects and candidate geographical selections for implementation of those projects where required. The plan should require that the US use 5 million barrels of oil/day less than today in 5 years and 10 million barrels/day less in 10 years.

Feb 19 11:18 AM

[nakedjaybird:]

Fitz - either your definition of "alternative" is flawed or your mission is flawed.

You want to be half pregnant, and it doesn't work (unless, of course, you really don't want to be pregnant; and it that's the case, then you have to change your mission).

Right-thinking requires much consistency.

And by the way, I don't really care about the "spewing out of CO2". I'm not a greenie, global warming advocate; I'm a real, honest, truth-believing, free-enterprising, capitalistic scientist.

And, yes, I'm for not polluting good clean air AMAP - for which the US has done more than enough (more or less) vis-a-vis what it should now teach to developing nations.

I do care about our addiction(s) only in that it is to oil, gas and coal; I'd rather be addicted to solar, wind and biofuels, and of course the electric economy AMAP, and ASAP.

There must be consistency in that right-thinking also, of which I have never, ever lost sight. Well, I'm not perfectly flawless - but in this case more right than wrong.

And furthermore, let me help out one of your misconceptions: when one says STOP!, the ASAP and AMAP must also be considered; with technical fesibility being utmost (DUH!), and economic feasibility less so, and profitability further down the list; that is how most fundamental major change takes place.

Not unlike starting with pregnancy, babes, children, maturity, and finally (hopefully) independent productive citizens, with right-thinking well-embedded; and not a bunch of dependent, leaching, bloodsucking, parasitic, whining, socialistic, communistic, free-lunch, slothful, wrong-is-right, rights-advocating bums.

Peace, and carry on.

Feb 19 01:20 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

sabre_jenn: apparently, you have yet to figure out that SA comments are there for all to see. one only has to scroll up in order to see you did indeed mention bush. so, like so many of your assertions, this too was false. likewise your assertion of bush and i being exactly alike. this opinion too says much about your ability to read, comprehend, and make valid conclusions. at this point, you are not only annoying, you are a complete waste of time and continue to contribute nothing to the subject at hand.

wizard: i applaud your goals, and would also like to get an energy plan published. if you have any suggestions as to "how", i'd love to hear what you have in mind. feel free to take mine as a starting point and distribute it wherever and to whomever you like.

naked: i don't think i did describe "alternative" and so i don't know where you are coming from with that comment. however, my mission is clear:


- #1 persuade US policy makers to adopt a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy which will:

- reduce US dependence on imported foreign oil
- prepare the US for a peak oil future in which worldwide oil supply will not keep up wtih worldwide oil demand
- protect US national security and economic interest by developing transportation solutions capable of running on US natural resources
- reduce greenhouse gas emissions
- re-energize the US economy, make the US more competitive, protect our standard of living, and who knows, perhaps even allow capitalism to make a comback after the federalization of most of the economy over the past 8 years.

i am sorry to see you are not concerned with the CO2 emissions. i am also sorry to see all the name calling which does not add to the quality of your post.

well, thanks folks. on to unchartered waters.....

Feb 19 04:34 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

Hey Fitz - there was no name-calling; only descriptions and definitions. This I probably shouldn't say, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

Feb 19 06:40 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

And as far as not caring about CO2 emissions; their reduction is an unintended consequense of solar and wind generation and natural consequense of burning less oil, coal and gas (FOSSIL, by definition), even as biofuel (RENEWABLE ALTERNATIVE, by definition) burning incorporating 80% heat recovery hybrids remains to produce 1/5 the CO2 directly produced today, not to mention the additional indirect reduction due no longer participating in the complete exploration, mining, drilliing, processing, transportation, reclimation industries associated with oil, gas and coal; and we have not yet begun to talk about the reduced CO2 when we are doing electric transportaion --- so no, I don't worry about CO2 production. It becomes what it should be, an inconsequential unintended consequence of the "why-worry" ilk.

Nearly non-existent with right-thinking.

Feb 19 06:54 PM

[rkolodziej:]

I’ve read through the postings, and I’d like to address several points:

Overall Transportation Energy Truism: For the foreseeable future, there is no one silver-bullet panacea technology or alternative fuel that is going to replace petroleum. Anyone who espouses that there is is either a true believer ignoring reality or a liar. We have many available options – natural gas, ethanol, methanol, propane, gasoline/diesel hybrids and plug-in hybrids, natural gas hybrid and plug-in hybrids.
We have options, but we don’t have choices. We have to use them all – in the applications and in the parts of the country where they make the most sense. We can’t wait to act until the perfect solution comes over the horizon. Yes, we should be investing in R&D on all promising fuels and technologies. But, to base our transportation future on the assumption that a miracle technology will be available by some date certain is lunacy. That should be Plan B. If it happens, wonderful. But don’t count on it. Plan A is to displace as much petroleum as we can today with alt technologies and fuels economically (or, almost economically ) available today.

Benefits of NGVs: (1) lower urban emissions (1/6th the NOx of the best available diesel engine); (2) lower greenhouse gases: (22% less than diesel; 29% less than gasoline according to the California Energy Commission); (3) reduced foreign oil use (98% of natural gas used in US is produced in N. America) and (4) better operating economics (on average, 40% less than gasoline or diesel – which will increase as oil again gets more expensive [see below])

Big Vehicles: Fitzman made this point, but let me reiterate it. Most of the options being discussed (and listed above) are for the light-duty market. There are few options for the heavy-duty and medium-heavy duty market. Which is a problem for the US because: (1) these vehicles are the heart of our economic system; (2) they use a lot of fuel (over 20% of on-road petroleum use); (3) they are most affected by high fuel prices and (4) high fuel costs are passed along to all of us as a hidden tax. The available options are: (1) biodiesel blends (currently warrantees limit this to B20); (2) hybrids (currently very limited); and (3) natural gas. Since natural gas displaces 100% of the petroleum that would otherwise have been used, natural gas is the best alternative to gasoline -- and especially diesel -- in high fuel-use, urban vehicle applications – especially fleet applications – including: transit buses; school buses; trash trucks; airport vehicles (e.g., hotel and door-to-door shuttles); water port vehicles (e.g., drayage trucks and yard hostlers); goods delivery vehicles; and taxis. Natural gas hybrids (including hydraulic hybrids) would be even better.

US Gas Resources: America’s natural gas resource base is huge, and the “economically recoverable” volume of America’s gas resources keeps growing -- as economics and technology change. As an illustration, in 1990 the Potential Gas Agency (the experts) estimated that, in the US, we had 1100 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas resources (i.e., gas that could be produced economically at that time). That is about 58 years of supply at our current rate of consumption. Despite producing over 300 Tcf of that gas since then, in 2007, the Potential Gas Agency estimated that we had 1500 Tcf in gas resources. Importantly, a study by Navigant Consulting published in July, 2008 concluded the real number is closer to 2200 Tcf, primarily because we now know how to produce gas from gas shale economically. This would be 116 years of supply at current US production levels.

Methane Hydrates: There also is the potential of methane hydrates. This is methane (which makes up about 90 percent of natural gas) trapped in ice structures found off of every continent. It is estimated by the US Geological Survey that there is twice as much energy trapped in methane hydrates than in all the oil, coal and natural gas in the world combined. The problem is that we don’t know how to mine it -- yet. But, keep in mind, we didn’t know now to mine gas from shale 15 years ago (see below), and now it’s almost half our resource base. And the Japanese government forecasts that it will producing commercially economic methane from hydrates within 15 years.

LNG: In 2008, we imported 12.3 percent of the natural gas we used. Most of that (11 of the 12.3 percent), came from Canada. And the only reason we imported that much from Canada is that it is cheaper to bring it down to the northern states from Canada than to bring it up from, say, Oklahoma. Further, even though EIA forecasts that natural gas demand in the US will grow, EIA forecasts that, because the low price and large resource natural gas resource base in the US, imports will decline from 12.3 percent in 2008 to less than 3 percent in 2030. (So … Sabre-jenn’s point about Canadian gas is irrelevant.)

Why will this happen ? Because, unlike with oil, the US is not tied to world natural gas prices. We can produce an increasing amount of natural gas in the US at $8 per MMBtu. Except for one small exception, there is no way to export natural gas from North America. As a result, while the world price of LNG has been about $20 per MMBtu, the average US price is now below $5. We have several LNG terminals in the US to import liquefied natural gas. Unfortunately for them, they can’t compete with the low US prices, and, therefore, are only operating at about 20% capacity – and that’s need just to keep the terminals from shutting down. The US EIA forecasts that, because of our huge natural gas resource base, US natural gas prices will not get above about $8 per MMBtu through 2030.

Why is that $8 per MMBtu number so important? Because it is at that dollar amount that gas from shale becomes economic. As gas prices drop below $8, gas availability drops slowly as the more expensive traditional wells are taken off line. Above $8, huge amounts of gas from shale become economic and becomes available. So, we have sort of a kinked supply-price curve that settles at $8 for a long time. As long as world gas prices stay high (which everyone expects) and as long as American producers can’t export LNG into the world market (I can’t see Congress or the Administration telling the public that the big fight we just had over OCS gas and oil was just to send the gas to Japan), LNG imports will continue to be a non-issue.

Renewable energy: Renewable energy for vehicles doesn’t just mean ethanol, biodiesel or electricity. It also includes biomethane (i.e., renewable natural gas). DOE did a preliminary study 10 years ago that concluded that from animal waste, sewage and landfill gas alone, we could reasonable produce 1.25 quadrillion Btus of biomethane PER YEAR. That’s equivalent to about 6% of the natural gas we use in this country (and since almost ¼ of all the primary energy we used is natural gas, that’s a lot) or about 10 billion gallons of gasoline equivalent. Since we are excellent at producing sewage, garbage, and animal waste, I would expect that number to grow. This number doesn’t include food, other commercial and industrial wastes, which would add to this amount. The really big biomethane number comes from cellulosic biomethane. The Europeans – led by the Swedes -- are very high on this. In fact, Sweden’s goal is to displace ALL the natural gas used in the country with biomethane, as well as a large portion of petroleum for vehicles. The Swedes say that making biomethane from energy crops is twice as energy productive per hectare as making any other biofuel – and they say that it’s much less expensive. That might change if there are big breakthroughs in cellulosic ethanol enzymes, but it’s true for the foreseeable future. There’s also an Austrian project that is making biomethane from corn. I’m not a big food-to-energy guy, but they say that their project is three times more energy productive per hectare than any corn ethanol facility. An NGV can’t tell the difference between biomethane and natural gas (chemically the same). So … as soon as we begin making more biomethane in the US, we can begin blending it with natural gas. This would be similar to blending biodiesel with petroleum diesel or ethanol with gasoline – but the natural gas is cleaner burning and domestic.

Oh … in answer to the inevitable question “If it’s so great, how come we aren’t making more biomethane here in the US?” Well … actually the amount is growing. But the real barrier is the federal government. Right now, if you make biogas (raw biomethane) from any waste source and make electricity on-site, you get a big tax credit. If you do anything else with the biogas (including making biomethane -- or even making electricity off-site, you get nothing). It’s not surprising than that most biogas projects are biogas-to-electricity-... projects – even if they don’t make economic sense sans tax credit. There is a coalition of organizations lobbying to change that, and a bill has been introduced in the Senate (S.306) and about to be introduced in the House to rectify that.

Sabre-jenn Comment re: Economics: When gasoline is $1.50 per gallon, it’s difficult for an alt fuel to compete. But contrary to your assertion, UPS and others have found that NGVs are very economical. In fact, UPS announced this week that they just deployed 300 new CNG delivery trucks.

DDannywms re: Ford/GM: You make the point that Ford and GM made NGVs in the US but they “stopped selling CNG-fueled vehicles … because they were not selling enough.” If you use that argument about any of their vehicles today, they should close their doors. In turns out that these were extraordinarily inept marketing efforts (I know you’re surprised). Did you ever see a Ford or GM commercial for their natural gas products similar to their SUV ads? No … because they never did any. This was a hobby for them, and coupled with cheap gasoline, was doomed to fail given how they tried to market them.

DDannywms re: NGV Stations: Obviously, you’re an old Amoco man (or possible Shell). The failed model the NGV industry once used for stations was the “IF-we-build-it-they-w... model. No one (except governments) can afford that approach anymore. The model used today is the “Shopping-Mall” model. When you build a shopping mall, you may have 200 stores to sell. But you only care about the three anchor stores. Once you get them, you build the mall, and fill in with the small stores later. That’s how privately financed public station are now built. You first must identify a large anchor fleet to get you close to economic breakeven. Then you build the stations and fill in with smaller fleets or individuals. That’s why large vehicle fleets are so important. If we ever see commercially available hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, they will run into the same problem.

Feb 22 08:05 PM

[AlexS:]

"Jimmy Carter’s excellent energy policy reduced foreign oil imports by 50% between 1977 and 1982." The numbers might be accurate but your conclusion is incorrect at best. What actually happened is that Richard Nixon imposed price controls on oil and gas in 1971. Oil imports rose from 0.4 billion barrels in 1971 to their medium term high of 2.4 billion barrels in 1979, the year Carter introduced a "phased" withdrawl of oil price controls, although U.S. oil production was essentially flat at from 1979-1981. Carter, thankfully, was beaten by Ronald Reagan, who in 1981 simply removed controls entirely. Imports were down each year from 1980 to 1983, up again in 1984, then down to a local low in 1985 of 1.2 billion barrels. After that they returned to their more normal upward curve that had been established prior to price controls. You can see a nice graph and observe the Nixon/Ford/Carter price control import hump (it's very easy to see) at:

tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...

Feb 24 01:15 PM

[AlexS:]

The other thing specifically about natural gas is I suspect it would be more economical to build gas-to-liquids plants and plan on converting natural gas to gasoline (and diesel). You wouldn't really need to change the infrastructure or the vehicles, and it would cut imports. The big problem would probably be getting around regulatory and NIMBY hurdles.

Feb 24 01:27 PM

[User 364202:]

A temporary fix of 50 to 80 years before we run out of natural gas reserves is a waste of time and money. I manage a large fleet and have been in this industry for over 40 years. Yes, I can make a car run on natural gas. From my studies, I believe I can make a car run on cow farts. So the question is not, "Can I make this work?” the question is, "What changes in our infrastructure will produce a sustainable future?".

Natural gas has been used in various transportation experiments over the past 100 years. It does not work well and presents a number of expensive problems. I am not going to repeat them here as they are easy to look up. Given all the very smart people that have tried this; if natural gas were the perfect transportation fuel we would already be using it! Right!

If you wish to keep running down this technological dead-end, there is one important fact that the snake oil salesmen never mention that must be considered, this is, the value of natural gas for home heating and cooking. If you use up your supply of natural gas driving to work, what will you use to economically heat your home and cook your food?

Instead of fixing a problem that clearly needs attention, how we fuel our vehicles in the future, you will force another problem and its related expenses on the home owner. How will we heat our homes and cook our food after the natural gas runs out? Oh yeah, and how will we operate all those natural gas cars when the natural gas runs out in 50 to 80 years?

Of course, I believe it has been proven that you can cook your dinner on a cow fart fueled Bar-B-Q grill!

:o)

Feb 25 12:41 PM