Michael Fitzsimmons

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

Vern Wheatley: perhaps i wasn't clear with my methods: what i did was figure out how many miles were driven by the 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline burned in the US every day (assuming 25 mpg vehicles) and calculated how much nat gas would be required to replace those gasoline miles (based on the honda civic specs). i translated those miles into civic GX equivalent tankfuls so i could more easily calculate the number of cu ft of nat gas needed to replace gasoline miles with natural gas miles given a real world example (actually, the only commerically available NGV for consumers). so, this method doesn't assume that everyone drives 200 miles a day, it just uses the capacity of a honda civic GX tank to conveniently calculate the total natural gas required to replace US daily gasoline consumption. thanks.

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

pragmattist: thanks - not sure why google didn't pick that up! that said, i should have known anyway. here is a working link to the ACES draft document:

energycommerce.house.g...

all 648 pages of it (!). here is a 5 page summary document:

energycommerce.house.g...

notice under "Clean Fuels and Vehicles" the summary does not even mention NGVs but does mention electric vehicles and "advanced biofuels". i am not impressed with the summary at all. it is certainly not natural gas centric, and i don't think it does much at all to reduce foreign oil imports. sigh. i am afraid it is more of the same from washington DC...it is clear they are still approaching energy policy from the enviornmental standpoint rather than from the more urgent standpoint of the huge economic and national security risks of the US relying on foreign oil imports for 60% of its supply. imho, their priorities are completely backwards. i honestly believe that i could have written a 3 page document that would have been more valuable to the country than the 648 pages in ACES. i either have a over-inflated ego, or that document simply won't accomplish what america so desparately needs - a significant reduction in foreign oil imports within 5 years. am i missing something here? hefner gives a great summary of what we should be doing in his book "The GET". thanks for the post and motivating me to read ACES. that said, i think i have already decided it misses the mark by a mile. but, i will continue to read it - perhaps i will find some good NG stuff in there.

Landtech: thanks alot for your support. you wrote some nice lines there yourself, and i agree with your perspective. i hope my numbers were correct. one thing i wanted to clarify was those columns of differing natural gas reserves types on the EIA website:

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

and fully understand the differences in types (i simply added all the columns together to get the "total reserve" number). after reading the definitions on this EIA webpage:

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

i feel better that adding the columns together was OK to do. the only exception may be the "Natural Gas Liquids", which, depending on the exact definition may or may not have been logical to include. regardless, the volume of NG liquids was the smallest in the table and therefore would not have changed my overall conclusion that US natural gas reserves are abundant. thanks for reading and posting.

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

Al Neider: i took too long to get back to you on some things.
you said "1 lb coal ~ 29.44 CF natural gas and you seemed to infer reaching that ratio from my article. how did you arrive at that number? here is what i get:

EIA says:

1 Short Ton = 20,169,000 Btu (short ton equals 2,000 lbs)
therefore:
1 lb coal = 10,085 Btu

1 cu ft nat gas = 1028 Btu

so, on an energy content basis, 1lb coal = 9.8 cu ft nat gas (not the 29.44 you quoted).

if you are talking about electrical generation basis, from the chart i provided in the article, 1lb coal = 7.4 cu ft nat gas. that is, on an energy content basis per Watt generated, nat gas is much more efficient than is coal.

also, i dont know this for sure, but i cannot imagine it is more costly to simply install a nat gas generator and hook it up to the nat gas grid than it is to build a coal-fired combustion electrical generator, complete with the smokestacks, the rail-road tracks to haul in the coal, and the holding tank to keep all the toxic sludge etc. etc. can you point me to a credible source to back up your opinion?

regardless, the conclusion you reach is that nat gas is 7x more expensive than coal. that ratio is incorrect even before you add the external cost of coal that are being ignored: acid rain, particulate pollution, twice the CO2 emissions of nat ags, health care costs, and tragedies such as that at kingston, TN which basically polluted the entire tennessee river valley.

to convince yourself, you may want to run through the numbers again using the actual Btu content and the true electical generation efficiency numbers of the 2 fuels. use the data on the EIA website. i think you'll discover nat gas is much more competitive with coal than you realize. in my opinion, once you add in the external costs of coal, it's a no brainer: natural gas is far superior to coal when it comes to electrical generation. and i hate to tell you this, but as the electrical grid becomes more intelligent, you're going to see more and more nat gas generators come online because the start/stop characteristics are much more ameniable to use with intermittent wind and solar arrays. natural gas generators will be the renewable energy source's backup power of choice.

Whippet: NO, i would rather afford my electric bill AND eat an occaisional lake trout or walleye (AND drink clean water, AND see healthy forests, AND see clear skies). call me selfish, but yeah, i want all that.

pragmattist: thanks for the encouragement. btw, you lost me on "1st ACES" ...what does that mean? am i on the late show?

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

i think this is the first article i have written to go over the 100 comment mark. thanks all for reading and for contributing with your comments.

Mmarrk: the earth is cooling? is that new material or your regular stand up act? people who let their dislike of al gore prevent them from understanding and believing in global warming are as wrong-headed as those who dislike boone pickens and therefore won't support natural gas transportation. wrt coal, if the true cost of coal were included in the price utilities pay (environmental, heath care), no utility could afford to burn it.

Whippet: you say "Pollution (sulfur, nitrate, heavy metals) has been effectively controlled and technology will continue to improve." i suggest you visit the tennessee valley and talk to the folks at kingston, tn and all the way down the tennessee river and get their thoughts on the subject. the spill happened just last december. i also suggest you take a look at what the number of states that no longer have one body of water in which it is safe to eat fish. those who downplay the significance of such realities either aren't aware of the half-life of mercury, or simply chose to ignore the consequences.

old wizard: yes, we are on agreement with priorities. as far as staying on message with NG transportation, and leaving coal out of the discussion, you bring up a good point and one i struggle with. one thing i have learned on SA is that focusing on the main priority (in my case, NG transportation) is always better than bringing up devisive and controversial issues such as politics, religion, and yes global warming. but i do stray from time to time (ok, i stray alot). however, perhaps it is the fly-fisherman in me that looks around at the devastation coal has inflicted on our lakes, streams, and rivers and, well, i suppose i have decided to fully embrace nat gas in the electric generation market as well. note i fully support wind and solar. however, we've discussed realistic timelines in energy policy, and as long as nat gas generation is the preferred backup to wind/solar intermittency, let's go ahead and replace coal combustion too. i actually think the case to use natural gas in both the transportation and electric generation markets is so strong and so logical, that we will see both happen. all that said, my priority is foreign oil addiction, and i have been trying to limit my controversial comments on politics and global warming, but sometimes i get challenged on them and i have to comment (i.e. "fire chu").

AD: as i said before, if people like yourself cannot see the obvious impacts of peak oil and global warming, and since you apparently don't believe expert data proving the same, i doubt seriously any article i write would influence you in the least - especially since you have written about my lack of writing skills. so, instead of repeating your same thoughts about me personally and my writing style ad nauseum, why not stick to commenting on the issue of the article itself: in this case, US natural gas supplies and reducing foreign oil imports. THAT is the issue: reducing foreign oil imports. please, try fixating on that issue instead of on me. if you did so, your posts would be much more constructive.

oldwizard: thanks for your support - i do appreciate it. luckily, there are enough people like you who "get it" such that comments from the others roll off me like water off a duck.

pragmattist: we can only hope crysler learned some things re NGVs in their discussions with fiat. wrt the GSA buying more fuel-efficient cars, wouldn't it be great if these cars were electric/nat gas hybrids? your article on chu: note he keeps talking about "clean coal" every chance he gets. i still think he should be fired. why the US government continues to prioritize the environment over foreign oil addiction is beyond me. the most urgent national security issue is peak oil and foreign oil addiction. the environmental benefits of the only fuel that can be scaled up to signicantly reduce foreign oil imports (natural gas), are evident and merely reinforce it as the best viable solution. i have long felt (and have written to many enviornmentalist about the issue) that focusing on such a divisive issue as global warming (although i certainly believe it is a problem) may be hampering progress. if we focus on the economic and natiional security issues of foreign oil addiction, every patriotic american should agree its a problem that needs to be urgently addressed, whether they believe in global warming or not. of course the natural gas solution to both foreign oil addiction and global warming addresses both issues. anyhow, thanks for the pertinent links - you're obviously a voracious reader.

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

ArtfulDodger: one thing we both can agree on is that i wouldn't get far convincing you. my main goal is not to "save the planet" from environmental issues, but to protect the US from the consequences of peak oil. it just so happens the solution i have zeroed in on (nat gas transportation) also has a superior environmental profile as compared to coal and gasoline. but i am sure you'd argue that point as well.

pragmattist: excellent WSJ article! i'm going to drop the author an email and congratulate him on a job well done. i grew up in louisiana and have a buddy living just north of shreveport. his dad has 200 acres of farmland directly over the haynesville shale. unfortunately, the boom went bust just as the nat gas companies were approaching this parcel of land and the royalty offer was not made. now, my buddy and his dad are just patiently waiting. i haven't read the other articles yet, but i will. wrt tariffs, foreign oil import tariffs may make some sense, but i have sometimes wondered if increasing gasoline taxes might be better to raise revenue for non-oil based transportation initiatives and at the same time discourage gasoline consumption (70% of US oil consumption is in the transportation sector). either way would certainly have the desired effect: a reduction of foreign oil imports.

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

beegdawg007: certainly burning NG creates CO2, but as i have oft stated, the US burns 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline every day, each gallon creating 19lbs of CO2. if we can save 20-30% of that CO2, that is a *huge* reduction in CO2 on a yearly basis. just as important, NG has none of the toxic particulates of gasoline. so, i fully embrace the environmental issue of NG transportation, because these are savings that we can actually get, instead of wishing for a 100% EV that isn't here yet. NG is the bridge to a fully renewable and hydrogen based energy economy. price per btu is going to get better and better as oil prices increase, and nat gas supplies increase: the historical ratio of oil and nat gas, i believe, has changed with the shale supply and the realization that there is *alot* of nat gas out there. wrt coal/nat gas as an electrical generation fuel, i am surprised i didn't get your feedback much earlier in the comment section because it is a critical point and why duke energy CEO said what he did on 60 minutes the other night. however, i still believe if the gov subsidies for coal were added to the environmental and health care costs of burning such a toxic fuel, natural gas would be cheaper. how can we put a cost on destroying lakes, rivers and streams? how can we live with the fact there are many states in which there is not one fresh water body where it is safe to eat a fish out of? what price do you put on having mercury in municipal water supplies? in my opinion, these are abominations, and it must be stopped if we want to sustain our country for our kids and grandkids. we must start taking long-term considerations into effect as opposed to next month's utility bill being the highest priority consideration. not sure i agree that china doesn't have enough nat gas...perhaps not producing today, but reserves. i would bet they do. not as confident about india. as far as CO2 being a red herring, i simply disagree. the scientific data is in, and i dont even like wasting time on that issue any more: let's focus on reducing foreign oil imports by using US produced NG and we'll begin reducing CO2 emissions at the same time. i also don't agree with your statement on water vapor.

john gordon: yeah, the proof for me about CO2 levels creating global warming was the time-dating of the ice-core samples showing exponential growth in CO2 levels starting at roughly the beginning of the industrial revolution. the levels and growth were without historical precendence. the data was confirmed by multiple independent and international scientific organizations. further data clearly showed the effects of these man made emissions on climate. on these two points, the vast majority of reputable scientists around the world are in agreement. unfortunately, rush limbaugh and others keep producing bogus "scientific experts" who are likely getting paid by the same people who pay him to pontificate how its all a big ruse by the "greenies". meanwhile, the polar caps melt, glacier national park is considering a new name, the oceans rise, the hurricanes spawn, and the droughts continue. you'd have to be deaf dumb and blind not to observe the environmental changes just in the past 20 years. the naysayers say simply "it's cyclical". of course weather is cyclical, but they don't seem to understand you can have a cyclical wave around an exponentially increasing base curve....

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

pragmatic: wrt night time electricty, rather than attempt to store it, perhaps it would be more prudent to not generate it to begin with. i'm not being flippant, just suggesting that we tighten the control knobs on electricity generation. certainly wind and solar are harder to control as they are intermittant and dependent on weather. now, that is why i strongly favor natural gas generation over coal. coal plants require substantial start up and shut down latencies. not so with natural gas generation - they are fast start, fast to shut down. now, as you are aware, there must always be supply margin generation capability so that demand is always satisified. as electric generation and grid power control systems get refined and are more capable, we ought to be able to control our generation capability such that there are not big time electrical generation over-supply periods, either day or night, that must be satisfied by burning coal, or, put in a position which the energy is stored or lost. long answer, but that is my thought process on that. as far as your previous posts and ideas, i find your thinking constructive, helpful, and encourage your contributions. *thinking* and debating keeps your braincells healthy and active, and who knows, you might just be the pragmatic person to come up with a great solution to a big problem.

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

user38554: au contraire - there IS a reason oil is at $50 despite 20 year inventory highs: it's called peak oil. apparently some oil traders still remember 2008's $145/barrel price (most ADD americans apparently do not remember). despite high US inventories, remember, combined with the SPR, what do we have, 60 days supply? 80? these oil inventories would bleed off rapidly if the economy picked up steam. then what happens? the oil industry has shut-in alot of production capacity. E&P budgets have been slashed because of the economic downdraft and subsequent substantial drop in demand. how will supply respond when demand finally picks up? answer: very slowly. oil prices will then rise. china understands this, and china is strategically locking up deliveries now. $50/barrel oil is CHEAP in an era of peak oil! don't forget, despite 2008 oil prices of $145/barrel, production at XOM, CVX, and COP was down year over year. current low oil prices are *not* because large new supplies came online, they are because of a falloff in demand due in large part to the high oil prices of 2008. meanwhile, while i write this, and every night while we sleep, the inconvenient truth of oil reservoir depletion rate arithmetic keeps the oil supply challenge at stage *critical*.

oldwizard: i think our minds met long ago. here are the words straight from my SA profile:

"Peak oil, and not global warming, is the most immediate threat to the human race. Although the solutions generally address both issues, the distinction is one of urgency."

all my research over the last 4 years leads me to the solution of natural gas transportation. since this NG solution also conveniently addresses so many environmental issues, i fully embrace that discussion as well. although i support wind and solar electric generation (and nuclear as well), US produced natural gas is the only fuel that can be scaled up over the next 5 years to

** significantly reduce foreign oil imports **

so, this NG centric strategy wins on all fronts: economically, environmentally, and also from a national security perspective. the key is solving the NGV/refueling chicken-n-egg problem. it would appear obama and chu dont understand this yet, hopefully they will and enable the gov to be, if not part of the solution, at least stop getting in the way. regardless, it is becoming obvious that the nat gas producers and distributors, in partnership with the automotive manufacturers will have to drive (pun intended) this solution by providing economical NG transportation and refueling solutions for middle class americans.

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

to continue the thoughts from my previous comment, i think peak oil and gasoline scarcity will lead to direct government control over who gets the gasoline. for a mobile american society with a large suburban demographic, this will be the ultimate control mechanism for subjugation: effectively allowing the controller of energy to master the middle class. so the root of my support for NG transportation is more than economics or environmental or national security concerns (although those should be enough!), it is really a matter of freedom: freedom to fuel our vehicles and freedom of movement. once the government controls that, our ability to remain a free democracy (which any objective observer would agree has already taken a beating in recent years) will not be possible. the conclusion i reach is that supporting natural gas, is in effect supporting american freedom. i know this sounds like flag waving, which i tend to stay away from, but i firmly believe it. foreign oil or american natural gas? it's our choice. and, our government's choice. to me, it's a no-brainer. however, there are oviously some very powerful people who feel otherwise....

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

pragmattist: i must admit after responding to your earlier post, i reconsidered your word. regardless of whether you are correct or not, i don't think obama and chu should approach energy policy in such a manner. using environmental policy to backdoor energy policy misses the point. supposedly, obama is focused on the economy, and the largest problem the US faces economically is foreign oil dependence. this needs to be articulated to the public, and addressed head on with public support because they understand what is at stake. most americans dont have a clue because they are busy watching american idol and sports and what not. wrt you latests posts, i am a bigger fan of a straight nat gas/electric hybrid ala the toyota concept car referenced in the article (camry electric/nat gas hybrid). think prius with nat gas replacing gasoline (that is, no plug in). use the natural gas directly to recharge the batteries - no need to burn coal to recharge the batteries. that said, your ideas to build that kind of car, put the auto makers to work, have refueling stations at the dealers (something i have contacted honda on with no success...) are good and i would support them. those ideas are a certainly a helluva lot better than using middle class taxpayer receipts (or simply printing dollar bills )to pay bonuses for wealthy (and fraudulent) financial executives.

user385444: my belief is that the "laissez faire" attitude comes from misconceptions and people like kudlow and limbaugh. most americans simply don't understand the extent to which gov is already involved in subsidies to coal and oil, while simultaneously discouraging natural gas. since this has been going on for over 30 years, it is no longer sufficient just to level the playing field: the gov now needs to reverse its subsidies to coal and oil and tax them, and now to support natural gas with incentives and policy measures. as far as "unregulated" and "hands off", i agree with you: just look at what that accomplished in the financial markets: we had federalization of the nation's mortgage, financial, banking, and insurance markets. this happened a supposedly "conservative republican", and was the biggest move toward socialism (actually, fascism...) in the over 200 years history of the country. and i believe the big reason why wasn't only repealing financial regulations (under bill clinton btw), but because of the huge distortions in the US balance of trade due to decades of foreign oil imports. so, yeah, you are correct - to believe the problem of foreign oil addiction can be solved without gov involvement, given the magnitude of the crisis, is an ideological pipe dream. meantime, you have tools like kudlow and limbaugh playing on american policy ignorance and pushing "less government" and distracting them with gay marriage, gun control, etc. etc while the gov robs us blind and funnels money to the 0.01% of already richest americans. that is why limbaugh make $1 million a day, because he helps to funnel billions to the well connected. it's fascism, pure and simply. i lump most of the "tools" on CNBC in that same category. consider pre-WW2 germany: militaristic, control of the media, concentration of wealth, control of the banking system: sound familiar?

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

AlanVon: no worries, i get grumpy too. 500 Tcf for all of the americas? with all due respect, that is a laughable estimate for the US alone. the haynesville shale by itself is probably half that number (250TCF).
6000 TCF for the world?? hell, iran, russia, and the US probably have more than 6000 TCF. if the oil and gas journal are publishing this number (and it would not surprise me), you can tell why "oil" is the first word of the journal's title. perhaps a "natural gas journal" would publish more realistic numbers. i saw the EIA webpate that has has that number, and they still have the US at under 250TCF .....total...that number merely covers haynesville. what about all the other shale formations? what about alaska? that number is a joke, and i don't know how they can publish it with a straight face. but, thank you for posting. it just proves how much work it is going to take to change people (and organiation's) mindsets.

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

OldWizard: i certainly share your sense of urgency. i also agree that chu and obama don't.

Vibrosig: we certainly don't want to exchange our foreign oil import addiction for foreign LNG import addiction.

mark anthony: i disagree: they have found CH4 in granite as well as other non-sedimentary rock. explain how this CH4 was of a fossil fuel origin. you also say "the earth is too small and its gravity pull too weak to trap methane in its atmosphere, let alone allow it to condense in the earth crust". with that kind of logic, no wonder you are not convinced: who cares about the atmosphere? what is the pressure at the bottom of the ocean? what is the pressure at a depth of 5,000 ft? 20,000 ft?? and it *does* matter if natural gas is "only" a fossil fuel, or, if hefner is right (and i believe his logic is powerful) and it also has non-biologic origin. that small fact dramatically increases the area of earth likely to contain natural gas! you really should read hefner's book if you want to debate this issue further. i dont have room nor time to repeat his entire logical case in this forum. that said, it is a powerful case. i can't find fault with it, and i tried to do so.

ripskii: yes, there certainly is alot of nat gas in the world! however, look how much japan pays to import its LNG. this is a USA balance of payments (trade deficit) issue. it's nice to know there is lots of nat gas in the world, but the US needs to get back to WORK and produce its own energy. if we just trade foreign oil imports for foreign nat gas imports we are kissing our sister (ie. not getting any where...)

AD: i own "big oil" stocks, and have for decades. wrt CO2, i am not going to waste my time trying to convince skeptics. if they haven't been convinced by the independent scienfific data and their own observations of the drastic changes the earth is going through, nobody of my stature is going to change their minds one iota. my goal here is not to address the environment, my goal on seeking alpha is to protect the US from the peak oil bullet which is aimed directly between our eyes. to do so, and to reduce CO2 and particulate emissions at the same time is why nat gas is a no brainer.

HenryButtal: i disagree and think it is very logical to close coal plants: they are destroying our water table, our seafood, our environment, and if the disaster at Kingston, TN doesn't prove it is "logical" to close these toxic sludge producers, what would it take? as far as economic sense, take away all the coal subsidies, include the astronomic environmental and health care costs, and natural gas economics will kick coal's butt into the ground where it should stay.

pragmatist: all i know is that a president that repeats "clean coal" as much as obama does, and with secretary of energy chu saying he is "agnostic" about america's largest energy resource, this country is in serious ka-ka....

Andy1234: did you read the article i linked to in a previous article about china's adoption of two-wheeled electric vehicles? if not, you might enjoy it. i'd repost the link but i am short of time at the moment.

iconoclast: all i know is:
1) the natural gas is abundant in the US
2) US engineers have the technology to produce this gas
3) the US is going bankrupt on foreign oil addiction
4) the US environment is deteriorating rapidly
5) the national security risks are critical
6) the cost of oil wars and securing oil transportation is bankrupting the county

if you don't like natural gas transportation, please, tell me your solution to the problems brought about by US foreign oil addition. my energy policy (see website) is the best i can come up with, and i have been working steadily on this for some years now. perhaps i am just ignorant. in that case, show me the way (but please be very specific or i won't be impressed). thanks.

bcncv: thanks for the compliment. i don't need to build in the same energy demand growth rates because my belief is that there is more natural gas than there is oil, and, the same growth rates apply to oil as well. so, if both fuels' consumptions are growing at some rate, then why would we simply not chose the fuel source which there is more of to begin with. that may be a simplistic way to look at it, but see my previous answer to iconoclast: if not nat gas, what? if not now, when? besides, i dont even want to see the growth rates of oil when:

1) we import 60% of it
2) we are in an era of peak oil and worldwide supply is not going to keep pace with worldwide demand (in a functioning economy).

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

Oilfinder: considering the critical economic, environmental, and national security problems facing the US due to its foreign oil addiction, do we have the TIME to educate a Noble prize winning energy secretary? besides, the obama administration (like the bush adminstration) fully understands natural gas's potential, after all, john podesta (a big wheel in obama's team) has read hefner's book and wrote a recommendation on the inside cover of the book! nope, chu needs to go and the president needs to invite some natural gas experts to the table, because this administration is making some disastrous energy decisions, yet they are masking the big errors with some decent wind and solar incentives.

alanvonaltendorf: if engineering doesnt get the natural gas out of the ground, please explain to me what does. if you are unhappy with the USGS estimate, please provide facts and figures to refute it. criticizing something is easy - constructive criticism is a bit harder but much more valuable. you've posted twice now on the USGS estimate but added absolutely nothing to the conversation except "believe me, not them". why should we believe you when you've shown no data to back up your position?

markanthony: i respect simmons, and he has been correctly warning the world about peak oil. however, when it comes to natural gas, who am i going to believe? hefner, CHK, COP, or simmons? i'll go with hef. he's been drilling, exploring, and producing nat gas for over 50 years. he's been completely vindicated on the far reaching estimates he gave back in the 1970s to refute exxon mobil's congressional testimony. ultimately hefner's genius was his ability to disassociate nat gas from the simplistic "fossil fuel" category - that nat gas has a non-biologic origin and is therefore vastly more abundant that historical and traditional petroleum analysis would indicate. simple as that concept is, it was an absolute eye-opening revelation to me. after reading in his book the logic behind his conclusion, i find it hard to debate and believe he is absolutely correct.

charliezap: i wish someone could explain to me why the US would want to use expensive and dirty coal-to-liquids technology when we have abundant reserves of clean and cheap natural gas. it's the same problem i have with "clean coal": if we want to sequestor CO2, why not start with a fuel that has 50% less CO2 to begin with (natural gas) and none of the toxic particulates!!

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

Oilfinder: it is not a typo.

oldwizard: i actually figured as much (you commenting on someone else), i just wanted to clarify. i get misquoted (or misunderstood) so often perhaps i am a bit thin-skinned :) and your last statement is right on. i was shocked when i read what chu said. this article proves he has an agenda....and liberation from foreign oil addiction is not part of it. when will middle class americans figure out that obama is just like bush when it comes to the critical issue: how do we reduce foreign oil imports over the next 5-10 years? my energy policy shows not only how to do it, but how to reduce CO2 and particulate emissions at the same time as well as to put americans to WORK by building an infrastructure that will balance our huge trade deficits, strengthen the US dollar, and pay dividends to all americans for decades. yet, washington sleeps....what a pathetic state of affairs for what was once a great and powerful nation.

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

yank: well, i could start with stem-cell research and the administration's position on climate change. are we still having this conversation? btw, no need to cut-n-paste entire comments, just quote the particular one or refer directly to the commentor. it saves quite *alot* of space and makes it easier for folks to read the comment threads. thx.

experienced: i assume you meant "CNG" or NGVs? well, of course people have looked at fleets for years - municipal fleets, pickens' work, and thats obvious and necessary. however, NG fleets alone aren't going to **significantly reduce foreign oil imports**, which is or at least should be, the real goal here. wrt CTL, why do all that work when you have a fuel (natural gas) that can power cars and trucks with no expensive processing? i like your last paragraph.

MarkitWacha: would you please refrain from copying and pasting my comments (or anyone elses) completely over again? it makes this comment section overly long, increases SA's memory requirements, make browsers slower..etc. etc. just refer to the commentor by username, or, cut n paste a signficant quote or two. thanks.

John Weiler: i agree.

ripskii: then what? well, if anything about human evolution is certain is that whatever happens in 50-100 years won't be what we expect or can imagine today. that said, i do expect more efficient solar and wind designs. i do hope that hydrogen fuel cell technology is viable. i hope that hydrogen fusion is a reality. one thing i firmly believe: if we don't deal with peak oil and foreign oil addiction in the next 5-10 years, the US as we know it won't be participating 50-100 years from now...at least not in any way shape or form as the "U.S.A". i agree we need to license and build state-of-the-art nuclear plants. honestly, i am not knowledgable at the current moment on what the perfect nuke technology or plant looks like or the waste handling. i intend to learn soon. as far as coal combustion generating radioactive waste - you are correct. i talked to a woman who viewed the emory river the night after the disaster at Kingston, TN and she said it glowed in the dark a very weird green color. scary stuff!

Andy: "pretty corrupt"? heh heh, well, i think that's an understatement considering the last few years, dont you? it's fascism is what it is. anyhow, point by point:
1) agree, printing money with nothing to back it up (as we have been doing and now it is on hemroids...errr..stero...
2) every citizen can't vote? not a fan of democracy huh? zoweee
3) what about building interstate hwy system? railroads? telegraph lines? gov has a role..and since it created this oil/coal nightmare, they need to play a role in fixing it (imho).

Oilfiner: wow, i hadn't seen that quote from mcclendon. glad you mentioned methane hydrates - i kept thinking i would get criticized for the way i simply added all the different forms of nat gas listed on the EIA website, yet you are the first to mention it. regardless, i am in agreement with you about vast shale and unknown natural gas reserves in the US. after having read hefner's book (have you? if not, you would really enjoy it by the sound of your comments), his logic is hard to refute, and the recent shale discoveries and production results vindicated his testimony to congress back in the 1970's when he called "bs" on exxon's opinion that nat gas had or would soon peak.

Andy1234: yeah, we saw what "unregulated" government has accomplished over the last 8 years: the nationalization of the banking, insurance, financial, and mortgage markets paid for by the middle class taxpayers. this fraudulent call for "laissez faire" economics should be called what it really is in this "modern" world of doublespeak: fascism. no sir, government created this oil/coal mess, and the problem is now of such massive magnitude and criticality it is going to take the government to help get us out of the mess. in other words, our solution to foreign oil addiction, like all the friggin banks they are shoveling money at, is "too big to fail".

fran: long time no see, i still remember your "now what"? comment from months ago. yes, stephen leeb's oil factor should be read by every american. now, after what has happened, that book appears to be a history book written prior to the history, it is amazingly accurate at predicting oil price movement, geopolitical strategy, what incompetent US policymakers would do, and the housing bubble. i have not read his GAME OVER, but the title sounds like he thinks its too late to effectively deal with peak oil. he may be right. certainly obama and chu aren't going to help if their first 100 days is any indication.

jackkreg: well, NG aleady IS around: there is a 2.2 million mile pipeline grid going to every major metropolitan area and connects to 63,000,000 homes...this grid and vast US natgas reserves are the best weapon against foreign oil imports that the US has! we just need the NGVs and CNG refueling devices (chicken-n-egg).

MarkAnthony: the author didn't just "throw in an astronomical number", that is the ***USGS*** estimate (100,000-300,000,000TCF). should i believe you rather than the USGS? where are your numbers? note that this estimate is a *range* ..from 100,000 to 300,000,000....conside... the US alone could have 3,000 TCF, and considering the vast reserves of countries in the middle east and elsewhere and that many regions of the world have not been explored or mapped, the USGS estimate looks quite rational to me, whereas your response looks a bit irrational and full of emotion: you say a "cube of 2040 kilograms on each side". my friend, kilogram is a unit of *weight* not a unit of *length*. you are clearly out of your area of expertise.

oilfinder: now THAT is some good feedback. i need to research this a bit and get back to you. meantime, why are the other forms of nat gas not counted as reserves?

Andy1234: good luck educating cleopatra. as far as your growth rate is concerned, it would take the US years simply to convert cars and trucks and power generation over to natural gas. so, it is not so simply as you describe to figure out how long the reserves would last. secondly, i think US nat gas reserves will be much closer to hefner's estimate (3,000 TCF) than the 742 quoted here. regardless, when you do cyphering on issues such as this, please do the same for foreign oil and let me know what your answer comes to for 25 years out. now THAT is some scary math...

OilFinder: good action! keep that data coming! thank you.

markanthony: you don't seem to understand what the USGS estimate is about. just calm down for a second and think about what the USGS is attempting to do: estimate the planet's total nat gas reserves. that is why there is a huge range - imagine trying to estimate the entire planet's reserves when the US alone has been way off (way too low) at estimating the most intensely explored and mapped and geologically understand land on the face of the earth. you say the author is confused, but i can tell you this much: unlike yourself, the author fully understands that the sides of a cube are not measured in kilograms. perhaps you can get the editors at seeking alpha to remove that comment of yours, because it documents just which one of us is "confused".