"We're going to be able to say in the next 10 years, to hell with OPEC," Chesapeake's (CHK)...

"We're going to be able to say in the next 10 years, to hell with OPEC," Chesapeake's (CHK) Aubrey McClendon says in asserting the rise of natural gas as the most viable alternative to foreign oil. Atlas Energy's (ATLS) Edward Cohen echoes the sentiment: "We've seen a five percentage point increase in the share of electrical generation from gas. Within five years we should be very close to 50%."
From other sites
Comments (8)
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
    And what about the other 50%, Aubrey?...
    27 Mar 2012, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • JOMICA38
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
    Coal, Hydro, Nuclear, Geo-thermal, Wind and Solar --no oil.
    27 Mar 2012, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1455) | Send Message
    not with the current political leaders who are saying to hell with US natural resources
    27 Mar 2012, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • Stoploss
    , contributor
    Comments (1713) | Send Message
    Meanwhile back at the ranch, ngas has taken out the '09 low.


    Pretty soon, they will be paying us to take it off their hands!
    27 Mar 2012, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • Devlin McGregor
    , contributor
    Comments (129) | Send Message
    I'd like to say to hell with his map collection.
    27 Mar 2012, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • Gary Jakacky
    , contributor
    Comments (2946) | Send Message
    America's energy use per unit of real GDP has been declining for decades; its the changes at the margin that are most important. Once OPEC loses its grip on the west, oilwise, the Arabs will return to the third world status they have held for centuries. Leaving out oil revenue, for which they should receive no credit for innovation, the entire GDP of Pak-to-Riff-istan is about the size of Sweden.
    27 Mar 2012, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3527) | Send Message
    Isn't the EPA ready to shut down natural gas production because of environmental concerns about fracking?
    27 Mar 2012, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • mewstone
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
    Chesapeake has a funding gap because of rock bottom natural gas prices. When prices cover costs again (don't say that won't happen) the power utilities will wish they had some good old nukes to fall back upon. And America has a ton or two of coal at hand and the means to burn it cleanly, probably at less cost than $10 nat gas which is where we came into the shale gas frenzy. Remember that and why?


    We know volatility is good for financial markets but oil and gas companies need to work with the financial plays and not get buried by them.
    27 Mar 2012, 02:55 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs