Mmarrkk

Recycling U.S. Coins into Silver

Fitz: one thing to be concerned about with LNG is the overall low low cost of incremental production. Once the liquifaction plant, ships and re-gas plants are built and financed, the cost to run the Middle East plants and get the gas to the U.S. shore is dirt cheap. Think less than $3/mmBtu. Imports are down right now (thank goodness) due to there being other markets. If the Europe market dries up, then LNG will hit our shores and will displace some of the more expensive gas.

Now, overall, that won't kill off the general premise of using Nat Gas for transport; LNG will keep the price low for a while. But it does get us back into a dependency we'd rather not have. Going forward, big LNG exporters will be Qataris, Iranians, Russians and Australians. Only one of which I feel totally comfortable with!

Why Is Congress Agnostic About Natural Gas?

Right ON Mr. Orr.

Why Is Congress Agnostic About Natural Gas?

Obamma has bigger priorities...free healthcare to his major constituency groups..."cash for clunkers" so that we turn perfectly good, functioning vehicles into scrap...Cap'n'Tax so that we penalize refineries and make greenies happy...raising income and death taxes. He just can't get around to making natural gas a big piece of his grand plan. Plus, no one in his administration has positioned themselves just yet to reap big profits from N.G. Give them some time to load up the boat then he'll push it! Probably waiting on Charlie Rangel and Mr. Geitner to get fully invested and to figure out a way to cheat on their taxes when they make profit!

Seriously, I just don't think he gets it...plus he's still in the pocket of Coal!

Oil Is Still the Key to U.S. Economic Future

ripskii: increasing pressure on gas lines will increase the capacity a bit but not a huge amount. And there are a lot of problems with increasing the pressure! First, most pipelines operate close to the max operating pressure so there are mechanical/safety issues. Second, in order for the pressure to be increased, there has to be some compression to boost that pressure. Compression takes money and it takes time to build and install. Third, when the pressure increases, it increases the back pressure on the wells that produce into the system. As back pressure increases, the production rates of the wells drops, decreasing the volume produced. So, either overall production will fall or we will have to install more compression. See second concern above!

As storage fills and reaches capacity, you will see the pipeline pressures start to increase all by themselves. This results in "backing out" wells that are lower pressure. Its kind of a natural curtailment to production when we are producing too darned much!


On Aug 04 10:58 AM ripskii wrote:

> Fitz: I've been wondering what the effect of the U.S. gas storage
> capacity reaching the full status will have on the industry production
> and pricing? You can see that current excess production going into
> storage is reaching record proportions. When we reach "full" it will
> also have a big impact on where to store the large increases in LNG
> projects coming on line in the near term. I've read somewhere that
> if present trends continue our capacity will reach full in a a fairly
> short time. I've even heard that capacity can be expanded by increasing
> pressure in the gas lines. Any thoughts on this?
>
> www.americanoilman.com/

Oil Is Still the Key to U.S. Economic Future

Fitz: welcome back!

LNG: once the LNG liquifaction plants and re-gas plants are constructred, those huge capital investments are "sunk costs" and the profitability is based on incremental operating costs. The cost to buy gas in Qatar, liquify it, ship it to the US and re-gas it are very low...in the $2-3 range. Remember, Qatar gas is so plentiful it makes the shale plays look small! So, with a $2-3 cost, yes LNG is competitive. And someone above was right, these LNG plants in the Middle East have contracts that allow/force them to get this gas over to the US market if other markets won't take the LNG.

I think LNG will be a factor, but it won't be a doomsday factor as I once thought and others are thinking. Other markets are starting to improve and will relieve some of the pressure!

Boone's delaying the wind farm project is a very good example of why it will be a long time before wind and solar and other alternative energy supplies are competitive with oil/gasoline/coal/dies... gas. The market just isn't there yet.

Hope...fading. Change...all I have left after taxes! The new Obama as Heath Ledger's Joker poster...priceless! As our Bought-and-Paid-For Congressmen/women and Senators come home for summer recess, let's all make an all out effort to get around to their town hall meetings and give them a piece of our minds. Let them know that energy policy is important and it doesn't look like Crap-And-Trade. That Natural Gas is vital to our future. And that we don't want GM-Chrysler Health Insurance/Healthcare.

Energy Investing: Natural Gas Looks Especially Interesting

Laughing: I'd love for your scenario to come true but looking at production, demand and storage figures, we are still seeing way too much gas. The folks in the Haynesville and the Marcellus aren't cutting back on their drilling and the production glut is still where it was back in January. I see prices at $6 or so going into the winter of 2010!

Energy Investing: Natural Gas Looks Especially Interesting

Oh, my above comments aren't meant to be a slam on the recommendation of SWN...they are a great company and a screaming buy for the LONG TERM, but the premise given in the article is fundamentally flawed! Or at least tainted with ignorance on his part.

Energy Investing: Natural Gas Looks Especially Interesting

Marc:

You quoted that guy saying that SWN has a huge piece of LNG. Have you checked that out? I'm thinking that guy is completely wrong! I looked over their web page and found nothing even closely resembling a linkage to LNG other than the fact that SWN produces natural gas.

Since the guy is so completely off base and factually incorrect on such an elementary point, can he really be trusted as a financial analyst?? When all it takes is the worldwide web and a quick visit to a company's web page to do very elementary research (or maybe pre-school research), and this guy gets it wrong, then I'm guessing his credentials as an analyst are pretty shaky at best.

If I were you, I'd research the guys I quote in my article. This guy is out to lunch!

My Thoughts on Oil

Crocodilian: I have to agree with Fitz on this. Chu is a loser when it comes to energy policy. His concern about diverting nat gas away from power gen, etc. is so outdated its hilarious. Has he checked the gas storage reports lately? Maybe he should start reading those EIA reports every now and then. We have estimates of QUAD's of gas in the Marcellus and Haynesville (not BCF, not TCF but QCF's). Maybe that's getting a bit frothy but the point is we have huge resources. Companies aren't even drilling them right now due to the lack of market demand and storage. Why do you think all of these companies have cut way back on their drilling budgets and some companies are shutting in wells and/or curtailing production?

Chu might be a boy wonder genious scientist, but he's just not very practical nor knowledgable.

I agree with Fitz: Fire Chu Now!! And Fire His Boss Too!!! We can only dream!!!! (sorry Fitz, couldn't pass up a "bash Bobomma" moment).

My Thoughts on Oil

jan300: leaking CO2...if it gets to the water formations we'll call it Perrier and make a killing!!

My Thoughts on Oil

Fitz: agree that Fiat's selling the NGV and that's great. Its just that their legacy doesn't give me a warm fuzzy on quality or meeting the needs. "Fix It Again Tony" was well-deserved! I owned a couple of those little Fiat's way back when. Why two?? Because you had one in the shop on a monthly basis so you needed a spare!!

I'd much prefer the Honda NGV be widely available but they seem to think limiting the market for this is a good idea???

How about Honda buys out GM and starts work on a NGV Suburban, Acadia and/or Silverado? Now there's a product line I could get behind. Of course, that would violate that new CAFE standard edict that will soon be stuffed down our throats or up some other body orifice. But maybe they could build a bunch of those toy cars that someone else could buy and even out the averages! I'm sure not buying those little junksters.

My Thoughts on Oil

Andy1234: Directionally you are right regarding US-based oil/gas companies with respect to falling dollar. However, if you look at international oil/gas companies like BP, Total, Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, etc., they are international companies but sell a product based on the US Dollar (oil). And many of them have costs that are tied to US Dollar as well. So they tend to move in tandem with their US counterparts like XOM, COP, CVX, etc. Plus, the US-based companies all have huge portions of their operations in international locations. XOM has a majority of their income from international sources as do others.

But if you are banking on a collapsing dollar, oil should prosper. And who wouldn't bank on the collapse of the dollar? We are printing greenbacks like toilet paper, our budget has blown up and we now own that crappy company GM in partnership with the villains who put them there...the UAW. The only other more dismal partnership than a US Govt/UAW partnership is the Fiat/Chrysler/UAW partnership...crappy Italian management combined with crappy engineering combined with excessive labor costs!! And with a bunch of marxist gov't officials...can't wait to see their first product off the assembly line. It will probably be a high top tennis shoe sized little clown car that plugs into the wall, gets a bazillion miles to the gallon, but only goes 3 miles and is a rolling casket for anyone in it when it encounters another vehicle...or a bike!

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

Dang it. just paste the following after entering the "www." info in your browser bar:

.examiner.com/x-1586-B...


On May 01 09:52 AM Mmarrkk wrote:

> One of the links above got busted. It should read
>
> "www.examiner.com/x-158...~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are...
>
>
> www.examiner.com/x-158...~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are...

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

One of the links above got busted. It should read

"www.examiner.com/x-158...~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are...

www.examiner.com/x-158...~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are...

Is There Enough Natural Gas?

Not part of a stand up routine...just part of a growing amount of SCIENTIFIC DATA that disputes the conventional wisdom being pasted across the national and international news. Here is a link to a graph of global temp data. Notice the DECLINE in temperature??

www.nationalpost.com/8...

My point: there are scientists who are skeptics; not all agree on the concept. Taking all of the global warming "stuff" at face value is dangerous, particularly when it leads to ridiculous things like Cap and Trade legislation which will bankrupt our country. Our economy might overcome 8 years of overspending by Bush, it might, just might, overcome all of the social engineering giveaways coming from the Chosen ObammaOne, but it dang well won't overcome Cap and Trade.

Here is a snippet from another article:

"A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year."

Here's the article: www.telegraph.co.uk/co...

And here are a few more:

www.examiner.com/x-158...~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are...

www.dailytech.com/A+Me...

wnd.com/index.php?fa=P...

canadafreepress.com/20...