[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hughj', 'W')elcome to PO, Logic. Honored to respond to your first post. I'm excited to hear someone
here using the word "solution" in a sentence.

I really don't feel qualified to second-guess the IEA's math. If it ends up being somewhat
less than 250 years, I'm good with that, as will my daughter, and my future grandchildren.

Now between you and me, just as technology has broadened the time horizon of natural
gas, don't you think it is going to do the same for other petroleum products? In the 1860's,
oil production meant what could be scooped off the surface and packaged. Then it meant
what was available in the US at a depth of 500 feet. Then we got to 2000 feet. Then 5000.
Then injection for recovery. Then Middle East oil, South America, Alaska. Now we are
drilling below the basement rocks for both gas and oil. Fracking, oil sand, shale,hydrites.......
Hubbert would be proud, wouldn't he?

I am hopeful about the future.

Hugh

[GoIllini]

Sure, shale gas is a good option when we can be fairly responsible about its extraction. Obviously, I do have some concerns about the watershed that we're trying to extract it from.

More importantly, though, we still have to find a way off of oil. And this is the perfect opportunity to get electric cars like the Volt working- and have them running on electricity from gas-fired turbines and hopefully also nuclear reactors, wind, and one day space-based solar or fusion.

Shale gas in some ways gave us a second-chance. Let's not blow it this time- we need an energy policy that encourages plug-in cars so we can more gracefully transition to another energy technology- so we at least have more options when the Texas shale gas starts to run out and we have to consider whether or not we want to tap the Marcellus and risk polluting even more important watersheds for agriculture and consumption.

[Logic]

Thank you for the welcome:)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hughj', '.')..
I really don't feel qualified to second-guess the IEA's math. If it ends up being somewhat
less than 250 years, I'm good with that, as will my daughter, and my future grandchildren.

[Poordogabone]

This gas story is nothing but ... gas. especially coming from the IEA who have a notorious history of being wrong and unrealistically optimistic in their forecasts.
The solution: use much less of everything. forget growth, concentrate on prosperity with the dwindling resources that we have left.
What you think is good news seems to be prolonging an unsustainable way of life at great environmental costs.
I personally hope that future generations will still use oil and natural gas a thousand years from now but use it wisely and not blow it all up like a bunch of greedy monkeys.

[Serial_Worrier]

Cornucopia is here!

[peeker01]

Makes no sense.......

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/195847/ ... energy.htm

[babystrangeloop]

Explanations (or very dry humor, it's hard to tell these days without asking) of sections of the article linked above:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Why Is Oil's Price So High Compared to Natural Gas?
By IBTimes Staff Reporter / International Business Times / August 10, 2011

If, as an investor, motorist, or reader, you're perplexed and surprised by the continuing anomaly in the oil/natural gas relationship, joing the club.

The background/lowdown: Oil historically trades at about 8 times the price of natural gas. Currently it is trading at 20.4 times natural gas.

[peeker01]

You are delusional Loopie. We used to use oil to make electricity.......we don't anymore.
We used to power our buses with diesel.......not much anymore........10 million cars worldwide
use compressed natural gas and not oil........home heating is much cheaper on nat gas.......more and more common......oil is passe, they'll be giving it away in your lifetime.

[peeker01]

Peet, every time you post you weaken the nation. I saw you accusing someone else of being
shorty last week. How many shortys can there be? And who cares? Anyone who puts your
foolishness on display is alright by me.

[peeker01]

I haven't failed anything PEET, you refuse to debate, preferring to call me names or other
people's names.

There is a huge natural gas infrastructure, and it's growing every day. You can buy a home
compressor to pump up your CNG car over night. The conversion kit for your car is around 1300
bucks. I'd be doing it right now, except the pipeline isn't in this neighborhood (yet).

Many cab fleets are on CNG, most bus fleets are on CNG, and much research is being done
on LNG technology for big highway trucks. Since LNG can be trucked to a filling station,
it very doable, and is the only way we will survive a long term oil shortage. I know you disdain
any concept which postpones peak oil doom, but I have decided I'm not quite ready to surrender.

[peeker01]

Peet, the 240 people reading this forum can see the truth. That's good enough for me.

[basil_hayden]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peeker01', 'P')eet, every time you post you weaken the nation. I saw you accusing someone else of being
shorty last week. How many shortys can there be? And who cares? Anyone who puts your
foolishness on display is alright by me.

[basil_hayden]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'A')re you ever going to learn how to format your crap better?

I still wouldn't read it though. Your responses are still as vacuous as they have ever been.

[peeker01]

Yep, there is no room on PO for "Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion" We should rename it
Peet's Playhouse of Doom"

[basil_hayden]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peeker01', 'Y')ep, there is no room on PO for "Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion" We should rename it
Peet's Playhouse of Doom"

[Graeme]

Natural Gas is Not the Answer

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is no denying that in the last decade, renewable energy has edged away from the peripherals of public discussion, onto center stage. This industry that was once criticized as expensive, unreliable, or unrealistic is now being heralded as the future of energy, with scores of new solar and wind projects coming online every day.

It is surprising, then, that another resource is rising in popularity simultaneously, one that is also being praised as a replacement for North America’s dependence on other highly-polluting energy sources. Natural gas has been increasing in prevalence as an energy source in North America, mainly because large deposits of it can be found in Canada and the United States. This fuel is cleaner than traditional energy sources such as coal and relatively easy to extract, making it an attractive alternative fuel source for many.

But exchanging one dirty fuel for another slightly cleaner fuel is not a good long-term strategy, warn climate scientists. Natural gas has many implications for both the health of the environment and local citizens. The new method of extracting the fuel, called hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has controversy swirling about alleged health problems and environmental damage that has sparked mass protests. (More information on that here.)

"If governments are serious about climate change, they have to be moving away from natural gas," said Matthew Bramley, Pembina's director of research.

In a 40-page report released in partnership with the Pembina Institute, scientists instead urge the public to not think of natural gas as a temporary band-aid to meet short-term energy efficiency targets.