1. Gator Country Black Friday special!

    Stay on top of the football coach search with the Insider Authority on Gator Sports with a special discount!

    Now's a great time to join or renew and get up to $20 off your annual subscription! LIMITED QUANTITIES -- for details click here.

Nat Gas F-150

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by G8trGr8t, Jun 11, 2014.

  1. Emmitto
    Online

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,856
    Likes Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +826
    You're a sensitive soul if you consider that a personal attack. I wonder how you'd react to something that was actually a personal attack.

    And cue the "religion" talking point. While I will concede that religion is largely ridiculous, don't you find any irony in the fact that Denialism is largely a product of religion?

    I don't believe for a moment that you're supportive of anything that doesn't involve combustion, continuous extraction and destruction, and a captive audience made reliant on a tiny part of the population for basic energy needs.

    And as in all of our exchanges, you refuse to acknowledge all of the costs of fossil fuels. How much does it cost to mitigate and treat the destruction, poisons, and toxins spread throughout society so that energy can be kept artificially cheap and a handful of robber barons can remain financially superior to the masses?

    Which loan are you talking about? I'll guess that the massive Ford loan will be. I'll also guess that the vast majority of all of the others will be too. I'll guess that the loans as a whole will outperform any bank's comparable loan package. You are the one who threw out the Solyndra talking point. I even added Abound to help out. Solyndra was $500M out of many billions. Nuclear and Ford got over $16B between the two of them. That was more than all others combined. In comparison, the investment in real renewables is a paltry sum compared to other countries who will own future energy markets if the blinders don't come off here soon.

    All energy policy is political cronyism and only someone entrenched in one particular part of it would deny it. Why didn't the elimination (or even reduction) of oil and gas subsidies make it into the Energy and Independence Act of 2007? It was after all one of the key recommendations. And they fail to get axed time and time again. Ideally subsidies go towards otherwise worthy endeavors that can't survive on their own, which is what the recommendation "reminded" Congress about. But cronies also typically don't get made to play by the rules.

    And that goes for O and his amateurish "all of the above" nonsense and money-throwing at predominantly fossil-fuel cronies. And his low-bar CO2 rules.

    But back to your original point about $2.11-equivalent NG versus non-fossil fuels. As you know, NG is essentially just another fossil fuel when the society-wide cost is acknowledged. It still requires massive infrastructure, ownership by a few and subjugation of the many, and commitment that can't be turned around for decades. Then of course there is the $2.11 part. Will that ever change? Is it likely to become more, or less, over the long haul?

    If you ever get out of the fire, don't jump into the vat of acid.
  2. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,928
    Likes Received:
    1,162
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,654
    Natural gas no longer belongs to a few. And as US extraction tech spreads throughout the world it very well could become the most democratic of all energy resources present in most if not all parts of the world.

    I am all for package thorium reactors too. Smaller, more of em, but identical in design. DC cross country lines funded by repatriated earnings is a good idea to get wind working. More natural gas fueling infrastructure and conversion of all public fleet vehicles to not gas. Let market provide most competitive price for energy.

    And you and I both know we can price external costs for solar and wind vs hydrocarbon s all day. Those panels and windmills don't grow in labs and production in China isn't the most environmentally friendly thing.
  3. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,928
    Likes Received:
    1,162
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,654
    we didn't have cheap nat gas then either.
  4. demosthenes
    Offline

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,405
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Ratings Received:
    +1,141
    CNG is less energy dense than gasoline so I'm not sure how it could be as efficient. Still a great resource to diversify our transportation energy sources.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,928
    Likes Received:
    1,162
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,654
    case point Emmitto. HK, a small to midsize driller and the third oil and gas company the CEO has built, had to pay 8%plus a 4% overriding royalty to a hedge fund to get financing to drill and delineate their reserves in the Tuscaloos marine shale in Mississippi/Louisiana.

    Meanwhile, Petrobas gets 0% loans from the ImEx bak so they can drill off Brazil. Most of the subsidies extended to O & G pale compared to subsidies for big ag, big pharma, unions, financials. I say do a flat tax with no exceptions.
  6. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,800
    Likes Received:
    2,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,093
    And... how many plants did that investment buy?
  7. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    Well it sure helped to build one, but we're talking about national investment here.
  8. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,800
    Likes Received:
    2,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,093
    There comes a time when an investment looks and feels more like a divestment... and a waste of money.

    I'll rephrase my question: On who, what, where was that money spent on?
  9. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    44,293
    Likes Received:
    1,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +4,109
    It was a fallback position. Cheap was not as important as availability. No one knew (locally at least) how long the embargo was going to last. I saw the conversion units myself so it was not something I heard of.
  10. OklahomaGator
    Online

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    35,578
    Likes Received:
    1,430
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Miami, OK
    Ratings Received:
    +2,725
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Emmitto
    Online

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,856
    Likes Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +826
    We can agree on many points here regarding subsidies. We will never agree on the externalities and their realities. The biggest is the ONGOING degredation that fossil fuels require. It's endless. To run one coal-fired power plant decimates entire ecosystems and the surrounding communities. Building a power plant of any type has the same externalities, more or less. And the fact that renewable infrastructure is imported bolsters my own position. If heads had been removed from booties decades ago we wouldn't be importing Chinese panels.

    However, I will offer you an apology. You are generally civil and I enjoy our debates, even when we disagree. I should have toned it down a bit. I'm not angry with you, and I don't even begrudge people for protecting their livelihoods. In fact, I find that perfectly rational. Just know I attempt to dispute your points, not you. For all I know you're a hell of a dude, and I'll go with that until I have reason to believe otherwise. I get a little emotional about these things as I was raised in coal country. It's still where I reside most of the time. And I can draw a direct line from coal to physical and economic ruin. When you see a place that is a hopeless craphole, and then add up the wealth that has been extracted from that very place, it's hard not to be bitter.

    My stepdad worked in the mines for almost 50 years. And many other family members worked them for many years. Many are dead, many are terminally ill, and almost all have struggled financially, even in boom times. This fable that coal is good for the local economies is just that.

    My stepdad would say "Gr8t is right!" And I would say "I support your right to be wrong." :)

    Again, my apologies. Let the debate rage on!
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  12. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    This makes literally no sense.
  13. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,928
    Likes Received:
    1,162
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,654
    no worries...and it is not my occupation, just my area of interest (and fairly lucrative investments) as I truly believe that cheap domestic energy sources are what can make this country great again. Our technological lead in production and now power systems should translate into a profitable export industry.

    Cheap energy (which can be realtively clean) is the only chance we have to continue to revive manufacturing to bolster the middle class. Service economies alone don't work. You have to use your natural resources to generate wealth through manufacturing.

    We have been blessed with a tremendous resource of relatively cheap energy and our policies are forcing it to fight extreme headwinds. Provide midcap domestic drillers with low interest capital, facilitate the buildout of infrastructure to get it to market (east west pipelines), and make ng a transport fuel.

    The mines of old are a far cry from the drilling rigs of today. What was done then was wrong.

    This admin has squandered one of the great opportunities to turn an economy around by fighting the carbon armed with theories and projections that have been proven to be woefully inaccurate, biased results put together to further an agenda. That bothers me.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. RealGatorFan
    Offline

    RealGatorFan Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +907
    If there was a push for natural gas, then the prices would have gone back up. The fact that is was the redheaded stepchild of the last 12 years enabled prices to stay low. I know this because my wife's grandfather bought up 10s of thousands of acres of mineral rights in ND, SD, Oklahoma, and Florida in the 1920s and 30s and after her father passed away in 1999 (which then took 8 years to go through probate), the trust was divided up among 16 family members. In 2007, natural gas prices peaked and the trust was bought up by Chesapeake and one other company for a nice price, then the bottom fell out in 2008. If we had sold after 2007, well we probably would have sat on it and not sold. I remember the gas leases between 2001 and 2005 were pretty nice.

    Now that Obama is forcing coal mines to convert to natural gas, I fully expect the prices to shoot back up big time between 2017 and 2020 as coal mines convert to natural gas and fracking is banned (a really good thing to ban IMO). When that happens, NG vehicles will be too costly.
  15. beanfield
    Offline

    beanfield Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +222
    I tend to agree, prices will move up with demand.
    Energy and a lot of other products we use/need are being controlled by just a few companies....
    When I first went in business in 1975, every time you looked up there was a salesman coming through the door, Now there are 1 or 2 companies instead of 20. If you want to talk to a salesman, he may call you back in a day or two.
    We have to court them. It used to be the other way around.
  16. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,786
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,230
    My company just hired a guy out of the nuclear industry. He worked at an engineering company that supported nuclear plants being prepared for operation. The plant he was working on was finally shuttered because they couldn't come up with the money to complete the commissioning and make it work. It never operated. The U.S. walked away from a multi-billion dollar investment. The perception within the nuclear industry is that it is dying, not that it is making a resurgence. We should be approving about one nuclear plant per year to replace the ones that have reached the end of their service life.
  17. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,786
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,230
    I think trucking (18-wheelers) should be pushed towards natural gas. They put the most miles on their vehicles. If you push everyone towards NG, you will see the price of NG increase, just like any other commodity. It may seem like we have an infinite supply of NG, but there are an awful lot of cars on the road. There is a cost for converting from one technology to another, so you want to get it right. If we switched all vehicles on the road to NG, the price of oil would drop, and the price of NG would increase, and everyone would say, "We need to switch back to oil!"
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2014
  18. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,928
    Likes Received:
    1,162
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,654
    Fracking will not be banned. You should educate yourself better if you think it would be a good thing. Cut $500B a year out of domestic spending, lose a couple of million good paying jobs and double the price of energy if you ban fracking. That isn't going to happen. Since NG can be extracted for around $3 . Once the midstream infrastructure catches up the industry will supply every bit of demand and still keep the price under $5. Oil would have to drop to $40 to be comparable
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2014
  19. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,786
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,230
    One thing that I think is a misconception is that all fleet vehicles are driven tens of thousands of miles per year. We have trucks in our chemical plant that never leave the plant except for a major overhaul. They drive a quarter of a mile at a time, 6-10 times a day. Electric drive would probably make the most sense as far as wear and tear on the mechanical parts, but you need a lot of torque to haul heavy equipment, and it doesn't make sense to pay a premium for a hybrid engine to save fuel. Even the vehicle we get the most use out of only drives 5,000 miles per year.
  20. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,786
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,230
    Exactly. Fracking is what is going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., especially in energy-intensive processes. We need to make sure that companies are careful about fracking, and we may want to restrict it to areas away from cities, and we may need to make sure that companies are "insured" to be able to provide drinking water from a safe location if they happen to screw up a well, but we don't want to stop fracking right now. Of course, we need to continue research so that we get better and better at it (both from an efficiency standpoint as well as environmental care).

Share This Page