Have you had enough of paying $4 a gallon for gas? Do you wonder what you're going to do if gas prices go to $5 a gallon this summer? You're not alone.
Gas prices affect everyone, regardless of race, color or political party, yet Washington is stuck in neutral in finding the solution, which is staring them straight in the face: natural gas.
It's time for U.S. to take responsibility and force Washington to act. Today, the natural gas bill, which would add about $3.4 billion in incentives to kick start the movement to natural gas as a transport fuel is expected to be voted down as an addition to the highway funding bill, the last reasonable moment in this election year in which this bill it has even the slightest chance of passage.
Take matters into your own hands. Call your congressman and demand that this bill be passed for the sake of jobs, the economy and your wallet.
It is at least politically clear why this bill is such a difficult one to get approved. Republican fiscal conservatives are opposed to new federal spending and are sensitive to oil interests in their home states. They view this bill as anti-free market, an example of government looking to "pick winners."
Democrats are opposed to any measure that would encourage environmentally sensitive hydraulic fracturing for natural gas from shale. Between the two, despite being a virtual no-brainer, two iterations of the original "Pickens" bill have failed and so likely will this latest rewritten 'Natural gas act.'
Why should it? Natural gas is greener than oil, plentiful, domestic and cheap. As gas prices today rose over $3.83 as a national average, the equivalent cost of a "gallon" of natural gas is $1.60. Most analysts expect domestic prices for natural gas to stay relatively low for years, perhaps decades to come, while oil price is at the whim of every Middle East conflict, emerging market competition for resources and decreasing global production.
The oil and gas industry is ready for this. Last week's CERA conference -- the yearly global energy get-together of all the majors -- could have easily been renamed the natural gas conference. Apache CEO Steve Farris claimed that U.S. supply of natural gas isn't the claimed 100 years, it is more like 200 years.
Shell CEO Peter Voser spoke about investment in a new U.S. gas-to-liquids plant and the prospects of LNG exports. At one point, moderator and energy guru Daniel Yergin interrupted Voser to ask sarcastically: "You still produce oil too, don't you?" The industry also indicated universally that they are willing to submit to any transparency request that environmentalists or Washington suggest in order to continue the U.S. shale revolution.
The industry is on board, it's time for the people to get on board, too. Let's call this grassroots effort the "energy independence coalition." Or, how about the "energy sanity group." That's the only way to describe what we're doing -- or actually not doing -- with our plentiful national resource of natural gas. We're flaring -- actually burning off natural gas instead of using it to get at more expensive oil resources in the Bakken and elsewhere. That's not sane -- it's just nuts.
Call your congressman. Push for passage of this bill, for the sake of your wallet and our economic recovery.
Follow Daniel Dicker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dan_dicker
1) Natural Gas and Oil barely overlap in their uses in our economy, and the cost of re-tooling vehicles is itself prohibitive.
2) There is no way, even with optimistic measures of available gas, to meet both current needs and expand to cover current uses for oil
3) Russia, not the US, is by far the biggest extractor of natural gas.
4) The US is, and always will be a net importer of oil, unless we manage to utilization by at least 60%
5) The extraction of gas using hydrofracking may not be as visibly hideous as mountain-top removal, but by measures of lifetime ghg emissions, as pollution of ground water and air, no cleaner or safer.
The only realistic solution, as commentators from across the political spectrum have noted, is to greatly reduce consumption by large mandated increases in efficiency, and by transitioning to electric drives.
The US has perhaps the best (i.e. least common) flaring record in the world. Nigeria and Russia should take lessons from the United States on how to properly use natural gas.
While there is some flaring in the Bakken, it's being reduced and huge investments are being made to capture this gas and bring it to market. (The current "no more pipeline" hysteria from the green movement doesn't exactly help here).
Let's be clear here - flaring is a seperate deal than natural gas vehicles. Don't confuse the issue, and don't pick the wrong villian. The US is the number producer of natural gas in the world, and we have the best system for using this resource in the world. We have a "low flaring" record that deserves praise, not misplaced criticism.
why are we still fighting to build pipeline, when we can just focus on getting natural gas safer. even if we are paying 4 buck a gallon of natural gas, that would be going to americans not some other country. it would create america jobs and grow our economy. This can be done, because we have the resources to do it. right now, people can convert their cars to natural gas, auto industry is making natural gas truck. how about we start with converting the fleets to natural gas.
Both equally scientifically challenged!
In my state there have been several cases of fracking causing water pollution. You can’t drink the water, your animals can’t drink the water and nobody wants to eat anything grown in the area for fear the plants have absorbed the toxic chemicals. Without clean water the area becomes a dead zone.
I propose a challenge, I’ll live without natural gas and those who want to keep on fracking must live without drinking water, drinking anything that contains water, drinking or eating anything that is processed with water or anything that needs water to live or grow. Get back to me in a couple of months and let me know how that’s working out for you.
As far as handing $3.4 billion over to the gas industry, I’ll pass. There are better ways to spend taxpayer money than giving the gas industry a $3.4 billion welfare check.
So to live without natural gas MAY require you to get off the grid, no electric for much of the day. And no electric means no water for most of us, most wells require electrical pumps and municipal water absolutely require a stable source of electric.
And no buying bottled water, that would be cheating.
Oil products cause a lot of pollution when they are refined as well. Natural gas needs very little processing.
The additives in gasoline also cause water pollution.
The purchase of oil funds terrorism and the Saudis.
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/
Just in general.
We'd need to convert the fleet and fueling stations. If we have to do that anyway, why do it for a fossil fuel instead of something greener. Nows the time to move to the future, not just to the 1960's.
We wouldn't want to encourage fracking.
This is really a test to see if a guy can run an advertising campaign one year, citing altruistic reasons, and get Congress to vote him billions the next.
$100 billion is peanuts. Put up the fueling stations and the operators will convert their vehicles themselves.
My home in Michigan is on a Native American reservation. We converted all of the tribal vehicles to CNG - we recouped the cost of the conversion in just 4 months.
CNG costs 88 cents a gallon.
“of the 750 compounds in hydraulic fracturing products “[m]ore than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, ..., or listed as hazardous air pollutants” (12). The report also shows that between 2005 and 2009 279 products (93.6 million gallons-not including water) had at least one component listed as “proprietary” or “trade secret” on their Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) required Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).”
“Another 2011 study identified 632 chemicals used in natural gas operations. Only 353 of these are well-described in the scientific literature; ... more than 75% could affect skin, eyes, respiratory and gastrointestinal systems; roughly 40-50% could affect the brain and nervous, immune and cardiovascular systems and the kidneys; 37% could affect the endocrine system; and 25% were carcinogens and mutagens. The study indicated possible long-term health effects that might not appear immediately... it also recommended that fracking's exemption from regulation under the US Safe Drinking Water Act be rescinded.[63]”
“In 2012, Barack Obama stated his intention to force fracking companies to disclose the chemicals they use,[66] though the subsequent, proposed guidelines were criticised for failing to specify how drillers will disclose the chemicals they use.[67]”
perhaps these stats make you want to frak your brains out out but it doesn't appear that anything's "been done" already except pulling wool and blowing smoke. hope you don't live near a gas field. i'm glad i don't.