<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on The murky future of U.S. shale gas ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-20T15:00:26-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Increase Natural Gas Energy Efficiency]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-88410]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Today 40%(?) of the natural gas consumed by commercial buildings, by industry and the power plants is Wasted, blown up chimneys all across the country as HOT exhaust into the atmosphere.  Global Warming?The residential market has condensing boilers and high efficiency condensing water heaters. These units vent their COOL exhaust out of the wall of the building using a PVC pipe.The large natural gas consumers have available to them the technology of Condensing Flue Gas Heat Recovery. They could also be consuming their natural gas at over 90% energy efficiency, but with the price of natural gas where it is &quot;Who wants to spend money to save natural gas?&quot;Increased natural gas energy efficiency = Reduced utility bills = ProfitIncreased natural gas energy efficiency = Reduced global warmingIncreased natural gas energy efficiency = Reduced CO2 emissionsIncreased natural gas energy efficiency = Water conservationWhat natural gas is not wasted today, will be there to be used another day.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-88410]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sid Abma]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:35:21 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[these guys just lie]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81813]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Look, David Hughes and Chris Nelder are just incapable of telling the truth about shale gas. Follow Nelder's link at the top of the post and look at the absurd graph he posted previously. That was essentially the controversy - the &quot;natural gas plateaued in 2009&quot; nonsense he was pushing, and his previous graph captures in nicely.Now he pretends that his previous article was completely different, and was based on a &quot;natural gas is peaking in late 2011&quot; prediction. But that wasn't what he was saying at all - he was saying it had peaked a while ago and everyone else was reporting the wrong numbers.Hughes is, if anything, more delusional then Nelder.However, people are getting hip to these clowns. A year ago Nelders gas-debunking was making some inroads into the mainstream media - now he is relegated back to the margins.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81813]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[James.McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:55:37 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Your chart is wrong]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81722]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What is wrong with your chart is that it is wrong, it shows declines or leveling off of shale gas production.  My &quot;data &quot; was taken from established energy sources and they show no decline or plateau in shale gas production as you do. Unlike you Mr. Hughes I am still in the energy business and don't have to make up data. Your Story on natural gas supply and shale has been consistently wrong. I suppose that like a broken clock you think that if you stay with the same story you will eventually be right.  Every major energy consultancy - and I could list 6 whose data I have seen,  say that you will have a long wait. Ms May may believe you, no one else does.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81722]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[quetzal22]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:21:02 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Wrong is wrong]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81706]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I am sorry if you were traumatized by my comments - nothing personal but your incoherent ramblings the past few years about pending gas supply shortages have proven to be simply absurd.  Completely wrong and discredited.  I will have to review your chart comment later, but I stand by my statistics, shale gas production has continued to increase and is expected to make up 45% of all gas supply by 2025. So how does this represent a murky future for shale gas? And an end to the &quot;shale gale&quot;? I am sorry that the truth hurts. No one ever said that an unlimited amount of gas could be produced at $2. So to imply that a leveling off at these very low prices is sheer chicken -little -ism. And it is silly. You will note that I attacked your ideas not you personally. Your retort was to label me in need of psychiatric help with a psychological problem.  Telling I think. But symptomatic of many in the &quot;green &quot; fringe who think that anything goes in the name of the cause. You have been consistently wrong Mr. Hughes and your analysis unworthy of respect.  Wrong is wrong.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81706]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[quetzal22]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:01:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[one more funny thing]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81526]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[If you look at the EIA graph here, you see a significant increase from between early 2009 and the end of 2011.If you look at Mr. Nelder's graph from eight months ago, there is a plateau around the end of 2008.The discrepancy is the data source. 8 months ago, Mr. Nelder was trumpeting Art Berman's &quot;debunking&quot; of the production numbers reported by the EIA. Now, Mr. Nelder has endorsed these numbers, and has conveniently forgotten this &quot;plateau since 2009&quot; story he was telling 8 months ago.The graph is right there at the top of the post ....go look at it http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/everything-you-know-about-shale-gas-is-wrong/341?tag=content;siu-containerthen look at the graph at the top of this post. Completely different.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81526]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[James.McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:57:18 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[your words sir]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81457]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Mr. Hughes Too bad you have to descend into name-calling and castigating people you know nothing about. Presumeably to build yourself up in your mind.Again I repeat two questions.What did you mean when you said &quot;unconventional sources only serving to slow the rate of decline&quot;. in 2006? I ask because the chart above shows that subsequent to 2006, the production of natural gas skyrockets.And will the USA set an all time record for natural gas production for the calender year 2012?  This is a yes or no question, so much simpler for you.I understand some people have difficulty in admitting their mistakes, but you and Mr. Nelder have taken it to an art form.You said in 2006 that unconventional production was only slowing the overall decline. You were astoundingly wrong. Mr. Nelder, even worse, said in early 2012 that natural gas production had hit a ceiling in 2009. This was more of a flat-out-lie than a blown prediction.Rather than continue to bluster and tap dance, why not just admit your mistakes?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81457]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[James.McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:58:28 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Mr McMurtry]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81396]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Having reviewed you numerous and voluminous posts on this blog I can only assume you are a couple of steps removed from a padded cell. You make quezal22's incoherent slandering look like reasoned analysis. Do yourself and everyone else a favour and turn your computer off.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81396]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Hughes]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:13:14 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[what funny timing]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81385]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[This news story is getting a fair bit of playhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/business/reports-say-marcellus-shale-natural-gas-has-national-impact-and-larger-reserves-than-predicted/2012/10/20/6ddd95d2-1aee-11e2-ad4a-e5a958b60a1e_story.htmlMr Hughes, Mr. Nelder -- I assume an article like this falls under the heading of &quot;read em and weep&quot;.? In other words, years and years of Nelder (and now perhaps Hughes) debunking. The wonderful thing about the internet is how you can go back and find these guys with their past reportings, and see how incredibly far off base they are.The funny thing is - Mr. Nelder is making fun of one of his readers for saying that &quot;natural gas production is setting records&quot;....So here is a simple yes or no question for Mr. Nelder and Mr. Hughes.Will the USA set an all time record for natural gas production for the calender year 2012? Yes or no question ... do you have the guts to answer it?The answer is almost surely yes. The numbers have looked great all year. 2011 was a record setting year, and 2012 will likely clock in at what, 4 to 5 percent higher? So another record.So if 2012 will set a record for all time production, how is it that the person who write &quot;the USA is setting a record for production&quot; is wrong and you two are right?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81385]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[James.McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:03:27 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Welcome Mr. Hughes]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81365]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[This is David Hughes from 2006http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/8/6636/36918What do you mean when you say &quot;unconventional sources only serving to slow the rate of decline&quot;.In your world, does a dramatic uptick in overall production represent a decline? I would think a decline means a decrease, not an increase? I think the problem here is that your words just mean something totally different than what everyone else thinks they mean. Please help decode them for us. Up is down, and down is up... is that right? Because if so, then your presentation from 2006 would make perfect sense.Otherwise, quetzal22 appears correct, and you have been as thoroughly debunked as Mr. Nelder (of the &quot;undulating plateau since 2009&quot; infamy).I understand that predictions are hard, especially about the future. But I think when one's predictions (or, in the case of Mr. Nelder, one's reporting of basic facts) turns out to be completely off-base, a little humility is in order.So how about it? It's not hard, just admit to making a mistake (in your case a very, very big one). Can you do it? Can you?As an aside - I was in attendance at your talk in 2006. The post here doesn't do you justice. Your predictions of doom and gloom were in full blossom. I believe the outcomes you discussed ranged from natural gas rationing to a full shut down of the American electrical grid. Instead we have natural gas in storage almost exceeding capacity, and the largest switch from coal to gas in history. It is funny that you seem to not have the slightest shame for your preposterous predictions, and still pass yourself off as an energy expert.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81365]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[James.McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:48:39 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[quetzal22]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81360]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[quetzal22 To bad you have to descend into name-calling and castigating people you know nothing about. Presumeably to build yourself up in your mind. Anything wrong with the chart I provided to Chris? Seems confirmed by your &quot;data&quot;. I'd recommend getting some professional psychiatric help to help you deal with your trolling psychosis and your need to diminish the efforts of others.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81360]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Hughes]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2012 11:23:20 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Fracking - A Boom and Bust]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81358]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[=&gt; Fracking - A Boom and Bust (https://sites.google.com/site/frackingireland/fracking---a-boom-and-bust)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81358]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Charlie Williams]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2012 07:58:33 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Living the Mid 20th Century Dream!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81337]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The John Roberts' court will be irrelevant sooner or later, now that the rule of law for the moneyed elites has bitten the dust thanks to them.  Did Roberts think that Citizens United wouldn't have disgusting consequences? You apparently didn't.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81337]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ron Shook]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:33:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Where do you marginal cost numbers come from?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81334]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I spend a lot of time talking with producers (as well as major LNG consumers who are now buying reserves) and their view is that the technology curve will further reduce costs. Nor do I get the sense that they are  see increasing costs due to the &quot;low hanging fruit&quot; effect where in your words core - or cheaper reserves are exploited and the supply cost curve ramps up.The old hockey stick curve. Most see  the supply cost - price curve like a flat grass hockey stick - with significant potential production - over 100 BCF/day sub $5.  I have no idea what will happen post 2015 and whether you bet for a price increase will pay off in 2018. But there are no fundamentals out there that would lead to that conclusion.  Producers do not see diminishing opportunities - or &quot;a fringe&quot; of less attractive opportunities. They characterize gas development as more like farming - with little of the upstream exploration risk that existed in the past. So it is just a bet - it may or may not pay off. With respect to your view that the full cycle costs - including all environmental and social costs will drive gas prices up. Any estimates of increased environmental costs associated with fracking are in the 10 to 25 cent range. Carbon taxes and &quot;social costs&quot; are a wild card - but of the energy intensive fuels gas has the lowest carbon footprint as you recognize.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81334]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[quetzal22]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:03:54 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[so you can spell LNG - that is about it]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81321]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I spend a lot of time with consumers of LNG - and LNG consultants and they don't share your views but perhaps they don't have Mr. Damon's insights. The USA will profits - by having foreign investors guarantee (and pay for) LNG facilities. Sales of LNG will be made to consumers under long term contracts or the plants won't get built. Remember these are private investments - not Solyndra like subsidies. So &quot;the US&quot; will not be left holding the bag if your clearly detailed study and analysis of the situation is correct.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81321]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[quetzal22]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:44:42 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Faulty Analysis Always Leads to the Wrong Conclusion]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81300]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The headline and opening sentence are simply not borne out by the facts. The quality of the analysis is confirmed with the quote &quot;my good friend David Hughes&quot; ... this pathetic soul has been ranting chicken little like about impending shortages of gas for a number of years. Discredited every month as shale gas production numbers increase. He has been dismissed by all other than the Green party and Sierra Club - he is simply not credible. If you spend some time looking there is good data out there without paying hefty fees or relying on typically outdated and usually incorrect and revised later EIA data. Navigant for example shows that shale gas production increased every month from may 2011 at 24.5 BCF/day to just over 27.5 BCF/day. Barclays shows the same numbers. This despite severely depressed prices. Overall gas production growth is slowing due to low prices. And producers are seeking other options such as LNG exports. A healthy market will support more a healthy gas industry. But if I read your underlying message it is to prevent producers getting a fair return so we can protect US consumers.  Might be fair if the government funded the developments in the shale industry but they didn't. By my calculations the industry spent well over $800 Billion the last decade. And your answer is : impose trade restrictions. A sure way to encourage further investment. Also took the time to read the EIA presentation - slide 17 shows that even under their reference case shale gas production increases from about 5 TCF/yr to about 13+ TCF/yr. And consistently the EIA has underestimated shale gas production the past 10 years - so they include two much higher cases. Will production continue to grow as prices go south - of course not. Will LNG epxorts cause some price increase - study after study after study shows a minimal increase (not even back to 2004 level prices. Take an elementary economics course and see what a flat supply cost curve implies for .Will a slight increase in gas prices mean that gas cannot compete with coal? No - especially if some form of carbon tax is implemented.I don't understand how you can come up with that headline or your opening sentence. Do you not read or understand the data - or is it just that you expect that most of your readers will move on after 20 seconds and not question your analysis? This is a dishonest and disingenuous article - and while Mr. Hughes may be a fine fellow and perhaps a good fishing buddy his knowledge about the current energy industry is about as profound as a Goofy mascot at Disneyland. Spend some time getting some real data - or heavens forbid actually talk to a producer or someone who understand the industry to understand what is going on.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81300]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[quetzal22]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:36:51 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[NIMBY meet mineral rights]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81302]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;within a few more years of documentation NIMBY will steamroll the industry with a vengance&quot;People, to include Nelder, have been saying that for at least 5 years, and yet look at the chart above... natural gas production bouncing around the all time highs.The US has a long legal tradition of strong mineral rights. Federal land, state land, sure, you can keep fracking out. Private land - it will eventually get adjudicated in the courts as a &quot;holdings&quot; case.Which way do you think the John Roberts court would rule on whether landowners are allowed to frack on their own land?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81302]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[James.McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:47:46 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Externalities Exposed!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81239]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[omb,Exactly!  Fracking is an ecological disaster already happening and within a few more years of documentation NIMBY will steamroll the industry with a vengance, as it should.  You can have 99 out of a hundred wells working relatively safely, but that hundredth well where stuff happens can devastate the ground water over a whole ecological basin.  Multiply that inevitable possibility by the 500,000 new wells projected over the next dozen years and you have a horror.  The same revulsion that is starting to happen vis-a-vis GMOs will happen to fracking, as the public starts to realize that the ecological costs are way too high and demands regulation that eventually makes the costs way too high.I have a friend in Colorado fighting fracking in the mountains there.  The locals want nothing to do with it and are willing to do what it takes to stop it.  Here's an interesting speculation on his part.  He thinks that the biggest energy companies see the writing on the wall and are buying up underground leases, not necessarily to frack, but eventually to control the area's fresh water supply.  Isn't it interesting that a state that claims to own the water that comes off your roof is turning a blind eye to this?  A not so blind eye, I suspect.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81239]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ron Shook]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:27:54 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[why coal will control the price of gas]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81170]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[If gas becomes much more expensive than coal, gas usage will drop as utilities switch back to coal from gas.The cost to produce gas from dry shale is besides the point. If utilities switch from gas back to coal, then the demand for gas can be more than satisfied from wet shale by products and &quot;conventional&quot; gas. Dry gas will not be strictly required for the next 5 years. Wet gas by products and conventional gas can meet the countries needs given an increase in coal. And coal will fail to increase only if gas remains reasonably close to the price of coal. In other words, if the maginal cost of dry gas is high, this country will switch back to coal and leave the gas in the ground for 5 years. If the marginal cost is &quot;reasonable&quot; then it can be sold profitbly for $5. I believe the latter is probably true, and coal usage will remain depressed. But if the former is true, coal will return to fill the gap, and a henry hub price spike will not be required.Honestly I think the problem is brazil (nor Nelder) really understand how commodities work. If commodity A and commodity B can switch, and commodity A has an almost endless supply of price X, then commodity B will never be priced higher than X.Soo.... we are now in a situation where coal and gas can switch, and there is an endless supply of reasonably priced coal. So the price ceiling of gas is in, and the only question is how much gas will be produced, not the retail price.For a while, anyways.IF you disagree, feel free to trade gas contracts in the time frame 2015-2017. Brazil is trading farther range contracts, he won't take the bet that Henry Hub will run up in the next 5 years.To be clear, I would be surprised to see significant henry hub prices north of $4 for some time, but north of $5 is quite far fetched given the wet shales and the massive backstop of coal we are now seeing.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81170]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[James.McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:21:39 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[sure why not]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81182]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Nothing says a company and its leader don't want to be richer so its all possible after all that is the name of the game. Monopoly is what every company wants even if they don't have it as their slogan.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81182]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Kiljoy616]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:37:00 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Stop making sense.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81173]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;coal generated electricity is at it's lowest levels in 15 years, and natural gas generated electricity is at it's highest levels of all time...the capacity to switch from gas back to coal is the largest in American history.&quot;So.What has that got to do with the price of wheat?  My argument is that the full cost of shale gas is much higher and other major uses of natgas will ramp in the years ahead - and you keep talking about coal and coal price - that is the source of present natgas demand - I don't care about the present.What you don't seem to get - with all the publicity about our new production - is that this is not a Renaissance - it is a retirement party.  Oils sands and shale, natgas shale, oil two miles deep in the ocean --- all expensive, all energy intensive, sometimes dirty and sometimes tragic.  I have invested in a relatively clean source energy that is extremely cheap on an energy content basis...in the face of a burgeoning world consuming class.  I am happy with that bet.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12151-81173]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[brazil_83]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:20:19 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

