Gas

Gee that's a shame. Hope the door doesn't hit them in the a$$ on the way out.
 
Agreed! I wish some of the drillers would leave BradCo. I'm sick of the frac truck traffic.
 
Unfortunately, lots of collateral damage left behind.
 
oh, but what about the jobs, the economy, the energy, blah blah blah!!! come one now, it's unamerican to want peace and quiet in the woods, we must drill drill drill and cut cut cut! it's all about money ya know!! money is EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)
 
I'm not so sure the modest pullback we are seeing with plans for new gas drilling is so much related to how much gas they are finding as it is the pretty tepid prices the market is able to support right now (at least viewed through the prism of some of the expectations flying around when the Marcellus thing started. And the projected picture for future price increases that would reinvigorate expanded drilling is a little murky too. There are so many variables at work that it is hard to say what will happen. The Japanese are having to significantly ramp-up their LNG exports after the nuclear plant/earthquake disaster and some of this gas is probably going to be of US origin. That argues for higher demand and higher prices. The Japanese are the biggest importers of LNG in the world. At the same time, I found it interesting that the actual working gas rig count in this country is down by about 12% or so from a year ago. A fair number of the rigs/or other resources that would normally be used in gas drilling are being allocated to increasing domestic crude oil production as a result of the most recent price shock. These resources are not necessarily finite in the sense that the increased emphasis on oil will guarantee less gas drilling. The operators can always put more resources in the field. But that costs money and needs to be justified by ROI. And like I say, the forecast price picture, while incrementally rising, is still kinda tepid.

The best thing we could do to undercut a future of rising NG demand and hence, more screwing around with what is left of wild Pennsylvania is to start a 2-prong Manhattan Project that sets a 20 year goal for 50-75 new nuclear power plants and an affordable, mass-produced hydrogen or hydrogen/electric hybrid car. If NG becomes the fuel of choice for generating electricity, we'll only be modestly less screwed than we are with coal. We'll still be digging holes all over hell like woodchucks. And if CNG develops to take a significant share of the motor vehicle market, we'll be screwed there too because that will mean reliable rising demand for NG.

Nuclear (fission) and hybrids for now as a gap bridger. Then full bore into making an economy that runs on fusion energy a reality.

Then we can stop being woodchucks.

Lotsa good stuff on forecast energy prices, demand and all the attendant rationale here: http://www.eia.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html
 
Fully agree with RLeeP. I've done my share of work on this, even worked for the DOE.

Geothermal shouldn't be overlooked, it's a potential large source of power in volcanic areas, and elsewhere, it can really cut down on the energy use with geothermal heat pumps.

I'm all for wind and solar but land use issues will prevent it from ever reaching 10% of the grid, and even that much would take a tremendous commitment in infrastructure and such. People need to accept that they're great supplemental sources, but nothing more than that.

Nuclear is the answer. Waste and expense are both choices we have made regarding nuclear power, not problems inherent in the technology. With waste, we chose not to recycle the fuel for geopolitical purposes, but doing so would pretty much eliminate the problem. With cost, the fuel is cheap, and it doesn't have to be expensive to build a plant either. We make it expensive with all of the approval process. But for instance, France, they go through the lengthy approval process, approve it, and then make 20 of them from the same approved blueprint. We make 1, and then draw up new plans for the next one.....

And its the safest form too. Even with the unexpected like Japan, it is still far safer than any other power source. Lets put this in perspective. Japan's disaster was the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, and all that happened was an evacuation of an area due to being overprotective (conditions were not dangerous in civilian areas), some excess money spent, and a few people got sick.

Further, regarding a hydrogen economy, nuclear is the ONLY way I see it ever happening. Otherwise, hydrogen is worse than oil and coal.
 
Is anyone expecting a BIG pullout of PA by the drillers?

Or are we talking about a much more limited, localized thing?

I imagine some sites produce better than others, based on the geology. Just like in oil, some people hit the "gushers", some sites don't produce nearly as much.
 
Pullout? No. Established wells will stay producing. Maybe a slow down on drilling new wells. Maybe.
 
pcray1231 wrote:


Nuclear is the answer. Waste and expense are both choices we have made regarding nuclear power, not problems inherent in the technology. With waste, we chose not to recycle the fuel for geopolitical purposes, but doing so would pretty much eliminate the problem. With cost, the fuel is cheap, and it doesn't have to be expensive to build a plant either. We make it expensive with all of the approval process. But for instance, France, they go through the lengthy approval process, approve it, and then make 20 of them from the same approved blueprint. We make 1, and then draw up new plans for the next one.....

And its the safest form too. Even with the unexpected like Japan, it is still far safer than any other power source. Lets put this in perspective. Japan's disaster was the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, and all that happened was an evacuation of an area due to being overprotective (conditions were not dangerous in civilian areas), some excess money spent, and a few people got sick.

Further, regarding a hydrogen economy, nuclear is the ONLY way I see it ever happening. Otherwise, hydrogen is worse than oil and coal.
Click to expand...

I would agree.....and it would be even better if we switched from Uranium to Thorium. It's safer and there is no plutonium by-product for nuclear weapons. Also, it will actually remove old waste from Uranium and it is overly abundant (esp. in the US and India) and easy to access. Seems like a win win to me. Sadly I think China and Australia are going to beat us to the punch. Now, with that said, I'm no expert and could be missing it's downside.

Edit:....it also produces a lot more energy per tonne than uranium....just sayin.
 
pcray1231 wrote:
Fully agree with RLeeP. I've done my share of work on this, even worked for the DOE.

Geothermal shouldn't be overlooked, it's a potential large source of power in volcanic areas, and elsewhere, it can really cut down on the energy use with geothermal heat pumps.

I'm all for wind and solar but land use issues will prevent it from ever reaching 10% of the grid, and even that much would take a tremendous commitment in infrastructure and such. People need to accept that they're great supplemental sources, but nothing more than that.

Nuclear is the answer. Waste and expense are both choices we have made regarding nuclear power, not problems inherent in the technology. With waste, we chose not to recycle the fuel for geopolitical purposes, but doing so would pretty much eliminate the problem. With cost, the fuel is cheap, and it doesn't have to be expensive to build a plant either. We make it expensive with all of the approval process. But for instance, France, they go through the lengthy approval process, approve it, and then make 20 of them from the same approved blueprint. We make 1, and then draw up new plans for the next one.....

And its the safest form too. Even with the unexpected like Japan, it is still far safer than any other power source. Lets put this in perspective. Japan's disaster was the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, and all that happened was an evacuation of an area due to being overprotective (conditions were not dangerous in civilian areas), some excess money spent, and a few people got sick.

Further, regarding a hydrogen economy, nuclear is the ONLY way I see it ever happening. Otherwise, hydrogen is worse than oil and coal.
Click to expand...

They French gave up on Hydrogen a couple years ago. If anyone was positioned to use off peak electric generation for making hydrogen it was the French.
 
pcray1231 wrote:
Fully agree with RLeeP. I've done my share of work on this, even worked for the DOE.

Geothermal shouldn't be overlooked, it's a potential large source of power in volcanic areas, and elsewhere, it can really cut down on the energy use with geothermal heat pumps.

I'm all for wind and solar but land use issues will prevent it from ever reaching 10% of the grid, and even that much would take a tremendous commitment in infrastructure and such. People need to accept that they're great supplemental sources, but nothing more than that.

Nuclear is the answer. Waste and expense are both choices we have made regarding nuclear power, not problems inherent in the technology. With waste, we chose not to recycle the fuel for geopolitical purposes, but doing so would pretty much eliminate the problem. With cost, the fuel is cheap, and it doesn't have to be expensive to build a plant either. We make it expensive with all of the approval process. But for instance, France, they go through the lengthy approval process, approve it, and then make 20 of them from the same approved blueprint. We make 1, and then draw up new plans for the next one.....

And its the safest form too. Even with the unexpected like Japan, it is still far safer than any other power source. Lets put this in perspective. Japan's disaster was the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, and all that happened was an evacuation of an area due to being overprotective (conditions were not dangerous in civilian areas), some excess money spent, and a few people got sick.

Further, regarding a hydrogen economy, nuclear is the ONLY way I see it ever happening. Otherwise, hydrogen is worse than oil and coal.
Click to expand...

They French gave up on Hydrogen a couple years ago. If anyone was positioned to use off peak electric generation for making hydrogen it was the French. Tells you something about where they think hydrogen is going.
 
Watch for a near term pull out by large companies such as Chesapeake. But it's not due to lack of gas. They'll pull out and claim that the reason is the lack of a place to get rid of frac flowback due to the recent DEP decision. They'll be back once they've made their point.

Otherwise, they've been finding plenty of gas.
 
I couldn't agree more with pennsangler... they threatened to leave BradCo. I was drooling at that prospect. But the county commissioners relented... and Chessie is here to stay! On that note, we are having our first county trial on prostitution in over 48 years. Evidently, Chessie brought in a few girls to "live" at the man-camp they built. Yes, the company actually had these girls on the payroll as "support services". Of course they deny that they brought those girls in as "horizontal refreshment" and state they provided laundry services. Uh-huh... laundry.

The only laundry they found in these girls trailer at the man-camp was made out of leather, chains, and velcro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top