Reply With Quote
Regardless of your stance. CNN are ing morons for omitting numerous facts from their original story.
yet another example of CNN failing miserably at any real news coverage.
And I agree it would be huge and would put more money in my pocketbook.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Regardless of your stance. CNN are ing morons for omitting numerous facts from their original story.
yet another example of CNN failing miserably at any real news coverage.
What are the historical averages for oil?
You guys should take a look at the San Antonio average income. At some point if you don't invest in bringing areas of higher technology to San Antonio I'm not sure you can expect anything other than a bleak long term future for the city compared to other cities of similar size in the nation. There are many factors to consider outside of the simple power cost of building a solar power infrastructure in your city.
San Antonio has been hobbled by small time thinking for my entire life. The only time I've seen it be proactive is with the stupid ass Alamodome. Sometimes you have to pay for things to become a more complete city and you have to invest in yourself to improve. Even if they are partially driven by bigger political ambitions, ideas like this can be a damn good thing for San Antonio.
More specifically what does a graph of the historical price of oil by year look like?
What part of 'energy is priced to what the market will bear, not what the minimum is' you didn't understand?
That you could produce energy cheaper doesn't automatically mean that it will be sold cheaper locally.
A lower price will be the most likely outcome of a market surplus. You know this, EN.
We aren't talking about oil we are talking about natural gas. It may come out of the same hole in the ground but it's very different. Kind of like the difference between a fart and a .
I would agree with that in most cases, but not necessarily with the oil market. I've just got back from south america, and the demand for natural gas and oil-related products over there (and I hear central america is pretty much the same) is ing considerably. As a matter of fact, the US exported oil-based products in the billions just to Argentina alone last year. What people need to realize is that the US already pays very little for oil products, and that the worldwide market pays a lot more for the same thing.
There are similarities between the oil and nat gas markets. But they do not move in synch nor should they be used as predictors of behavior for the other. In many ways, they are very different animals.
Maybe so, but international demand is fairly high on both and they both share similarities as far as pricing goes. Don't take my word for it.
I'm not talking about the differences in the sources but the fact that both are limited natural resource and that the historical price average is a really way of trying to see what the future price may be.
Oil is easily transported internationally. Natural gas is not EASILY transported internationally.
Is the biggest barrier to NG transport overseas an engineering problem or a legislative one? Honest question.
Legislative I believe. There are numerous applications for export, but no approvals at this point.
Natural gas has to be converted to liquid natural gas to transport it overseas. That involves refrigerating it to minus 265F and holding it at that temperature in cryogenic containers until it reaches it's destination where it is allowed to return to a gaseous state for use.
That's not a problem. Just put the gas in touch with my ex. That should cool it right the down.
But we have solutions able to do this, correct? If the main problem with exportation of a very valuable resource we have a lot of is legislative then I don't see that standing up for a very long time and certainly not for decades. Money talks.
It's an expensive process, Manny. Thus when El nono wants to talk about $10mcf gas somewhere else compared to natural gas in a pipeline in Texas that was produced 50 miles away it really is an apples and oranges comparison. There are currently only 8 LNG compression stations in the US and they literally cost billions to build.
The expense doesn't matter out of the context of the profit margin available. If the companies pumping the gas out of the Texas shales can put it on a boat in Houston to XYZ company and make more money than they can selling it in Texas where do you think they will prefer to send the gas? As energy prices continue to rise around the world they will be looking for new sources. I don't think you guys quite understand how much room for increased energy usage there is in China and India due to their large populations using relatively low levels of energy.
Even if NG itself isn't able to be exported the price will still rise if source of other energy increase in price (and they will) because more of our production of energy domestically will switch to NG and thus place a higher strain on the supply. Anyone expecting low energy prices in the future is operating in a different reality IMO.
Hence my two different animals descriptor.
There's a ton of processing to move NG. You just pump oil in a pipe to move it.
There's an upper limit on price that the market dictates. Right now, the processing expense definately does matter.
When those babies go "boom" they REALLY go "boom'
For that reason alone, domestic nat gas prices will continue to undercut the world pricing.
Natural Gas is already exported internationally, and it's only growing. Here are the numbers for the last few years.
Simply put, the prices are just much more attractive overseas.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
