re: Live: Trump announce energy EO’s

quote:

---

We LITERALLY, and i mean LITERALLY, light nat gas on fire (flare) in the Permian because we have too much of it.

---

It that case, it's because it's not efficient to pipeline it out in that situation.

I'm not saying we should pick one over the other. I'm saying both.

They are both good for the economy, create jobs and energy.

quote:

---

We LITERALLY, and i mean LITERALLY, light nat gas on fire (flare) in the Permian because we have too much of it.

---

That is at every well that doesn't have a market (pipeline) for the gas from the well.

quote:

---

It that case, it's because it's not efficient to pipeline it out in that situation.

---

its economics, not efficiency. The pipelines doesn' exist because its not economical. WHY?

Say it with me. BECAUSE we are sitting on more nat gas than we know what to do with.

quote:

---

I'm not saying we should pick one over the other. I'm saying both.

---

Dumb, there is no advantage to leverage coal

quote:

---

They are both good for the economy, create jobs and energy.

---

It's more expensive, so its worse for the economy than natural gas

quote:

---

That is at every well that doesn't have a market (pipeline) for the gas from the well.

---

You don't need to explain O&G to me, I've been working in it for 20 years

quote:

---

regardless of regulatory requirements, it can't compete with nat gas.

---

You are right on a one to one basis.

It take about 10000 btus of coal to produce 1 kWhr of electricity.

It takes about 7000 btus of NG to produce 1 kWhr of electricity.

That is, less energy from NG is needed to product 1kWhr of electricity than it takes from coal.

Where coal has an advantage is out West (mountainous West) where there are large deposits of coal but not much NG.

quote:

---

No populists cant see the forest for the trees.

---

You keep arguing the populists thing but in terms of coal it will be used if the business case works. Trump is just trying to remove regulatory costs in the business case. There is no romantic idea of using coal or not. It simply comes down to whether or not a coal project makes economic sense or not.

quote:

---

You keep arguing the populists thing

---

Its the only reason to bring back coal fired plants. They are unnecessary.

The real answer is nuclear. The fact it isn't the #1 push makes no sense to me. It's clean, fairly reusable, and generates massive amounts of power. We have let the energy industry put out so much propaganda against it.

quote:

---

We LITERALLY, and i mean LITERALLY, light nat gas on fire (flare) in the Permian because we have too much of it.

---

Well…….that’ll get you fines these days if you do it on the New Mexico side without a damn good safety reason.

But you are correct. The problem is lack a takeaway infrastructure. Coal could at least bridge that time gap for a bit.

You know how the government was awarding all types of DOE grants for carbon capture and other shite thanks to the Biden IRA? If we (our government and politicians) were smart, we’d be redirecting those already “dedicated” spends to midstream companies to build even more gas takeaway pipelines.

quote:

---

You are insufferable at this point.

---

Youre in a cult.