Natural gas prices surge 70%

[phantom power]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Natural gas prices have surged over 70% during the past three months, fueled by increased air conditioning use, a switch from coal in power plants, and declining production rates.

The price for natural gas at Henry Hub, a junction of pipelines and storage facilities in Louisiana, has gone from $1.85 per million British thermal units in April to $3.14 Tuesday -- a seven-month high.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/24/investing/natural-gas-prices/index.htm

[global1]

1. Way To Go - T. Boone - That's Some Good Pickins...nt

[pscot]

3. Aubrey McClendon is the current capo

of the gas cartel. On his best days,, he's worse than Pickens ever dreamed of being.

[Scuba]

2. Can you say "gouge"?

[FBaggins]

6. You're kidding, right?

Gas prices were four times this high just four summers ago.

The price may be the highest in seven months, but you would have to go back a decade to find a lower price apart from that.

[leveymg]

4. Note "and declining production rates."

With the increasing demand and investment in that sector, one would not expect that production would go down significantly. What has happened to the ICC and the DOE's oversight units?

[FBaggins]

7. Much of the investment has shifted toward liquids

The price for natural gas has collapsed so significantly that many projects are under water - while liquids are still propped up by global prices that don't impact natural gas.

[leveymg]

10. What collapse? - spot and Sept. futures right back up where they were in Jan.

http://ycharts.com/indicators/natural_gas_spot_price

[FBaggins]

11. Is January the beginning of time?

Is it even the beginning of fracking?

Try looking back over the last decade (while keeping in mind where the price of just about every other energy-related commodity has gone during that period). The price hit over $13 in July of 2008.

Then try looking at the price globally. Prices in Europe have almost doubled over the last three years.

[leveymg]

14. Oh, you want the "beginning of time" chart? Sorry, it goes back to 1972. Now at PE (pre-Enron)

which is probably about where it should be.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3m.htm

[FBaggins]

16. And you're saying you can't see the collapse there?

You may need to get your eyes checked.

Again... try comparing the chart to other energy commodities and to prices around the world.

Will you next tell us that there was no stock market collapse between mid 2007 and early 2009 because it was still higher than the 70s?

[leveymg]

19. I see a speculative bubble there. And that's a fundamental difference between you and me.

Wall Street was another bubble. Are you sure you're really happy and at home posting at a progressive Democratic site?

[FBaggins]

22. In gas prices?

You've got to be kidding. You seriously believe that the run up in gas prices was a speculative bubble and not supply and demand driving prices?

Wall Street was another bubble.

What caused it is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not the price collapsed. You can believe that the high point or the low point was the "correct" un-rigged price... but you can't argue that the price didn't collapse (and the rapid runup in the months following didn't change the fact that the level was still low compared to that collapse).

[Viva_La_Revolution]

5. but, but Fracking will save us!

and make gas cheaper!

at least that's what they've been telling us...

[FBaggins]

8. I don't know about "saving" us...

...but it's beyond contestation that it has made gas much cheaper.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

9. only monetarily

While destroying millions of gallons of good water. I'd rather have the water.

[GliderGuider]

12. And while helping to destroy a whole planetful of good atmosphere.

Welcome to the future. We hope you will enjoy your (short) stay.

[FBaggins]

13. Not to the extent that it's replacing dirtier alternatives.

US emissions have been declining largely due to an ongoing shift from coal to gas. It's far from ideal, but it's still an incremental move in the right direction.

Then add the fact that gas plants make far more sense in a future energy portfolio dominated by renewables and nuclear.

[GliderGuider]

15. There's a teensy little problem with methane escapes, though.

An article on here recently pointed to the possibility that the escaped methane at all stages from production to consumption may actually make it worse than coal. The problem is detecting the unintentional releases. Gas is not a clean fuel.

We need to stop using all fossil fuels ASAP. But we won't. And it looks like we're already past the tipping point for climate change. Welcome to the future.

[FBaggins]

17. We really don't know that.

An article on here recently pointed to the possibility that the escaped methane at all stages from production to consumption may actually make it worse than coal

Yes, and that was based on a single small study of releases from a single field. We don't know whether that's indicative of fields in general or even accurate for the field in question - let alone whether reasonable regulations can dramatically reduce releases in the future. The broad scientific consensus is that gas is much cleaner than coal (and alternative fuels for home heating).

Yes, neither compares with the far preferable nuclear/renewables combo... but we have to live in the real world. Shifts that large don't happen in 20-30 years - and would still require a fair amount of gas. Absent much more substantial evidence, policy won't be impacted.

[GliderGuider]

18. I definitely agree that policy won't be impacted.

I'd probably temper my hopes for nuclear power if I were you though, based on the recent trends. It would take a lot more than a policy tweak to resuscitate that industry. I do hold out a lot of hope for a global depression and growing food shortages curtailing our need for energy in general, though...

[FBaggins]

20. Well... you know what they say about lies, d@mn lies, and statistics. :)

Even if you assume a moderate "renaissance", the graph will necessarily look like that because of the rapid build four decades ago followed by a long stretch of very little activity (post Chernobyl/TMI/oil price decline/etc). We can't assume that there's something magical about aged reactors retiring faster than new ones are built which says that it will continue 20 years into the future.

I do hold out a lot of hope for a global depression and growing food shortages curtailing our need for energy in general, though...

Well... at some point in the next several hundred years or so that will probably be true. I don't know whether it's next month (though I very much doubt it) or a thousand years from now. What I do know is that Malthusians have been seeing it around the next corner for two centuries now and have been dead wrong every time.

[GliderGuider]

21. As far as I remember

Malthus forgot to factor in global warming and the collapse of the Eurozone. Or the existence of 7 billion people, thanks to the tireless efforts of the acolytes of Haber and Borlaug.

You know what they say about clapping for Tinkerbell...

[FBaggins]

23. Sorry... that doesn't make sense to me.

It reads as if you're explaining why Malthus was wrong... by pointing out that he was too optomistic.

[GliderGuider]

24. What happened with Malthus

He didn't foresee the depth of human ingenuity (represented here by Haber and Borlaug) regarding food production, or the fact that the increase in food production would permit the septupling of world population. He also didn't foresee the eventual impact of global warming on crop yields or the systemic impact of a crumbling global financial system.

Malthus' argument reduces to the old truism that infinite growth in a closed system is impossible. The system simply turned out to be larger than he realized, and it took us longer than he expected to fill it up. From all the creaking and groaning coming from both human and natural systems around the world right now, though, I'd say we've finally managed to do it.

The question is, what sort of an encounter with limits are we about to have? Will the curve of human numbers, consumption and impact flatten out like a nice orderly logistic curve, or are we looking at a St. Matthew's Island scenario of overshoot and collapse? Given those creaks and groans, I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

[Champion Jack]

26. And life much worse for those that have to live around it

[NickB79]

25. Already predicted and now coming true: North America Is Poised For Huge Natural Gas Shock

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112718533

I'm so glad I invested in a new wood-burning stove, new windows and a ton of extra insulation for my house.

[tridim]

27. Mission accomplished.

I knew the years of "Switch all your appliances to natural gas because it's so cheap!" ads had an ulterior motive.

[no_hypocrisy]

28. It can't be just "air conditioners".

Last year there was a significant glut.

Are you sure this isn't the speculators taking a vacation from oil prices?

[FBaggins]

29. "Last year there was a significant glut"

And current prices are about 30% lower than they were last July.