Thursday, May 29, 2008
Coal To Oil Energy
Capito prepares to offer coal-to-liquids legislation next week
From Staff ReportsThe Register-Herald
Mandatory production of 6 billion gallons of coal-to-liquids fuel by 2022 is the thrust of the proposed Clean Coal-Derived Fuels for Energy Security Act that Rep. Shelley Moore Capito intends to offer next week.Coal can be converted into clean, zero-sulfur, synthetic fuel and oil products for nearly $35 to $45 a barrel, Capito, R-W.Va., said Tuesday.This means that with the use of modern technology, a cheaper alternative to traditional crude oil, now going for nearly $135 a barrel, is possible, she said.“West Virginians are feeling it at the gas station and they’re feeling high gas prices in the spike in food costs,” the 2nd District representative said.“It’s time for an all-hands-on-deck policy and coal must play a part in our energy solutions. Our nation’s coal reserves are larger than the combined oil reserves of the rest of the world. We’ve seen enough excuses and it’s time to get serious about coal-to-liquids.”Capito said her plan can lead to production of clean fuel on the home front that leads to more American jobs, “and it’s the right thing to do for West Virginia.”An energy policy that expands domestic oil and natural gas exploration and embraces conservation efforts and investment is renewable energy technology is needed, she said.“There is no single or easy solution to our nation’s energy needs,” Capito said.“But without increased domestic production of energy, we will continue to subject ourselves to the massive fluctuations in global energy prices that have led prices to their record highs.”
From Staff ReportsThe Register-Herald
Mandatory production of 6 billion gallons of coal-to-liquids fuel by 2022 is the thrust of the proposed Clean Coal-Derived Fuels for Energy Security Act that Rep. Shelley Moore Capito intends to offer next week.Coal can be converted into clean, zero-sulfur, synthetic fuel and oil products for nearly $35 to $45 a barrel, Capito, R-W.Va., said Tuesday.This means that with the use of modern technology, a cheaper alternative to traditional crude oil, now going for nearly $135 a barrel, is possible, she said.“West Virginians are feeling it at the gas station and they’re feeling high gas prices in the spike in food costs,” the 2nd District representative said.“It’s time for an all-hands-on-deck policy and coal must play a part in our energy solutions. Our nation’s coal reserves are larger than the combined oil reserves of the rest of the world. We’ve seen enough excuses and it’s time to get serious about coal-to-liquids.”Capito said her plan can lead to production of clean fuel on the home front that leads to more American jobs, “and it’s the right thing to do for West Virginia.”An energy policy that expands domestic oil and natural gas exploration and embraces conservation efforts and investment is renewable energy technology is needed, she said.“There is no single or easy solution to our nation’s energy needs,” Capito said.“But without increased domestic production of energy, we will continue to subject ourselves to the massive fluctuations in global energy prices that have led prices to their record highs.”
Friday, May 23, 2008
Why Congress Is Broken
By Robert Novak
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, at age 38 and having served less than five terms, did not leap over a dozen of his seniors to become ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee by bashing GOP leaders. But an angry Ryan last Wednesday delivered unscripted remarks on the House floor as the farm bill neared passage: "This bill is an absence of leadership. This bill shows we are not leading."
Ryan's fellow reformer, 45-year-old Jeff Flake of Arizona, in his fourth term, is less cautious about defying the leadership and has been kept off key committees. On Wednesday, he said of a $300 billion bill that raises farm subsidies and is filled with non-farm pork, "Sometimes, here in Washington, we tend to drink our own bath water and believe our own press releases."
A majority of both Senate and House Republicans voted for a bill that raises spending 44 percent above last year's, dooming chances to sustain President Bush's promised veto. GOP leaders were divided, with Bush sounding an uncertain trumpet. Today's Republican Party -- divided, drifting, demoralized -- is epitomized by the farm bill.
At the moment Congress passed the farm bill, Republican were terrified by the previous day's defeat in the Mississippi 1st Congressional District, the third straight supposedly safe Republican seat lost in special elections. Fearing a November tsunami for the Democrats, incumbent Republicans talked about following their new standard-bearer, John McCain, against pork. But that's not the way they voted last week.
George W. Bush was just as ambivalent last week. In 2002, he signed a massive farm bill. But with Democrats in control of Congress, Bush preaches the old time religion. Addressing the House Republican caucus behind closed doors at the White House May 7, he disclosed that he would veto the farm bill, then implied it was all right if members "voted their districts" -- that is, if the "aggies" supported the bill. This message was pressed on his colleagues by Rep. Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, ranking Republican on the House Agriculture Committee.
Nevertheless, would the party's leadership in Congress push hard enough to produce enough votes to sustain a veto? There was never any hope in the Senate, where Republican Leader Mitch McConnell not only supported the farm bill but earmarked a tax provision benefiting horse farms in his state of Kentucky. But in the House, Republican Leader John Boehner always has been anti-pork, even if passive about exhorting other Republicans to follow his example.
On May 9, Flake sent Boehner a candid letter: "We need more than individual members of the Republican leadership to state their opposition to the bill. We need the leadership to use its good offices to explain the importance of sustaining the president's veto as opposed to advising members to 'vote their districts.'"
Boehner, waiting four days before responding, last Tuesday rejected the "vote their districts" escape for House Republicans: "I believe they should also vote their consciences, and cast their votes in a manner consistent with the small government principles upon which our party was founded." Boehner took the floor Wednesday to speak against the bill.
But nobody cracked the party whip. On the contrary, Minority Whip Roy Blunt voted for the bill. So did Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam, who was seen whipping votes for passage. House Republicans voted 100 to 91 to approve the bill (with only 15 Democrats in opposition), assuring an overriden veto. Similarly, in the Senate, Republicans voted 35 to 13 for the bill, and the only Democrats opposing it were Rhode Island's two senators.
That did not conclude the dismal Republican performance for the week, as lawmakers raced out Thursday for their usual long weekend. Seventeen pork-minded Republican senators gave the Democratic leadership necessary support to waive from the farm bill the brand new ban of earmarks on a bill that had cleared both houses. Thirty-two craven Republican House members voted for upper-bracket tax increases to finance new veterans benefits. They all return to work this week to encounter a new comprehensive reform introduced by Paul Ryan on health care, Social Security and taxes -- titled "A Roadmap for American's Future." If anybody needs a roadmap, it's Ryan's colleagues.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, at age 38 and having served less than five terms, did not leap over a dozen of his seniors to become ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee by bashing GOP leaders. But an angry Ryan last Wednesday delivered unscripted remarks on the House floor as the farm bill neared passage: "This bill is an absence of leadership. This bill shows we are not leading."
Ryan's fellow reformer, 45-year-old Jeff Flake of Arizona, in his fourth term, is less cautious about defying the leadership and has been kept off key committees. On Wednesday, he said of a $300 billion bill that raises farm subsidies and is filled with non-farm pork, "Sometimes, here in Washington, we tend to drink our own bath water and believe our own press releases."
A majority of both Senate and House Republicans voted for a bill that raises spending 44 percent above last year's, dooming chances to sustain President Bush's promised veto. GOP leaders were divided, with Bush sounding an uncertain trumpet. Today's Republican Party -- divided, drifting, demoralized -- is epitomized by the farm bill.
At the moment Congress passed the farm bill, Republican were terrified by the previous day's defeat in the Mississippi 1st Congressional District, the third straight supposedly safe Republican seat lost in special elections. Fearing a November tsunami for the Democrats, incumbent Republicans talked about following their new standard-bearer, John McCain, against pork. But that's not the way they voted last week.
George W. Bush was just as ambivalent last week. In 2002, he signed a massive farm bill. But with Democrats in control of Congress, Bush preaches the old time religion. Addressing the House Republican caucus behind closed doors at the White House May 7, he disclosed that he would veto the farm bill, then implied it was all right if members "voted their districts" -- that is, if the "aggies" supported the bill. This message was pressed on his colleagues by Rep. Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, ranking Republican on the House Agriculture Committee.
Nevertheless, would the party's leadership in Congress push hard enough to produce enough votes to sustain a veto? There was never any hope in the Senate, where Republican Leader Mitch McConnell not only supported the farm bill but earmarked a tax provision benefiting horse farms in his state of Kentucky. But in the House, Republican Leader John Boehner always has been anti-pork, even if passive about exhorting other Republicans to follow his example.
On May 9, Flake sent Boehner a candid letter: "We need more than individual members of the Republican leadership to state their opposition to the bill. We need the leadership to use its good offices to explain the importance of sustaining the president's veto as opposed to advising members to 'vote their districts.'"
Boehner, waiting four days before responding, last Tuesday rejected the "vote their districts" escape for House Republicans: "I believe they should also vote their consciences, and cast their votes in a manner consistent with the small government principles upon which our party was founded." Boehner took the floor Wednesday to speak against the bill.
But nobody cracked the party whip. On the contrary, Minority Whip Roy Blunt voted for the bill. So did Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam, who was seen whipping votes for passage. House Republicans voted 100 to 91 to approve the bill (with only 15 Democrats in opposition), assuring an overriden veto. Similarly, in the Senate, Republicans voted 35 to 13 for the bill, and the only Democrats opposing it were Rhode Island's two senators.
That did not conclude the dismal Republican performance for the week, as lawmakers raced out Thursday for their usual long weekend. Seventeen pork-minded Republican senators gave the Democratic leadership necessary support to waive from the farm bill the brand new ban of earmarks on a bill that had cleared both houses. Thirty-two craven Republican House members voted for upper-bracket tax increases to finance new veterans benefits. They all return to work this week to encounter a new comprehensive reform introduced by Paul Ryan on health care, Social Security and taxes -- titled "A Roadmap for American's Future." If anybody needs a roadmap, it's Ryan's colleagues.
Why Congress Is Broken
By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Six weeks after a fatal Minneapolis bridge collapse prompted criticism of federal spending priorities, the Senate approved a transportation and housing bill Wednesday containing at least $2 billion for pet projects that include a North Dakota peace garden, a Montana baseball stadium and a Las Vegas history museum.
That's not the half of it.
Total spending on transportation "earmarks" next year is likely to be about $8 billion, when legislative projects from a previously approved, five-year highway bill are factored in. A newly released report by the Department of Transportation's inspector general identified 8,056 earmarks totaling $8.5 billion in the fiscal year that ended in October, or 13.5% of the Transportation Department's $63 billion spending plan.
The inspector general's report found that the vast majority of earmarks — project-specific spending instructions written into bills, usually by lawmakers — were not evaluated on their merits, and that many "low-priority" earmarks often squeezed out more important projects.
The Federal Aviation Administration, for example, had to delay updating high-priority air-traffic control towers in favor of lower priority facilities requested by legislators, the inspector general found.
The report — requested by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a vocal critic of earmarks — does not name the airports.
After the Minneapolis bridge collapse last month, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others pointed out that Congress for years failed to fund repairs on scores of "structurally deficient" bridges even as lawmakers earmarked money for projects such as the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska.
Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has proposed a temporary 5-cent-per-gallon gas tax increase that he said would raise $25 billion over three years to help reduce the backlog of critical bridge repairs. Among Oberstar's earmarks in the House transportation bill is $250,000 for a bike trail in his district, which he has defended as legitimate. He did not respond to a request for comment.
Sen. Patty Murray, the Washington state Democrat who chairs the subcommittee that drafted the $106 billion transportation and housing bill, defended the bill and pointed to insertion this week of an additional $1 billion for bridge repairs.
Coburn's staff identified 500 earmarks in the bill, totaling $2 billion, that were publicly disclosed under new rules designed to shed some light on the practice.
"No one in America seriously believes that bike paths, peace gardens and baseball stadiums are more important national priorities than bridge and road repairs," Coburn said.
Coburn and a handful of other lawmakers routinely try to strip bills of earmarks, only to see colleagues crush them with bipartisan efficiency.
On Tuesday, Coburn offered an amendment prohibiting spending on earmarks until every structurally deficient bridge was fixed. It lost, 82 to 14.
The bill, which President Bush has threatened to veto, must now be reconciled with the House-approved version. That measure contains, among other earmarks, money for a California mule and packer museum.
WASHINGTON — Six weeks after a fatal Minneapolis bridge collapse prompted criticism of federal spending priorities, the Senate approved a transportation and housing bill Wednesday containing at least $2 billion for pet projects that include a North Dakota peace garden, a Montana baseball stadium and a Las Vegas history museum.
That's not the half of it.
Total spending on transportation "earmarks" next year is likely to be about $8 billion, when legislative projects from a previously approved, five-year highway bill are factored in. A newly released report by the Department of Transportation's inspector general identified 8,056 earmarks totaling $8.5 billion in the fiscal year that ended in October, or 13.5% of the Transportation Department's $63 billion spending plan.
The inspector general's report found that the vast majority of earmarks — project-specific spending instructions written into bills, usually by lawmakers — were not evaluated on their merits, and that many "low-priority" earmarks often squeezed out more important projects.
The Federal Aviation Administration, for example, had to delay updating high-priority air-traffic control towers in favor of lower priority facilities requested by legislators, the inspector general found.
The report — requested by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a vocal critic of earmarks — does not name the airports.
After the Minneapolis bridge collapse last month, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others pointed out that Congress for years failed to fund repairs on scores of "structurally deficient" bridges even as lawmakers earmarked money for projects such as the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska.
Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has proposed a temporary 5-cent-per-gallon gas tax increase that he said would raise $25 billion over three years to help reduce the backlog of critical bridge repairs. Among Oberstar's earmarks in the House transportation bill is $250,000 for a bike trail in his district, which he has defended as legitimate. He did not respond to a request for comment.
Sen. Patty Murray, the Washington state Democrat who chairs the subcommittee that drafted the $106 billion transportation and housing bill, defended the bill and pointed to insertion this week of an additional $1 billion for bridge repairs.
Coburn's staff identified 500 earmarks in the bill, totaling $2 billion, that were publicly disclosed under new rules designed to shed some light on the practice.
"No one in America seriously believes that bike paths, peace gardens and baseball stadiums are more important national priorities than bridge and road repairs," Coburn said.
Coburn and a handful of other lawmakers routinely try to strip bills of earmarks, only to see colleagues crush them with bipartisan efficiency.
On Tuesday, Coburn offered an amendment prohibiting spending on earmarks until every structurally deficient bridge was fixed. It lost, 82 to 14.
The bill, which President Bush has threatened to veto, must now be reconciled with the House-approved version. That measure contains, among other earmarks, money for a California mule and packer museum.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
THe Bloated Farm Bill
Farm Bill's Subsidy Costs May Rise
Billions More Could Be Paid Through Little-Noticed Provision
By Dan MorganSpecial to The Washington Post Wednesday, May 21, 2008; Page A02
A major new program in the recently enacted farm bill could increase taxpayer-financed payments to farmers by billions of dollars if high commodity prices decline to more typical levels, administration and congressional budget officials said yesterday.
The potential costs came to light as administration officials pored over details of the 673-page, $307 billion legislation. President Bush has promised to veto the measure, which he called "bloated." The House and Senate passed the bill by bipartisan margins large enough to override him unless dozens of lawmakers switch sides.
The final details of the new program were approved at the end of four months of House-Senate negotiations over the legislation and received almost no attention during floor debate last week. The voluntary program guarantees farmers a subsidy if they suffer losses because of low prices or poor crops.
Since the amount of the subsidy for 2009 is tied to recent record prices, farmers could reap a windfall if prices drop suddenly.
"I don't think many people on the House side who voted for the farm bill realized there were $16 billion in potential higher costs in there," said Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Conner. "The budget exposure is tremendous."
A blog item posted Monday by the agricultural magazine Pro Farmer described the new program, known as Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE), as "lucrative beyond expectations," and said it is a "no brainer" for farmers to sign up for it.
The Agriculture Department estimates that subsidy payments to corn farmers alone could reach $10 billion a year if prices -- which have been $5 to $6 a bushel -- were to drop to $3.25 a bushel, a level seen as recently as last year. The $10 billion figure assumes most farmers would participate in the program, a view disputed by key lawmakers.
Kate Cyrul, spokeswoman for Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (Iowa), the leading congressional champion of the program, called USDA's projections a "doomsday scenario."
She noted that USDA's forecasts of corn, wheat and soybean prices suggest that they will stay too high for farmers to qualify for any benefits.
"From our evaluation, the program does not look excessively expensive for the lifetime of the farm bill," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte (Va.), ranking Republican on the House Agriculture Committee. He said the program will be reviewed and evaluated as the new farm bill nears expiration in 2012.
But fellow Republican Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), a strong critic of the new farm bill, accused House and Senate negotiators of "unbelievable gall."
"I don't think any of us had a clue this was in there. It was simply dropped into the conference report," he said.
Billions More Could Be Paid Through Little-Noticed Provision
By Dan MorganSpecial to The Washington Post Wednesday, May 21, 2008; Page A02
A major new program in the recently enacted farm bill could increase taxpayer-financed payments to farmers by billions of dollars if high commodity prices decline to more typical levels, administration and congressional budget officials said yesterday.
The potential costs came to light as administration officials pored over details of the 673-page, $307 billion legislation. President Bush has promised to veto the measure, which he called "bloated." The House and Senate passed the bill by bipartisan margins large enough to override him unless dozens of lawmakers switch sides.
The final details of the new program were approved at the end of four months of House-Senate negotiations over the legislation and received almost no attention during floor debate last week. The voluntary program guarantees farmers a subsidy if they suffer losses because of low prices or poor crops.
Since the amount of the subsidy for 2009 is tied to recent record prices, farmers could reap a windfall if prices drop suddenly.
"I don't think many people on the House side who voted for the farm bill realized there were $16 billion in potential higher costs in there," said Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Conner. "The budget exposure is tremendous."
A blog item posted Monday by the agricultural magazine Pro Farmer described the new program, known as Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE), as "lucrative beyond expectations," and said it is a "no brainer" for farmers to sign up for it.
The Agriculture Department estimates that subsidy payments to corn farmers alone could reach $10 billion a year if prices -- which have been $5 to $6 a bushel -- were to drop to $3.25 a bushel, a level seen as recently as last year. The $10 billion figure assumes most farmers would participate in the program, a view disputed by key lawmakers.
Kate Cyrul, spokeswoman for Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (Iowa), the leading congressional champion of the program, called USDA's projections a "doomsday scenario."
She noted that USDA's forecasts of corn, wheat and soybean prices suggest that they will stay too high for farmers to qualify for any benefits.
"From our evaluation, the program does not look excessively expensive for the lifetime of the farm bill," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte (Va.), ranking Republican on the House Agriculture Committee. He said the program will be reviewed and evaluated as the new farm bill nears expiration in 2012.
But fellow Republican Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), a strong critic of the new farm bill, accused House and Senate negotiators of "unbelievable gall."
"I don't think any of us had a clue this was in there. It was simply dropped into the conference report," he said.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Saturn Vue Green Hybrid
Summary:
Provides 100-percent fuel economy improvement over Vue 2 Mode
Based on modified 2-mode hybrid system and plug-in technology
Hybrid lithium-ion battery recharges from household outlet in under five hours
Battery replenishment via electric motors and regenerative brake systems
At least 10 miles of all-electric range at slow to moderate speeds
Potential to be world’s most fuel-efficient production vehicle (in many driving situations)
Production may begin in 2010
Introduction: When the Saturn Vue Green Line Plug-in Hybrid goes into production in the 2010 timeframe, it could be the world’s most fuel-efficient production vehicle. According to current timing plans, it will be the first regular-production plug-in hybrid vehicle from an automotive original equipment manufacturer. Offering a 100-percent fuel economy improvement over the 2009 Saturn Vue Green Line 2 Mode Hybrid, the Vue Green Line Plug-in Hybrid demonstrates Saturn’s commitment to diversify from petroleum fuels and reduce emissions. Hoping to be first to offer the world’s first production plug-in hybrid, Saturn vows to tackle all of the many technological hurdles they may encounter in the process.
Whether the Vue Green Line Plug-in Hybrid is a stand-alone model, or joins the Vue Green Line 2 Mode Hybrid (debuting as a 2009 model late this year) in the Saturn Vue lineup, is as yet unclear.
Whether the Vue Green Line Plug-in Hybrid is a stand-alone model, or joins the Vue Green Line 2 Mode Hybrid (debuting as a 2009 model late this year) in the Saturn Vue lineup, is as yet unclear.
Hardware: The powertrain in the Green Line Plug-in Hybrid features two interior permanent magnet motors within the 2-mode transmission, and the GM 3.6-liter V-6 engine with variable valve timing (VVT) gasoline engine with direct injection.
Although not yet announced, the Vue Green Line Plug-in Hybrid, like the Vue Green Line 2 Mode, is likely to include electronic stability control, tire-pressure-monitoring system, and 4-wheel anti-lock brakes (ABS).
Technology: The Vue Green Line Plug-in Hybrid will use a modified version of the GM 2-mode hybrid system used on the 2009 Saturn Vue Green Line 2 Mode, along with plug-in technology, lithium-ion battery pack, higher-efficiency electronics and powerful electric motors. This combination is expected to achieve significant fuel economy increases—potentially doubling any current SUV’s fuel efficiency when the batteries are fully charged. Battery replenishment occurs after the electric-only propulsion has depleted the lithium-ion energy storage system by using the hybrid system’s electric motors and regenerative brake systems. Early testing reveals the Vue Green Line Plug-in Hybrid to be capable of more than 10 miles of electric-only propulsion at low speeds. During brisk acceleration, higher speeds, or when conditions warrant, the vehicle’s driving power comes from a combination of engine and electric power, or engine power only.
The plug-in aspect refers to the vehicle’s lithium-ion batteries, which can be fully recharged in four to five hours by connecting the vehicle to any standard household electrical outlet of 110 volts. The connection port is integrated into the front fender for easy access. Recharging—and not refueling—contributes to reduced consumption of petroleum. A key difference between a plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle and a non-plug-in hybrid-electric model is that the plug-in version provides extended electric-only propulsion, as well as greater battery capacity and recharging from an external electrical outlet.
The vehicle has two driving modes: city and highway. In addition, four fixed mechanical gears maximize efficiency while maintaining performance. Special controls will enable higher speeds during electric-only driving while simultaneously maintaining a longer period of electric-only propulsion. Other technology features are expected to include a navigation system, AM/FM stereo with CD/MP3 player and auxiliary input jack, and a power sunroof.—Suzanne Kane
Monday, May 19, 2008
Barnett Shale Gas - Expanding Our Supplies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Barnett Shale is a geological formation of economic significance. It consists of sedimentary rocks of Mississippian age (354-323 million years ago) in the U.S. State of Texas. The formation is estimated to stretch from the city of Dallas to west of the city of Fort Worth and south, covering 5,000 square miles (13,000 km²) and at least 17 counties.
Some experts have suggested the Barnett Shale may be the largest onshore natural gas field in the United States. [1] The field is proven to have 2.5 trillion cubic feet (59 km³) of natural gas, and is widely estimated to contain as much as 30 trillion cubic feet (850,000,000,000 m³) of natural gas resources.[2] Oil also has been found in lesser quantities, but sufficient enough (with recent high oil prices) to be commercially viable.
The Barnett Shale is known as a "tight" gas reservoir, indicating that the gas is not easily extracted. The shale is very hard, and it was virtually impossible to produce gas in commercial quantities from this formation until recent improvements were made in hydraulic fracturing technology and horizontal drilling, and there was an upturn in the natural gas price.
Future development of the field will be hampered in part by the fact that major portions of the field are in urban areas, including the rapidly growing Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.[3] Some local governments are researching means by which they can drill on existing public land (e.g., parks) without disrupting other activities so they may obtain royalties on any minerals found, whereas others are seeking compensation from drilling companies for damage to roads caused by overweight vehicles (many of the roads are rural and not designed for use by heavy equipment).
The Barnette Shale field may increase our known reserves by as much as 15%. (Tim)
The Barnett Shale is a geological formation of economic significance. It consists of sedimentary rocks of Mississippian age (354-323 million years ago) in the U.S. State of Texas. The formation is estimated to stretch from the city of Dallas to west of the city of Fort Worth and south, covering 5,000 square miles (13,000 km²) and at least 17 counties.
Some experts have suggested the Barnett Shale may be the largest onshore natural gas field in the United States. [1] The field is proven to have 2.5 trillion cubic feet (59 km³) of natural gas, and is widely estimated to contain as much as 30 trillion cubic feet (850,000,000,000 m³) of natural gas resources.[2] Oil also has been found in lesser quantities, but sufficient enough (with recent high oil prices) to be commercially viable.
The Barnett Shale is known as a "tight" gas reservoir, indicating that the gas is not easily extracted. The shale is very hard, and it was virtually impossible to produce gas in commercial quantities from this formation until recent improvements were made in hydraulic fracturing technology and horizontal drilling, and there was an upturn in the natural gas price.
Future development of the field will be hampered in part by the fact that major portions of the field are in urban areas, including the rapidly growing Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.[3] Some local governments are researching means by which they can drill on existing public land (e.g., parks) without disrupting other activities so they may obtain royalties on any minerals found, whereas others are seeking compensation from drilling companies for damage to roads caused by overweight vehicles (many of the roads are rural and not designed for use by heavy equipment).
The Barnette Shale field may increase our known reserves by as much as 15%. (Tim)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
