Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Natural Gas Prices are High
Drilling Wire (a paid energy subscription) | September 8, 2003

Posted on 09/16/2003 7:38:18 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER

U.S. District Court Judge Paul G. Cassell ruled last month in favor of the Bureau of Land Management in the matter of Veritas DGC Land Inc's 2-D geophysical exploration project in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. The ruling affirmed BLM on all counts brought before the court, the agency said.

In his decision, according to the BLM's Utah State Office, Judge Cassell wrote, "The Environmental Analysis and its suggested mitigation methods show that the BLM gave adequate consideration to the environmental effects, both in terms of direct recovery time and residual effects of the project."

In October 2002, after nearly 13 months of review and environmental analysis, the BLM authorized Veritas to conduct geophysical exploration in an area of the Uinta Basin about 30 miles south of Vernal. Subsequently, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance filed suit in federal district court, including a request for a preliminary injunction to block the project. After the court set aside the request for an injunction, the company began work. In March 2003, Veritas suspended work, having completed 11 of the 17 seismic lines, or approximately 65 percent of the project that was originally proposed. The company has until October 2004 resume work under the terms of its permit.

The court's ruling affirmed that the BLM considered a reasonable range of alternatives; fully analyzed the environmental impacts of the project, the reasonable foreseeable indirect effects, and the cumulative effects; and appropriately developed mitigation measures. Specifically the ruling upheld the agency's consideration of - and mitigation for - off-highway vehicle usage, soils, vegetation, archeological resources, wildlife and sensitive or threatened and endangered species. The court also found against the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance's allegation that the decision of a Finding of No Significant Impact was "arbitrary and capricious."

Howard Cleavinger, assistant field manager for mineral resources for the BLM's Vernal Field Office, praised the efforts of both BLM resources professional staff and the seismic company's crews. "The BLM's analysis and mitigations were right on target and the company's follow-through execution has been exemplary," Cleavinger said.

According to chief compliance officer Byron Tolman, who is in charge of overall monitoring for the project, the geophysical exploration work conducted between October 2002 and March 2003 has left a "minimal" footprint on the landscape. "In many areas it's nearly impossible to trace the path followed by the seismic trucks, let alone find any discernable impacts," Tolman said. "Contrary to allegations lodged in the suit, new roads have not developed and staging areas are reclaiming nicely," Tolman added. "Impacts analyzed in the environmental document were never predicted to be significant and were negligible on the ground."

Veritas' non-exclusive 2-D geophysical survey is being carried out over a large (3,168 square miles) area of the Uinta Basin in southeastern Uintah County.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: blm; energy; environment; evilbigoil; greenieobstruction; naturalgas; westernbattleground
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last
The above is just one example of the multitudes of lawsuits throughout all the major producing areas of the United States, by extreme environmental groups.

These lawsuits have only one thing in common; they are designed to slow, obstruct or stop ALL EXPLORATION wherever, whenever, and however possible.

Where time allows I'm going to attempt to post each obstructionist lawsuit that I can. Please keep this FACT in mind when contemplating, complaining, griping, bemoaning the current high natural gas prices, which are only going to get higher until America wakes up and puts an end, ONCE AND FOR ALL, THIS ENVIRONMENTAL OBSTRUCTIONISM.

1 posted on 09/16/2003 7:38:19 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; The Hose; Congressman Billybob; Dog Gone; SierraWasp; NormsRevenge; bedolido; ...
FYI
2 posted on 09/16/2003 7:40:31 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
The Watermelon Enviral Jihadists have been conducting economic and enviral terrorism on Americans for about two decades now.

It is very simple. Limit the supply for energy products/sources in America when our population grows.

Eventually demand for these energy products will exceed the supply. So the prices go up.
3 posted on 09/16/2003 7:47:40 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (May our brave warriors kill all of the Islamokazis/facists/nazis to prevent future 9/11's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER; newgeezer
Gas prices are high because we need more windmills.
4 posted on 09/16/2003 7:49:41 AM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrisssssssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
The same people who place every obstacle to drilling are quick to accuse the industry of gouging when supply is insufficient to meet demand.
5 posted on 09/16/2003 7:52:48 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
....(gas prices) are only going to get higher until America wakes up and puts an end, ONCE AND FOR ALL, THIS ENVIRONMENTAL OBSTRUCTIONISM

Dumbocrats love picking those "tree-huggers" money tree clean of campaign contributions.

6 posted on 09/16/2003 7:55:57 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
Gas prices are high because we need more windmills.

BBWWWWWWAAAAaaaahahahahahahahaha

Dream on, oh windy one. I'm going to start an environmental group entitled WIND, an acronym for Work Indignantly to Impede Development. Then I'm going to SUE to obstruct every proposed wind project.

Easy to do because they are a permanent BLIGHT on the landscape, are extremely inefficient, kill migratory birds and raptors and create noise pollution.

7 posted on 09/16/2003 7:58:29 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
Bob,

Ten years ago I researched why the enviro's were so successfull at halting the federal timber sale program. I talked to my congressman Wally Herger (R-CA) and asked him for help. What we got was known as the "salvage logging rider". I told him then that the basic laws have been re-interpreted by the courts, and that congress needed to revise the ESA, NEPA, Wild & Scenic Rivers Act etc. He then asked me "What sections of these laws need to be revised?" I will post that next.

REASONS FOR SUCCESSFUL LITIGATION - Court Interpretations

NEPA requires preparation of an EIS if the proposed project may significantly degrade some human environmental factor. Sierra Club, supra, slip op. at 4060; Foundation for North American Wild Sheep v. USDA, supra, 681 F. 2d at 1178; City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F. 2d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 1975). A determination that significant effects on the environment will in fact occur is not essential. Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, supra, 681 F. 2d at 1178. If substantial questions are raised whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIS must be prepared. Id. (Italics added for emphasis.)

"A showing that significant effects on the human environment will in fact occur is not necessary. Rather, '(i)f substantial questions are raised whether a project may have a significant effect upon the human environment, an EIS must be prepared.'" (citations omitted) National Audubon Society v. United States Forest Service, No. 90-811-MA (D. Or. Nov. 21, 1990). (Italics added for emphasis.)

Appellants (ie enviro) Arguments

*Fails to analyze... *No mention of.... *Contains no data on... *Subjective discussion of... *No long term assessment *Does not consider... *No assessment of... *Does not indicate... *Fails to adequately discuss... *Does not identify... *Fails to show how... *Lack of information... *Lack of assessment.. *Does not adequately analyze *No justification... *Inadequate assessment... *...must be considered *No evidence of... *Should have been... *Fails to document... *Does not evaluate... *Disguises impacts... *Undervalues... *Inappropriate tests.. *Does not provide a basis... *Fails to explore... *Does not properly disclose *Does not properly inform... *Did not document... *Inadequate analysis... *Misleads the public... *Fails to adequately disclose *Does not adequately address *Fails to include... *Lack of any discussion... *Violated the requirements of *Fails to identify... *No reference to justify... *Without adequate analysis... *An EIS is required... *Does not contain any evaluation... *Based on incorrect and insufficient information... *Require additional environmental analysis... *Inadequate and inconsistant with NEPA... *Does not take a "hard look" *Not been adequately assessed...

8 posted on 09/16/2003 8:00:03 AM PDT by forester (Reduce paperwork -- put foresters back in the forest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
Oh yeah...Well I'm gonna do the opposite times 2. {raspberry in your general direction}
9 posted on 09/16/2003 8:00:49 AM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrisssssssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
http://www.jxj.com/magsandj/rew/2003_04/offshore_update.html

Read this, you might learn something.
10 posted on 09/16/2003 8:03:48 AM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrisssssssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
The same people who place every obstacle to drilling are quick to accuse the industry of gouging when supply is insufficient to meet demand.

Yessiree boss. They'll oppose development, oppose refinery construction, oppose drilling ANWR, then scream bloody murder when econ 101 shows why the prices rise.

Then they'll spend a couple million of our tax dollars for the OBLIGATORY Congressional Investigations that invariably show NOTHING and NOBODY is a fault, other than their sacred policies.

11 posted on 09/16/2003 8:03:48 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: forester
(Reduce paperwork -- put foresters back in the forest!)

What a great post. It encapsulates perfectly the enviros specious arguments that get rubber stamped on each and every suit, especially the KEY phrases.

12 posted on 09/16/2003 8:07:53 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Dumbocrats love picking those "tree-huggers" money tree clean of campaign contributions.

What a clean post. LOL

13 posted on 09/16/2003 8:09:37 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER

Oh, oh, there they go again.

14 posted on 09/16/2003 8:20:40 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
"Gas prices are high because we need more windmills."

Yass... you'll huff, and you'll puff, and you'll blow our gas prices down, right?

15 posted on 09/16/2003 8:20:49 AM PDT by SierraWasp (Forget Party Politics... Re-register "decline to state" and become truly Independent!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk; farmfriend
"Gas prices are high because we need more windmills."

Yass... you'll huff, and you'll puff, and you'll blow our gas prices down, right?

16 posted on 09/16/2003 8:22:15 AM PDT by SierraWasp (Forget Party Politics... Re-register "decline to state" and become truly Independent!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
Gas prices are high because 45 percent of the gas consumed in the US is by electric utilities. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.
17 posted on 09/16/2003 8:29:21 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER; biblewonk
WIND, an acronym for Work Indignantly to Impede Development

Er, that would be "WIID."

But, at least you tried.

18 posted on 09/16/2003 8:30:31 AM PDT by newgeezer (We learn by trail and errror. ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
Environmentalism is at the heart of Natural Gas prices... but its not simply exploration, its the drain on the existing supply by the "green" friendly power plants that generate electricty by natural gas... which was the dumbest policy decision ever allowed.

These plants place undue and needless demand on a home heating fuel... these plants should be coal, its cheaper, more pleantiful and more effiecient for this sort of use... but NO. Instead we will choke the supply of Natural Gas... increase its costs, and screw the typical home and business owner! THese plants should be converted to coal immediately and the laws creating their existance should be repealed.
19 posted on 09/16/2003 8:32:32 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Gas prices are high because 45 percent of the gas consumed in the US is by electric utilities. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Right you are! Coal is better than gas.

20 posted on 09/16/2003 8:33:20 AM PDT by newgeezer (A conservative who conserves -- a true capitalist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
"45 percent of the gas consumed in the US is by electric utilities"

You talkin gasoline here? Or Natural Gas?

21 posted on 09/16/2003 8:34:12 AM PDT by SierraWasp (Forget Party Politics... Re-register "decline to state" and become truly Independent!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk; BOBTHENAILER
I'm sure some eco-nuts would say that, but then when someone does try to put up some windmill farms, guess who complains the loudest about them? Such is the case in Oklahoma. I think their ultimate goal is to put a stop to all technology--and perhaps to civilization itself.

22 posted on 09/16/2003 8:36:21 AM PDT by MizSterious (Support whirled peas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
"Work Indignantly to Impede Development"

Ok then, how 'bout Work Insanely to Nix Development (WIND)

23 posted on 09/16/2003 8:38:42 AM PDT by SierraWasp (Forget Party Politics... Re-register "decline to state" and become truly Independent!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
When the enviros oppose your group (WIND), can we say they're breaking wind? (ducking) (sorry for the pun, just couldn't help m'self...)
24 posted on 09/16/2003 8:39:53 AM PDT by MizSterious (Support whirled peas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
Nat gas. $4.685 MM/BTUs yesterday's close. We have 500 years of Western coal, delivered to most any utility in the midwest for < $1 MM/BTUs.
25 posted on 09/16/2003 8:42:22 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
The Watermelon Enviral Jihadists have been conducting economic and enviral terrorism on Americans for about two decades now.

With the ultimate goal of reducing our standard of living to that of some sophisticated Euro-country, like France, where the energy supply is so good, that 15,000 of their elderly die of heat prostration, because they can't air condition their homes and apartments.

26 posted on 09/16/2003 8:42:57 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious; BOBTHENAILER; Grampa Dave
That was 2/3rds of a PUN! PU!!! (grin)
27 posted on 09/16/2003 8:43:30 AM PDT by SierraWasp (Forget Party Politics... Re-register "decline to state" and become truly Independent!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
But, at least you tried.

Work Indignantly to Negate Development

Thanks for your help on this worthy cause.

28 posted on 09/16/2003 8:45:55 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Kennedy is complaining the loudest on the East Coast and he's no environut. He's a carbohydrate nut.
29 posted on 09/16/2003 8:48:53 AM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrisssssssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
can we say they're breaking wind?

Of course. You're quick today.

30 posted on 09/16/2003 8:49:12 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
Work Insanely to Nix Development (WIND)

This is good!
31 posted on 09/16/2003 8:52:58 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (May our brave warriors kill all of the Islamokazis/facists/nazis to prevent future 9/11's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Gas prices are high because 45 percent of the gas consumed in the US is by electric utilities. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Right on. And the tree huggers not only bottle up the supply of natural gas, they also insist that power generation be by natural gas. Well, Hells Bells does anybody wonder why our home heating bills are going through the roof?

32 posted on 09/16/2003 8:56:36 AM PDT by Trust but Verify (Will work for W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks; HamiltonJay
Gas prices are high because 45 percent of the gas consumed in the US is by electric utilities. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

You're both partially right. A good mix between coal and nat gas would be the best of both worlds, due to the abundant supply of both.

However, the opposition to nat gas drilling, seismic, etc., pales in comparison to that that would ERUPT should any serious efforts begin to both strip mine coal and construct coal fired plants.

Don't forget that Clinton placed our biggest and most high energy value coal deposits (anthracite) in Utah, off limits with the creation of the Escalante Wilderness area. A payoff to Indonesia's James Riaddy for campaign cash. Indonesia just happens to be our biggest importer of this high value coal, as I'm sure you both know.

33 posted on 09/16/2003 8:57:52 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify; Eric in the Ozarks
And the tree huggers not only bottle up the supply of natural gas, they also insist that power generation be by natural gas.

Logical, ain't it. Kinda like the 9th Circuit saying the ballots which helped elect Davis are now not good enough for his recall.

34 posted on 09/16/2003 9:00:56 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
Work Indignantly to Negate Development

That'd be great, if "development" was always a good thing, and "indignation" always bad.

By all means, keep trying. Steadfastness seems to be your strong suit.

35 posted on 09/16/2003 9:09:36 AM PDT by newgeezer (Some of us learn by trail and errror. ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
I have not forgotten the Utah monument, but coal is abundant and plentiful and scrubbers can take care of emissions... the move to Natural Gas for electricity generation was the dumbest policy move on the energy front in easily the last 100 years.

Coal is plentiful, cheap and available, even without the Utah monument, coal is hardly a hard to come by commodity. Gas prices have skyrocketed in the last 7 years completely by this horrible policy decision. These gas plants need to be shut down or converted ASAP.
36 posted on 09/16/2003 9:16:29 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER; Grampa Dave
Note the last sentence in this bulletin:

1:10PM Crude prices fall near a four-month low by Myra P. Saefong

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- Crude futures are trading at levels not seen since late May, with the October contract down 51 cents at $27.63 per barrel. The market's betting that the Energy Department and American Petroleum Institute will report a rise in crude inventories for the week ended Sept. 12. The reports are due Wednesday. October unleaded gasoline is also down 3.33 cents at 82.6 cents a gallon and October heating oil is at 73.6 cents a gallon, down 1.1 cents. October natural gas, however, is up 5 cents at $4.735 per million British thermal units.

37 posted on 09/16/2003 10:22:03 AM PDT by SierraWasp (Forget Party Politics... Re-register "decline to state" and become truly Independent!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
Coal is plentiful, cheap and available, coal is hardly a hard to come by commodity. These gas plants need to be shut down or converted ASAP.

Best of luck trying to implement the above pipe dream.

38 posted on 09/16/2003 10:40:36 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
October natural gas, however, is up 5 cents at $4.735 per million British thermal units.

Yup, been watching it all day. I'm looking for another 10-25 cent drop by the time thursday's storage report comes out. All in all, this has been a record year for prices.

39 posted on 09/16/2003 10:50:09 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Steadfastness seems to be your strong suit.

I steadfastly oppose all enviro-whackos and solar/wind advocates.

You still like my strong suit?

40 posted on 09/16/2003 10:53:15 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
Oh I know it won't happen, to politically charged for anyone to just make a good energy policy decision.... fact is US Energy policy has been messed up for at least 20 years... and now we are paying the price for all those cumulatively bad decisions...
41 posted on 09/16/2003 10:55:33 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
You still like my strong suit?

"Still"? I never said I like or admire it. I only identified it.

Yet, this latest offering provides another opportunity for insight. Note that, in addition to that strong suit of steadfastness, we now see undeniable evidence of a penchant for jumping to unsupportable conclusions.

Now, if one values truth, reasoning, information, and logical (rather than emotional) decision making, one can see where those two traits would make for a dangerous combination. First, jump to an unsupportable conclusion. Then, stick by it (e.g. "The earth is obviously flat." "Wind power is obviously stupid.") Call it a hunch but, that may help to explain a lot of what we've seen to this point.

Really, do keep 'em coming. Every new post sheds a little more light on your situation. We could be on the verge of a breakthrough.

42 posted on 09/16/2003 11:46:31 AM PDT by newgeezer (A conservative who conserves -- a true capitalist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
"Wind power is obviously stupid.")
43 posted on 09/16/2003 11:55:09 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER; biblewonk
Well, that seals it. Diagnosis confirmed. Treatment refused. Case closed.

My work is done here.

Thanks for your cooperation. It's been a treat.

44 posted on 09/16/2003 12:07:11 PM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. You have the right to be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
I don't know if this story is completely true. The only anthracite coal exists in Pennsylvania. The coal in Utah is high quality bituminous, similar to the low sulfur deposts in parts of Colorado and East KY. The 500 years of coal I mentioned is the soft, sub-bituminous coal around Gillette, WY, reaching into Montana. However, most of the Montana coal is a true bituminous coal with 20 percent more heat. The Powder River coals are exceptional because of the deposit. In most cases, there is 100 feet of coal, covered by 80 feet of overburden--perfect for a big shovel or dragline. The coal continues for hundreds of miles this way and is very cheap to produce. This coal can be ripped with a dozer shank or simply scooped with a power shovel or hoe and needs no blasting to break it out for the trip to the crusher.
Gas is not as abundant as we think and it was and is a catastrophic mistake to base load any large utility boiler on this high rank fuel.
45 posted on 09/16/2003 12:44:22 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
The Powder River coals are exceptional because of the deposit. In most cases, there is 100 feet of coal, covered by 80 feet of overburden--perfect for a big shovel or dragline.

Couldn't agree more. I've been involved in the Powder River Basin for a long time. Not only does it have the coals you mention, but contains approx. 26 TCF in gas reserves, which, when fully developed, could heat, cool and power California for 20 years. After the methane is removed, the coal could more safely be extracted.

The "Big George coals by Gillette, are approximately 400' thick with overburdens that vary from 400' to 800'. The CBM wells there are tremendous, some producing over 1 mmcf pd. Central basin coals are deeper and not as thick. Western side of the basin is shallow like the Big George coals around Gillette, but contained in several seams, varing from 10' to 50' in thickness. All in all, a very mineral rich basin, with some very prolific oil and gas wells in deep formations (Muddy, Minnelusa, etc.) from 5000' to 9000'.

Enviro lawsuits against the CBM producers have slowed production, but that is changing over time. As I last understood it, the existing coal mines there are the biggest in the US, but are somewhat idle, due to lack of demand.

46 posted on 09/16/2003 1:20:06 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Well, that seals it. Diagnosis confirmed. Treatment refused. Case closed.

Your brilliance is astonishing, for an enviro geek.

47 posted on 09/16/2003 1:36:19 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
Yet another unsupportable conclusion, teamed with that strong steadfastness, providing more confirmation.

Really, you're too kind. You're the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks!
48 posted on 09/16/2003 1:42:46 PM PDT by newgeezer (A conservative who conserves -- a true capitalist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
You're the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks!

You're too kind, but I'll take the compliment anyway.

All the wells that I have participated in drilling will produce natural gas, in large quantities, all day, every day, for at least 20 years to come.

So, for all who use electricity, heat or cool buildings with that product, will do as you do, thank me for that supply. And, oh by the way, indirectly pay me for it. So thanks really should go to you and them for keeping me in the lifestyle I've become accustomed to.

Keep up the good work, I've got two kids in college and one going next year and I will need all your indirect checks.

49 posted on 09/16/2003 1:58:58 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
I've operated every piece of equipment a coal mine could have (except a dragline--there was something scary about that big bucket swinging on the other side of the window).
My family was involved in mining, but on a much smaller scale than anything like Gillette.
I've loaded washed coal with a 980, loaded holes with ANFO and could operate the D-9s and 637s we had (but no way am I an expert).
Funny how so many folks are in love this natural gas for electric generation. The Canadians are only too glad to sell us all they have.
50 posted on 09/16/2003 2:16:55 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson