Friday, July 03, 2009
House of Eratosthenes
House of Eratosthenes
On Marriage: Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off
Thursday, July 2nd, 2009
Says the flibbertigibbet, I screwed around on my husband, so I guess marriage can’t work out for anyone…plus, I get to write a column!
On marriage: Let’s call the whole thing off
Author Sandra Tsing Loh is ending her marriage. Is it time you did, too?
By Sandra Tsing Loh
updated 6:27 a.m. PT, Mon., June 22, 2009Sadly, and to my horror, I am divorcing. This was a 20-year partnership. My husband is a good man, though he did travel 20 weeks a year for work. I am a 47-year-old woman whose commitment to monogamy, at the very end, came unglued. This turn of events was a surprise. I don’t generally even enjoy men; I had an entirely manageable life and planned to go to my grave taking with me, as I do most nights to my bed, a glass of merlot and a good book. Cataclysmically changed, I disclosed everything. We cried, we bewailed the fate of our children.
And yet at the end of the day — literally during a five o’clock counseling appointment, as the golden late-afternoon sunlight spilled over the wall of Balinese masks — when given the final choice by our longtime family therapist, who stands in as our shaman, mother, or priest, I realized…no. Heart-shattering as this moment was — a gravestone sunk down on two decades of history — I would not be able to replace the romantic memory of my fellow transgressor with the more suitable image of my husband, which is what it would take in modern-therapy terms to knit our family’s domestic construct back together. In women’s-magazine parlance, I did not have the strength to “work on” falling in love again in my marriage. And as Laura Kipnis railed in “Against Love,” and as everyone knows, good relationships take work.
Which is not to say I’m against work. Indeed, what also came out that afternoon were the many tasks I — like so many other working/co-parenting/married mothers — have been doing for so many years and tearfully declared I would continue doing. I can pick up our girls from school every day; I can feed them dinner and kiss their noses and tell them stories; I can take them to their doctor and dentist appointments; I can earn my half — sometimes more — of the money…I can administer hugs as needed to children, adults, dogs, cats; I can empty the litter box; I can stir wet food into dry.
Which is to say I can work at a career and child care and joint homeownership and even platonic male-female friendship. However, in this cluttered forest of my 40s, what I cannot authentically reconjure is the ancient dream of brides, even with the Oprah fluffery of weekly “date nights,” when gauzy candlelight obscures the messy house, child talk is nixed and silky lingerie donned, so the two of you can look into each other’s eyes and feel that “spark” again. Do you see? Given my staggering working mother’s to-do list, I cannot take on yet another arduous home- and self-improvement project, that of rekindling our romance. Sobered by this failure as a mother — which is to say, my failure as a wife — I’ve since begun a journey of reading, thinking, and listening to what’s going on in other 21st-century American families. And along the way, I’ve begun to wonder, what with all the abject and swallowed misery: Why do we still insist on marriage? Sure, it made sense to agrarian families before 1900, when to farm the land, one needed two spouses, grandparents, and a raft of children. But now that we have white-collar work and washing machines, and our life expectancy has shot from 47 to 77, isn’t the idea of lifelong marriage obsolete?
:
Imagine driving with me now to Rachel’s house for our new 40-something social hobby — the Girls’ Night dinner. Leap not from my car, even though I realize — given my confessed extramarital affair, avowed childhood desire to see my father explode into flames, and carpet of tattered Happy Meal wrappers — I may not strike you as the most reliable explicator of modern marriage. Still, we forge on, and what I’d like to do now is recant for a moment and not be quite so hard on marriage, which I think is a very good fit for some people.
:
[Helen] Fisher, a women’s cult figure and an anthropologist, has long argued that falling in love — and falling out of love — is part of our evolutionary biology and that humans are programmed not for lifelong monogamy, but for serial monogamy.“Why Him? Why Her?” explains the hormonal forces that trigger humans to be romantically attracted to some people and not to others (a phenomenon also documented in the animal world). Fisher posits that each of us gets dosed in the womb with different levels of hormones that impel us toward one of four basic personality types:
The Explorer — the libidinous, creative adventurer who acts “on the spur of the moment.” Operative neurochemical: dopamine.
The Builder — the much calmer person who has “traditional values.” The Builder also “would rather have loyal friends than interesting friends,” enjoys routines, and places a high priority on taking care of his or her possessions. Operative neurotransmitter: serotonin.
The Director — the “analytical and logical” thinker who enjoys a good argument. The Director wants to discover all the features of his or her new camera or computer. Operative hormone: testosterone.
The Negotiator — the touchy-feely communicator who imagines “both wonderful and horrible things happening” to him- or herself. Operative hormone: estrogen, then oxytocin.
Fisher reviewed personality data from 39,913 members of Chemistry.com. Explorers made up 26 percent of the sample, Builders 28.6 percent, Directors 16.3 percent, Negotiators 29.1 percent. While Explorers tend to be attracted to Explorers, and Builders tend to be attracted to Builders, Directors are attracted to Negotiators, and vice versa.
Exclaims Ellen, slapping the book: “This is why my marriage has been dead for 15 years. I’m an Explorer married to a Builder!”
The nitwit. Guess Fisher forgot about that fifth one there. Poor schmucks that are married to these nitwits; they’re about to lose half their stuff because they made the awful mistake of allowing their nitwit wives to read books.
Yup, it’s really as bad as people think it is. Middle-aged married women with a Cinderella complex, angry that life isn’t perfect and stress free, get all sauced up and talk each other into divorces. Then they bury their gross wrinkly noses in hateful chick-books carefully designed to expunge any doubts about it that might remain, download some hunky stud off the innerwebs, and the poor schlub who was stupid enough to marry them loses half his stuff.
And then they become authorities on marriage, graciously counseling women who are more mature and mentally balanced than they are. Making craploads of money, if they get lucky…and still pulling in that alimony check. So that girls’-night-out wine-buying slush fund stays all slushy.
This is the kind of thing that makes me think our whole society needs a reboot. In a number of our most treasured institutions, the rules are made by whoever among us have proven themselves to be, without any doubt, the most dysfunctional.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
The Blind Squirrel: What does Cap Trade mean to you?
The Blind Squirrel: What does Cap Trade mean to you?
Now that the House has voted on Cap and Trade without any idea what was in it.... details are starting to leak out.
The bloody bill was not even finished being written before they voted on it..... they did so blindly under party orders. The final three hundred page amendment was handed out just three hours before the vote, and the whole bill was not assembled at the time of voting.
So.... what does this little gift from congress mean to you, with its $15 per ton tax on CO2 emissions?
How about.... doubling your electric bill for a start. 57% of the electricity in the nation is from coal fired plants, and the tax will (at best) double the price of coal, plus the fuel to transport the coal, plus the fuel to dig the coal, plus.......
Heat your home with oil or gas? The new tax will add about 50% to your heating bills.
Drive a car, do you? Nice car? Enjoy that ride to work, do you? How about gas taxes increasing by up to fifty cents a gallon. Look on the bright side... maybe yours will be one of the estimated two million jobs this new tax will cost the nation. If you have no job, you'll save on gas.... what with having no place to go.
Oh... and don't forget..... every single thing you use in life..... everything you eat, wear, sit on, write on, and use.... all comes by rail and truck. All those transportation costs will go up 30% to 70%. Hmm.... another thought.... most of our nations farm fertilizers are petro-chemical based, and all the equipment to work the farms and transport the food is diesel. Look for food costs to almost double.... if you can get any.
These numbers are based the administrations most favored numbers.... the best case sce
What does Cap+Trade mean to you?
.Now that the House has voted on Cap and Trade without any idea what was in it.... details are starting to leak out.
The bloody bill was not even finished being written before they voted on it..... they did so blindly under party orders. The final three hundred page amendment was handed out just three hours before the vote, and the whole bill was not assembled at the time of voting.
So.... what does this little gift from congress mean to you, with its $15 per ton tax on CO2 emissions?
How about.... doubling your electric bill for a start. 57% of the electricity in the nation is from coal fired plants, and the tax will (at best) double the price of coal, plus the fuel to transport the coal, plus the fuel to dig the coal, plus.......
Heat your home with oil or gas? The new tax will add about 50% to your heating bills.
Drive a car, do you? Nice car? Enjoy that ride to work, do you? How about gas taxes increasing by up to fifty cents a gallon. Look on the bright side... maybe yours will be one of the estimated two million jobs this new tax will cost the nation. If you have no job, you'll save on gas.... what with having no place to go.
Oh... and don't forget..... every single thing you use in life..... everything you eat, wear, sit on, write on, and use.... all comes by rail and truck. All those transportation costs will go up 30% to 70%. Hmm.... another thought.... most of our nations farm fertilizers are petro-chemical based, and all the equipment to work the farms and transport the food is diesel. Look for food costs to almost double.... if you can get any.
These numbers are based the administrations most favored numbers.... the best case sce
Blogger: Home On the Range - Post a Comment
Blogger: Home On the Range - Post a Comment
Personal responsibility and the value of life and things earned.
Personal responsibility and the value of life and things earned.
Grouchy Old Cripple: What if...
Grouchy Old Cripple: What if...
What if...
Many of my readers sent me this. It's sumpin' for all the liberals who have been lambasting Chimpy McHalliburton Bushitler during the past eight years.
What If George W. Bush had ...made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the Fifth of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potato as “proof” of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 weeks -- so you'll have three years and nine-and-a-half months to come up with an answer.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monthly S&P500 Inflation Adjusted | The Big Picture
Monthly S&P500 Inflation Adjusted | The Big Picture
I meant to get to this from last week — but given that its a 140 year chart, I guess one week won’t matter much (via Ron Griess of The Chart Store):
>
click for bigger graph
Monday, June 29, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Knowledge Is Power
Knowledge Is Power:
http://www.sondrak.com/index.php/weblog/honey_does_this_dog_make_my_ass_look_big/
Michelle/dog/ass
06/15 at 11:49 AM •
(46) Extra Credit • Pass it on...
Page 1 of 1 pages
Site Meter"
http://www.sondrak.com/index.php/weblog/honey_does_this_dog_make_my_ass_look_big/
Michelle/dog/ass
06/15 at 11:49 AM •
(46) Extra Credit • Pass it on...
Page 1 of 1 pages
Site Meter"
Friday, June 26, 2009
Submitted without comment � Theclubabove’s Weblog
Submitted without comment � Theclubabove’s Weblog
Michael Jackson embodied diversity. He *was* diversity, all in one body. Witness:
He was born a black boy from Gary Indiana.
He died a white man from Hollywood.
He loved men, women, and children. Literally, evidently.
There wasn’t a religion he didn’t call his own.
He’d breathe oxygen, sometimes with nitrogen and sometimes without.
He had a large nose.
He had a small nose.
He had no nose.
He had a cleft chin.
He had no cleft chin.
He had no chin.
He had frizzy hair.
He had wavy hair.
He had straight hair.
He had burning hair.
He’d wear two gloves. He’d wear one glove. He’d wear no gloves.
He’d wear gold lame’ jock straps OUTSIDE of his clothes and, we must presume, inside as well.
Yes, truly, Michael Jackson was all things to all people.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Home On the Range
Home On the Range: "There is a Korean martial art called Kum Do, which involves some very sharp swords and in its original form, a fight to the death. Now, in our kinder and gentler day, bamboo sticks are used, but many of the moves that survived the ensuing centuries were developed to shake blood off the blade so that the coagulating blood didn't dull the edge. Kum Du teaches students to avoid what is known as the four poisons of the mind 'fear, confusion, hesitation and surprise'. The constant tendency of men to anticipate and predict an event is a disadvantage, for in Kum Do if you let your natural inclination of prediction run loose, you could get a surprise, leading to confusion and then death (or a really sharp whack with that damn bamboo pole)."
Voting Present vs. Having Skin in the Game
Voting Present vs. Having Skin in the Game: "Voting Present vs. Having Skin in the Game
Many commentators discuss Obama's statements on Iran only in terms of providing moral support. I have done so myself, actually. John McCain too, who specifically disclaimed any intent to arm the protesters or take any other aggressive action against the regime in demanding Obama speak out more forcefully.
But the thing is, that's kind of disingenuous.
When a President speaks out forcefully on a regime's behavior, he's putting a little of his credibility on the line. He's risking some authority in a gamble, basically."
Read the whle thing!!!
Many commentators discuss Obama's statements on Iran only in terms of providing moral support. I have done so myself, actually. John McCain too, who specifically disclaimed any intent to arm the protesters or take any other aggressive action against the regime in demanding Obama speak out more forcefully.
But the thing is, that's kind of disingenuous.
When a President speaks out forcefully on a regime's behavior, he's putting a little of his credibility on the line. He's risking some authority in a gamble, basically."
Read the whle thing!!!
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
What is the Average True Range?
What is the Average True Range?
The Average True Range Is An Awesome Measure Of Volatility And Market Noise But What Makes It So Fantasic For Setting Stops?
You may have read that many traders use the average true range for setting their stop losses. The reason is that the average true range is a fantastic measure of volatility and market noise.
Very simply, the average true range (ATR) determines a security’s volatility over a given period. That is, the tendency of a security to move, in either direction.
More specifically, the average true range is the (moving) average of the true range for a given period. The true range is the greatest of the following:
The difference between the current high and the current low The difference between the current high and the previous close The difference between the current low and the previous close
The average true range is then calculated by taking an average of the true ranges over a set number of previous periods. Care should be taken to use sufficient periods in the averaging process in order to obtain a suitable sample size, i.e. an average true range using only 3 periods would not provide a large enough sample to give you an accurate indication of the true range of the security’s price movement. A more useful period to use for the average true range would be 14.
The value returned by the average true range is simply an indication as to how much a stock has moved either up or down on average over the defined period. High values indicate that prices are changing a large amount during the day. Low values indicate that prices are staying relatively constant. Note that both trending and level prices can have high or low volatility.
So, how can we use the average true range in calculating our stop loss? All you do is you subtract a multiple of the average true range from the entry price. I might take two times the average true range and subtract it from my entry price. For example, if we had a one dollar stock and its average true range value was five cents, I would simply take a multiple of the average true range, which I said we’ll use two in this example, and we’d subtract it from our entry price. So, two times our average true range is ten cents, subtracted from our entry price gives us a stop loss value of 90 cents.
Now, by adhering to this pre-defined point at which I sell, I know that if the share price doesn’t move in my favored direction, and actually moves against me, I already know the point at which I’m going to sell. My emotions are removed from the equation, and I just simply follow what my stop loss says. This is how most successful traders limit their losses. They know when they’re going to sell and they have this pre-defined before they even begin trading. Although their methods of calculating the average true range and the stop loss may be different the one common element here is that they have a stop loss in place.
Here’s a little extra finesse point that you might look at including in your trading plan. I sometimes introduce a time stop depending on the type of system I’m trading. This type of stop simply takes you out of a position after a fixed amount of time if I haven’t made enough profit.
To successfully implement this type of stop, you’re going to have to work out the average true range and do some sort of back testing, to find out if it’s appropriate for the particular instrument you’re trading. I just thought I’d throw that in there to make sure you have all your bases covered.
When you first begin calculating your average true range and outlining your stop losses, just keep in mind what Tom Baldwin, the successful trader said. He said the best traders have no ego. You have to swallow your pride and get out of your losses. He’s simply referring to having a stop loss set, and more importantly, having the discipline to stick to it.
The Average True Range Is An Awesome Measure Of Volatility And Market Noise But What Makes It So Fantasic For Setting Stops?
Provided By Trading Secrets Revealed
You may have read that many traders use the average true range for setting their stop losses. The reason is that the average true range is a fantastic measure of volatility and market noise.Very simply, the average true range (ATR) determines a security’s volatility over a given period. That is, the tendency of a security to move, in either direction.
More specifically, the average true range is the (moving) average of the true range for a given period. The true range is the greatest of the following:
The average true range is then calculated by taking an average of the true ranges over a set number of previous periods. Care should be taken to use sufficient periods in the averaging process in order to obtain a suitable sample size, i.e. an average true range using only 3 periods would not provide a large enough sample to give you an accurate indication of the true range of the security’s price movement. A more useful period to use for the average true range would be 14.
The value returned by the average true range is simply an indication as to how much a stock has moved either up or down on average over the defined period. High values indicate that prices are changing a large amount during the day. Low values indicate that prices are staying relatively constant. Note that both trending and level prices can have high or low volatility.
So, how can we use the average true range in calculating our stop loss? All you do is you subtract a multiple of the average true range from the entry price. I might take two times the average true range and subtract it from my entry price. For example, if we had a one dollar stock and its average true range value was five cents, I would simply take a multiple of the average true range, which I said we’ll use two in this example, and we’d subtract it from our entry price. So, two times our average true range is ten cents, subtracted from our entry price gives us a stop loss value of 90 cents.
Now, by adhering to this pre-defined point at which I sell, I know that if the share price doesn’t move in my favored direction, and actually moves against me, I already know the point at which I’m going to sell. My emotions are removed from the equation, and I just simply follow what my stop loss says. This is how most successful traders limit their losses. They know when they’re going to sell and they have this pre-defined before they even begin trading. Although their methods of calculating the average true range and the stop loss may be different the one common element here is that they have a stop loss in place.
Here’s a little extra finesse point that you might look at including in your trading plan. I sometimes introduce a time stop depending on the type of system I’m trading. This type of stop simply takes you out of a position after a fixed amount of time if I haven’t made enough profit.
To successfully implement this type of stop, you’re going to have to work out the average true range and do some sort of back testing, to find out if it’s appropriate for the particular instrument you’re trading. I just thought I’d throw that in there to make sure you have all your bases covered.
When you first begin calculating your average true range and outlining your stop losses, just keep in mind what Tom Baldwin, the successful trader said. He said the best traders have no ego. You have to swallow your pride and get out of your losses. He’s simply referring to having a stop loss set, and more importantly, having the discipline to stick to it.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
R-Squared Energy Blog: How Much Natural Gas to Replace Gasoline?
R-Squared Energy Blog: How Much Natural Gas to Replace Gasoline?
You may have seen the news this week that a report by the Potential Gas Committee says natural gas reserves in 2008 rose to 2,074 trillion cubic feet. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (via Rigzone) both had stories on it, and T. Boone Pickens issued a press release. First, from the New York Times (and this is a really good article):
Estimate Places Natural Gas Reserves 35% Higher
The Wall Street Journal wrote:
US Has Almost 100-Year Supply of Natural Gas
Pickens had this to say:
T. Boone Pickens Statement on Surge in Estimated Natural Gas Reserves
A number of people have rightly pointed out that a 100-year implies usage at current rates. But it got me to thinking about how much natural gas it would take to displace all U.S. gasoline consumption. So in the spirit of my previous essay Replacing Gasoline with Solar Power, I will do the same calculation for replacing gasoline with natural gas. The big difference between this calculation and the earlier one is that solar power still has some technical issues to resolve (e.g., storage) and electric vehicles are not yet ready for prime time. On the other hand we are perfectly capable, today, of displacing large numbers of gasoline-fueled vehicles with natural gas.
How Much Do We Need?
The U.S. currently consumes 390 million gallons of gasoline per day. (Source: EIA). A gallon of gasoline contains about 115,000 BTUs. (Source: EPA). The energy content of this much gasoline is equivalent to 45 trillion BTUs per day. The energy content of natural gas is about 1,000 BTUs per standard cubic foot (scf). Therefore, to replace all gasoline consumption would require 45 billion scf per day, or 16.4 trillion scf per year. Current U.S. natural gas consumption is 23 trillion scf per year (Source: EIA). Therefore, replacing all gasoline consumption with natural gas would require a total usage of 39.4 trillion scf per year, an increase in natural gas consumption of 71% over present usage.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the 2,074 trillion standard cubic feet cited in the study is accurate, that the "probable, possible and speculative reserves" eventually equate to actual reserves, and that the gas is economically recoverable, that is enough gas for 53 years of combined current natural gas consumption and gasoline consumption. If you assume that only the proven plus probable reserves are eventually recovered, the amount drops to about 1/3rd of the 2,074 trillion scf estimate, still enough to satisfy current natural gas consumption and replace all gasoline consumption for almost 20 years.
We can also calculate in terms of oil imports. Right now the U.S. imports about 13 million barrels per day of all petroleum products. A barrel of oil contains around 5.8 million BTUs, but oil only makes up 10 million of the 13 million barrel per day figure. Other imports include things like gasoline (4.8 million BTUs/bbl) and ethanol (3.2 million BTUs/bbl). Scanning the list of imports, I probably won't be too far off the mark to presume that the average BTU value of those 13 million bpd of imports is about 5.4 million BTUs/bbl. On an annual basis, this amounts to 25.6 trillion scf, an increase over current natural gas usage of 111%. Going back to the 2,074 trillion scf from the study, this would be enough to displace imports of all petroleum products (again, at current usage rates and not factoring in declining U.S. oil production) for 43 years.
What's the Cost?
Natural gas is presently trading at about $4 per million (MM) BTU (although December 2009 is trading at almost $6). Oil is presently trading at $71/bbl, which equates to $12.24/MMBTU. Gasoline is presently trading at over $17/MMBTU. Thus, natural gas is a bargain relative to oil or gasoline. Incidentally, I just checked on seasoned wood and wood pellets, and they range from $8-$12/MMBTUs. So it is cheaper to heat your house with gas than with wood. I am not sure I would have guessed that.
While natural gas is a bargain relative to gasoline, converting a gasoline-powered vehicle to natural gas isn't cheap. According to this source, it can cost $12,500 to $22,500 to convert a gasoline-powered car to natural gas. Honda makes a compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle, but according to this review in Car and Driver the premium over the gasoline version is $8780. A person would need to drive an awful lot to justify that premium. However, that's what fleets do. They drive a lot. The large price differential explains why fleets would be interested in running their vehicles on natural gas.
Conclusions
So, the good news is that the United States could be energy independent if the newly released natural gas reserve numbers are remotely accurate. It also appears that we have enough natural gas available that civilization isn't going to end any time soon due to lack of energy supplies. There are three caveats. First, energy independence via natural gas would require us to spend significantly more for personal automotive transportation. Second, "possible" reserves may never materialize. Finally, a large chunk of the calculated reserves are based on shale gas, and that requires gas to be in the $6-$8/million BTU range to be economical. Still, it is a bargain compared to gasoline, and it explains why fleets are more receptive to conversion to natural gas than the general public is likely to be for their personal vehicles.
Friday, June 19, 2009
How Much Natural Gas to Replace Gasoline?
I Took This Picture of a CNG Bus on a Recent Trip to D.C.
You may have seen the news this week that a report by the Potential Gas Committee says natural gas reserves in 2008 rose to 2,074 trillion cubic feet. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (via Rigzone) both had stories on it, and T. Boone Pickens issued a press release. First, from the New York Times (and this is a really good article):
Estimate Places Natural Gas Reserves 35% Higher
Thanks to new drilling technologies that are unlocking substantial amounts of natural gas from shale rocks, the nation’s estimated gas reserves have surged by 35 percent, according to a study due for release on Thursday.
Estimated natural gas reserves rose to 2,074 trillion cubic feet in 2008, from 1,532 trillion cubic feet in 2006, when the last report was issued. This includes the proven reserves compiled by the Energy Department of 237 trillion cubic feet, as well as the sum of the nation’s probable, possible and speculative reserves.
The new estimates show “an exceptionally strong and optimistic gas supply picture for the nation,” according to a summary of the report, which is issued every two years by a group of academics and industry experts that is supported by the Colorado School of Mines.
The Wall Street Journal wrote:
US Has Almost 100-Year Supply of Natural Gas
The amount of natural gas available for production in the United States has soared 58% in the past four years, driven by a drilling boom and the discovery of huge new gas fields in Texas, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, a new study says.
...the Potential Gas Committee's study was prepared by industry geologists who analyzed individual gas fields using seismic imagery and production data provided by gas producers. The surge in gas resources is the result of a five-year-long drilling boom spurred by high natural-gas prices, easy credit and new technologies that allowed companies to produce gas from a dense kind of rock known as shale. The first big shale formation to be discovered, the Barnett Shale near Fort Worth, Texas, is now the country's top-producing gas field, and companies have made other huge discoveries in Arkansas, Louisiana and Pennsylvania. Together, the shale fields account for roughly a third of U.S. gas resources, according to the Potential Gas Committee.
Pickens had this to say:
T. Boone Pickens Statement on Surge in Estimated Natural Gas Reserves
Today’s report substantiates what I’ve been saying for years: there’s plenty of natural gas in the U.S. I launched the Pickens Plan a year ago to help reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and using our abundant supply of natural gas as a transition fuel for fleet vehicles and heavy-duty trucks is a key element of that plan. On the same day this report is going out, diesel prices are again on the rise, squeezing the trucking industry. Now more than ever we need to take action to enact energy reform that will immediately reduce oil imports.
The 2,074 trillion cubic feet of domestic natural gas reserves cited in the study is the equivalent of nearly 350 billion barrels of oil, about the same as Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves.
A number of people have rightly pointed out that a 100-year implies usage at current rates. But it got me to thinking about how much natural gas it would take to displace all U.S. gasoline consumption. So in the spirit of my previous essay Replacing Gasoline with Solar Power, I will do the same calculation for replacing gasoline with natural gas. The big difference between this calculation and the earlier one is that solar power still has some technical issues to resolve (e.g., storage) and electric vehicles are not yet ready for prime time. On the other hand we are perfectly capable, today, of displacing large numbers of gasoline-fueled vehicles with natural gas.
How Much Do We Need?
The U.S. currently consumes 390 million gallons of gasoline per day. (Source: EIA). A gallon of gasoline contains about 115,000 BTUs. (Source: EPA). The energy content of this much gasoline is equivalent to 45 trillion BTUs per day. The energy content of natural gas is about 1,000 BTUs per standard cubic foot (scf). Therefore, to replace all gasoline consumption would require 45 billion scf per day, or 16.4 trillion scf per year. Current U.S. natural gas consumption is 23 trillion scf per year (Source: EIA). Therefore, replacing all gasoline consumption with natural gas would require a total usage of 39.4 trillion scf per year, an increase in natural gas consumption of 71% over present usage.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the 2,074 trillion standard cubic feet cited in the study is accurate, that the "probable, possible and speculative reserves" eventually equate to actual reserves, and that the gas is economically recoverable, that is enough gas for 53 years of combined current natural gas consumption and gasoline consumption. If you assume that only the proven plus probable reserves are eventually recovered, the amount drops to about 1/3rd of the 2,074 trillion scf estimate, still enough to satisfy current natural gas consumption and replace all gasoline consumption for almost 20 years.
We can also calculate in terms of oil imports. Right now the U.S. imports about 13 million barrels per day of all petroleum products. A barrel of oil contains around 5.8 million BTUs, but oil only makes up 10 million of the 13 million barrel per day figure. Other imports include things like gasoline (4.8 million BTUs/bbl) and ethanol (3.2 million BTUs/bbl). Scanning the list of imports, I probably won't be too far off the mark to presume that the average BTU value of those 13 million bpd of imports is about 5.4 million BTUs/bbl. On an annual basis, this amounts to 25.6 trillion scf, an increase over current natural gas usage of 111%. Going back to the 2,074 trillion scf from the study, this would be enough to displace imports of all petroleum products (again, at current usage rates and not factoring in declining U.S. oil production) for 43 years.
What's the Cost?
Natural gas is presently trading at about $4 per million (MM) BTU (although December 2009 is trading at almost $6). Oil is presently trading at $71/bbl, which equates to $12.24/MMBTU. Gasoline is presently trading at over $17/MMBTU. Thus, natural gas is a bargain relative to oil or gasoline. Incidentally, I just checked on seasoned wood and wood pellets, and they range from $8-$12/MMBTUs. So it is cheaper to heat your house with gas than with wood. I am not sure I would have guessed that.
While natural gas is a bargain relative to gasoline, converting a gasoline-powered vehicle to natural gas isn't cheap. According to this source, it can cost $12,500 to $22,500 to convert a gasoline-powered car to natural gas. Honda makes a compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle, but according to this review in Car and Driver the premium over the gasoline version is $8780. A person would need to drive an awful lot to justify that premium. However, that's what fleets do. They drive a lot. The large price differential explains why fleets would be interested in running their vehicles on natural gas.
Conclusions
So, the good news is that the United States could be energy independent if the newly released natural gas reserve numbers are remotely accurate. It also appears that we have enough natural gas available that civilization isn't going to end any time soon due to lack of energy supplies. There are three caveats. First, energy independence via natural gas would require us to spend significantly more for personal automotive transportation. Second, "possible" reserves may never materialize. Finally, a large chunk of the calculated reserves are based on shale gas, and that requires gas to be in the $6-$8/million BTU range to be economical. Still, it is a bargain compared to gasoline, and it explains why fleets are more receptive to conversion to natural gas than the general public is likely to be for their personal vehicles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
