Monthly Archives: May 2009

Chris McGill Natural gas market indicators

090529ngmi Natural gas market indicators

The fundamental strong supply/weak demand natural gas market environment has not changed, despite prices that have fallen, first precipitously then steadily, since last July.  Understanding the current market environment is relatively simple and needs to be viewed in that context.

The plain vanilla forces of supply and demand have led to interesting questions such as “why hasn’t domestic production fallen off more” and “when, if ever, will prices rebound?”   Most analysts see a push from demand, as the likeliest driver for fundamental price increases in the future.

Visit this link to download the full Natural Gas Market Indicator. Topics covered include: Reported Prices, Weather, Working Gas in Underground Storage, Natural Gas Production, Rig Counts, Pipeline Imports and Exports, and LNG Markets.

Posted in Natural Gas | Tagged | Comments Off

Dan Gibson National Academies Confirms What the American Gas Association Has Been Saying for Years – Full-Fuel-Cycle is the Measurement Standard of Choice!

The big news in the natural gas world today is a report released by the National Academy of Sciences that advocates that “the U.S. Department of Energy should consider gradually changing its system of setting appliance energy-efficiency standards to a full-fuel-cycle measurement, which takes into account both the energy used to operate an appliance, as well as upstream energy costs – energy consumed in producing and distributing fuels from coal, oil, and natural gas, and energy lost in generating and delivering electric power.”

090527pullquotescience National Academies Confirms What the American Gas Association Has Been Saying for Years – Full Fuel Cycle is the Measurement Standard of Choice!

What does that mean? What it means is the same thing AGA has been saying for years and reiterates in our press release today praising the National Academies.

Natural gas is highly efficient. To pull from the release, 70 percent of the total amount of fuels used in producing, generating and transmitting electricity is lost by the time that electricity reaches a customer. By contrast, producing and delivering natural gas directly loses only about 10 percent of its usable energy.

That’s obviously a big difference.

The release goes on to underscore how the study echoes the ‘carbon footprint labeling’ provisions that were recently included in the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, which would expand the existing Federal Trade Commission EnergyGuide labeling program for home appliances to include carbon footprint information.

The carbon label is a big deal and Dave sums it well when he says, “This study recommends a change in the way that we look at energy efficiency in our appliances and it should be expanded to include building codes that also measure energy efficiency.

It’s great to hear other people get what AGA has been saying for years. I know we have a few DOE people that browse this blog. What do you guys think? Is the National Academies a reliable enough source to Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approach. Just asking. icon wink National Academies Confirms What the American Gas Association Has Been Saying for Years – Full Fuel Cycle is the Measurement Standard of Choice!

If you’re interested, you can visit AGA’s energy efficiency page for more information on the benefits of natural gas.

Posted in energy, Natural Gas | Tagged , | Comments Off

Dan Gibson Natural Gas Roundtable: Dr. Stelzer

stelzer2 Natural Gas Roundtable: Dr. StelzerWe’re gearing up for our next Natural Gas Roundtable on Thursday May 28. This month’s speaker is Dr. Irwin Stelzer, senior fellow and director of Hudson Institute. Dr. Stelzer’s topic will be:  “The Impact on the Natural Gas Industry of Emerging Energy Policy.” Definitely a timely discussion.

Dr. Stelzer is a senior fellow and director of Hudson Institute’s economic policy studies group.  Prior to joining Hudson Institute in 1998, Stelzer was resident scholar and director of regulatory policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.  He also is the U.S. economic and political columnist for The Sunday Times (London) and The Courier Mail (Australia), and a contributing editor of The Weekly Standard.

The Natural Gas Roundtable always gets a great speaker. Last month, we had Red Cavaney, ConocoPhillips‘ senior vice president of Government and Public Affairs. Red also served as the CEO of API and on the senior White House staff for Presidents Reagan, Ford and Nixon. You can read a recap of that Roundtable over at Platts.

ngr09042314 Natural Gas Roundtable: Dr. Stelzer

Red Cavaney, ConocoPhillips’ senior vice president of Government and Public Affairs, after his remarks at the Natural Gas Roundtable.

Posted in energy, events | Tagged | Comments Off

Kristin Schrader Marcell Waxman-Markey legislation

Yesterday the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate change bill, H.R. 2454, “the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″, by a vote of 33-25.

AGA noted the important step the House Energy and Commerce Committee took last night in reporting this climate change legislation and is looking forward to working with Congress as it considers this issue throughout the summer.

It is important to AGA that Congress pass legislation that will strive to improve our environment and energy security, while also encouraging the increased use of clean, abundant, domestic natural gas. As the cleanest fossil fuel, emitting only one carbon atom when burned, natural gas can play a major part in quickly reducing carbon emissions.

Since the House Energy and Commerce Committee action was covered extensively in the media, there are quite a few stories in the news today. Here are a few articles that I came across this morning:

The Washington Post reported the committee markup this week as, “a week of late-night debates that cemented the shift of climate change from rhetorical jousting to a subject of serious, if messy, Washington policymaking. ”

Here’s a story where the New York Times discusses the supporters and opponents of the cap-and-trade legislation. While some eagerly supported the bill, others were concerned that it was a burdensome tax on business that would drive companies and jobs overseas while doing little to address climate change.

The Wall Street Journal says that the Waxman-Markey legislation, “still faces significant hurdles, particularly in the Senate, where a similar proposal failed last year. But the committee’s action gives the measure a major boost in both chambers of Congress, because the panel is among the largest and most ideologically and geographically diverse in Congress, with members from Rust Belt, oil patch, farm and coastal states.”

After the Memorial Day congressional recess, several other House and Senate committees will address various aspects of the bill so the debate on this issue will likely continue throughout this summer.

What do you think about the Waxman-Markey legislation?

Posted in Natural Gas | Tagged | Comments Off