Exxon CEO: Power generation is best hope for natural gas

May 30, 2012 Full story: Star-Telegram.com 11

Natural gas will continue to displace coal for power generation, and that represents the best opportunity for the gas industry to boost domestic demand and reduce bloated supplies, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson said Wednesday.

Full Story
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#1 May 31, 2012
I agree. At least for the short term, while it lasts, and until wind, solar, biofuels and geothermal can take over.

The CEO of GE is a very smart man.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#2 May 31, 2012
"for the short term, while it lasts"
-
How much natural gas is available in the United States?
America’s vast proven reserves and undiscovered resources offshore include nearly 480 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE). What does that mean? 480 trillion cubic feet of natural gas is enough to heat 10 million homes for nearly 656 years.

Onshore, proven reserves and undiscovered resources include an estimated 654.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). That is enough to heat 10 million homes for nearly 894 years.
http://energyanswered.org/questions/how-much-...
-
Yep, that's a really "short term."
Ö¿Ö
jake the snake

United States

#3 Jun 1, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
"for the short term, while it lasts"
-
How much natural gas is available in the United States?
America’s vast proven reserves and undiscovered resources offshore include nearly 480 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE). What does that mean? 480 trillion cubic feet of natural gas is enough to heat 10 million homes for nearly 656 years.
Onshore, proven reserves and undiscovered resources include an estimated 654.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). That is enough to heat 10 million homes for nearly 894 years.
http://energyanswered.org/questions/how-much-...
-
Yep, that's a really "short term."
Ö¿Ö
All estimates.....means nothing if usage increases and fracking is outlawed.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#4 Jun 1, 2012
jake the snake wrote:
All estimates.....means nothing if usage increases and fracking is outlawed.
What's the worst case scenario, only a few hundred years before NG runs out, instead of a few more hundred years?
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#5 Jun 1, 2012
jake the snake wrote:
<quoted text>All estimates.....means nothing if usage increases and fracking is outlawed.
Not to mention that natural gas has one major problem. It costs a lot to transport (pipeline or as liquified) and is available only in limited areas, mostly where there is no industry to use it. So turning it into electricity in the areas where it IS plentiful and using high voltage power lines to ship the ELECTRICITY around makes a lot of sense.

Not that the clueless can cope with such 'details'. Just look at Mr. Dirtlings drivel about made up numbers that are based on 'models' with no 'real' input except fossil fuel industry hype.

Their track record is to claim massive deposits and then fade away when no discoveries are made in the claimed area.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#6 Jun 1, 2012
The real story in this article is not the well-known "news" that gas is replacing coal, but the little item towards the article's end that Exxon has once again refused to take any action to address its own greenhouse gas pollution, despite a substantially supported shareholder initiative.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#7 Jun 2, 2012
LessFactMoreHype, alias:
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:
Not to mention that natural gas has one major problem. It costs a lot to transport (pipeline or as liquified) and is available only in limited areas, mostly where there is no industry to use it.
Bafflegab.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
So turning it into electricity in the areas where it IS plentiful and using high voltage power lines to ship the ELECTRICITY around makes a lot of sense.
Agreed.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
Not that the clueless can cope with such 'details'.
Specifically?
NoFactAllHype wrote:
Just look at Mr. Dirtlings drivel about made up numbers that are based on 'models' with no 'real' input except fossil fuel industry hype.
Shooting the messenger again, Mr Thermal Pollutant?
NoFactAllHype wrote:
Their track record is to claim massive deposits and then fade away when no discoveries are made in the claimed area.
Do you have any examples to back that wild claim, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#8 Jun 2, 2012
Northie wrote:
The real story in this article is not the well-known "news" that gas is replacing coal, but the little item towards the article's end that Exxon has once again refused to take any action to address its own greenhouse gas pollution, despite a substantially supported shareholder initiative.
Exxon took over two decades to compensate the thousands who chipped in to help after the Exxon Valdez. Don't expect 'ethics' in that corporation.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#9 Jun 2, 2012
Northie wrote:
The real story in this article is not the well-known "news" that gas is replacing coal, but the little item towards the article's end that Exxon has once again refused to take any action to address its own greenhouse gas pollution, despite a substantially supported shareholder initiative.
From the article

"In actions at the annual meeting, shareholders rejected two environmental proposals, one calling for further disclosure of risks involved with hydraulic fracturing and the other seeking to set goals for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in its massive operations."

"Both environmental measures drew just under 30 percent support from the 3.8 billion shares voted at the meeting."

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/05/30/39969...
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#10 Jun 4, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
"Both environmental measures drew just under 30 percent support
As I said, don't expect ethical actions by this company. Their track record shows they don't even have the CONCEPT of responsible business practices.

To which I must now add "Birds of a Feather, Flock Together".

Don't expect unethical companies to draw ethical investors.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#11 Jun 4, 2012
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
Exxon took over two decades to compensate the thousands who chipped in to help after the Exxon Valdez. Don't expect 'ethics' in that corporation.
Exxon...the sign of the double cross.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oil & Gas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Which Gasoline Companies Do Not Use Ethanol? (Aug '07) Wed truethought 520
Two accused of burglary, trespassing in Union P... Wed itwasodd 5
Feds' report on deforestation by oil, gas indus... Oct 20 convenient 1
Police: Thief posed as Connecticut wedding guest Oct 15 Jesus Latter Day ... 4
Exxon Blasts Movement to Divest From Fossil Fuels Oct 14 Earthling-1 1
Inside The Herald - If a community is only wort... (Jan '08) Oct 9 where is POWER now 46
Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq... (Mar '13) Oct 8 Swedenforever 42

Oil & Gas People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE