Making a Case for Natural Gas
May 27, 2009 by Richard E. Kelly
Filed under Business, Featured Article, Friends and Family
In our efforts to provide for the energy needs of a planet that may have 9 billion people living on it by 2050, balanced with our need to be good stewards of the earth’s environment, why aren’t we talking about and exploring the potential for natural gas? 
If we want energy security here in the United States (I think we need it) and not remain dependent on foreign oil, then why do we appear to be overlooking natural gas?
These questions beg for a logical response. Natural gas is far more cost effective than either oil or coal, and America’s known resource base exceeds 100 years of supply based on current U.S. consumption levels.
My son Keith is a chemical engineer and plant manager for Total Petrochemicals in Houston, Texas. He recently shared with me what I think is a thought-provoking lecture from Keith Rattie, president of Questar Corp, one of the fastest-growing producers of natural gas in America. You can read his speech in its entirety HERE.
This ten-page transcript of Rattie’s lecture is loaded with lots of irrefutable facts about our energy needs. In my opinion it makes an overpowering case for using natural gas—a significantly cleaner fossil fuel—to help wean our country away from gasoline and coal.
Unfortunately, many of the kernels of wisdom could be lost in the misinformation Mr. Rattie also cites about the ice cap in the Arctic and a “green” Greenland, along with some of his assertions about global warming (I prefer “climate change”). And the messenger does not help the cause with his subjective forecast for alternative fuels.
Perhaps that’s how he thinks the game is played. There is currently no accountability system existing to challenge hard-core environmentalists who willingly or naively misrepresent the facts or use doctored-up pictures to garner support for their doom and gloom views. Many Al Gore clones have successfully demonized everything and everyone associated with fossil fuel industries by using these methods.
Far too many in the public treat oil companies like the enemy, forcing them to defend themselves needlessly and to spend their valuable time and resources to satisfy poorly thought-out regulations. Yes -- and it doesn’t help oil people when their cause is championed by Dick Cheney or radio personality Rush Limbaugh, someone who has turned the use of misinformation into an art form. But it also doesn’t invalidate what the “ditto heads” know to be the truth.
And so it is with Mr. Rattie. His use of misinformation doesn’t change the enormous opportunity for America to use more natural gas as an energy source. We’ll make a huge mistake by minimizing our staggering, 24-hours-a-day dependency on fossil fuel producers who are supporting our standard of living. Nor should we fantasize about how simple it would be to completely replace petroleum with energy from the sun, wind, and other natural resources.
Natural Gas: Pros and cons as a fuel for automobiles.
I for one am grateful for Mr. Rattie’s motives. I feel that if he wants to make a case for natural gas -- a really good one -- a case that will be supported by the majority of the public and key politicians, then he needs to limit his speech writing to areas in which he is supremely qualified. Rattie isn’t a scientist, but I think he’s a damn good salesman who understands the potential for natural gas. And, I like his tenacity.
I finally decided to write a comment on your blog. I just wanted to say good job. I really enjoy reading your posts.
Dick, nice article. Not only is natural gas clean-burning and less expensive, oil and gas insiders know that the reserves are tremendous. I would guess that Rattie’s 100 year figure is probably short by 100 years, just like the oil figures that were being bandied about in the 1970’s predicting we would be out of oil by now were wrong. As to the public’s perspective, I have a personal story. A young man knocked on my door a couple of years ago. He had a thick, Russian accent, and he was protesting the use of diesel in Alaska. I asked him where he was from, and how he got here. When he told me he was Russian, and he got here, “In a jet,” I asked him if he knew that jet fuel is nothing more than filtered diesel. He was speechless, and turned around and left.
Natural gas has been used as a less expensive alternative to liquid fossil fuels for decades, mostly in corporate fleets and transit systems. I suspect the greater profit margins has much to do with natural gas not replacing gasoline and diesel. As a recreational vehicle user, I know the ease of acquiring, and using, natural gas (propane) for much of our “house” power including the electric generator. I agree with Mr. Rattie that we should switch to natural gas from other carbon based fuels.
No one believes we can replace fossil fuels immediately. No one, not even Al Gore.
Does that mean we don’t re-focus on non fossil fuel sources for the future? Mr. Rattie seems to take that stance, but then he was speaking to a graduating class in the great state of Alaska, number one in oil production and reserves.
I consider the source, and dismiss all but two of his ideas: Switch to natural gas for internal combustion engines, and seriously revisit nuclear energy.
Bob, I am sorry to correct you, but Mr. Rattie was speaking to the graduating class at Utah Valley University. You were right though, Alaska is primarily an oil state. We have lots of natural gas in the ground, but for the most part, no way to get it to the markets where it is needed, even if there was a demand created by lots more use of natural gas than there is now.
Craig,
Thanks for pointing out my error.
You remind me of a question. Whatever happened to the idea of liquefying natural gas and shipping it by sea? I thought that was a good idea for moving gas worldwide. Were the ports reluctant to allow the ships to dock?
Josh, thank you for your kind comments. For what it is worth, Josh is well informed on what is happening today with alternative energy strategies. And he is passionate and articulate about sharing that knowledge. Check him out on Twitter. @Josh Maxwell -
Bob Rogers. BP built a several million dollar plant in Alaska as a trial for liquiefying natural gas in Alaska, and decided it was not economical for North Slope gas. Alaska is behind the curve on marketing natural gas. It takes long term contracts to justify huge expenses for pipelines and plants to handle it, and that has is already happening in the Lower 48 with international suppliers.