Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Natural gas prices going up, we need to expand more pipeline

By

2 million Massachusetts residence will see their electric and heating bills increase starting this month. Apparently, demand for natural gas exceeds the capacity of what the existing pipeline can handle. The solution is to lay more pipe, so customers can receive affordable and dependable energy. What is the hold up?

I found this graph showing the the demand for natural gas in the northeast, it looks like a cardiogram. The bottlenecks in our pipeline are causing higher, unpredictable energy prices.

“The increased supply has resulted in greater natural gas use, mostly for power generation, and has also generally reduced natural gas prices. However, this has not always led to lower electricity prices for residents in states like Massachusetts where infrastructure bottlenecks caused brief but dramatic spikes in gas and power prices last winter.”

“According to the U.S. Department of Energy, on Jan. 25 natural gas prices in New England reached $35 per million Btu while prices in the rest of the country remained below $4 per million Btu. In February electricity prices increased 400 percent during one cold spell,” executive director of the New England Ratepayers Association Marc Brown wrote in an editorial today.

http://www.nationalgridus.com/aboutus/a3-1_news2.asp?document=8073

Shale Boom Disrupts Regional Natural Gas Flows, Impacts Gas and Power Prices

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Since you use coal, why should anyone believe you care? This chart says to me that we need a greater investment in renewable energy, i.e. Solar and Wind Power.

    • I wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy. Greed energy (wind power) is not the way to go.

      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8OZgoERceSU

      True I don’t use gas for heat, but I am not a “me me me” voter or type of guy. Just b/c I use anthracite coal for heat, I still care about my neighbors who are stuck using oil, gas, or electric. Who wants to walk around your home feeling like a Popsicle b/c it’s too expensive to keep the temp at 72 degrees?

      There is one downside to burning coal, my house got so warm recently, I had to open my windows to cool the rooms off. I told everyone to pretend we were at Marco Island.


      • although I keeping feeding the trolls expecting a different result, so perhaps I am insane. The turbine above is about a block from my condo in Dorchester, visible from I-93 at the IBEW Hall.

          • or an drilling rig explosion, or a massive oil spill, or a coal mining accident, or a nuclear reactor leak, or a gas main explosion, etc.

            Look, whenever you are generating a significant amount of electricity there is a potential for fire. Duh. But so far, I have not seen any evidence to suggest that wind is even remotely as dangerous as fossil fuel based energy generation.

            Of course, none of you hypochondriac anti-wind complaints would apply to the Cape Wind project.

              • First off, you are lying if you claim that you actually care about sacred native American ground. You only bring it up, because the rest of your lame arguments have been shot down.

                Do you consider every stretch of ground or water over which Indians may or may not have hunted, fished “sacred”. What part of New England would not fall under that definition? You backyard in Waltham is no less “sacred” than this stretch of water.

                And how come no one gave a crap about “sacred ground” when people were zipping about in their power boats, fuel barges, and the like? When else have you ever heard of “sacred ground” that was more than five miles offshore?

                What better honors the memory of the native Americans who once lived along the sound? A casino that will benefit very few and that has absolutely no association with native traditions, or a clean source of energy that will benefit the entire region?

                One thing we know for sure, we are going to eventually run out of oil, coal and gas and the prices of all of those are guaranteed to go up over time. We are always going to have wind, and we don’t have to import it like we have to do with all our other energy sources.

      • Yes, I laughed out loud when I read, “…I am not a me, me, me voter or type of guy.” Could have fooled me.

      • That is so laughable it’s beneath response. Mike hasn’t gone crazy, and no matter how much natural gas you mix with coal, living next to the Salem Plant for 50 years definitely helped kill my grandmother and some of my dad’s neighbors and friends. Look at how awful China is doing with it’s high rate of fossil fuel usage, which will help kill all of us if we don’t start taking leadership now.

        • You’ve misrepresented a graph, distorted the material you cited, and offered a stupid cherry-picked picture.

          If you aren’t already working for Marc Moran or Senator Inhofe, I encourage you to contact them immediately. They will value your skills in ways that this community does not.

    • We don’t seem to be able to keep the DFTT embargo in place, so maybe different ground rules would help. Here are some suggestions:

      1. The first response to any DFW diary is doubt. Misuse of sources is typical. Expect it. Note petr’s response below. So if you want to get all substantive, step one is always clicking on the links and comparing claims to sources. As a mismatch between claims and sources is a violation of the BMG rules, one might also choose to highlight that aspect. Arguing with a DFW post before you have done that helps misinformation spread. Please don’t do it.

      2. No more responses in the second person. Write about DFW never to DFW. For example, let’s avoid responses like this:

      Am I missing something, or is the state in the gas business? Last time I checked, the pipelines were owned by the gas companies. So why aren’t you asking them why they won’t build more pipe? They’re the pipe builders. Not the state.

      Rephrase perhaps to

      Note the laughable confusion above about who builds gas pipelines. Hint: It is not the state.

      We like being conversational here at BMG. That’s a good thing, but we don’t want DFW around forever dominating conversations. So stop conversing with DFW.

      3. It’s okay to be dismissive. Really. Especially if, like Christopher, you just have to register disagreement.

      P.S. with non-liberals who come here to debate honestly, I have the opposite suggestion, viz., to be extra-gentle.

      • Why is it better to set up an elaborate system of troll interaction rules rather than to just evict the trolls and not have to worry about them at all?

            • I honestly would rather not take this position, but I’ve come to believe that you don’t argue in good faith. I spend time trying to parse your stuff, and separate what’s real from what’s baiting.

              And maybe I’m wrong, but life is complicated enough without having to ask myself those questions.

              So, sorry, but I think you should go.

            • Either you or Hrs-Kevin write a diary asking all those in favor of having me leave BMG. If you get 12, just twelve supporters of the petition, then I will leave for at least six months, see everyone around June.

              I ask you or Kevin to write it b/c I thought you guys liked having me around, as Christopher and johnk still seem to do.

              Before you or Kevin decide to write it, keep in mind the totality of my diaries. I’m not a Johnny One Note, as you noticed, ProgressMass quickly stopped talking about Charlie Baker and The Big Dig b/c I, me only, pointed out how Deval uses the same financing mechanism. I think that helps BMG.

              But, if you or Kevin desire to go back to the old ways, write the diary and I promise by the end of the day, I will take a 6 month leave of absence. 12 is all you need. I set the number low, b/c I like conversing on the site with u 2 and kinda dismade that you two have soured on me.

              • If you want to stay here, there’s nothing to stop you. In the old days, we could get rid of bad comments with multiple negative ratings. That would take care of most of the problem. I’m not going to start a anti-Dan campaign.

                Personally, I like you okay, but too often you’re intellectually lazy, short on facts, and overly self-centered. You enjoy being the center of attention far too much to be a pleasure. The Baker, whom I think is Lodger, thinks that I think you’re stupid. I don’t, but you’re far too much work. For every “gem” you offer up, there are three tons of trap rock to go with it. You’re not worth the effort.

  2. Investing in more clean resources will accomplish the same result without the negative environmental consequences.

  3. …dfw posts something that he did not read.

    2 million Massachusetts residence will see their electric and heating bills increase starting this month. Apparently, demand for natural gas exceeds the capacity of what the existing pipeline can handle. The solution is to lay more pipe, so customers can receive affordable and dependable energy. What is the hold up?

    I found this graph showing the the demand for natural gas in the northeast, it looks like a cardiogram. The bottlenecks in our pipeline are causing higher, unpredictable energy prices.

    Neither the graph nor the accompanying articles say anything like what dfw wants them to say. He would have learned this had he actual read the article or learned how to read a graph. Does that stop him? Nay. Not even a trifle.

    First, the only reference to ‘infrastructure bottlenecks’ refers not to to the natural gas pipeline but to the electricity grid, which would be an issue whether powered by coal, nuclear, solar, wind or dfws flatulence.

    Secondly, the net inflow is because A) the northeast is actually exporting natural gas and 2) the Marcellus Shale production is way up, causing Canada and others to send their gas elsewhere.

    dfw would have known this if he could 1) read a graph and B) read the articles he links to…

    • Secondly, the net inflow is because A) the northeast is actually exporting natural gas and 2) the Marcellus Shale production is way up, causing Canada and others to send their gas elsewhere.

      That should read…

      Secondly, the decrease in net inflow is because A) the northeast is actually exporting natural gas and 2) the Marcellus Shale production is way up, causing Canada and others to send their gas elsewhere.

      • “Prices in New England were the highest in the nation mostly because of pipeline constraints that limited the delivery of natural gas. This factor drove electricity prices in New England and New York above $200 per MWh for several days this winter.”

        Now if I’m reading this wrong, then I believe most can understand the confusion. Now, does this quote have to do with the power grid or pipeline?

        http://www.energymanagertoday.com/electric-prices-in-northeast-northwest-most-affected-by-higher-natural-gas-prices-093923/

        • Am I missing something, or is the state in the gas business? Last time I checked, the pipelines were owned by the gas companies. So why aren’t you asking them why they won’t build more pipe? They’re the pipe builders. Not the state.

        • Now if I’m reading this wrong, then I believe most can understand the confusion. Now, does this quote have to do with the power grid or pipeline?

          YOU posted, initially, the claim that, quote:

          “Apparently, demand for natural gas exceeds the capacity of what the existing pipeline can handle.”

          … to which you posted both a graph and an article that SAID NO SUCH THING proving, beyond any doubt, that you deliberately did not read what you posted and that you do not know how to read a graph.

          NOW, when called out, you find a completely different article that purports to make a link between natural gas prices and electricity prices without any mention of infrastructure capacity in an apparent attempt to refute my argument but which, in fact, CONTRADICTS YOUR OWN ARGUMENT (such as it is).

          The BMG rules, I should note, distinctly makes mention of “blanket unsupported statements” that “reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.” Just about everything you post falls into this category.

          • You must have an issue with the source.

            Anyway, where you stand, yes to more pipeline or no?

          • The “blanket unsupported statements” rule is never enforced.

            If the editors were really concerned about lowering the level of discourse, then Dan would have gotten the boot a long time ago.

    • He just googles for something that appears to say that he wants, cuts and pastes, writes a few sentences and hits “submit”.

  4. Natural gas is methane. It is not a “bridge fuel” and will not be replaced by other renewables because it is a renewable energy supply itself. We will always use methane or natural gas. We need to start thinking about a zero emissions policy for it all the way down the line and think about local supply from landfills, sewage, agricultural manures, and all other sources.

    We know that there are over 3,000 methane gas leaks in Boston alone costing us all money and releasing a potent greenhouse gas into the environment.

    Those who are seriously interested in future NE natural gas supply should take a look at the 11/15/2013 Restructuring Roundtable Meeting on Natural Gas & Electricity Interface Challenges in New England with Heather Hunt, Executive Director, NE States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE); Kevin Kirby, VP Market Operations, ISO New England; Don Santa, President/CEO, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America; Sue Reid, VP/Director, CLF Massachusetts; Dan Dolan, President, New England Power Generators Association (NEPGA) at
    http://www.raabassociates.org/main/roundtable.asp?sel=123

      • Wait…
        I believe it was your hero Ronald Reagan who said, “Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem”. So why in the hell should the government being doing a damn thing to interfere in the market driven forces that govern the gas market and its prices? You don’t want government interferring in markets EXCEPT when you want government interferring in markets. I believe that is the definition of being a Serial Hypocrit.

        S’Accuse!

        • The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

          So yes, politicians can drew things up, delay pipelines (does Keystone XL ring a bell? Who is delaying that?)

          Don’t forget back in the 80’s, your hero, Mike Dukakis, refused to sign on evacuation plans for Seabrook. The Duke cost the plant owners $1 billion in additional costs, due to his refusal to cooperate. So yes, Reagan was dead on, govt can be the problem, not the solution.

          • Not counting this message, I have never written a comment about Michael Dukakis anywhere.

            As long as we are on the topic, I voted against Mike Dukakis in the 88 Primary, because he created a controversy around Foster Parents who were Gay and Lesbian, and to the best of my knowledge, I don’t believe he ever apologized for that case, so don’t go claiming he is my hero.

            And Seabrook, don’t even get me started on that insanity.

      • Haven’t looked into the question but my suspicion is no, the current system of pipelines is not a significant bottleneck. But I most definitely could be wrong. However, looking at the Restructuring Roundtable presentations should have some information on the topic.

        You do know that there are many experts who believe that fracked gas has an extremely short lifetime as an energy supply, a decade at most, I’ve read, and a couple of years at worst.

Archives