Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Chesapeake Energy Invests $1 Billion to Boost Gas Demand

Chesapeake Energy announced that it will spend $1 billion over the next 10 years to boost gas demand.  The investments will be substantially in the transportation sector.

Using more gas and less coal and less oil will reduce toxic pollution in the air, reduce carbon emissions, reduce soot.  Using more gas should also reduce smog, but the industry must make sure that its nitrogen oxide emissions from gas production do not become a source of smog themselves.

Using more gas is also essential for the United States to stop importing about 12 million barrels of oil per day.


  1. Great - exactly why there is not need for government/taxpayers to subsidize this sort of development.

  2. This is good news. I would suggest that your interpretation of what it means is too sweeping.

    There is private capital that is being deployed to build alternative fueling and charging stations.

    The amount of private capital is very small when compared to the compelling national security need to get off foreign oil asap. That small amount also would not be likely on the table but for the existing small government incentives for alternative fueling stations.

    Government has a role to accelerate the deployment of private capital to alternative fueling stations. This announcement is a good data point to consider when deciding how much incentive is needed but it does not mean that there is no need...unless we want to be at the mercy of OPEC and Chinese/Indian oil demand for another 20 years or longer.

  3. The politics of this are very interesting to me. On the far left, a dreamy opposition to fossil fuels in all forms. On the far right, a hidebound ideological inability to see any role for government in creating energy policy -- in the American public interest. Natgas loses support on both extreme wings.

    In the end, I just want inexpensive energy, a clean environment, no more wars, and a job. If it seems like I gotta pay more in the short run to get there, then, okay, I'll do it.

    Hard to believe the middle can't win with a plan like that.

  4. I can feel your pain. One of the best comments in this blog's long, distinguished history. I loved it. Thank you.

  5. For Pennsylvania, the following portion has far more possibilities for quick benefits. Air pollution, and possible problems with diesel fuel tanks being minimized, although not eliminated. I believe part of the EPA study will involve these issues.

    It also illustrates to any other companies on the fence, that the dollars and cents work out. If I remember the conference call correctly, a 1 year payback period is projected.


    "...Just converting our rigs and hydraulic fracturing equipment will cut the company’s diesel fuel consumption by approximately 350,000 gallons a day and save the company approximately $230 million annually,...."

    P.S. Thanks for the blog, Denis .