Natural gas

[zippy1]

Low propane and ethane prices may finally curtail the oversupply of natural gas.

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052748704723404578207760445809162.html?mod=BOL_twm_mw

HIGH PRICES FOR NGLS had encouraged drilling, swelling natural-gas output. However, that support is disappearing. Only a few months after gas prices hit their 10-year low, producers were flooding the markets with ethane, a building block of plastics, and propane, a fuel often used in heating and cooking.

 

Since then, NGL prices have nose-dived.

 

Ethane at the Mont Belvieu, Texas, trading hub, fetched 22.75 cents per gallon Friday, down from nearly 90 cents a year ago, and near an 11-year-low, according to Platts research. The price is so low that some companies can't justify the cost of separating ethane from natural gas, further boosting gas supplies. Propane prices are also in the dumps, trading at 87.2 cents per gallon at Mont Belvieu near the end of the week, 62.2% below the year-earlier level, according to the EIA.

[fareastwarriors]

Exports of American Natural Gas May Fall Short of High Hopes

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/business/energy-environment/exports-of-us-gas-may-fall-short-of-high-hopes.html?ref=business&_r=0

 

“It will be easier to export the technology for extracting shale gas than exporting actual gas,” said Jay Hakes, former administrator of the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration. “I know the pitch about our price differentials will justify the high costs of L.N.G. We will see. Gas by pipeline is a good deal. L.N.G.?  Not so clear.”

 

Even the terminal operators acknowledge that probably only a lucky few companies will export gas because it can cost $7 billion or more to build a terminal, and then only after a rigorous federal regulatory permitting process. The exploratory process to find a suitable site for a new terminal alone can take a year and cost $100 million, operators say, and financing can be secured only once long-term purchase agreements — 20 years or more — are reached with foreign buyers.

[Myth465]

I knew NGL prices would be killed similarly to Nat Gas prices. CHK strikes again.

[PlanMaestro]

Bakken formation flaring seen from space.

 

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8084/8423039746_9943648872.jpg

 

[Liberty]

Gas flaring is such a colossal waste of non-renewable energy  :(

[fareastwarriors]

A little history and color on North Dakota and the Bakken shale. Fun and light read.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/magazine/north-dakota-went-boom.html?pagewanted=1&ref=business

 

North Dakota Went Boom

[fareastwarriors]

G Canada, a consortium led by Royal Dutch Shell RDSB.LN -2.39%PLC, is the second group to win a license from the Canadian government. Shell's partners in the project include PetroChina Co., 601857.SH +0.75%Korea Gas Corp. 036460.SE +0.75%and Japan's Mitsubishi Corp. 8058.TO +1.69%

A second group, Kitimat LNG, led by Apache Corp. APA -2.10%and Chevron Corp., CVX -1.12%received approval in Canada for its own license in late 2011. That license was the first issued by Canada allowing for LNG exports.

 

Last July, Shell applied to the NEB for a license to export up to 24 million tons of LNG per year, for a term of 25 years. Shell doesn't expect to start exporting any gas until 2019.

 

 

 

Canada Backs Export License for Shell LNG Project .

 

 

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324445904578284402178099298.html?mod=WSJ_business_whatsNews&mg=reno64-wsj

[fareastwarriors]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/opinion/global/spreading-an-energy-revolution.html?_r=0

 

Spreading an Energy Revolution

[fareastwarriors]

Barging Into North America's Cheap Gas

 

Like the truth, U.S. natural gas will out—provided Washington doesn't block it.

 

U.S. natural gas trades for about $3.30 per million British thermal units, while in Europe the price is closer to $12. A supply boom coupled with a lack of export options has kept gas prices low in the U.S. Europe, meanwhile, depends on imports from countries such as Russia that demand prices linked to those of oil, which is relatively expensive.

 

Cheap stuff attracts buyers, and gas is no different. French utility EDF EDF.FR +1.01% has announced plans to develop floating barges that could liquefy North American gas to be shipped overseas. In theory, this could offer a cheaper, faster way to get U.S. gas on the high seas than some land-based projects.

 

That remains to be seen. The bigger point to draw from this move is that Europe needs cheaper energy, and its companies are getting creative in how to tap it. In December, Austria's Voestalpine VOE.VI +1.74% announced plans to build a new facility in North America to use cheap gas to make a precursor to steel that will then be shipped back home for final processing.

 

Europe needs the help. Its power stations are burning more U.S. coal these days, which has been displaced by cheap gas at home. That helps with costs but does nothing for Europe's carbon-emissions targets. Alistair Buchanan, who runs the U.K.'s energy-market regulator, warned again this week that the country's reliance on imported gas to power its electricity grid looks set to intensify, raising energy bills.

 

Meanwhile, Jonathan Lane of research firm and consultancy GlobalData calculates that German residential consumers last year paid more than 2.5 times what Americans paid for electricity. High renewable subsidies in Germany are a big part of this, but the cheaper underlying cost of gas-fired power also gives U.S. bill-payers an advantage.

 

Exporting U.S. gas to Europe, undercutting the likes of Gazprom, OGZPY +2.82% is a no-brainer from the market's perspective. The question is whether U.S. politicians allow much of it. For them, a gas glut at home means less inflation and a basis for more competitive manufacturing.

 

Even if EDF and friends build their barges, they may struggle to find a welcoming dock.

[fareastwarriors]

Gas Producers Accept Their Fate

 

 

Natural-gas producers pray for a price rebound, but their god isn't listening.

 

Last spring, near-month gas futures hit a 10-year low of less than $2 per million British thermal units. They are about $3.30 now, but that still isn't much help.

 

As 2012 results have rolled in, companies have been cutting gas reserves that are no longer economic to drill. Companies such as EOG Resources and Penn Virginia saw gas reserves drop by more than a third. Some of those reserves will come back when prices rise. But Jon Wolff of ISI Group says another factor at play is companies simply taking some gas projects (and their associated reserves) out of their development line altogether.

 

Another sign of E&P companies accepting that gas prices are low and staying that way is hedging activity. On Thursday, self-described "champion of natural gas" Chesapeake Energy said it had hedged half of its projected 2013 gas output at a price of $3.62. This time last year, it hadn't hedged any—and paid a heavy price as cash flow was crushed. Devon Energy, another big gas producer, has hedged 60% of its expected output at $3.87. This time last year, it had hedged only a third, at $4.73.

 

Matt Portillo, a director at Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co., sees a structural trend for E&P companies in terms of a "step down in the price they're willing to accept" for gas. This partly reflects lower costs from more-efficient drilling. But in trading some potential gains for the certainty of cash flow, it is also a tacit admission that gas prices look set to stay low for a while.

 

E&P investors might gnash their teeth. But consumers, at least, will say "amen" to that.

[SharperDingaan]

The reality is that to use these low prices, you have to make the energy intensive goods in the US - & then export the goods. You also have to recognize that without fracing the gas glut disappears, and pretty rapidly (shale depletion rates). 

 

So if you have 2-3 years before the glut disappears, what can you make? and how best to do it?

Look at the smelters, foundries, etc. 

 

SD

[Packer16]

What do you guys think of using like a 20:1 ratio for value of oil to gas reserves versus the traditional 6:1.  A few producers like Devon are using this ratio now.

 

Packer

[SharperDingaan]

Be careful when gas is being spun as equivalent to oil; oil you can sell  ;)

 

The quick & dirty for reserves is to look at the price the last reserve estimate was done at. Then multiply the reserve by (today's price/reserve price)*0.9. Multiple by 0.5 to get to the maximum debt that the reserve could carry. It is not precise, but more than good enough for predictive purposes.

 

The ratio recognizes that at lower prices, some of the reserve will be uneconomic & get shut-in. The 10% haircut recognizes that shut-in's happen in clumps as collector lines are closed. The 50% collateral tells you who is going to have to sell &/or get foreclosed on. Then recognize that shut-ins are really a gift  ;)  A small rise in price brings back proven reserves at zero cost, & the opportunities that go with it.

 

 

 

 

[ShahKhezri]

Be careful when gas is being spun as equivalent to oil; oil you can sell  ;)

 

The quick & dirty for reserves is to look at the price the last reserve estimate was done at. Then multiply the reserve by (today's price/reserve price)*0.9. Multiple by 0.5 to get to the maximum debt that the reserve could carry. It is not precise, but more than good enough for predictive purposes.

 

The ratio recognizes that at lower prices, some of the reserve will be uneconomic & get shut-in. The 10% haircut recognizes that shut-in's happen in clumps as collector lines are closed. The 50% collateral tells you who is going to have to sell &/or get foreclosed on. Then recognize that shut-ins are really a gift  ;)  A small rise in price brings back proven reserves at zero cost, & the opportunities that go with it.

 

That's really interesting...mind if I ask how you came to that?  I also tend to agree with Packer...if you to a WTIC divided by Natgas over the last 20 years, you can see for 15 year trading between 6-8...then the range goes all the way up to 50...crazy.

[SharperDingaan]

It is easiest to think of a straw (well) in a slurpy (oil field). When the slurpy is new it is easy to suck (primary production techniques) the drink (oil) up the straw; but as the drink drains the slurpy ices up & you have to suck harder (secondary & tertiary production techniques). Warm (frac, steam inject, etc.) the slurpy & for a time it gets easier (high flow rates), but it doesn’t last very long (rapid depletion). To get the last drop you put the slurpy in the sun (new technology) which melts it.

 

How hard you suck (cost to produce) depends on how much you want the drink (what you can sell the oil for). If you can’t be bothered (price is low) you only suck until the drink is gone (lowest cost primary production only), then toss the slurpy (fields that require secondary & tertiary production techniques).  Those secondary & tertiary production fields (shale, tight formations, etc.)  get shut in until the price rises enough to warrant sucking harder.

 

The reserve study basically says that at price X (ie:  how hard you’re willing to suck at $80) you have Y of proven reserve (oil in the field), and Z of ‘other’ reserves (mystery oil if you can get it out). When X is high, proven reserve rises dramatically (as you can now afford to use secondary & tertiary production techniques, fracing, steam injection, etc), BUT ‘other’ reserves REALLY rise; however the relationship is not linear. Haircutting at today price (ie: $60) & multiplying by .9 (ie: [(60/80)*.9] x proven reserve) gives you a ballpark reserve value to work with.

 

O&G is not much different to hotels; bankers are not going to lend at more than 50c in the $ at the bottom of the cycle. Multiplying the lower proven reserve (quantity) at today’s price ($60) gives an idea as to the maximum a banker would be willing to lend. Just as with mortgages, the bum (small O&G coy) versus the suit (large O&G coy), is the more likely to get their loan called in a downtown, especially if they are close to the loan limit (usually the case). The bum either sells assets to someone bigger (field consolidation), sells equity (dilution) to pay down debt, or sells out (merger).

   

When prices rise again, you can not only afford to suck harder, but you also get to suck at a lower price as consolidation & technology have given you economies of scale. Reserves rise & your banker shovels money at you by now lending on the ‘bigger’ proven reserve at 60c in the $, AND giving you maybe 20c in the $ on the mystery ‘other’ reserves. You get free oil for zero cost, massive access to debt financing (to spend poorly), & minimal risk.

 

Then keep in mind that some bums are really wolves in bums clothing; their exit is usually a sale to a bigger player in a rising market, after 1-2 cycles.

 

Now if you are a value investor;

1) Isn’t the upward reserve adjustment really the realization of IV? Sell Signal

2) Doesn’t the non-linearity ensure that you will overshoot on the upside? Sell Signal

3) Isn’t some of the large company moat getting monetized via economy of scale? Sell Signal

4) And all while floating in a sea of available financing, looking for a place to get spent. Sell signal

 

… And all you have to do is buy the mid-range consolidator, & wait for the price to rise. 

 

[PlanMaestro]

Japan wakes up to US shale revolution.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/20b40574-8007-11e2-96ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2M3ZQLfUi

 

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8510/8512433506_780b4cdb8f.jpg

[fareastwarriors]

Gas Boom Projected to Grow for Decades .

 

 

U.S. natural-gas production will accelerate over the next three decades, new research indicates, providing the strongest evidence yet that the energy boom remaking America will last for a generation.

 

The most exhaustive study to date of a key natural-gas field in Texas, combined with related research under way elsewhere, shows that U.S. shale-rock formations will provide a growing source of moderately priced natural gas through 2040, and decline only slowly after that. A report on the Texas field, to be released Thursday, was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

 

The research provides substantial evidence that there are large quantities of gas available that can be drilled profitably at a market price of $4 per million British thermal units, a relatively small increase from the current price of about $3.43.

 

The study, funded by the nonpartisan Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and performed by the University of Texas, examined 15,000 wells drilled in the Barnett Shale formation in northern Texas, mostly over the past decade. It is among the first to study the geology and economics of shale drilling, a relatively recent development made possible by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in which a mixture of water, sand and chemicals is pumped at high pressure into rocks to release gas.

 

Looking at data from actual wells rather than relying on estimates and extrapolations, the study broadly confirms conclusions by the energy industry and the U.S. government, which in December forecast rising gas production.

 

"We are looking at multi, multi decades of growth," said Scott Tinker, director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at the university and a leader of the study.

 

The shale-gas boom has led to a reorientation of the U.S. energy economy. This has led to a steep decline in coal consumption for electric generation and prompted companies to announce or consider multibillion-dollar investments to export gas and build chemical, steel and fertilizer plants that will consume enormous quantities of gas.

 

If these investments go forward, but gas production were to slip, higher prices for the fuel—which now accounts for 30% of electricity production and heats half of U.S. homes—are likely.

 

Art Berman, a petroleum geologist and consultant who has been a leading critic of what he says are overly optimistic projections of shale-gas production, said the research "is probably the most comprehensive study of the Barnett shale that will ever be done." But he said it bolsters his view that only a quarter of Barnett wells generate an economic return. The question for the industry, he said, is, "why didn't they identify the sweet spots initially, before spending $40 billion on land and wells?"

 

The study does show that many of the wells drilled in the Barnett have been poor performers. And while the gas-bearing rock covers 8,000 square miles in and around Fort Worth, Texas, the study suggests it can be economically developed in an area only half that size. Some of the energy companies that spent enormous sums to lease thousands of acres in far-flung parts of the Barnett may be sitting on acreage of little value.

 

Mr. Tinker agrees that the study shows the Barnett is highly variable, with some areas producing enough gas to make the wells profitable and other areas generating duds.

 

Even so, the study concludes that 44 trillion cubic feet of natural gas will be recovered from the Barnett—more than three times what has been produced so far and about two years' worth of U.S. consumption at current rates.

 

The university also is examining shale formations in Pennsylvania, Louisiana and Arkansas, work that has led investigators to conclude that U.S. natural gas production won't plateau until 2040. Reports on these formations are expected to be released next year.

 

One reason there has been a dispute over projections of shale-gas production is that much of the research, even inside universities, has been funded by groups with either pro- or anti- energy-development agendas. Many of the latter have strong views about the environmental impact of fracking on the air and groundwater.

 

The Sloan Foundation said it looked into whether the researchers who performed the new study were unduly influenced by outside ties and was satisfied that "potential conflicts of interest or sources of bias have not influenced the research."

 

The co-lead investigator of the study, Mr. Tinker, is paid to serve on the technical advisory boards of BP BP.LN -0.31%PLC and two smaller energy companies. He also receives speaking fees a few times a year for appearances before industry groups and private companies.

 

The Bureau of Economic Geology receives research funding from government, industry and the University of Texas. The other lead investigator, Svetlana Ikonnikova, didn't disclose any potential conflicts to the university.

 

Scott Anderson, who researches shale development for the Environmental Defense Fund, which is working on lowering the environmental impact of gas drilling, reviewed some of the study's preliminary results. He praised the report as "robust" and "sophisticated."

 

The U.S. energy industry welcomed the conclusion that a large number of successful gas wells remain to be drilled. The American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying arm of large U.S. oil and gas companies, said in a statement that the study "underscores the fact that the U.S. has substantial and growing natural gas resources that will be able to supply future domestic markets and provide exports as well."

 

To get at all this gas will require tens of thousands of new wells, spread throughout rural and some urban parts of the country. Even in the Barnett formation, which has been drilled intensively for a decade, there still may be room for 13,000 more wells, said Mr. Tinker.

 

He said that existing wells "aren't draining giant areas, but they are draining pretty efficiently from areas around them."This means that even in densely drilled areas, he said, "there is a reasonable amount of good quality drilling still to be done."

 

The giant Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and neighboring states likely contains enough gas to support the drilling of tens of thousands more wells. This could heighten growing concerns about fracking, and calls for increased government oversight of the practice.

 

"There are health risks that we don't have our arms around and that's a problem, " said Paul Gallay, president of Riverkeeper, a New York state environmental group critical of fracking. "We're out ahead of our science and we need to be concerned about that."

 

 

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323293704578330700203397128.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories

[fareastwarriors]

 

 

 

BNSF Railway Co., one of the country's biggest consumers of diesel fuel, plans this year to test using natural gas to power its locomotives instead.

 

If successful, the experiment could weaken oil's dominance as a transportation fuel and provide a new outlet for the glut of cheap natural gas in North America.

 

The surplus, spurred by new technologies that unlock the fuel from underground rock formations, has sent natural-gas prices plummeting. That has prompted industries from electric utilities to tugboat operators to switch to gas. If freight rail joins the parade, it would usher in one of the most sweeping changes to the railroad industry in decades.

 

"This could be a transformational event for our railroad," BNSF Chief Executive Matt Rose said of the plan, which hasn't been publicly announced. Shifting to natural gas would "rank right up there" with the industry's historic transition away from steam engines last century, he said.

 

 

Freight railroads overwhelmingly are powered by diesel fuel refined from crude oil. BNSF, the largest railroad in the U.S., estimates it is the second-biggest user of diesel in the country, after the U.S. Navy.

 

A potential shift to gas faces many hurdles, however, including getting approval from federal regulators on fuel-tank safety. Introducing gas also will require different fuel depots, special tanker cars to carry the fuel and training for depot workers.

 

That won't come cheaply. Just retrofitting a diesel locomotive and adding the tanker car could add 50% to a locomotive's roughly $2 million price tag, though that increase would diminish as economies of scale take hold.

 

Mr. Rose said his company nevertheless would quickly move to a "retrofit of existing road locomotives" if the pilot locomotives prove reliable. The pilot trains are expected to get rolling this fall in the hopes retrofitting could begin about a year later.

 

BNSF, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., BRKB +0.70% considered using gas-powered locomotives in the late 1980s, but shelved the plans when natural-gas prices rose.

 

This time may well be different. A gallon of diesel fuel cost an average of $3.97 last year, according to federal statistics. The equivalent amount of energy in natural gas cost 48 cents at industrial prices.

 

That gap doesn't accurately reflect the potential savings since the railroad will have to pay to cool natural gas into a dense, energy-packed liquid. BNSF also faces sizable upfront costs, which it declined to disclose, to retrofit even a portion of its roughly 6,900 existing locomotives. Still, experts believe that natural gas has the potential to be significantly less expensive than diesel for years to come.

 

BNSF is working with manufacturers to develop a locomotive that can run on diesel and gas, which Mr. Rose said could lower fuel costs and help meet federal air-pollution standards that take effect in two years.

 

The new locomotives, which use liquefied natural gas, are being developed by units of General Electric Co. GE +1.38% and Caterpillar Inc. CAT +0.51% Mr. Rose said preliminary tests indicated that LNG-powered trains could go farther before refueling than diesel trains and have comparable towing power.

 

The BNSF move is the latest step by companies and industries to use more natural gas, a fuel that is efficient, domestically produced and cleaner than alternatives. There growing supply of natural gas in North America has made it significantly less expensive than crude oil for each unit of energy delivered.

 

Electric utilities, which years ago essentially abandoned burning oil in favor of coal, have started shifting to gas-fired power plants. Chemical, steel and fertilizer makers are planning new facilities in the U.S. to take advantage of low gas prices.

 

Companies and government agencies increasingly are looking at using gas to power fleet vehicles, such as garbage trucks. And gas is making inroads in marine vessels. Wärtsilä WRT1V.HE +1.24% Oyj last year signed contracts to send China the world's first tugboats operating on diesel-LNG engines. Last December the Finnish company was selected to provide a similar engine for a ferry across the St. Lawrence River in Quebec.

 

Like municipal bus fleets, which have converted to engines running on compressed natural gas in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities, trains are easier to fuel than other modes of transportation because they repeatedly travel on fixed routes. That makes it less cumbersome to build enough fueling depots. Compressed natural gas is similar to LNG, but requires a different fuel tank and engine.

 

Natural gas faces higher obstacles to penetrate the nation's biggest diesel-fuel market: long-distance trucks. They are by far the largest consumers of diesel in the U.S. and there has been considerable interest in converting them to run on natural gas. But truck routes can vary and finding enough refueling stations has been a problem.

 

Royal Dutch Shell RDSB.LN +0.96% PLC on Monday said it was completing plans to produce liquefied natural gas in Louisiana and Ontario and supply it to as many as 200 truck stops in the U.S., adding to a small, but growing, network of natural-gas fueling stations. A Shell executive said he believed more LNG production facilities will be built in North America as demand grows

 

Some experts say switching railroads to natural gas could take time.

 

Canadian National Railway Co. CNR.T -1.33% in September retrofitted two locomotives to run on a mixture of 90% LNG and 10% diesel. A spokesman for the company, the largest railroad in Canada, said there would be "mechanical and fuel logistics challenges" with widespread conversion and that it was too early to determine if the pilot program was successful.

 

The dual-fuel technology "is not a slam dunk," said Lorenzo Simonelli, the president of GE's transportation business. But "we are working with BNSF as well as other [large railroads] to provide them the pilots and then start working towards a full production of locomotives and retrofits."

 

Change historically has come slowly to the railroad industry.

 

 

But there are compelling reasons for railroads to ponder the switch, including new Environmental Protection Agency air-pollution standards for railroads that will likely require railroads to add expensive emissions-control equipment to new diesel locomotives in 2015.

 

"The overriding incentive is the low price of the fuel," said Raj Sekar, manager of engines and emissions research at Argonne National Laboratory. He said it would likely take at least five years for gas-powered locomotives to be a significance presence on the rails.

 

While railroads consume only 6% of diesel burned in the U.S., according to the federal government, some experts believe BNSF's decision to try using gas could have a large psychological impact on energy markets.

 

"This is the kind of change that gets people thinking," said Kevin Book, an energy-industry consultant. "It will answer the question that everyone is wondering: Is there= a future for LNG transportation for freight hauling?"

 

 

 

Berkshire's BNSF Railway to Test Switch to Natural Gas

 

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324539404578342540494619344.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

[fareastwarriors]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324532004578360362254897242.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

 

Natural-gas futures jumped 3.6% to settle at a 16-week high of $3.812 million British thermal units after government data showed inventories dropped by more than expected last week.

 

 

[Parsad]

Chinese Firms Look to Tap Booming U.S. Natural Gas Market:

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100553863

 

Cheers!

[fareastwarriors]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-14/eagle-ford-shale-boom-fuels-madhouse-in-south-texas-counties.html

 

 

Eagle Ford Shale Boom Fuels ‘Madhouse’ in South Texas Counties

 

[fareastwarriors]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324392804578362781776519720.html?mod=pls_whats_news_us_business_f

 

 

Shale-Gas Boom Alone Won't Propel U.S. Industry .

[tyska]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324392804578362781776519720.html?mod=pls_whats_news_us_business_f

 

 

Shale-Gas Boom Alone Won't Propel U.S. Industry .

Seems to be only useful if one is a subscriber.

[compoundinglife]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324392804578362781776519720.html?mod=pls_whats_news_us_business_f

 

 

Shale-Gas Boom Alone Won't Propel U.S. Industry .

Seems to be only useful if one is a subscriber.

 

Google for the Title: Shale-Gas Boom Alone Won't Propel U.S. Industry

 

If you are coming from Google WSJ will let you read the article.

[fareastwarriors]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324392804578362781776519720.html?mod=pls_whats_news_us_business_f

 

 

Shale-Gas Boom Alone Won't Propel U.S. Industry .

Seems to be only useful if one is a subscriber.

 

Google for the Title: Shale-Gas Boom Alone Won't Propel U.S. Industry

 

If you are coming from Google WSJ will let you read the article.

 

+1

 

works for Barrons, NYTimes, and (most) FT articles as well.