By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Politicians seem to be struggling to deliver on voters’ affordability concerns about housing, health care and more, but natural gas is doing just fine…. No single politician can take credit for this. Maybe that’s why it has worked.”
The editorial board of the Washington Post last month gave a shout out to natural gas. Kudos to the Post for magnifying the obvious.
“Natural gas remains affordable. Here’s how” (September 22, 2026), subtitled “It wasn’t a genius plan by the government,” began:
As the Iran conflict continues to roil energy markets, sending crude oil and gasoline prices higher, there’s one bright spot for American customers: natural gas. For that, they can thank American innovation and free markets.
Continuing:
The reason for the lower prices is not less demand; in fact, demand is expected to continue its years-long rise. It’s not price controls; those were fully repealed in 1993. Enormous supply is what’s keeping costs down. On top of an annual production record expected this year, there is also more natural gas surplus in storage for the coming winter than in any year since 2016. The surplus is expected to last into March.
Turning to the official statistics and analyses from the U.S. Energy Information Administration:
From the late 1970s until around 2007, the United States produced about 20 trillion cubic feet of marketed natural gas each year. Last year, it produced more than double that: 43 trillion cubic feet. What broke this decades-long stagnation? Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, made in America.
The U.S., in fact, the article states, “has been the world’s largest natural gas producer since 2009.” Some background is then provided.
The ideas for these technologies are not new. The father of modern horizontal drilling, Martin Cherrington, figured out how to drill 500 feet under a river in California in 1971. An early precursor to fracking was an explosive device patented by Edward Roberts, a Civil War veteran, in 1865. Standard Oil was experimenting with the modern method of injecting a pressurized mixture of liquid and sand into the ground in the 1940s.
The wellhead gas revolution had to overcome Big Green.
These innovations faced strident political backlash. Environmentalists raised sensationalized concerns and urged politicians to ban the practice. They succeeded in scaring politicians in Britain, where there is still almost no fracking, and in some states, such as New York, which bans the practice. Germany touted its transition to renewable energy, to widespread acclaim, while relying on Russian natural gas to actually power its economy.
The editors added: “Fortunately for everyone, President Barack Obama was not convinced by the scaremongering, and fracking was allowed to thrive. The shale gas revolution has now spanned five presidential terms and shows little sign of slowing.”
What is good for the U.S. is good for the world.
While natural gas abundance is an American story, it is not an autarkic one. The U.S. has simultaneously become a much more active participant in global energy markets. The U.S. exported 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas last year. As recently as 2015, exports were below 2 trillion cubic feet. Having plenty of natural gas to use at home and sell to the rest of the world doesn’t mean imports disappear; the U.S. still imported 3 trillion cubic feet last year.
It’s a win-win:
America’s newly established dominance in the global natural gas market is good for U.S. gas businesses, of course, but it’s also great for the pocketbooks of U.S. consumers. While other countries are paying much more for natural gas due to the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, Americans have been blissfully unaware. Already accustomed to paying less than Europeans or Asians, the American price for natural gas has stayed flat since the war in Iran began in February.
In conclusion:
Politicians seem to be struggling to deliver on voters’ affordability concerns about housing, health care and more, but natural gas is doing just fine. Rather than trying to manage demand, squeeze trade or pace innovation, the U.S. has achieved natural gas affordability through abundant supply driven by technological progress. No single politician can take credit for this. Maybe that’s why it has worked.
It could not be explained better. Some real history here too. This “head exploding” (remembering the late Joe Romm) editorial is one to be remembered.
And that’s why democrats in my state, Colorado, want to ban natural gas.
To counteract the Democrat’s desire to ban natural gas, Amendment 82 on Colorado’s November ballot proposes to enshrine natural gas as a state constitutional right: “Assures consumers and businesses of the right to buy and sell natural gas.” Numerous TV ads are opposing this amendment. Unfortunately, I’ve not seen any ads supporting it, so it may fail.
Yes. I got a mailer supporting the amendment.
Supposedly around 70% of Colorado homes and businesses use natural gas for some form of heating/cooking. I’m hoping that enough people vote for what is in their best interest, though unfortunately people can even be persuaded to commit suicide.
Unfortunately we don’t have the most intelligent electorate or we wouldn’t even have to pass this amendment since we wouldn’t have the far-left running the legislature.
My wife and I voted for the amendment. We live in Southshore on the southern end of the Aurora Reservoir in SE Aurora. There’s a company that wanted to drill for oil and natural gas that is under our homes. Many residents in the area were against it saying “Don’t Frack The Reservoir” as if the horizonal drilling is only feet below the reservoir. Fortunately the board that decides these proposals followed the laws and regulations and approved it. You should have heard the howls with one guy complaining about Democracy since so many of those against it were very vocal. This was on NextDoor. I replied by saying that the legislature passed the bills regulating the drilling, the governor signed the laws and the board followed the law. So, yes, the decision was based on how the people voted. The interesting thing we own the mineral rights below our feet so those whining about it will eventually get royalty checks or can sell their rights to get cash now.
The local chapter of the audubon bird-people-thingy in Ellensburg/Kittitas County WA wants to ban gas, ’cause some of them think birds like spinning propellers and water-look-alike glass panels.
Huh!? You’d think if they were concerned about spinning propellers they’d be against wind turbines.
Most of them would vote to ban people if they had the power.
Democrats…well, ya can’t kill’em and eat’em and can’t afford to feed’em-what to do, what to do…
Now, that’s seriously funny! I had, and I mean absolutely HAD, to look him up. Never heard of him before. Like I’ve said before, I love the things you learn on this blog. Thank you for the belly-laugh.
Well, the cat is now out of the bag. Look for some politician try to capitalize on the success of natural gas by proposing some legislation that destroy the economics.
“Politicians seem to be struggling to deliver on voters’ affordability concerns about housing, health care and more”
Not so in the UK, my friends, not so in the UK. Yes, they grudgingly approved the Jackdaw field, but that’s it; no more than that. The manifesto says so. Which in the real world means…
Great Britain is expected to pay some of the highest energy costs in Europe this winter as its reliance on imports to ensure a steady supply is forecast to deepen.
Energy system operators have said the country will have enough gas and electricity to meet demand over the coldest months – in part because of paying higher market prices than neighbouring markets to secure imports.
…
National Gas, which runs Great Britain’s gas networks, set out its forecasts after striking an 11th-hour deal with the owner of a major Belgian pipeline to keep gas flowing into the country this winter by reversing a planned capacity cut. – The Guardian
The real struggle is the over-inflated cost of living – which is dictated by extortionate net zero [sense] energy costs, which in turn are dictated by government net zero [sense] policies.
They know this and yet they press on regardless.
So sad to see the once Great Britain become a basket case.
Funny thing, back in the early 60s when I was at primary school we were taught basket weaving, among a great many other things.
A skillset I did not expect to need…
The day will come when the UK only has tourism for an industry. Many of you will sit in front of your homes weaving baskets, dressed in rags, while wealthy Chinese tour you neighborhoods and photograph you- so they can go back to China and show everyone the quaint peasants on a tiny island off the coast of Europe.
Tourism is being taxed to death. The government has run out of road. They can’t borrow easily and they are looking for anything they can tax – or tax even further. All to keep the welfare recipients going.
Mayors across England are to be given the power to charge a tourist tax on overnight stays, expected to be around 5%. It would apply to British and foreign visitors alike.
It won’t be 5% for long.
Baskets showing British symbolism will be imported from China.
Burning NG in a modern furnace or water heater loses about 15% of the energy up the flue.
Converting NG to electricity loses about 65% up the chimney and out the cooling system before it even leaves the plant site.
Dumb!
Natural gas at $6/E6Btu burned in a modern condensing furnace (air) or water heater with 85% efficiency has a net delivered cost of $7/E6Btu.
Electricity at $0.15/kWh and 100% efficiency powering a furnace (air) or water heater has a net delivered cost of about $40/E6Btu.
A heat pump using $0.15/kWh and a COP of 3.5 has a net delivered energy cost of about $12/E6Btu. The colder the weather the lower the COP and higher the net cost.
If some salesman suggests replacing NG w heat pump & does not know this he is uninformed.
If he suggests replacing NG w heat pump & does know this, he is a crook.
A colleague working with me on Comanche 3 start up observed that using natural gas to generate electricity is like using fine scotch to wash your dishes.
Years ago Federalist black mail aka Clean Power Plan set a composite average goal for the states of about 1,000 lbs CO2/MWh & states were “free” to figure out their generation mix to achieve that.
This ratio can be factored into (lbs CO2/lbs of fuel) & (lbs fuel / MWh). In other words, carbon content of fuel and heat rate.
Coal is mostly carbon so its typical ratio is about 2,250 lbs CO2/MWh. Impossible to reach 1,000.
A simple cycle combustion turbine on natural gas (25% H2) produces a ratio of around 1,200 lbs/MWh.
A combined cycle combustion/steam turbine on natural gas (25% H2) produces a ratio of around 750 lbs/MWh.
Guess why combined cycles were so popular for new generation.
FYI: The thermal efficiency of a CCGT system is 63% whereas the thermal efficiency of nuclear power plant or a thermal plant using natural gas or coal is ca. 30% (cf, Wikipedia).
No need to worry about the emission of CO2 from all sources because most of it is absorbed by the oceans and land surface fresh waters. At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 426 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 2,290 grams and contains a mere 0.84 g of CO2. This small amount of CO2 in air can have no effect on the earth’s weather and climate.
Rough back of envelope CCGT: 30% electric gen, 30% steam gen, 30% steam condenser, 10% stack.
Nukes are less that 30% because of low operating pressures & temperatures which sets lower Carnot boundaries.
Why no AI image at the top of this story?
This is a family website and Anus Insertion is not the sort of thing people want to hear about.
Oh, I thought it was a site for extreme right wing climate denying folks who worship Trump. 🙂
I cannot answer for the orange man – or his diocese. Or those who oppose him.
The US is a long way away. You got your troubles, and we’ve got ours.
All in all, I think we still have a better chance on the newer side of the pond.
Much better- thanks to Trump gutting the Wokesters. Except of course in Commyfornia and Wokeachusetts and a few other holdouts.
More accurately, it is a site for ridiculing far-Left-wing climate cultists who thought Kamala was a brilliant orator and Sleepy Joe was a profound statesman.
I was joking of course- but perhaps some didn’t get it. 🙂
I was sure you were, but I thought a reverse jab was necessary for those who didn’t!
Cranal anal ectomy?
They did, it’s just that they added a thick fog prior to printing.
The history is a great addition but the term “directional-drilling” should be mentioned, not just horizontal.
And:
I have no idea about late Joe Romm and “head exploding”.
The left finds it impossible to believe that markets are capable of running themselves.
I liked the article. I am surprised that the Washington Post did not give credit to Barack Obama and the government for inventing fracking and horizontal drilling. Although there are many that helped invent and perfect the processes, it is my opinion that George Mitchell deserves the most credit for inventing and developing the fracking / horizontal drilling process. His name deserves to be in any recap of the history.
This is a pretty good post but it misses the real point. The real point is government interference in energy production and transmission. The US and plenty of other countries have plenty of natural resources, there is no reason to be short of affordable energy. But with government throwing up road blocks at every turn when it comes to fossil fuel and nuclear it is easy to see why we are in the sorry state we find ourselves in. Not to mention government greasing the wheels for NGOs and others to do the same thing. Time to stop standing around scratching our heads wondering how we have come to this, we know exactly how we have come to this.