13 Comments
User's avatar
Jeff Chestnut's avatar

EOG has been well managed for a long time. These recent major announcements set EOG for a busy and productive decade or two. Now let’s watch as EOG sets a performance standard for others to follow.

Expand full comment
David Blackmon's avatar

Great take, as usual, DRW!

Expand full comment
MFT's avatar

Natural gas is the best fuel for the world as it’s everywhere! Renewables are almost was they are both unmanageable with highly variable availability as well. From a grid perspective I hate them. You have to back them up with something we can manage at will, and that is natural gas. All the world needs for power is nuclear and natural gas, but I have no problem with coal either.

Expand full comment
william howard's avatar

too bad

Aubrey McClendon didn't have the patience to wait for NG's ascension

Expand full comment
Joe's avatar

Thanks David but EOG purchased Encino because of the new Oil part of the play they’re developing. 50 API gravity. No doubt they will also produce a lot of wet gas

Expand full comment
Joe's avatar

EOG purchased

Expand full comment
Charles McRae's avatar

I am not a fan of coal, nuclear would great but we have spent fuel sitting in cooling ponds all over the country. I am very pro-nuclear but not with half a$$ way we are managing the waste right now. From what I see no downside exist LNG, good to see some common since forming our energy mix. Great article.

Expand full comment
Jeff Walther's avatar

Nothing wrong with spent nuclear fuel where it is.

BTW, it is not "sitting in ponds all over the country". That is an incorrect characterization.

Spent fuel stays in cooling pools for a few years and is then moved to dry cask storage.

Spent fuel in dry cask has never harmed anyone and it just sits there on a concrete pad. It is an excellent storage method, regardless of whether it is on reactor site, or moved to some central location.

The most dangerous thing about cask storage is that a cask might tip over and fall on someone. The casks are rated to survive being hit by a train.

Eventually that spent fuel will be recycled into new fuel. 95% of it is still fissionable material.

Let go of your nuclear waste anxiety. It is not based in reality; it derives from anti-nuclear propaganda with no basis in reality.

Expand full comment
Jim Felton's avatar

Michael Economides told me all the spent fuel from the birth of the nuclear age would cover a football field 12 feet high. Seemed a manageable feat....Yucca Mtn?

Expand full comment
Jeff Walther's avatar

No real need for Yucca Mtn. That was always a foolish response to the anti-nuclear "what will be do with the waste" narrative, instead of addressing the flaws in the narrative.

However, Yucca Mtn is a decent engineering feat and would be a great place to put other waste, just not spent nuclear fuel.

There's no meaningful advantage in going to the expense to ship casks to Yucca Mtn.

Expand full comment
dave walker's avatar

Great and accurate response. Btw coal is ultra important to energy security. It’s cost effective and can be stored on site. That is very important.

Expand full comment
Charles McRae's avatar

I wish they would follow your protocol in FL they just keep building more cooling ponds at least one power plant. It's not Propo here, I think it may be economic. I would rather pay a higher rate for nuclear done right, but the extra rate increase went into solar. Solar panels at the level of tech we have now does not return the energy that was used to build them, not a big fan. All the best!

Expand full comment
Jeff Walther's avatar

Yes, solar and wind are complete boondoggles which would not exist and will cease to exist without subsidies.

Must be something weird going on in Florida if that is accurate about cooling ponds. It's much cheaper to cask them when it is time.

Expand full comment