Back on 7/26/07 BobBoise writing about Peak Oil, wrote this:
"The bad news is that there is no substitute for oil, which has peaked worldwide, and natural gas, which will peak very soon. (There is a distinct possibility we may see shortages of natural gas if the coming winter is normal, or abnormally cold.)"

There isn't as much of a national consensus on the peaking of natural gas as Bob seems to think. For example, in Newsweek of 10/1/07, there's an interview about the abundance of natural gas, featuring a natural gas man (no pun intended), Robert Hefner whose company, GHK, "alone has discovered more than 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas around the world." (p.40) He says: "At the time the fuel Use Act was being debated, my estimates were that the US had 1500 to 2000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas remaining. My estimates were called irresponsible, but the big oil companies were wrong. We have produced 585 trillion subsequent to that time, and today most estimators believe that we have at least 1500 to 2000 trillion remaining. At today's rate of consumption, that leaves...a 70- to 100-year supply."
Hefner's conclusion is that switching to natural gas can buy the time needed for eventually producing an economy powered by hydrogen gas released from seawater by electrical current produced by solar or wind generation. "Fifty years from now we will have developed a new energy infrastructure that is many times more efficient, largely through natural gas, solar and wind-powered electric generation, hydrogen fuel cells in the transportation sector, and massive increases in end-use efficiency. We will then be entering the hydrogen economy as a result of a transition that began with natural gas."

Would anyone like to comment? I'm guessing the whole article can be read online, as well.
Jo

United Water is a global multinational, owned by Suez, in France. We are its customers. Here is what I wrote to the Public Utilities Commission:
United Water has a huge nerve asking the PUC for a huge million bucks+ raise to cover the costs of converting to monthly billing. What an insult to ratepayers. We already pay extremely high rates for water here, partly because United Water is a multinational company with HQ in France, for god's sake. They have no interest in US customers except as a money raising machine.
It is up to Idaho's PUC to properly regulate such a utility in the interest of its citizen-customers, and not let UW charge customers for what the company should pay for itself--monthly billing!! With current computer tech, it is not going to cost UW over a mil to do this, and anyway even if it did, they should not be allowed to bilk Idaho customers for their stupid billing schedule. There is NO GENUINE NEED for this move! I see this move as just another way to bilk us customers.

Please folks--send a comment to the Idaho PUC, here: ed.howell@puc.idaho.gov
Thanks, Jo (new member)

I like the suggestion someone made about organizing a potluck to meet greet and socialize. Is it going to happen??
Jo