NETL Research Says Hydrogen Can Safely Be Stored Under Shale
Hydrogen is all the rage, at least in the D.C. swamp. Joe Biden and his sidekick Kamala Harris held a Hydrogen Hunger Games contest and in 2013 awarded seven proposed projects around the country with a total jackpot of $7 billion. Among the winners was the West Virginia-led Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub (ARCH2), which is a project that will use Marcellus/Utica natural gas as the feedstock to produce “blue” hydrogen, which is hydrogen made from natgas where carbon dioxide from the process is captured and either used or stored underground (see Hydrogen Hub Winners Announced – WV Takes Prize in M-U Region). There are a lot of questions about using hydrogen to produce energy and trying to replace natural gas with hydrogen. One of those questions, which has gone unanswered (until now), is whether you can store hydrogen underground like natural gas. The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) has an answer. Read More “NETL Research Says Hydrogen Can Safely Be Stored Under Shale”
Last week, National Center for Energy Analytics (NCEA) Senior Fellow Tristan Abbey published a report examining the politicization of liquid natural gas (LNG) exports and recommending three pathways to ensure the United States maintains and expands the economic and geopolitical benefits from its dominant position in the global LNG market. In “A Generational Opportunity: Achieving U.S. Dominance in Global LNG” (full copy below), Abbey explores the history of LNG exports, the mechanisms by which the U.S. ascended to primacy, and the urgency in pursuing reform to capture a “once-in-a-generation” opportunity. 
The realignment 
How often have we told you the mainstream media lies to you about fossil energy? Maybe a bazillion times, right? Today, we have a case that incontrovertibly proves our point. Last Friday, researchers from Colorado University at Boulder (CU) and collaborators from several other institutions published a new study in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The study proves that so-called fugitive methane floating in the atmosphere is NOT coming from fossil fuels. At least, the contribution from fossil fuels is minor and nonconsequential. Where DOES fugitive methane come from? The researchers can’t be 100% sure (yet), but they say it’s either natural (Mom Earth, things like wetlands) or agriculture (cow burps and rice paddies). And where are the stories in mainstream media about this earth-shattering discovery? NOWHERE. It’s crickets. You can’t FIND a mainstream article that covers this study. Nothing in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald, Houston Chronicle, AP, UPI, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc. 
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that U.S. natural gas production from shale and tight formations declined by about 1% from January through September 2024 compared to the same period in 2023. Most of the decline comes from two shale plays—the Haynesville in Louisiana and Texas (down 12%) and the Utica Shale in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia (down 10%). Although the EIA’s analysis (below) is excellent and instructive, it misses one important detail about the decrease in Utica Shale gas production. 
In a post published yesterday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the agency noted that construction costs rose slightly for solar and wind, but dropped for natural gas in 2022 (the most recent year with available stats). Average construction costs for solar generators increased by 1.7% in 2022. For wind turbines construction costs increased by 1.6%. Average costs for natural gas-fired power decreased 11%. However, the first chart at the top of the post shows something *not* highlighted by the EIA—that overall construction costs for natural gas are FAR lower than building new solar and wind. 
Two weeks ago, Pennsylvania lost two rigs, down to just 13 active rigs, the lowest PA’s rig count has been since July 2016 (see 
For more than three years, MDN has called out the International Energy Agency (IEA) and its executive director, Dr. Fatih Birol, as nothing more than tools of Big Green. We’ve reported on many of the IEA’s fake predictions about peak demand for oil and natural gas (see 
Shale energy has been an astonishing miracle, made possible exclusively due to the ingenuity and tenacity of America (specifically one American, George Mitchell). The shale miracle resulted in, get this, North America adding 15 million barrels a day (bpd) of liquid hydrocarbon and 50 billion cubic feet a day (Bcf/d) of gas production to the global market since 2005. How much more will the world need in the next 15 years, and how much of that will be supplied by North America? 
An assistant professor of data science at Saint Vincent College in Westmoreland County, PA, recently published a study (based on hospital records) examining whether some chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing affect the occurrence of pre-term births (PTB) and low birth weights (LBW) in the United States. She looked at data from several counties in southwest PA. The researcher says she found that “counties that had more hydraulic fracturing wells that utilize chemicals that target certain hormones also had greater amounts of PTB and LWB.” Yet her data shows just the opposite! 
If we had a nickel for every peak oil prediction we’ve reported on over the years, we’d be rich! Every few months, somebody comes along to say that either oil production or oil demand is heading for a decline…real soon now, any day, it’s inevitable. And they list their reasons why we’re hitting peak and about to go into a decline. And every darned time, they’re wrong. We have another such prediction, but this one is a bit different. It comes from an investment advisor writing to other investors on the Seeking Alpha website, an investment advisor whose work we have shared with you in the past. It’s a column from someone whose opinion we respect. 
We happened to come across two articles casting doubt on so-called “green” hydrogen, both from far-left media outlets (Bloomberg and POLITICO). Which kind of surprised us. The left believes hydrogen is the savior that will move the world to net zero carbon emissions and finally drive a stake in the heart of fossil energy. But there’s a problem with hydrogen for the left. Today, 95% of all hydrogen is produced by using natural gas as the feedstock. The brainiacs on the left believe passing an electric current (from electricity provided by solar and wind) through water to create hydrogen at scale (called “green” hydrogen) is the solution to replace natgas as a feedstock (called gray or blue hydrogen, depending on whether or not CO2 is captured). However, according to a new Harvard University study, producing green hydrogen isn’t economically feasible (and won’t be for decades) due to transportation and storage costs, two items overlooked in most green hydrogen scenarios. 