the estimates are really suspect because no one knows how much methane is emitted as part of fracking (or other natural gas) operations. EPA estimates 2.8% of produced gas is lost. Howarth et al of Cornell estimate closer to 6%... there are estimates from like 1% up to 8%. As the amount of gas lost goes up, the pictures gets less rosy quickly. At about 3.4% (if I'm recalling this correctly) gas is no longer superior to coal in terms of climate effect. Another thing to note is that we could ensure a much lower emission rate, but the corporations are too fucking evil to implement some relatively cheap technologies (actually capture gas they can sell!) to make gas truly superior (ignoring water pollution, etc.).

Also, right now the US has only 1 liquefied natural gas export terminal--it's a decrepit old place up in Alaska, evidently. Gas is no longer profitable in the US because there is so much of it, but prices are 6x and 4x higher in Asia and Europe, respectively. There's currently a huge push to build more export terminals along the east coast, in the gulf, and in oregon. If these efforts are successful, while the natural gas market will remain fractured, prices will settle somewhere between the $2/MMBtu in the US and the $10-15/MMBtu in Asia.

Higher prices will drive more fracking (which has slowed down a lot because natural gas prices are so low), but could also make renewables (and, sadly, coal) more competitive again.

Natural gas = mixed bag (not that you were saying otherwise).

Hopefully the climate effect is actually positive, though.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The Good




The Bad




And The Ugly