I agree with Dave's review. Peter Tertakian loses touch with reality only when gets to the future of energy. Here I'm referring to future of Natural Gas. Peter never really goes into the decline of natural gas in America or for that matter North America. How will America get its fix of LNG when NIMBYism blocks attempts to create re-gasification facilities? Here in the northwest, we have no LNG ports. Piping it from Mexican border-California is unrealistic and the pipeline from Alaska will go to Chicago and the midwest, not here. I would have also liked him to go into more detail on why bio-fuel will not ramp up without massive inputs of natural gas. How will we allocate resources to building nuke power plants when every driver with a car will be competing for the gas and oil products left on the market? There wasn't much talk about the politics of oil and natural gas either.
I think his argument is that people will change course on all those "choices" regarding imporatation, as prices for domestic natural gas rise.

There is a global supply chain for LNG, the advantage of building LNG terminals is that we can take advantage of that, in the short term, while it lasts.

And just how long would a LGN terminal take to build?? How many would the US need to avoid or replace the NG we will be losing in the future?? COST per terminal??

I'm sure if the NG becomes a crisis, the NIMBY crowd will be quieted!

The cost, compared to letting the California power plants (in my area 33% natural gas) go idle?