http://www.nymex.com/ng_fut_csf.aspx?product=NG

you may have to startat NYMEX.com and click through accepting their terms of use to see the data.

What you will find is the mkt for 07 and 08 is more like $8.5-$9 bucks.  There is enough open interest to give some confidence as these prices being reflective of what the real buyers and sellers think.

I wouldn't put a lot of money on a long range forecast by Morningstar or anyone else.  There are just too many variables (and I used to have to make markets in related markets -- it ain't easy).  One hurricane and you are an idiot low.  A mild winter and $15 gas ($100 dollar oil!) becomes a spot price of $7.1 in February.  

Further forward, NYMEX prices are  lower ($6's and 7's).  This is primarily because of market imbalances.  Banks make small producers sell forward production to hedge in a return on drilling/exploration loans.  Buyers are much fewer and farther between.  Some Utils might hedge (less after Enron blew up making "trading" a word on a par with pedophile) and perhaps some fertilizer manufacturers.  But now that utils can float their energy sales prices, why bother?  Let the customer take the pain if prices shoot up.

Secondly, we need to reduce our reliance on natural gas for electricity generation. In other words, we've got to substitute other forms of power for natural gas if we expect to be able to maintain a manufacturing base that relies upon natural gas. And the best way to do that is to expand our use of coal, nuclear power and renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar.

Let me start with coal. Coal is by far our country's most abundant and affordable energy resource. It's estimated we've got more than 250 years of reserves. That's a lot, that's a lot. And I'm sure you recognize this, or realize this, but in Wisconsin, when you flip on the light switch, there's a 75-percent chance that electricity is generated by coal-powered plants. In other words, you use it here in Wisconsin.

Another part of the transcript that was interesting and seemed to set the stage for advancements and capacity increases in coal and nuclear.

But we're getting closer to an interesting, important goal -- that by continuing to invest at the federal level, as well as encourage private investment, we will build the world's first power plant to run on coal that produces zero emissions by 2015. That will be a positive development for future generations of Americans. (Applause.)

I'd like to talk about nuclear power. Today there are more than 100 nuclear plants in America that operate in 31 states, including right here in Wisconsin. The plants are producing electricity safely, and they don't emit any air pollution or greenhouse gases. America hasn't ordered a nuclear plant since the 1970s, and that's the result of litigation -- or because of litigation -- and complex regulations.

It's interesting when you think about a country like France, however, they have built 58 plants since the 1970s; they get 78 percent of their electricity from nuclear power. It's an interesting contrast, isn't it? We haven't done anything since the '70s; this country has decided to recognize the importance of having renewable sources of energy that protect the environment, and 78 percent of their electricity comes from this form of energy. China has eight nuclear plants in the works, by the way, and plans to build at least 40 more over the next two decades.

You have to look at the rest as the usual prudent fudge: scenarios that remain close to current wisdom (which is that energy prices "always come back to the mean") while taking into account the facts on the ground, which are being persistently incompatible with said common wisdom.

So the lower inflation rate is, I think, a concession to "common wisdom" after the daring step of increasing the expected minimum price.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes