Comments on: NYT: The U.S. should definitely export more natural gas

By: tom daschle concerned

tom daschle concerned — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:30:20 +0000

More tax dollars for the oil and gas industry so the costs to sell American natural resources overseas is reduced and profits increased. Where you guys in charge of TARP?

plewis on December 17, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Where you godless reprobate?

By: KOOLAID2

KOOLAID2 — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:43:34 +0000

…can’t do that!…that would be a good thing!

By: Mr Galt

Mr Galt — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:05:47 +0000

The U.S. should definitely export more natural gas

Not gonna happen. Not with this President. We might GIVE it away to the poooorr though. Remember boys and girls – this is all about redistribution and laying the big-bad USA low for the good of the world.

By: Gator Country

Gator Country — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:05:06 +0000

Typical NYT logic on display here. Build LNG terminals to provide the unions with jobs, while at the same time ban fracking and all other natural gas extraction methods, so the terminals sit idle once they’re built. Then we can just move those union workers on to the next make-work project that ends up providing no actual benefit to anyone.

Paul Krugman must have written this editorial.

By: avgjo

avgjo — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:10:54 +0000

Agree we should keep it here. Govt does have const’l authority to regulate intl trade. Sure th producers could shut valves but keep them from selling it overseas for several years and they’ll cave. Free trade (which as currently practiced really isn’t) has been a net loss for the country. Lets not sell china our enemy our natural resources. We’ve given them enough rope to hang us with.

By: plewis

plewis — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:44:19 +0000

More tax dollars for the oil and gas industry so the costs to sell American natural resources overseas is reduced and profits increased. Where you guys in charge of TARP?

By: Buddahpundit

Buddahpundit — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:20:12 +0000

I’m reading that natural gas burns real clean, it’s exhaust is CO2 and water vapor. I read that at a lib site, where they temporarily must have forgot that co2 is the satan of their weather religion. I wonder if natural gas combusts into more greenhouse gases than coal per unit of work. I bet it does, and that’s fine with me because co2 and water vaport is clean and harmless, but the lack of constitency by the Gore-bots is amusing.

By: pat

pat — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:01:41 +0000

Of course. In the minds of liberals other nations should have cheap energy. We should have windmills.

By: DAT60A3

DAT60A3 — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:58:28 +0000

How IED-proof are those things, anyway?

Marcola on December 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Probably less vulnerable than the average bulk storage facility. A refinery, storage facility, or petrochemical plant is usually protected by a chain link fence with a guard shack. Somebody with evil intent can easily do a great deal of damage.

By: Marcola

Marcola — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:47:57 +0000

I know it’s not the point of the post at all, but when I look at those ships with their big ol’ globular tanks of LNG, I think TARGET. (No, not the store.) How IED-proof are those things, anyway?

By: DAT60A3

DAT60A3 — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:39:18 +0000

They have to let us get the natural gas before we can sell it. My solution to the economy/deficit is to sell public land (similiar to what Texas did when she was land rich and cash poor). Now private land owners can develop the land and drill or whatever. Now you have revenue from land sales, land owners creating jobs through oil and gas leases, people actually working, revenue generated through prosperity, and less government control. Oil and gas companies are pretty good stewards of the land and resources, much better than the government.

By: DanMan

DanMan — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:38:11 +0000

Charlemagne on December 17, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Beat me to it. Exxon has had a lawsuit against Gasprom for several years over their inability to sell gas from the fields they developed with Russia. Gasprom says they can only sell domestically to them while Exxon claims the market should determine the price. Since the price is so low Exxon is kind of slow walking the lawsuit but every winter Europe has to dance to the tune Russia plays over gas.

Something tells me the market is far from free regarding this issue.

By: jffree1

jffree1 — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:36:43 +0000

MoreLiberty on December 17, 2012 at 1:46 PM

aniptofar on December 17, 2012 at 1:51 PM

The one point y’all are missing is that having a set volume for export, under a long term contract, would stabilize the price of NG for several years. Yes, it might be a slightly higher price than what is paid today but not so high that it would harm either the chemical industry, manufacturers or the power generation sector (and us as consumers).
I have been closely following the Haynesville Shale boom since 2008 and a stable price would encourage the continued development of this high cost resource. If the price doesn’t improve somewhat, to around $4.00-$5.00/mcf, the gas in this play will stay in the ground, the gas in storage will eventually decline while the demand stays the same or grows, and the price will then rise anyhow… and probably to much higher levels than anticipated due to modest exports. It is self-defeating to side with the groups who want to keep all this gas at home, IMHO.

By: Charlemagne

Charlemagne — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:25:10 +0000

How about exporting to Europe so they can get out from under Russia’s thumb AND can stop the very quiet but real practice of trading a very liberal Muslim immigration policy for oil. Europe has for decades allowed a high level of Muslim immigration in exchange for energy. It’s suicide and we can stop it.

By: albo

albo — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:22:24 +0000

It’s up to the companies in my opinion, but I think it’d be best to keep it here thus lowering the coast of energy for Americans

But that can’t happen forever–producers will respond to lower prices by reducing the supply. It’s just a matter of turning some valves off until the price goes up and finds its fair market price. (That’s assuming no cartel action to keep prices up.)

By: ToddPA

ToddPA — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:15:59 +0000

NYT: The U.S. should definitely export more natural gas

Doesn’t the Slimes know that Hillary is stepping down??

By: RAGIN CAJUN

RAGIN CAJUN — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:10:31 +0000

Thank God! Lets stick it to the Russians, mo money mo money!

By: letget

letget — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:02:25 +0000

How long till bho’s union thug port workers go on strike to see to this doesn’t happen? Can’t have the US actually make money unless bho/team says we can now can we?
L

By: SD Tom

SD Tom — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:53:16 +0000

If it's the right thing to do then don't look for it to get done by Bammie and the Obamatons any time soon.

By: Starlink

Starlink — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:51:49 +0000

Won’t Happen.

O’Bama wants the country to fail, and will oppose on fictitious environmental grounds.

By: aniptofar

aniptofar — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:51:41 +0000

It makes a lot more sense to keep it here and use it than export it. Why not give up on electric cars and go with natural gas cars? Two birds, one stone. How much is that lower pricing saving all of us right now?

I’ve never been a fan of losing the energy compressing and cooling the natural gas just to put it somewhere else.

By: SWalker

SWalker — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:50:04 +0000

NYT: The U.S. should definitely export more natural gas

NYSlimes to denounce themselves as evil killers of Mother Gaia and causers of Anthropogenic Global Warming in 3...2...1... On the tragic loss of 20 innocent children.

By: MoreLiberty

MoreLiberty — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:46:30 +0000

It’s up to the companies in my opinion, but I think it’d be best to keep it here thus lowering the coast of energy for Americans. The NYT wants to export it so we can keep the cost relatively high, thus creating a false need for green energy.