- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Panama Canal Expansion on Hold/DOE won't approve LNG exports
Posted on 1/3/14 at 9:32 am
Posted on 1/3/14 at 9:32 am
Could seriously hinder the recovery IMO
LINK
DOE is trying to muck it up too.
I won't ever vote for her, but maybe Landrieu can get something positive done before she gets ousted.
Should the US pick up the tab on the Canal cost overruns. It's a better investment than most things the FEDGOV spends our money on IMO.
LINK
quote:
those plans now could be jeopardized because of a dispute over cost overruns -- which means America's gas export dreams could be in jeopardy
quote:
The dispute could carry important consequences because the canal expansion has special importance for the United States, which hopes to start exporting natural gas, and Asia, which is desperate to buy it.
DOE is trying to muck it up too.
quote:
Clouds over the canal expansion aren't the only concerns about U.S. gas exports. There are also already worries about the slow pace of government approvals for new natural-gas export terminals, the multi-billion dollar projects that freeze gas to a liquid suitable for transport by ship. The Energy Department has received almost 30 applications to ship gas to countries with which the U.S. does not have a free-trade agreement; only five of those applications have been conditionally approved, and none will be operational until 2017 at the earliest. For projects further down the line, there is the very real worry that government approval won't come until the LNG market is already well supplied by rival countries.
I won't ever vote for her, but maybe Landrieu can get something positive done before she gets ousted.
quote:
LNG boosters, including Murkowski, may get extra help from across the aisle, if musical chairs in the Senate propel pro-export Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu to the top of the energy panel.
Should the US pick up the tab on the Canal cost overruns. It's a better investment than most things the FEDGOV spends our money on IMO.
This post was edited on 1/3/14 at 9:52 am
Posted on 1/3/14 at 9:39 am to GeauxxxTigers23
If only we hadn't given the fricking canal to Panama in the first place.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 9:42 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Could seriously hinder the recovery IMO
Obviously...you think they don't know that? Collapse of the Private Economy IS their plan, GT.
When the SOCIALIST take over Government...THEN, and only then...will we see policy that hopes to resurrect a vibrant economy. Impossible, of course.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 9:47 am to GeauxxxTigers23
Your link is to the wrong article...I keep getting an article about border crossing with Mexico post 9/11.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 9:52 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
The Energy Department has received almost 30 applications to ship gas to countries with which the U.S. does not have a free-trade agreement; only five of those applications have been conditionally approved, and none will be operational until 2017 at the earliest. For projects further down the line, there is the very real worry that government approval won't come until the LNG market is already well supplied by rival countries.
First, none of these export facilities are coming online soon...there's a lot of time left for approval and the front runner in the game, Cheniere has approval.
Second, the biggest opponent to exports is US Mfg that are concerned about losing the cheap gas.
I'm not particularly worried...yet.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 9:55 am to cwill
quote:
First, none of these export facilities are coming online soon...there's a lot of time left for approval and the front runner in the game, Cheniere has approval.
I think the concern is that we'll miss the boat and potential markets will already be filled by the time we can export. I don't know the details behind export facilities. Is it possible that the energy companies are not putting 100% effort into completing them until they get approval for export?
Posted on 1/3/14 at 10:02 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Is it possible that the energy companies are not putting 100% effort into completing them until they get approval for export?
I don't know...I've only followed Cheniere closely...I'm just not that concerned, yet. I was at a conference in the spring about NG prices and export was brought up and none of he speakers were concerned by the permitting and frankly didn't think exports would greatly effect pricing...I tend to disagree on the pricing side but I'm not overly concerned about the permitting at this point....I also don't believe that 30 export facilities are going to be built - even if all the permits are granted.
ETA: I think gas becomes a world commodity over the next 10 years and we are there at kickoff.
This post was edited on 1/3/14 at 10:10 am
Posted on 1/3/14 at 10:04 am to cwill
How about the Canal holdup? Seems like that has and could continue to effect export potential.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 10:12 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
How about the Canal holdup? Seems like that has and could continue to effect export potential.
Frankly don't know much about it other than what I read in the article...reads like a payment dispute that I'd expect to get worked out...they've got 3 years before it matters.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 10:51 am to cwill
WHAT EFFECT WILL THIS HAVE ON Sasol AND THE OTHERS. is this another example of WAR on Carbon Industry
Posted on 1/3/14 at 11:53 am to GeauxxxTigers23
This is going to hurt TOTAL's vision of being the #2 in the world. 1.6B is surmountable however so not too much of a concern.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News