We can keep shale gas, our new-found national treasure of inexpensive energy, mainly for domestic consumption. This would have the benefits of restoring some degree of industrial competition with the rest of the world, thus providing some additional employment for American workers, reducing our carbon footprint, and generally reducing costs to American consumers.
Or, we can export huge quantities to Europe or Asia, (sarcasm) providing a much-needed source of additional enrichment for the energy industry.(/ sarcasm)
But of course it isn't that simple: thanks to Russia's expansionist adventures in the Ukraine, there is a strong and understandable sentiment for making Europe less dependent upon Russian natural gas. It will come as no great surprise when our feckless congress begins to loudly shout for American energy exports to save the world from Putin. Anyone not in agreement will be painted as an enemy of freedom, democracy, and the American way.
Little or no discussion will explore the question of why Europe itself seems to be in no hurry to explore or exploit shale gas deposits there. That exploration is currently "on hold" until Europe is satisfied that fracking poses no great risk of environmental disaster. The general European attitude is, as usual, to let America take the chances and pay the freight.
This article from Reuters is interesting.
"New French gas pipeline to offer Germany alternative supply". Really? Let's see now... if France doesn't allow fracking, there certainly won't be a lot of extra gas there. Oh, I see: the French are building new LNG terminals!
Where do you suppose that gas is going to come from?
Comments
Surprised?
" It will come as no great surprise when our feckless congress begins to loudly shout for American energy exports to save the world from Putin. Anyone not in agreement will be painted as an enemy of freedom, democracy, and the American way."
Probably, but I think it goes beyond just congress.
"Or, we can export huge quantities to Europe or Asia, (sarcasm) providing a much-needed source of additional enrichment for the energy industry.(/ sarcasm)"
My various energy and energy infrastructure plays are happy about it. I'm guessing no one's seeing prices at the pump go down any time soon, or much relief from other various energy costs (electric, etc.) I do think that, while they've done very well this year, people are still kind of ignoring Canadian energy names with all the buzz around US oil.
"Where do you suppose that gas is going to come from?"
Take a look at Cheniere Energy.
https://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=LNG+Interactive#symbol=lng;range=5y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=;
That would depend on which end of the redistribution you are on.
First, What The Frack!
Second, everyone please watch Gasland, Gasland Part 2 (can't find free link)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarchy
@ Maurice- If it's to be called "redistribution", let's be clear on what is being "redistributed" and to whom: Those of us, including myself (via GASFX), who stand to profit in some manner from gas fracking, should also realize that we are participating in the sellout of one of our last remaining national resources to the omnivorous energy industries of the world.
I'm in Massachusetts, too. Western Mass Electric Company is a thieving bunch of spooge-garglers. And where do my monthly payments go to, anyhow? Cincinnati? Dallas? The State AG raised hell with them for not doing the necessary maintenance work prior to the "Snow-tober" event a couple of years ago. We were without electric service for 8 days, as I recall. Scums. But guess what? There's a line-item on the bill telling me (every month) that I'm helping them to pay for what they ought to have been doing back then, as a matter of course. It's referred to on the bill as some sort of bullshit "AG litigation mitigation" crap.
As for zero-cost wind-power, eventually: do you think any of us will see the cost reduction----- EVER? Hell, no.
If you are an average American, your number is 27%. You are also say that 10% is an acceptable level.
...
For FY2014, the United States budget was roughly $3.6T. If you look under the "Defense" heading of that chart, you'll find the actual number for non-military aid is $34.4B, or ~0.9% of the total budget. If you include military aid, the number jumps to $48.5B or $1.3%. To be fair, that number is up from roughly .5-.6% under the previous administration, but it goes for not only direct foreign aid, but also to funding our embassies and fees for the IMF, World Bank, and UN.
To the best of my knowledge the top five countries that receive aid are Afghanistan, Israel, Egypt, Iraq, and Pakistan, which in 2012 accounted for roughly 2/3 of all foreign spending.
I'm not sure where you get $USDTrillions -- unless you include the cost of our war efforts -- or that excessive amounts are going to Europe, when only Ukraine is in the top 20 recipients. People can argue in good faith over what the appropriate amount of spending is, but the current amounts are no where near what people generally assume they are.
http://www.examiner.com/article/a-pie-chart-every-american-should-get-to-know-as-republicans-cut-spending
~ 2/3 of spending is SS, DoD, Medicare/-aid, and debt interest flowing back to us MFO bondy types
If you want to balance the U.S. budget, you have to start with the 800 pound gorillas: Medicare and Defense.
I would imagine the cost of intervention in Libya was, relatively speaking, pretty small because we didn't put troops on the ground.
http://wwlp.com/2014/07/04/mass-has-bad-road-conditions-but-good-teen-drivers/
? missing the point?
Nothing I posted was news in the slightest except to those who think balancing the budget is more important than anything. That's all. I drive in Mass. too. Truly awful. Not that much different from elsewhere.
Traffic sucks in Seattle and no matter what they do it will continue to suck. Geography is the main reason for horrible traffic there with the Puget Sound on one side and Lake Washington on the other of a narrow but fully populated land mass.