Wondering who has been running the country

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrissteel
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 94
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
Regardless of who was running the country, you don’t want to know who will be running the country for the next few years. They’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.
 
Also, 273K jobs is a pitiful number for an industry -

That is just the export segment of one commodity that leaves on a giant boat. Comparing that to retail domestic companies is what is silly. And if left to grow without pauses it will double in a few years.




At least 2/3 of LNG is sold with long term contracts. The contracts are often tied to oil prices

North America has led globally in terms of the number of long-term contracts signed in 2023 for the export of LNG with 21 contracts, according to GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company.
GlobalData’s latest report, ‘Long-Term LNG Contracts Review Analytics by Region, Contracts and Companies, 2023’, reveals that of the total long-term contracts signed in 2023 for the export of LNG from North America, 16 contracts are signed for exports from the US, four from Mexico, and one from Canada.

In the US, the biggest contract was inked by NextDecade, with a commitment to supply 5.4 million tpy of LNG to TotalEnergies from 2026 – 2046. NextDecade also signed one more contract for the supply of 1 million tpy of LNG to Itochu Corp. for 15 years, from 2027 – 2042. LNG will be supplied from the Rio Grande terminal in Texas for both contracts.

Bhargavi Gandham, Oil and Gas Analyst at GlobalData, commented: “Energy companies in North America continue to bet on strong long-term LNG demand due to the role of natural gas as a bridge fuel for energy transition and decarbonisation efforts. The Russian-Ukraine war has provided additional opportunity for these companies to sign contracts for LNG exports to Europe.”

In Mexico, four contracts were signed by Mexico Pacific Limited LLC to supply LNG from the Sonora liquefaction terminal. Among these, the most substantial contract was with ConocoPhillips for the supply of 2.2 million tpy of LNG for 20 years from 2027 – 2047.

In Canada, the contract was signed by Woodfibre LNG Ltd to supply 0.5 million tpy of LNG from the Woodfibre terminal to BP plc for 15 years from 2027 – 2042.

The LNG industry was built on long-term contracts—typically lasting 20 or more years—and point-to-point sales.

There is not a spot US market. Only in Asia is the Japan Korea Marker used but just there
 
Last edited:

At least 2/3 of LNG is sold with long term contracts. The contracts are often tied to oil prices

North America has led globally in terms of the number of long-term contracts signed in 2023 for the export of LNG with 21 contracts, according to GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company.
GlobalData’s latest report, ‘Long-Term LNG Contracts Review Analytics by Region, Contracts and Companies, 2023’, reveals that of the total long-term contracts signed in 2023 for the export of LNG from North America, 16 contracts are signed for exports from the US, four from Mexico, and one from Canada.

In the US, the biggest contract was inked by NextDecade, with a commitment to supply 5.4 million tpy of LNG to TotalEnergies from 2026 – 2046. NextDecade also signed one more contract for the supply of 1 million tpy of LNG to Itochu Corp. for 15 years, from 2027 – 2042. LNG will be supplied from the Rio Grande terminal in Texas for both contracts.

Bhargavi Gandham, Oil and Gas Analyst at GlobalData, commented: “Energy companies in North America continue to bet on strong long-term LNG demand due to the role of natural gas as a bridge fuel for energy transition and decarbonisation efforts. The Russian-Ukraine war has provided additional opportunity for these companies to sign contracts for LNG exports to Europe.”

In Mexico, four contracts were signed by Mexico Pacific Limited LLC to supply LNG from the Sonora liquefaction terminal. Among these, the most substantial contract was with ConocoPhillips for the supply of 2.2 million tpy of LNG for 20 years from 2027 – 2047.

In Canada, the contract was signed by Woodfibre LNG Ltd to supply 0.5 million tpy of LNG from the Woodfibre terminal to BP plc for 15 years from 2027 – 2042.
2/3 is not all. And it doesn't matter because it is still a commodity. You could post a thousand such links and LNG would still be a commodity. There is no "getting ahead" or "falling behind" in terms of markets.

Why would we want to tie our country's industrial base to a technology that is actively harming us? Fossil fuels and humanity cannot co-exist in the long run. We will die out if we insist on burning them. So when is going to be the right time in your view to cut off fossil fuels? And wouldn't it help to gradually phase out and phase in better technologies to replace them?

How does it make sense to drill baby drill as much petrol as we can possibly extract when the economic benefits are consumed and more by natural disasters? There is currently a historic snow storm in the south, out of control wildfires in Los Angeles, and most of WNC is still reeling from last year's catastrophic hurricane. What more has to go wrong for you and your ilk to get with the program and start being part of the solution instead of part of the problem?
 

Six key people protected the president.

Jill Biden, the first lady, and Hunter Biden, his surviving son, fervently believed in his ability to win. Mr. Donilon and Steve Ricchetti, the counselor to Mr. Biden, knew when and how to deliver information, along with Annie Tomasini, the deputy chief of staff. She and Anthony Bernal, the first lady’s most senior aide, took tight control over the president’s public schedule.

Can I ask you a question? I cannot answer this from my constituents in Louisiana,” Johnson recalled telling Biden. “Sir, why did you pause LNG exports to Europe? Liquefied natural gas is in great demand by our allies. Why would you do that? Cause you understand we just talked about Ukraine, you understand you are fueling Vladimir Putin’s war machine, because they gotta get their gas from him.”

Biden, according to Johnson, was stunned. “I didn’t do that,” Biden said. Johnson responded, “Mr. President, yes you did. It was an executive order like three weeks ago.” Biden continued to deny that he paused the LNG exports. At that point, Johnson suggested that the president ask the president’s secretary to print out the executive order, so the two could read it together.

Biden then recalled that he had signed an executive order, but it only called for a study on the effects of LNG. Johnson was firm. “Sir, you paused it, I know. I have the export terminals in my state. I talked to those people in my state, I’ve talked to those people this morning, this is doing massive damage to our economy, national security.”

In this exchange, Johnson said he realized that Biden was not lying to him. “He genuinely did not know what he had signed,” Johnson said. “And I walked out of that meeting with fear and loathing because I thought, “We are in serious trouble—who is running the country?” Like, I don’t know who put the paper in front of him, but he didn’t know.”

On January 26, 2024, the white house — announced “a temporary pause on pending decisions on exports of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to non-FTA countries until the Department of Energy can update the underlying analyses for authorizations.” The White House meeting Johnson described was February 27, 2024.

When his staff rolled out a teleprompter for him to use while making remarks at small fund-raisers in private homes, Biden just nodded and went along with it. It never struck him as peculiar that he, the president of the United States, was expected to stick to prepared remarks at an off-camera Democratic fundraiser with only one print reporter in the room.

He never met with his pollsters from his reelection campaign, and that didn’t seem abnormal to him.
So we are replacing Jill Biden with the Heritage Foundation?
 
2/3 is not all. And it doesn't matter because it is still a commodity. You could post a thousand such links and LNG would still be a commodity. There is no "getting ahead" or "falling behind" in terms of markets.

Why would we want to tie our country's industrial base to a technology that is actively harming us? Fossil fuels and humanity cannot co-exist in the long run. We will die out if we insist on burning them. So when is going to be the right time in your view to cut off fossil fuels? And wouldn't it help to gradually phase out and phase in better technologies to replace them?

How does it make sense to drill baby drill as much petrol as we can possibly extract when the economic benefits are consumed and more by natural disasters? There is currently a historic snow storm in the south, out of control wildfires in Los Angeles, and most of WNC is still reeling from last year's catastrophic hurricane. What more has to go wrong for you and your ilk to get with the program and start being part of the solution instead of part of the problem?
You have a great point. If we don't produce fossil fuels no one will.
Natural gas replacing coal for power has been our most successful solution so far.
 
You have a great point. If we don't produce fossil fuels no one will.
Natural gas replacing coal for power has been our most successful solution so far.
If we don't stop producing fossil fuels, nobody will. If we did, we could probably get most of the world to go along. It wouldn't be easy, but it would be doable. Not like turning off the faucet, but if the US committed to cut fossil fuel production and consumption by 90% by 2040, I would guess that all of Europe (save Russia) and China and most of Latin America would go along. I don't know about India, but carbon tariffs would make them come around as well.

Natural gas replacing coal is not even necessarily a win for the environment. It all depends on how much methane escapes. Burning coal is worse by a fair margin (I've read studies demonstrating that burning coal actually makes the country poorer than if we had just not produced the energy), but if producing gas is much worse (and we don't really know just how bad it is), then what?

Anyway, natural gas being better than coal is like a UNC team being better than 8-20. The bar is so low.

Natural gas is not a long-term solution, and we should be investing far less in it than in high-tech solutions. But y'all are doing that thing you do, pretending as if the past was so great and longing to return to it (y'all should study history!). Trump even referred to "liquid gold." Pretty sure the last person I heard use that phrase was Yosemite Sam.
 
So we are replacing Jill Biden with the Heritage Foundation?
Do you see those as equal?

Did Jill Biden work to ensure that everyone is forced to be a Christian and that no other religions are allowed in the country?
 
If we don't stop producing fossil fuels, nobody will. If we did, we could probably get most of the world to go along. It wouldn't be easy, but it would be doable. Not like turning off the faucet, but if the US committed to cut fossil fuel production and consumption by 90% by 2040, I would guess that all of Europe (save Russia) and China and most of Latin America would go along. I don't know about India, but carbon tariffs would make them come around as well.

Natural gas replacing coal is not even necessarily a win for the environment. It all depends on how much methane escapes. Burning coal is worse by a fair margin (I've read studies demonstrating that burning coal actually makes the country poorer than if we had just not produced the energy), but if producing gas is much worse (and we don't really know just how bad it is), then what?

Anyway, natural gas being better than coal is like a UNC team being better than 8-20. The bar is so low.

Natural gas is not a long-term solution, and we should be investing far less in it than in high-tech solutions. But y'all are doing that thing you do, pretending as if the past was so great and longing to return to it (y'all should study history!). Trump even referred to "liquid gold." Pretty sure the last person I heard use that phrase was Yosemite Sam.
There are so many other negatives to coal, not just burning it.


Considering this, we should probably focus on fluoride in the water.
 
@ZenMode how much have you read about the heritage foundation?

If they had their way, Christianity would be the only (sorry almost typed acceptable, to them it is already the only acceptable religion) legal religion. Everything they have done since their founding is driven by a conservative Christian ideology.
 
@ZenMode how much have you read about the heritage foundation?

If they had their way, Christianity would be the only (sorry almost typed acceptable, to them it is already the only acceptable religion) legal religion. Everything they have done since their founding is driven by a conservative Christian ideology.
If it's who I'm thinking of, I only know them for the voter fraud tracker on their site.

I went to their site to see what they have to say. They don't seem to want to do anything except protect all religions:

Religious Freedom: What’s at Stake If We Lose It​


..............

First of all, what is religious freedom?

Religious freedom is more than the “freedom to worship” at a synagogue, church, or mosque. It means people shouldn’t have to go against their core values and beliefs in order to conform to culture or government.

Religious freedom protects people’s right to live, speak, and act according to their beliefs peacefully and publicly. It protects their ability to be themselves at work, in class, and at social activities.

...........

It covers all people equally—Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, and atheists. Religious freedom preserves America’s diversity, where people of different faiths, worldviews, and beliefs can peacefully live together without fear of punishment from the government.

Efforts to repress religious freedom is not just an attack on individual liberty and human dignity, but on the very foundation that has made America strong.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top