Add a Comment

Comment by GR BallouPE on November 25, 2009 at 5:09

Keith,
As a "Bridge Currrency" until the new Global -G$G- is in place,
the Chi-Comm's have gone to GOLD.
--George.

Comment by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 25, 2009 at 5:00

John, nice try with the insertion of Bush. Giving China a "most-favored-nation" trade status occurred under the Clinton Presidency and under a Republican Congress. This isn't a partisan issue, it's a national security issue.

I would rather see Obama promote shale gas in the U.S. Maybe he will - we still have 3 years left in his 1st term.

Comment by John Avatar on November 25, 2009 at 4:32

The technology for LWD and MWD belong to compaines like Schlumberger and Halliburton, Schlumberger, being a French company. This technology could not be given to anyone, as these companies hold patents to this technology. China will have to pay to use these companies just like American companies do.

It makes no sense to me that China would want to harm the economy of their biggest trading partner and largest debtor.

Perhaps if you and others that share your beliefs had spoken up during the eight years of the Bush administration, we would have a different scenario today. But you didn't and now you want to blame the present administration for all of the ills caused by the Bush administration.

Would you have rather seen Obama recommend China pursue an energy policy based on coal?

Comment by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 25, 2009 at 3:29

John, this whole argument is pointless is we assist and go out of our way to hold up a regime that could give a hoot about us or our grandkids. What good is a cleaner environment if there's no U.S.? As soon as China has a better currency option to cling to, is there any doubt in our minds that hey'll jump on it and turn the lights off as they leave? I tend to believe we have sold our souls to this nation and that has to stop. Doesn't appear that this is going to happen anytime soon.

Comment by John Avatar on November 24, 2009 at 20:00

China is the worlds worst industrial polluter. China has 562 coal fired power plants planned for construction over the next eight years. I live on the same planet as China, as do my kids and grandkids. I am a lot more comfortable with promoting the drilling and production of natural gas from whatever source if China will use it in place of coal. It's a global thing. You would have to believe the earth was not flat to appreciate that concept.

Comment by sesport on November 23, 2009 at 19:53

Sorry, guys, but IMO I see both parties holding out for their favorite future energy source ... nuclear AND green technologies. We also have the ever powerful coal lobby with which to contend. And, as has been pointed out many times here, the unstable price of ng doesn't help. We're moving forward with reasonable speed in transitioning the transportation sector. The residential consumption will be affected by consumer demands. We've got to find a way to incorporate ng into the power and industrial consumption. I've seen at least one proposed project for an off-peak power plant that combined ng and green technology. This may be the way to go in that sector, but I don't think this particular project is being promoted well enough to get the attention of lawmakers.

I think Pres. Obama believes in ng because he's willing help China get what it needs. Perhaps in helping them achieve their goal, he'll come to realize it should be more of the solution in the US, too.

Comment by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 23, 2009 at 17:15

Rick, I think I'll postpone my dancing in the streets until Obama gives us indication that 1) he believes and 2) then acts like shale gas is part of the solution for us (U.S.).

Comment by Rick on November 23, 2009 at 16:24

"Course not, Essay. Some people think it's fundamentally wrong to burn anything. But that's exactly why it's a breakthrough for Obama to include shale gas as part of the solution, not part of the problem. I'm seeing a genuine shift in understanding and perspective in both the administration and on the Hill. We're certainly not there yet, but so much further along since Waxman Markey showed they couldn't spell Mcf, that the industry deserves a lot of credit.

Comment by essay on November 23, 2009 at 14:12

rick i wouldn't underestimate the deep seated global warming believerism that includes an all encompassing hatred of fossil fuels which has permeated the democrat's voter base.

Comment by Rick on November 23, 2009 at 11:04

Keith, that's sort of a mystery, why the President took so long to get around to recognizing shale gas. During the campaign, Obama articulated much better than McCain the distinct role (from oil) that U.S. natural gas could play. In July of 08, Rahm Emanuel introduced pro-CNG vehicle legislation, citing the American Clean Skies Foundation study showing 118 years worth of supply--he even introduced the roll-out of that study. Then they took office and natural gas, especially shale gas, just seemed to disappear from policy. I think it's because there was a whole layer of senior people the president brought in who still saw natural gas as just another fossil fuel--and their staffs were slow to absorb and believe the scale of our abundance (not making them unique among Americans). A lot of that's behind us, in large part because of communication efforts such as ANGA's. As far as the interaction with China and the impact on the US, this is all part of a much bigger picture. If the world at large doesn't pick up in demand, we're facing a 60 percent increase in LNG liquefaction coming on line in the next five years, that won't have much of a home. That means big surplus cargoes of LNG showing up all over the place, but mostly here--undermining the economics of our domestic production industry and potentially creating a dependence that has real national-security implications. We have an interesting situation globally: The world has a carbon-driven climate-change crisis, and the world has a surplus of its cleanest, lowest-carbon natural fuel. Somehow, we've managed to turn that into a problem. So anything that encourages expanded use of gas worldwide will ultimately be good for our domestic industry. In China, they spent a bunch of time building a 500-MW coal plant a week, then they had to turn everything off for the Olympics so people could breathe. They're a no-brainer for an economy that needs to switch to gas, but they've always been nervous about becoming dependent on LNG. Progress in developing a domestic resource could give them the confidence they need in natural gas, and the conversion could start. If history is any guide, their rate of consumption growth will always outstrip their rate of domestic-resource development--hence a "pull" on global gas resources, and a much healthier situation for our domestic producers.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page