The American Dream?

Mr. Jammer,  Information sourced from your eia.gov link indicates that last week we exported ~38% of our propane production.

Looking at the info about country of destination, I think I was wrong about India.   But China of course is huge.

FWIW, propane (C3H8) is not natural gas (methane/ CH4).

Oh Gomezz you stopped short of outlining the source of propane.  The raw material of refining so to speak.

The JSI Bloviator-in-Chief wrote:
[ Excess bloviation removed. ]

Now with the low cost of natural gas in the US and somewhat elevated international prices, there are now some people who think this will work in reverse.  

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-31/five-questions-for-europe-s-gloomy-natural-gas-market-in-2016

[ Congratulations on your financial support of innovation and entrepreneurism in the energy sector.  Have fun with all those limited partnerships and completing your tax return. ] 

Whhhaaaaatttt ?  Do you actually read and comprehend the information in the links which you post ?

From the sub-bullet headline in this link: 

"U.K. gas prices plummeted 30% in 2015, Dutch gas fell 20%".

Jammer wrote:And here you go:

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/07/14/most-u-s-lng-projects-wont-cross-the-finish-line-new-study-says/#27079101=0

This information is almost a year old but don't worry I am sure energy prices haven't fallen since then.  And you have the advantage of being so much smarter than these experts, I am sure you will make a fortune with your investment.  How much are you going to pour into this sure thing you are hyping?

Since you aren't opposed to considering stale data did you know that for the months of July thru Oct 2015 -

- the US imported more natural gas than was exported and
- the US imported more LNG (from Trinidad Tobago and Norway) than was exported.

Shortie's Ex wrote:

The JSI Bloviator-in-Chief wrote:
[ Excess bloviation removed. ]

Now with the low cost of natural gas in the US and somewhat elevated international prices, there are now some people who think this will work in reverse.  

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-31/five-questions-for-europe-s-gloomy-natural-gas-market-in-2016

[ Congratulations on your financial support of innovation and entrepreneurism in the energy sector.  Have fun with all those limited partnerships and completing your tax return. ] 

Whhhaaaaatttt ?  Do you actually read and comprehend the information in the links which you post ?

From the sub-bullet headline in this link: 

"U.K. gas prices plummeted 30% in 2015, Dutch gas fell 20%".

You really don't understand do you?  I have not looked recently and I am not going to do so to respond to this stupid comment of yours, so I may be off a little bit.  The percentages you mention are meaningless.  What matters is the absolute difference in price which is PROBABLY around $2 per mcf today.  However, that fluctuates widely.

In my opinion, in a few years Europe will be the only meaningful importer of LNG.  And looking at some of your other comments, it is clear to see that you do not understand the data.  There is a difference in the order of magnitude of things.  There is a difference between nominal and substantial.  Unfortunately for the math challenged people like you, it is possible to indicate directional changes in either based on percentages.   That must give you a headache.

Oh yeah, K-1's are not that tough and they can be easily avoided if that is a concern for you.

Shortie's Ex wrote:Oh Gomezz you stopped short of outlining the source of propane.  The raw material of refining so to speak.

You clearly don’t have a clue on what you are talking about.  But that is no different than any liberal talking about healthcare, global warming, immigration, the economy, education or any other issue.  Your lack of knowledge on energy is appalling and it doesn’t end with Gomezz’s schooling that he gave you above, it also includes orders of magnitude.  In the US we produce roughly 28,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas.  Take a look at how much propane we produce, it is closer to the amount of ear wax you produce on an annual basis.

I do think LPG will enjoy a huge upswing at some time in the next 10 – 20 years in the US and we will all be better off as a result.   I personally hope it happens sooner than later, but there are huge infrastructure issues that need to be dealt with before we see this dramatic increase in demand.

It is obvious that math and organic chemistry are not your strong suits; in fact you appear to be almost void in them.  Therefore, I have gone looking for some information at a level that might help you.  The following link points out many of the issues I have previously but unsuccessfully tried to convey to you.  I will direct your attention to several areas.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/10/231475085/the-u-s-is-the-worlds-biggest-producer-of-natural-gas-heres-what-that-means

First, note the huge increase in natural gas production and the explanation they give for this increase.

Second, in point number 3 please note how they mention that this increase in energy and the resulting decline in price is BRINGING MANUFACTURING JOBS BACK TO THE US.  These are the same jobs that progressive liberal policies drove away.  Progressive liberals do NOT want us using our natural resources, but I say DRILL BABY DRILL.  Progressive Liberals say $15 PER HOUR or we will riot.

In point number 4 you will see that the United States is not the only country with shale reserves.  So, I am not sure why you think that these other countries will not come to their senses soon.  Perhaps you think they will continue to buy the progressive liberal bullshit lies that you are pedaling?  In any event, I think it will only be a few years before other parts of the world are following the innovative lead of the United States and are producing huge volumes of natural gas.  I wonder how that will work for the people who spent billions building LNG export terminals in the US.  By the way, you never did say how much of YOUR money you were going to invest in that noble idea.

Before you answer that question, you probably should go back and review point number 1 in the article where it says:

Unlike oil and other commodities, natural gas is expensive and difficult to export.  

I know you didn’t listen to me when I told you that, but maybe since it was found in a Google search you will now believe it.

Jammer wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:

The JSI Bloviator-in-Chief wrote:
[ Excess bloviation removed. ]

Now with the low cost of natural gas in the US and somewhat elevated international prices, there are now some people who think this will work in reverse.  

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-31/five-questions-for-europe-s-gloomy-natural-gas-market-in-2016

[ Congratulations on your financial support of innovation and entrepreneurism in the energy sector.  Have fun with all those limited partnerships and completing your tax return. ] 

Whhhaaaaatttt ?  Do you actually read and comprehend the information in the links which you post ?

From the sub-bullet headline in this link: 

"U.K. gas prices plummeted 30% in 2015, Dutch gas fell 20%".

You really don't understand do you?  I have not looked recently and I am not going to do so to respond to this stupid comment of yours, so I may be off a little bit.  The percentages you mention are meaningless.  What matters is the absolute difference in price which is PROBABLY around $2 per mcf today.  However, that fluctuates widely.

In my opinion, in a few years Europe will be the only meaningful importer of LNG.  And looking at some of your other comments, it is clear to see that you do not understand the data.  There is a difference in the order of magnitude of things.  There is a difference between nominal and substantial.  Unfortunately for the math challenged people like you, it is possible to indicate directional changes in either based on percentages.   That must give you a headache.

Oh yeah, K-1's are not that tough and they can be easily avoided if that is a concern for you.

LOL Mr Jammer. The percentages indicated aren't mine.  They are direct extracts from your link.  If you place no meaning to them why did you bother to post the link ?  Read. Comprehend. Post.

Shortie's Ex wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:

The JSI Bloviator-in-Chief wrote:
[ Excess bloviation removed. ]

Now with the low cost of natural gas in the US and somewhat elevated international prices, there are now some people who think this will work in reverse.  

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-31/five-questions-for-europe-s-gloomy-natural-gas-market-in-2016

[ Congratulations on your financial support of innovation and entrepreneurism in the energy sector.  Have fun with all those limited partnerships and completing your tax return. ] 

Whhhaaaaatttt ?  Do you actually read and comprehend the information in the links which you post ?

From the sub-bullet headline in this link: 

"U.K. gas prices plummeted 30% in 2015, Dutch gas fell 20%".

You really don't understand do you?  I have not looked recently and I am not going to do so to respond to this stupid comment of yours, so I may be off a little bit.  The percentages you mention are meaningless.  What matters is the absolute difference in price which is PROBABLY around $2 per mcf today.  However, that fluctuates widely.

In my opinion, in a few years Europe will be the only meaningful importer of LNG.  And looking at some of your other comments, it is clear to see that you do not understand the data.  There is a difference in the order of magnitude of things.  There is a difference between nominal and substantial.  Unfortunately for the math challenged people like you, it is possible to indicate directional changes in either based on percentages.   That must give you a headache.

Oh yeah, K-1's are not that tough and they can be easily avoided if that is a concern for you.

LOL Mr Jammer. The percentages indicated aren't mine.  They are direct extracts from your link.  If you place no meaning to them why did you bother to post the link ?  Read. Comprehend. Post.

You really don’t get it, so this is my last comment to you as it is a total waste of time.

Apple production declined 2% from its annual production rate of 1,000,000 bushels
Peach production declined 38% from its annual production rate of 200 bushels

Which had the biggest decline in the AMOUNT of fruit produce?  I know that you will be arguing for the 38% but those that understand math know better.  This is just one more clear example of why it is a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME for a conservative to have any discussion with a brainless progressive liberal.  I need to take my own advice – don’t talk to them, drive a stake thru the heart of liberalism.

Jammer wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Oh Gomezz you stopped short of outlining the source of propane.  The raw material of refining so to speak.

You clearly don’t have a clue on what you are talking about.  But that is no different than any liberal talking about healthcare, global warming, immigration, the economy, education or any other issue.  Your lack of knowledge on energy is appalling and it doesn’t end with Gomezz’s schooling that he gave you above, it also includes orders of magnitude.  In the US we produce roughly 28,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas.  Take a look at how much propane we produce, it is closer to the amount of ear wax you produce on an annual basis.

I do think LPG will enjoy a huge upswing at some time in the next 10 – 20 years in the US and we will all be better off as a result.   I personally hope it happens sooner than later, but there are huge infrastructure issues that need to be dealt with before we see this dramatic increase in demand.

It is obvious that math and organic chemistry are not your strong suits; in fact you appear to be almost void in them.  Therefore, I have gone looking for some information at a level that might help you.  The following link points out many of the issues I have previously but unsuccessfully tried to convey to you.  I will direct your attention to several areas.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/10/231475085/the-u-s-is-the-worlds-biggest-producer-of-natural-gas-heres-what-that-means

First, note the huge increase in natural gas production and the explanation they give for this increase.

Second, in point number 3 please note how they mention that this increase in energy and the resulting decline in price is BRINGING MANUFACTURING JOBS BACK TO THE US.  These are the same jobs that progressive liberal policies drove away.  Progressive liberals do NOT want us using our natural resources, but I say DRILL BABY DRILL.  Progressive Liberals say $15 PER HOUR or we will riot.

In point number 4 you will see that the United States is not the only country with shale reserves.  So, I am not sure why you think that these other countries will not come to their senses soon.  Perhaps you think they will continue to buy the progressive liberal bullshit lies that you are pedaling?  In any event, I think it will only be a few years before other parts of the world are following the innovative lead of the United States and are producing huge volumes of natural gas.  I wonder how that will work for the people who spent billions building LNG export terminals in the US.  By the way, you never did say how much of YOUR money you were going to invest in that noble idea.

Before you answer that question, you probably should go back and review point number 1 in the article where it says:

Unlike oil and other commodities, natural gas is expensive and difficult to export.  

I know you didn’t listen to me when I told you that, but maybe since it was found in a Google search you will now believe it.

LOL Mr Jammer.  There is nothing here about organic chemistry.  Is this post about natural gas a sideways acknowledgement that you know the answer to my query about the origin of propane ?

And if manfacturing jobs are migrating back to US shores as you contend in your numerous lectures about natural gas production what is it that all these Republican presidential candidates have been talking about ?

Make America Great Again ?  America has been getting great again since about 2010.  Info from links in your posts prove it.  

Come on in boys.  The water's warm.

Shortie's Ex wrote:Oh Gomezz you stopped short of outlining the source of propane.  The raw material of refining so to speak.

While propane comes from natural gas feedstock it is still not natural gas.

According to your reasoning we should...

Count gasoline exports as oil exports since gasoline comes from oil.

PVC exports since many plastics come from natural gas feedstock.

Fertilizer exports since natural gas is used in the production of fertilizer.

And why stop there? Maybe we would should call natural gas that comes from oil wells, oil. And that which comes from coal seams, coal.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Oh Gomezz you stopped short of outlining the source of propane.  The raw material of refining so to speak.

While propane comes from natural gas feedstock it is still not natural gas.

According to your reasoning we should...

Count gasoline exports as oil exports since gasoline comes from oil.

PVC exports since many plastics come from natural gas feedstock.

Fertilizer exports since natural gas is used in the production of fertilizer.

And why stop there? Maybe we would should call natural gas that comes from oil wells, oil. And that which comes from coal seams, coal.

Oh thank you Gomezz.  I knew that you would agree with me.  

As for the the rest of this it is superfluous (a new word that I learned while reading Readers' Digest)               

You have got a lot of work to do on this forum to bring Mr Jammer up to speed on economics and organic chemistry and stuff like that.  I think he needs your help more than I do.

Gomezz Adddams wrote: And why stop there? Maybe we would should call natural gas that comes from oil wells, oil. And that which comes from coal seams, coal.

Heck, what about flatulence emissions ... that is about as natural as it gets?

Skeptical wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:  And why stop there? Maybe we would should call natural gas that comes from oil wells, oil. And that which comes from coal seams, coal.

Heck, what about flatulence emissions ... that is about as natural as it gets?

Sssshhhhhh. Speak softly or the government might hear. Damn too late, the EPA is already on the job.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:  And why stop there? Maybe we would should call natural gas that comes from oil wells, oil. And that which comes from coal seams, coal.

Heck, what about flatulence emissions ... that is about as natural as it gets?

Sssshhhhhh. Speak softly or the government might hear. Damn too late, the EPA is already on the job.

I reckon that means we can scratch the formation of the Metro Area Peoples Natural Gas Company!