Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

Common sense with the Russia/Trump connection.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

trump makes the claim that there are several reasons why we should believe Russia doesn't want him in power - one is our big energy "threat" and the other is military. I laugh and call bs because in the scheme of things, our energy exports are a drop in the bucket. snake steps in, says otherwise, supporting the notion that trump is right. tom comes in later without a fucking clue. which is becoming a pattern...

 

I called you on the gas because our military in a no-brainer threat to Russia.

Because the discussion was about Trump, the topic devolved, as usual, to your saying your superior intelligence can make fiction fact. Don't confuse another chance to show how incorrect you are as a Trump puff, it's just fun to prove you wrong. (That's half your problem, everything seems so personal to you.)

You were wrong, regardless. Fuck the Trump angle, just shut up and be wrong like a man.

Always gotta throw in the ...tom comes in later without a fucking clue. which is becoming a pattern... don't cha? MY GOD ARE YOU INSECURE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Snoslinger said:

I said our NG will have very little effect on putin in the overall scheme of things.

 

 

Experts say you are wrong.

Now you tell me, whom do I think is right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

show mje where I said our NG will have no effect on things? if you had reading comprehension skills you'd know I said the opposite, when I stated putin is willing to lose a little, to gain a lot. what do you think I meant by "little"?

 

Edited by Snoslinger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

and I posted other expert opinions. this is where common sense should kick in but doesn't for you, obviously.

 

Common sense, to anyone who can look.

 

The United States is sitting on vast reserves of natural gas. In under a decade, the shale revolution turned the U.S. from gas importer to gas exporter. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports have become economically viable and are forecasted to increase through 2017 up to 3.1 billion cubic feet. Furthermore, the opening of US LNG exports has begun in early summer of 2016, with shipments to the TGN LNG terminal in Portugal and Spain’s Mugardos LNG terminal. Nevertheless, U.S. LNG exporters have treated Europe as a residual market favoring the more profitable Asian market, especially following the expansion of the Panama Canal.

However, things have been changing. The two main claims against shipments to the European market – lack of demand and cost effectiveness – have lost their validity. First, according to the IEA, demand for gas in Europe, contrary to general belief, will double by 2020. Second, LNG prices in the Pacific and Atlantic area have been converging, therefore reducing the cost advantage of selling to the Asian market. U.S. LNG exports would see increasing profit from European markets while at the same time helping its most important allies ensure security.

The EU and the energy community are in desperate need of LNG as domestic consumption is declining. In 2013, the EU regasification capacity utilization was at a mere 24%, hence, with the current infrastructure there would be storage capacity for U.S. LNG imports. New sources of LNG to Europe would have the positive effects of diversifying supply, helping with the integration of the markets (especially in the East and in the North-South corridor), and further European clean energy goals, as an increase in use of gas for electricity would reduce carbon emissions from coal.

Nevertheless, the EU must meet the U.S. effort by connecting the west to the east though new infrastructure, expanding storage capacity, and removing the barriers to a common energy market. In response, according to Platts, the U.S. by 2020 could be exporting to Europe over 100 Bcm/year of LNG, which would meet one quarter of the market demand. These statistics highlight how Europe could obtain higher regional and energy security.

Increased competition among LNG suppliers and Russian energy policy create uncertainty for U.S. LNG shipments to Europe. It is true, as stated previously, that shipping LNG to Europe is now economically feasible for the U.S., however, the unpredictability of Russian operations works as a deterrent. Due to increased competition of LNG suppliers to Europe (Qatar, Iran, Algeria, etc.) gas costs have decreased. If the price of gas falls below the $4 per million Btu mark, it would become unfeasible for the U.S. to ship to the continent. The price issue revolves around Russia’s capability of flooding the European market with cheap gas. If Russia decides to do so it would force its competitors out of the market. However, the question remains regarding the feasibility of Russia maintaining such operation over a prolonged period. Low oil prices, coupled with sanctions, have forced the Russian economy into a phase of stagnation. Even more, following Russia’s recent proposed budget cuts, based on a $40 a barrel oil prediction for 2017, it seems more and more unlikely that the Kremlin will be able to pursue such policy.

Under a year ago, U.S. LNG exports to Europe seemed unfeasible. Today they are a reality. Demand for gas is expected to grow in the next decade. Prices, if kept around $5 million Btu, allow for US exports and competition with Russia. Europe could gain greatly. An increase in LNG imports could provide a cushion for the next five years, while Europe, in its rush to guarantee its security, invests in pipelines, storage capacity, LNG terminals, and integrating the markets. Europe has a lot to gain from the unfolding of current events. A Trump presidency can push European institutions to begin thinking of an independent future, while the Russian threat can bring all European countries together to diversify supplies of gas and achieve energy security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

so let's get to the main course - do you agree with trump in that putin, in all reality, shouldn't want trump in the WH?

Start a thread.

This is about your (apparently) abject lack of knowledge in basic economics and geopolitical actions of American NG exports to a European Union which Russia supplies 1/4 of said gas.

tqK3sYN.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

so let's get to the main course - do you agree with trump in that putin, in all reality, shouldn't want trump in the WH?

Putin Obviously would have preferred Clinton to Trump. His country has been cozy with her and Billy Jeff for quite some time now. Trump is an unknown and Clinton represented an easy quid pro quo 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Snake said:

Start a thread.

This is about your (apparently) abject lack of knowledge in basic economics and geopolitical actions of American NG exports to a European Union which Russia supplies 1/4 of said gas.

tqK3sYN.gif

hello? that is what this thread is about...

:lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

hello? that is what this thread is about...

:lol:

 

Simply put, I don't presume to think what the man thinks.

Each had their pros and cons.

A known corrupt politician, or a wild reality star TV billionaire with a very odd style.

He already knew he could control Hillary..... *links Syrian red line/Russian annexation*

Go with the (hilde)beast you know or the one you don't.

It's all conjecture. 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, f7ben said:

Putin Obviously would have preferred Clinton to Trump. His country has been cozy with her and Billy Jeff for quite some time now. Trump is an unknown and Clinton represented an easy quid pro quo 

Way to repeat exactly what was said on fox news... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Snake said:

Simply put, I don't presume to think what the man thinks.

Each had their pros and cons.

A known corrupt politician, or a wild reality star TV billionaire with a very odd style.

He already knew he could control Hillary..... *links Syrian red line/Russian annexation*

Go with the (hilde)beast you know or the one you don't.

It's all conjecture. 100%.

there are many indicators that say otherwise, including facts in recently exposed e-mails. sbyl.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
19 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

so let's get to the main course - do you agree with trump in that putin, in all reality, shouldn't want trump in the WH?

You can't see that at all on the economic side at all?  Both Trump and Clinton I think will continue big military spending.   She is twice the necon her husband was. 

Rather you admit it or not continuing Obama's status quo was not working with Russia.   Not saying Trump would be better but I think Hillary would have followed down the same mistakes that Obama made with them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Snoslinger said:

there are many indicators that say otherwise, including facts in recently exposed e-mails. sbyl.

 

Wanna go down this road?

Putin played her and Osama like a Stradivarius in Syria. He got a whole fucking country under their watch. Do you think he was the least bit worried? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Snoslinger said:

snakey do you really think you're fooling anyone with that nonsense? who the fuck put the sanctions on Russia and was going to keep them there, or tighten them even more. putin CLEARLY wanted trump in the WH.

 

THIS is a REAL Grand Swami.

apne_tv_1485692347.jpg

 

Quit trying to muscle in on his racket. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
3 minutes ago, Snake said:

Wanna go down this road?

Putin played her and Osama like a Stradivarius in Syria. He got a whole fucking country under their watch. Do you think he was the least bit worried? :lol:

Putin played you and Dump like a fool Union Boy :lmao: Who Putin supported isn't even up for debate - it's a fact he and Russia meddled to support Dump.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SnowRider said:

Putin played you and Dump like a fool Union Boy :lmao: Who Putin supported isn't even up for debate - it's a fact he and Russia meddled to support Dump.  

Suggesting otherwise is contrary to the facts and idiotic or what we call here...."just another day at Freedomsledder"

:lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol




×
×
  • Create New...