Free Allegiance Forums

Russia delivers about one third of the german gas demand. It has been a stable supplier even during the cold war. They need our money probably more than we need their gas. To push us to buy more expensive US gas that derives from the environmental catastrophe mining is a bit weird. I would prefer that you keep your gas in your soil and don't endanger your populace.

Grimmwolf_GB wrote:QUOTE (Grimmwolf_GB @ Feb 19 2019, 04:35 AM) Russia delivers about one third of the german gas demand. It has been a stable supplier even during the cold war. They need our money probably more than we need their gas. To push us to buy more expensive US gas that derives from the environmental catastrophe mining is a bit weird. I would prefer that you keep your gas in your soil and don't endanger your populace.

I believe it's more like 50% with most of the rest coming from Norway. Not sure how much it will go up when nord stream goes on line. Germany prefers gas pipelines over liquid natural gas. I guess it's better to give Russia money than the u.s. at least they can annex more countries with it. Also Russia turned off the gas to Europe in 2009.

peet wrote:QUOTE (peet @ Feb 18 2019, 11:44 AM) Yea, now Europe has the option to be cut of LNG or oil by the most stable and reliable Trump, or some vague Sheik...

stable genius!

minigun wrote:QUOTE (minigun @ Feb 18 2019, 07:51 PM) I believe it's more like 50% with most of the rest coming from Norway. Not sure how much it will go up when nord stream goes on line. Germany prefers gas pipelines over liquid natural gas. I guess it's better to give Russia money than the u.s. at least they can annex more countries with it. Also Russia turned off the gas to Europe in 2009.

It's 50%, the rest is coming from Norway, Netherlands and a small part is produced in Germany (natural gas and biomass).

The 2009 cutoff was against the Ukraine, North Stream and the pipeline via Belarus and Poland were not shut down. The shutdown was covered by increased imports from Norway/Netherlands and thr national emergency storage (storage capacity for a couple of months).

Canada has been trying to get their oil and natural gas to other customers besides the US for years.
I'm all for building more pipelines from Alberta to BC so we can offer oil & LNG to new markets like China, Japan, etc.
The proposed pipelines are continually blocked by Native Rights and other environmental groups.
Our Federal government seems to have no back bone to push the proposed projects through so they get stuck in the court system for years.
I'm pretty sure every country would like to be energy independent.
So what the US is trying to achieve isn't a bad thing in my opinion.

@paps

pkk wrote:QUOTE (pkk @ Feb 18 2019, 04:11 PM) Maybe you should watch Occupied on Netflix.

Papsmear wrote:QUOTE (Papsmear @ Feb 19 2019, 07:05 AM) Canada has been trying to get their oil and natural gas to other customers besides the US for years.
I'm all for building more pipelines from Alberta to BC so we can offer oil & LNG to new markets like China, Japan, etc.

I'm all for building more pipelines from Alberta to about 1 mile underneath Alberta and pumping that oil and natural gas right back into the ground.


QUOTE The proposed pipelines are continually blocked by Native Rights and other environmental groups.
Our Federal government seems to have no back bone to push the proposed projects through so they get stuck in the court system for years.[/quote]
While I find a lot of the stories surrounding these blockages to be sensationalist nonesense, I think it's quite telling that with the amount of land owned by the Canadian federal government they're trying to push these pipelines through native lands. I also have no problems at all with the Canadian (or any other) federal government deciding that the PR nightmare surrounding these pipelines isn't worth the actual building of the pipeline.

Canada has a far better energy source though, and one of the bones I have to pick with the GNDers is their fear of cheap, safe, and clean energy.

QUOTE I'm pretty sure every country would like to be energy independent.
So what the US is trying to achieve isn't a bad thing in my opinion.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure no one who seriously thinks about modern economies buys into the phrase "energy independent." To the extent that your country can keep the lights on if they go to war with someone, sure, but I think the time of insular economies is over. And good riddance, too: those colonial wars were... something else... and the escalation into WW2 followed by the cold war left us with basically the options of "cut this @#(! out" or "kill all the humans."

Though having seen some of the recent statistics on species decline I'm suspecting life on earth would be better off on the whole if we'd gone with the Sudan Surprise strategy proposed by WOPR.

He's lashing out on Twitter more and more. He's losing what's left of his mind. The man is senile as $#@! have you heard him speak recently?

I agree that nuclear power to produce electricity is by far better than burning fossil fuels.
Sadly everything plastic is also made from oil as well as the majority of vehicles on the roads and ships at sea run on fuel.
Until someone can develop a non oil based substitute for plastic and replace every engine on the planet with one that runs on electricity, we are stuck relying on oil.

That being said, we might as well make money selling oil until oil replacements can be developed and implemented world wide.
Of course I am biased because I make my money working on, among other things, building oil and gas pipeline and refineries.

Well we'll still need pipe fixtures for like steam and stuff which is pretty close to what you do, right? You'll be fine.