Liz Warren Is Introducing A New Bill Blocking Natural Gas Exports

From The Daily Caller

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

Chris White Tech Reporter

October 09, 2019 2:00 PM ET

Massachusetts’ past reliance on Russian natural gas to keep citizens warm in the winter could cause some damage to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose presidential campaign is tied to the anti-fracking movement.

Warren is introducing a bill Wednesday with fellow Massachusetts Democrat, Sen. Ed Markey, that would block construction on ports that export natural gas. She is pegging her campaign to ending oil as her state recovers from an energy crunch that tossed Massachusetts into the cold in 2018.

Massachusetts and New Hampshire blocked financing in 2016 for the $3 billion Access Northeast Pipeline, a gas line that would have helped the state weather an energy crunch in 2018. The state’s decision to rely on green energy instead hiked gas prices and forced it turn to Russian imports.

New England’s energy grid struggled to keep up with energy demand in December and January of 2018 when frigid temperatures hammered the region. Boston received a shipment of natural gas from an export terminal owned by Novatek — one of the Russian energy giants sanctioned in 2014.

Massachusetts’ lack of pipeline infrastructure forced the state to rely on coal production during the cold snap, which caused energy prices to pitch upward. (RELATED: Here’s Why Russia Is Delivering Loads Of Natural Gas To This Deep Blue State)

“We wouldn’t have seen any widespread outages absent coal,” Kevin McIntyre, former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Agency, told senators during a January 2018 meeting assessing how the grid responded to a recent spate of snowstorms.

“[C]oal was a key contributor,” McIntyre added. “It wasn’t exempt from operational problems — there were some issues, as I understand it, with frozen coal piles in certain sites and so on. But it was, no question, a key contributor.”

Warren is no stranger to campaigns against Massachusetts’ pipeline infrastructure. She asked federal regulators to rescind its approval in 2017 of Enbridge’s Algonquin Gas Transmission, a $452 million project that would replace existing pipelines in New York and Massachusetts.

Warren is even supporting a ban on hydraulic fracturing, a method of drilling that involves spraying high pressure water and sand underground to make tiny fractures in rock to release gas, which can then be liquified.

She proposed a plan in June to spend $2 trillion over a decade to create one million green jobs.

Warren’s campaign has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about her state’s past record struggling to meet energy demands following her state’s moves against pipelines.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
158 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 12, 2019 10:15 pm

“Massachusetts’ past reliance on Russian natural gas to keep citizens warm in the winter could cause some damage to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose presidential campaign is tied to the anti-fracking movement.

Warren is introducing a bill Wednesday with fellow Massachusetts Democrat, Sen. Ed Markey, that would block construction on ports that export natural gas.”

I can’t see how constructing ports to export natural gas could help availability to Massachusetts, or American consumers generally. Quite the contrary. The current very high prices for gas in Australia are entirely related to the opening of big export ports in Qld. The pipelines that were once built to supply Sydney from the Moomba area in SA are now operating in reverse for export. Sydney is getting gas from Victoria, and we don’t have that much.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 12, 2019 10:36 pm

This is what happens when a political platform is based on ideologically driven science that’s so wrong it’s an embarrassment to all legitimate science.

HotScot
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 13, 2019 2:12 am

co2isnotevil

From a layman’s perspective, there are too many ‘scientists’ just riding the gravy train instead of speaking out. I can understand the reasons for them not speaking out (reputation, employment, career, family etc) however, when the dust eventually settles, these people will simply say “I was following orders” and suffer no sanction for their dumb compliance which has cost millions of lives and untold amounts of money.

Scissor
Reply to  HotScot
October 13, 2019 6:10 am

From a scientist’s perspective, your observations seem to be correct.

Reply to  HotScot
October 13, 2019 8:14 am

More like following the lead of Sargent Shultz who says, “I know nothing”.

Reply to  HotScot
October 13, 2019 9:14 am

From a layman’s perspective, there are too many ‘scientists’ just riding the gravy train instead of speaking out. I can understand the reasons for them not speaking out (reputation, employment, career

Who, pray tell, created this ‘environment’ where one fears to “speak out”?

SURELY those endeavoring in ‘science’ would have open minds all the way ’round? Surely, Shirley?

Fanakapan
Reply to  _Jim
October 13, 2019 11:43 am

Its not that new, there may be scientists still kicking who were cautious about supporting tectonic theory prior to 1964 ?

The trick with the climate nonsense has been to insert its theory into a field that was previously diverse because the number of disciplines involved were quite beyond the abilities of one speciality to encompass ?

Its probably also the case that as a concept it allows almost any branch of scientific endeavour to get involved and thus get some useful funding ?

James Clarke
Reply to  HotScot
October 13, 2019 9:24 am

Hang on a second…I agree with your post in general HotScot, yet I have a question about “has cost millions of lives”. Is that hyperbole? Are you making fun of Greta and other activists who toss out completely unsupported statements like confetti? Or are you asserting that millions of people have actually been killed to date, by the silence of climate scientists who know there is no crisis?

HotScot
Reply to  James Clarke
October 13, 2019 4:45 pm

James Clarke

The World Health Organisation estimated (around 2015/16 from memory) that by 2050 there will be 120,000,000 deaths in the developing world caused by people inhaling toxic fumes from indoor cooking and heating mediums which use scavenged timber and animal faeces as fuel.

Over a million people a year are dying from vitamin A deficiency, 670,000 of them children under five years old with 500,000 cases of irreversible childhood blindness.

Cheap, reliable, dispatchable , fossil fuel derived energy would greatly help the first category, golden rice the second, but both are vehemently opposed by the green movement.

Is that hyperbole?” you ask.

No, sadly it’s not. There are many more killed each year by foul water, lack of sanitation, and winter deaths of the elderly who must choose between heating and eating – in the wealthy west as well – “In the 2017 to 2018 winter period, there were an estimated 50,100 excess winter deaths in England and Wales.” UK Office for National Statistics. https://tinyurl.com/ycy792cm

Chris Hanley
Reply to  James Clarke
October 13, 2019 10:59 pm

I think HotScot (2:12 am) is using the future perfect in a contracted form: ‘ “I was following orders” and suffer no sanction for their dumb compliance which has [will have] cost[ed] millions of lives and untold amounts of money’.

Darrin
Reply to  James Clarke
October 14, 2019 10:11 am

James, HotScot missed a couple points in his post.

First not only does the WHO predict that many deaths, the reason they predict that many deaths is currently roughly 2 million a year are dying because they are using these poor fuels for cooking/heating their homes. Modern electric stoves and heaters would prevent these excess deaths along with an untold number of other deaths that modern society prevent through the use of electricity.

Secondly the World Bank has been refusing countries loans to build modern power plants because of climate change and climate change policies (no more coal powered plants are allowed to be built). FYI, many of these countries have turned to China to finance their coal plants since the World Bank will not do it. In turn they give all sorts of concessions to a country that doesn’t give a damn about the environment.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 12, 2019 10:48 pm

Just like in Australia, the price of EXPORTED gas is CONTROLLED overseas (Singapore IIRC)! We have ports to export our gas resources at the expense of local consumers (Expense being the operative word). Australia is awash with fossil fuels for HUNDREDS of years! We should be using them locally as a priority FOR Australia, not exporting them.

Are you really that dim Nick?

It’s OK. I know you are on fairly well funded, taxpayer paid, super payment. You’ll be right, mate?! The rest of us can eat cake?

Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 12, 2019 10:57 pm

” We should be using them locally as a priority FOR Australia, not exporting them.
Are you really that dim Nick?”

Are you really that dim? Read again what I said. It is exactly that “We have ports to export our gas resources at the expense of local consumers”.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 2:40 am

You advocate keeping the stuff in the ground ‘coz climate?

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 8:02 am

By that logic, the gas should never be allowed outside the county where it was produced.

Nothing excites a socialist more than the thought of being able to tell someone else what they are permitted to do with their own property.

JRF in Pensacola
Reply to  MarkW
October 13, 2019 9:05 am

Amen.

Brad
Reply to  MarkW
October 13, 2019 10:50 am

I agree. No more exports from anywhere in US to Massachusetts.

Lowell
Reply to  MarkW
October 13, 2019 3:21 pm

Warren seems intent on not providing NG to Massachusetts. First she doesn’t permit pipelines to be built. Second she doesn’t want to permit additional construction that would allow exporting by sea to her state. How exactly does she think that the gas gets to her state? Magic?

The problem with Central Planning is that semi competent people are replaced by the fully incompetent that think they are the smartest person in the room.

Reply to  Lowell
October 13, 2019 3:49 pm

re: “The problem with Central Planning is that semi competent people are replaced by the fully incompetent that think they are the smartest person in the room.”

Hitler and Stalin immediately come to mind … FDR’s “Brain Trust” a distant third …

RockyRoad
Reply to  MarkW
October 14, 2019 4:49 am

Let the peopke of Massachusetts eat cake! …RAW cake!

Greg
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 13, 2019 12:22 am

LOL , it’s amazing how folks here get so triggered by the name they don’t even bother reading before disagreeing with what Nick says.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Greg
October 13, 2019 2:39 am

Probably because Nick is so “entrenched” in the “alarmist” industry he simply cannot see the wood for the trees.

michael hart
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 13, 2019 3:39 am

He still appears to be arguing against some of the basic tenets of capitalism. A completely ‘free’ production and supply is almost certainly the best outcome. The company will be incentivised to produce more, which will drive prices down in the long run and also ensure good employment by the industry.

Taking the approach of “we mustn’t sell to foreigners at a higher price for more profit because that will harm us now” is really properly dim short term view. Australia now suffers a reduced standard of living because of artificial restrictions imposed on fossil fuel.

R Taylor
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 13, 2019 5:46 am

What Nick excludes from the equation is the wealth that pours into Australia as the gas departs; wealth to improve the lives of Australians, subject to the wisdom of the leaders they elect.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 13, 2019 7:12 am

“R Taylor October 13, 2019 at 5:46 am

What Nick excludes from the equation is the wealth that pours into Australia as the gas departs…”

What wealth?

MarkW
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 13, 2019 8:04 am

Unless the companies are giving the gas away, the wealth is the money being paid for the gas.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 13, 2019 9:02 am

“MarkW October 13, 2019 at 8:04 am”

That wealth is extracted from Australia and exported overseas. No-one in Australia sees that wealth no matter what is said as the companies, by and large, employ a few people and pay little or no tax.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 13, 2019 6:27 pm

MJD:

“No-one in Australia sees that wealth no matter what is said as the companies, by and large, employ a few people and pay little or no tax.”

Are you saying Australian companies pay no income tax? Are you saying that Australian companies don’t pay severance taxes on the wealth extracted from Australian soil?

If companies hire no one then how do they expand production, i.e. new wells? If they pay little to no taxes then what do you think happens to the money that China is paying? Are they burying it in the ground somewhere? Scrooge McDuck’s swimming pool maybe?

MarkW
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 14, 2019 7:37 am

Also, there are royalties being paid to either the land owner or the government.

beng135
Reply to  Greg
October 14, 2019 10:33 am

it’s amazing how folks here get so triggered by the name they don’t even bother reading before disagreeing with what Nick says.

Agree that replies should be read, but not amazing, in fact understandable because 97% of his replies are disagreeable.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 13, 2019 4:20 am

yeah we sell at obscenely LOW prices direct from wA and qld and vic ports
and pay ridiculous prices for LPG for cars and for bottled gas we in rural areas have no option to pay
because we sure cant afford the inflated rural power prices for cooking n heating needs.

in SthAus today they pulled a FORTY cent a litre price hike on petrol
with absolutely NO valid justification except its the end of school holidays and peoplehave to pay to get home.

Mark Luhman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 12, 2019 10:48 pm

Nick the US has so much gas expesically in the oil feilds they have to flare it off, were I once lived there are gas pipe lines running all over the place and since I lived there there are now at least a halve doezen new gas plants. Even adding about 200 Megwatts of gas electric generation and the new gas plants they cannot collect of sell all of it. A big problem are the anti pipeline idiots.

TonyL
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 12, 2019 11:06 pm

Massachusetts is natural gas limited because of pipeline constraints. Proposals for new pipelines have been shot down for purely political considerations time and time again. The current status quo is to meet any and all new pipeline proposals with a unified opposition from all levels of state government and then to enlist any and all federal agencies which might be useful in defeating the proposal.
We should note that the antipathy to pipelines is not limited to large regional projects like from the gas fields of Pennsylvania to eastern MA. The hostility also extends to shorter and more modest projects like another pipeline from Connecticut or Rhode Island, and even a few local lines, contained wholly within MA.
It is seen, and perhaps properly so, that a gas export terminal would ramp up the pressure on a gas starved state to finally accept a new pipeline. This is seen an absolutely intolerable and must be stopped at all cost.
As a side note, one and two decades ago, numerous gas import terminals were proposed. At the time, a terminal was seen as a way around the de facto pipeline ban and relieve the pressure on gas supplies. So yes, the gas constraints have been around for a long time and the “Terminal War” did last for over a decade before the last proposal was finally defeated.

Reply to  TonyL
October 12, 2019 11:23 pm

“Massachusetts is natural gas limited because of pipeline constraints.”
According to IEA:
“Natural gas fueled about two-thirds of the utility-scale electricity generation in Massachusetts in 2018.”
So obviously a lot is getting through.

“Massachusetts receives its natural gas supplies by pipeline from other states and by ship as liquefied natural gas (LNG), mainly from the Caribbean and the Middle East.95 Deliveries of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale of Pennsylvania through New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island have increased significantly in recent years.96,97,98 A pipeline that traverses Maine and New Hampshire brings in offshore, onshore, and LNG-sourced natural gas from Canada.99,100″

And
“Massachusetts has the only LNG import terminals in New England, one at Everett on Boston Harbor and two offshore in Massachusetts Bay.101,102,103 The Everett terminal is connected to regional pipelines, a natural gas utility, and a power plant. LNG is also transported by truck to storage tanks for several local natural gas distribution companies. The Northeast Gateway, one of the two offshore terminals, received LNG deliveries in 2015 and 2016 after several years of inactivity, but none in 2017 or 2018. Northeast Gateway did import some LNG in early 2019. The other offshore terminal has been inactive since the initial deliveries at the time of the facility’s completion in 2010.”

Maybe the reason new terminals are not being built is that existing ones are not being used.

TonyL
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 12:15 am

Nick:
So obviously a lot is getting through.
Of course. Of course, MA has a fully developed NG system. Having a level of infrastructure such as you describe does not in any way address whether there is a surplus or shortage. The import of Russian LNG during a cold snap in a recent winter should tell you all you need to know. In case this one fact does not tell you all you need to know try this:
That Russian LNG shipment set a new World Record for the delivery price of LNG. Obviously, the US had plenty of NG at the time, but there was no way to get it to MA.
I do not think I should have to state the obvious, so:
LNG shipped in is going to cost a lot more than NG delivered by pipeline. It is also of note that a lot of the LNG that goes to New England comes from the Mideast.
Imagine that. New England pays more for Mideast LNG than they would pay for domestically produced NG pipelined in. No pipeline shortage there. Not at all.
Item:
The Obama Clean Power Plan. The state of MA goes all in with a vengeance, ordering the closure of *all* coal fired power plants as soon could be accomplished. In addition, the plants had to be *destroyed* to meet compliance requirements. No restart in case of emergency. No, no, no. I think you can see what that is doing to NG demand.
A simple “snapshot” look from EIA does not really convey the true state of affairs, and nowhere does EIA mention the ONE BIG FACTOR: The Price.
{Must have slipped their minds.}

beng135
Reply to  TonyL
October 14, 2019 11:47 am

TonyL, thanks for your detailed explanation of Taxachusetts’ self-created gas-infrastructure short-comings & at least offering Stokes some sorely-needed education.

Marc
Reply to  TonyL
October 17, 2019 11:16 am

In addition, the Jones Act requires that US ships be used for shipping between US ports. Only problem, is that the US merchant marine is very small, 97 ships that are Jones Act eligible. Most likely none that can carry LNG. Even if US shale gas is available by ship, it can’t be transported to other parts of the country.

Joe B
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 7:09 am

Mr. Stokes

Should you continue to research this most fascinating topic of New England power generation and supplies of natural gas, you may discover some highly intriguing data points.
These may include items such items as the Footprint, Towantic, and Bridgeport Harbor CCGT plants having all recently come online, and the Killingly project well on its way.
The massive Burrillville plant may or may not get built, but the writing is already on the wall that 60% plus of day in/day out electricity needs of New England are provided by gas fueled generation.

Now, 9 months of the year, supply is no problem.
During frigid cold spells when the heating customers get first dibs on the fuel?
Now you’ve got problems.

That “some” LNG brought in through Northeast Gateway in 2019 was actually a life saver as the 2 FSRUs (Exemplar and Express) provided a world record sendout rate of 800 million cubic feet just as New England needed it most.

Companies are already implementing work arounds for New England’s gas shortfall including a virtual pipeline of LNG by the company EDGE using Argentinian hardware and Pennsylvania natgas.

Things will probably stumble along until they run out of heat and/or electricity during winter cold snaps.
Then the finger pointing will kick in.

George Daddis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 7:35 am

Nick, per the Boston Business Journal Feb 19 of this year:

As proposals to build new pipelines and related infrastructure meet opposition from community leaders and environmental activists across Massachusetts, gas companies have frozen new gas hookups several communities citing a lack of pipeline capacity.

.
Yes, some is getting through but politicians and activists are successfully slowing down that flow.
If you are building a new home in many Massachusetts areas, the more economical natural gas heating is not an option.

RockyRoad
Reply to  George Daddis
October 14, 2019 6:19 am

This sounds just like the state that spawned Mitt Romney! What a throwback that guy is!!

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 8:06 am

In Nick’s world, the fact that something is increasing proves that there is enough.

Nick will say and believe whatever it takes to preserve his paycheck.

George
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 14, 2019 11:46 pm

If existing terminals are not being used, why would a law be needed to ban new ones?

observa
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 12, 2019 11:49 pm

No we have the legacy of Green power with our gas exports in Australia. To develop the new fields they needed to hedge some long term contracts at the time and with lower gas prices only Asians put their hands up as local generators in particular were grappling with the push for unreliables cutting their lunch so they passed. Fast forward to today with everyone wanting gas to get out of coal and backup unreliables with gas peaking plants and those Asian contracts are looking pretty sweet.

More fool Oz for that as we have to pay high world spot prices for uncontracted gas and we’re building import terminals to help provide the local market because we can buy all the gas we want at world prices. Oh but it’s our gas is the outcry and we should be getting it cheap. Well we could have if we were not so stupid pushing unreliables at the time but the gas was no good to anyone in the ground so now it simply adds to world supply. Gas is gas no matter where it comes from and all you have to do is pay the spot price for as much as you want. Well unless you want to break your word with concomitant sovereign risk.

toorightmate
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 12, 2019 11:49 pm

Nick Stokes and other Dickheads of a similar ilk,
The Australian gas producers (shareholders) went through a very expensive exploration phase, which dickheads such as you would never contribute to.
When they found economic gas deposits, they begged Australian institutions and banks to contribute to the development of those gas fields, Response – a big NO.
They then begged Australian State governments and private institutions to enter into long term contracts to take the gas. Response – a resounding NO.
Move the clock forward. Gas becomes lucrative. The Australian gas producers are now pilloried for not supplying gas to Australians.
What a brilliant group of A Grade hypocrites – including yourself. You A Grade Dickhead.
Would you like me to tell you what I really think of you? I have stuck to euphemisms so far.

Reply to  toorightmate
October 13, 2019 12:20 am

“Response – a big NO.”
So who built the gas pipeline from Moomba to Adelaide? The Government of South Australia. Who built the pipeline from Moomba to Sydney? The Commonwealth Pipeline Authority (Rex Connor’s baby).

observa
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 4:46 am

“So who built the gas pipeline from Moomba to Adelaide? The Government of South Australia.”

So what that was built when a generation knew how to work in the public sector until they became fat lazy sheltered workshops and Govts of all political persuasions privatised many such undertakings-
https://www.epicenergy.com.au/our-history/

Usually when the writing was on the wall they’d need significant reinvestment and upgrading so best let private enterprise be the bearer of bad tidings for the proles so the evil empire could keep up the deficit spending and jobs for the boys. Not exactly a veritable gold mine if you follow that Epic history. The Feds would do the same.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 4:47 am

Nick,

Read the article again, this time for meaning. The issue is not the ports, it is the supporting pipelines that would be needed for the port. MA struggled because it didn’t have the pipeline structure necessary to get natural gas from other locations in the US. By blocking the building of natural gas export ports Warren keeps the pipeline infrastructure it will need from being built as well. So MA will continue having to import LNG from somewhere, including Russia! It will increase costs to MA residents as well as impacting their quality of life.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 13, 2019 7:28 am

“By blocking the building of natural gas export ports Warren keeps the pipeline infrastructure it will need from being built as well.”
The export ports will not be in Massachusetts, nor anywhere in New England.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 8:12 am

tim: “By blocking the building of natural gas export ports Warren keeps the pipeline infrastructure it will need from being built as well.”
nick: “The export ports will not be in Massachusetts, nor anywhere in New England.”

So what? The pipeline infrastructure will still not be built to support them, leaving MA starving for natural gas.

Do you *ever* think about what you are saying before posting it?

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 13, 2019 8:57 am

Like most leftists, Nick just assumes that the rest of us aren’t smart enough to see through his sophistry.

Adam
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 4:57 am

Election primer for Aussies: the states that matter are Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona. The rest are pretty much locked in, although still a small question about a few such as Florida and North Carolina.

Pennsylvania is a natural gas producer, which went for Trump last time. Warren would be absolute poison for the parts of the state which depend upon energy production and manufacturing. The Democrats would have to win big with the housewives of Philadelphia’s suburbs and with blacks in Philly. Fraud and intimidation could be a factor in urban areas, as has been the case in the past. Biden would have a clear advantage in Pennsylvania, IMHO.

Michigan also went for Trump last time. Another manufacturing state which depends upon low energy prices. Warren might also have trouble here. Biden again the better candidate. There is a substantial black and Muslim vote. Again, fraud, corruption, and intimidation could make a difference.

Wisconsin is a “light” manufacturing and agricultural state, with a strong Democrat “machine” in Milwaukee. Same issues of fraud, intimidation, and corruption could decide the outcome. Warren could possibly do better here, but energy prices are important.

The other big factors in these states relate to the China trade deal/no deal. Trump must protect these states at all costs.

Arizona has more to do with Hispanic voters, and with whether the Republicans there are willing to deal with “vote harvesting”, where tens of thousands of Democrat ballots mysteriously appear after the election. Lots of shenanigans in 2018 with the the Democrat Secretary of State. Could again be a problem.

Reply to  Adam
October 13, 2019 7:17 am

“Another manufacturing state which depends upon low energy prices. Warren might also have trouble here.”
Economic primer, well understood by Australian consumers. If you open up local gas for export, then gas prices go up, not down. Your gas supplier will send the gas to China if they pay better, as they probably will.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 8:17 am

Nick,

“Economic primer, well understood by Australian consumers. If you open up local gas for export, then gas prices go up, not down. Your gas supplier will send the gas to China if they pay better, as they probably will.”

Economic primer: When that extra revenue provides for more jobs, more dividends, and more exploration it turns out to be a net benefit. The money paid to the people in those additional jobs percolates through the economy in all kinds of ways.

Or are you a believer in Scrooge McDuck who puts all his money in a swimming pool in his basement and never spends any of it?

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 13, 2019 8:59 am

Nick is a socialist, not understanding basic economics comes with the territory.

Joe B
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 6:17 am

Nick Stokes
Southeast Oz will be receiving LNG through at least 3 FSRUs to be located at Port Kembla, Port of Newcastle, and Crib Point.
Source of the LNG looks to be the USA, surprisingly, as Cheniere has already signed with AIE to provide the fuel.

Reply to  Joe B
October 13, 2019 8:12 am

“Southeast Oz will be receiving LNG through at least 3 FSRUs to be located at Port Kembla, Port of Newcastle, and Crib Point.”
Brilliant! The NG pipeline from Bass Strait fields passes within a few miles of Crib Point. It carries the gas that now goes to Sydney, then to Moomba, then to Qld and on to Asia. It was built to supply Victoria.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 8:03 am

If prices in Australia are above world prices, it isn’t because of exporting.
Even a socialist should be able to figure that out.

Reply to  MarkW
October 13, 2019 8:15 am

Most people can figure out that if prices in Australia are above world prices, no-one would be exporting. Unless they had signed contracts to export gas that they didn’t have.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 9:00 am

If they don’t have the gas, it’s because government prevented them from getting that gas.
So it’s governments fault, not the fault of the companies that signed contracts in good faith.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 8:31 am

Nick,

Shipping US gas to MA is a non-starter due to the Jones Act. Curtailing US gas exports just raises the price of gas imports from outside the US. Also, by creating a glut in producing areas, the ban on new export facilities, in addition to the lack of pipeline capacity, will cause prices to fall below production costs, hence shutting in supply. But that’s rather the point, isn’t it?

steve
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 8:40 am

Prices of NG in USA have been low for a long time. This is mainly due to all the fracking.

From WSJ :

The market is expecting a big boost in gas output this fall after Kinder Morgan Inc’s (KMI.N) Gulf Coast Express pipeline comes online in September and releases some of the gas currently stranded and being burned in the Permian.

So much associated gas is coming out of the ground that gas prices in the Permian basin in Texas and New Mexico, the biggest U.S. shale oil formation, have turned negative on multiple occasions this year.

TG McCoy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 8:47 am

Continuing the Dem:The beatings will continue until morale improves!”
Politcal philosophy.

Grant
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 10:00 am

Warren’s motivation is that she believes without any evidence or justification that the world will end because of natural gas consumption. Then she’ll complain about low wages, while at the same time actively trying to prevent high wage jobs. She’s an economic illiterate and I suppose the the highly educated economically illiterate citizens of MA will vote for her. Lord knows why.

Aaron W Edwards
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 10:00 am

Simple answer. Built more State of the art pipelines. With the massive tax revenue increase from export it can easily be financed as a public/ private infrastructure improvement project. It’s how we do it in Texas. Works great anywhere a region is blessed with natural gas reserves. One thing though. It will require a government that eliminates punitive regulations which restrict innovation and makes the cost of such artificially inflated. We have Trump. He removed the green yoke and our economy, both in the energy sector and across the nation, exploded with unprecedented success. It’s amazing what can happen when government interference is removed. Try it, you’ll love it!

Ragnaar
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 11:34 am

Nick Stokes is right. By slowing exports, that means prices are lower here and supplies are higher here. Where Warren is wrong is she’s solving a problem created by people like herself. No fracking, but what we do have, we keep. Limited transportation by being against pipelines but what we can transport, stays here. Where Warren is right is, once you start bleeping things up, you have to keep bleeping things up to fix the problems from the prior bleep ups. So this can be argued to improve the situation. Now if they build the damn ports, I have to think they can work in reverse for imports to replace the pipelines they will not have. But the idea seems to be to bleep everything up they can. Destroying capitalism is hard. Money finds a way. So if you’re Warren, you have to be vigilant.

Graeme#4
Reply to  Ragnaar
October 14, 2019 4:53 pm

No Nick is wrong, it’s nothing to do with export in Australia. The main problem in Australia’s eastern states is that they won’t frak their own gas to bring gas prices down. Notice that Nick has never mentioned this key fact.

Bananabender56
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 13, 2019 4:51 pm

As far as I know operating licenses for commodities like natural gas are granted by the states. There is nothing preventing say the WA State Government from imposing license conditions that allocate say 20% of all production to the State at a cost plus price. At one point the Chinese could buy WA gas for less than West Australians. Ludicrous

William
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 14, 2019 11:01 am

The LNG plants require pipelines… which increase gas availability in times of high demands. LNG plants also store large amounts of liquid natural gas, which can be tapped in times of peak need. As for the economics of export… America is running a serious trade deficit. LNG brings in a lot of cash. Also, geopolitically, we don’t want Europe dependent on gas from Russia.

Graeme#4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 14, 2019 4:44 pm

Nick, your statement “very high gas prices in Australia” does NOT apply to the whole of Australia, only to those states who stupidly refuse to frak their own abundant gas reserves. In Western Australia the use of a domestic gas reservation policy reserves 15% of its gas at relatively cheap prices, and uses some of this gas to generate electricity at prices relatively lower than states such as Victoria, NSW and South Australia. It is the gas frakking refusal policies that are causing the high gas prices.

Reply to  Graeme#4
October 14, 2019 5:22 pm

“only to those states who stupidly refuse to frak their own abundant gas reserves. In Western Australia the use of a domestic gas reservation policy reserves 15% of its gas at relatively cheap prices”
I don’t know if fracking is forbidden in WA, but in fact they don’t do any. Like the Eastern states, they have ample conventional sources for their own needs, and export some as well. The 15% reservation is certainly good for the folks in WA; otherwise they would be paying world prices too. There aren’t known large resources of economically frackable gas in the East; no doubt some would be turn up if the process was allowed. But that wouldn’t change the fact that folks here will have to pay the world going rate, else fracked gas would simply be exported too. We have enough conventional gas; it is just that we have to compete with the rest of the world to get access to it. Fracking wouldn’t change that.

October 12, 2019 10:21 pm

Isn’t this the same Elizabeth Warren who believed that she was Fauxcahontas the last of the Mohicans or something?

TonyL
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
October 12, 2019 11:09 pm

“Isn’t this the same Elizabeth Warren”

That is the one.
Honest Injun!

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  TonyL
October 13, 2019 2:29 am

Time Fauxcahontas was sectioned, by surgeons……

October 12, 2019 10:31 pm

“$2 trillion over a decade to create one million green jobs.”

Those are some expensive jobs at $2M each.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 12, 2019 11:11 pm

Nothing is too good for people who will vote for Locohontas.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
October 13, 2019 8:48 am

co2isnotevil – October 12, 2019 at 10:31 pm

Those are some expensive jobs at $2M each.

“HA”, …….2 mill is cheap, ….. just hire Hunter Biden …… or another Dem’s son, daughter or PAC contributor and you’ll see what it cost the taxpayers.

HotScot
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 13, 2019 2:22 am

co2isnotevil

socialism personified.

Job creation scheme.

*No, I didn’t mistype socialism without a capital letter. I utterly refuse to acknowledge that political movement as anything other than the lowest of the low.

We have all heard it, but it’s worth repeating:

“socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

Winston Churchill

Patrick MJD
Reply to  HotScot
October 13, 2019 2:37 am

He would know, eh? He never had to worry about where his next meal came from…and more importantly, didn’t have to work for it!

jtom
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 13, 2019 6:38 am

The circumstances of the man does not diminish the truth of his statement.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  jtom
October 13, 2019 7:07 am

He was truthful about eugenics, and the feeble minded peoples act of 1912? Ok then. Fortunately for those in the UK at the time, the latter never made it in to law.

MarkW
Reply to  jtom
October 13, 2019 8:10 am

The fact that he was wrong about one thing proves that he’s wrong about everything?

BTW, most socialists at that time, believed quite strongly in eugenics.

HotScot
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 13, 2019 7:36 am

Patrick MJD

On the other hand, Venezuelans barely know where their next meal is coming from. Then there’s Cuba, N. Korea and Zimbabwe, amongst many other socialist run countries which included, until not so long ago, the USSR and all of it’s domain before the wall came down, and China prior to it adopting Capitalist methods of feeding it’s people.

Meanwhile in the wealthy, Capitalist west, the vast majority of us not only know where our next meal is coming from and we have old age provision in place to ensure a lifetime of ‘next meals’. All thanks to Capitalism.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  HotScot
October 13, 2019 8:59 am

Churchill wasn’t a capitalist. He was an elitist. If he had his way the likes of you and I would have been locked up or sent to some war somewhere.

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
October 13, 2019 9:02 am

In capitalist countries, the biggest health problems involves over eating, not under eating.

HotScot
Reply to  HotScot
October 13, 2019 5:05 pm

Patrick MJD

Churchill was appointed Second Lieutenant of Forth Queen’s Own Hussars in 1894, or is that not work?

He fought against a Pashtun tribe in Malakand under the leadership of General Jeffery he served in Sudan under the command of General Herbert Kitchener and participated in the Battle of Omdurman.

He was also a war correspondent, and wrote accounts of the battles in Pakistan, Sudan, and the Boer War where he was captured and held prisoner.

Returning to South Africa some years later, Churchill received a hero’s welcome in Durban.

I’d say that’s pretty hard graft for an elitist.

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
October 13, 2019 8:01 pm

MJD, care to actually back up your claims? Or does class hatred trump all?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  HotScot
October 14, 2019 2:01 am

Churchill was “sent” the Royal Naval Admiralty, to get him out of the way, keep him away from the “war machine” as he was incapable of doing anything. He just happened to have influential family members in the Royal Navy that made it so. After WWI he went in to politics, and failed. He then, in the 10 or so years up to WW2, spent time reading, studying, writing, almost a recluse, on his private estate, not having to work to support that estate and came out of it, call it a sabbatical if you like, a better person. He returned to politics roughly about the time Germany was edging to war, won Govn’t, and steered the country, with the Allies, to victory. He then failed in politics again. The rest is history. You can actually read up on it and visit the stately home he spent those 10 or so years in.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  HotScot
October 14, 2019 3:54 am

Patrick MJD, ….. really now, …. what is the difference between Britain’s ruling aristocracy in which Churchill was born into …….. and America’s aristocratic Democrat Party members into which they were selectively appointed to be part of?

And considering just the past three years, me thinks it is highly questionable if Britain’s ruling aristocracy is more honest and lawful than is America’s aristocratic Democrat Party.

MarkW
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 13, 2019 8:09 am

Why is it that some people believe that unless it involves sweat, it isn’t work?

ironargonaut
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 13, 2019 10:59 pm

So, using your logic a child who”s parents were successful at providing for their child should never be listened to? Is their something inherently wrong with being the child of a successful person? For providing for your offspring? Making it so they do not want for food is bad? Sounds like you have the gospel of envy down pretty good. You literally have proven him right by complaining he was never starving.

HotScot
Reply to  ironargonaut
October 15, 2019 2:37 am

ironargonaut

100%!

Ron Long
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 13, 2019 3:40 am

Yes, co2isnotevil, and, at $200,000 per year per job, these are some good jobs! Ok, let’s say that a good average salary would be $5,000 per month, or $60,000 per year, so where does the other $140,000 per year go? If you tagged the money it would end up in politicians pocket, albeit via circuitous routing. Green Raw Deal served by Fauxcahontus? Gimme sum!

Scissor
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 13, 2019 6:21 am

The green “employees” might get something on the order of $40k/job. The bureaucrats and employer managers will get on the order of $100-200k/job, the executives will get on the order of $400k/job to $1,000k and up/job and the politicians will get their “contributions” also.

Taxpayers of course get screwed.

Charlie Adamson
Reply to  Scissor
October 13, 2019 8:14 am

Yes, Scissor,… The scheme is called “tax laundering”. It is a crime that politicians have been using for decades. The DNC and Clinton Foundation have been working hard to bury this behavior yet are still using it to raise vast sums of money using the very people that they claim to care about. Also remember that Republicans are not innocent with respect to this ploy. “Playing with the hogs does not make one clean”, as my father used to say.

There is good reason why Warren has become so prone to changing her mind with the least hint of a change of wind direction. Corruption runs deep and those who are corrupt are terrified of being revealed. Little has actually been done except to enlarge their own bank accounts. Follow the money,. the rabbit hole goes deep.

Scissor
Reply to  Charlie Adamson
October 13, 2019 8:37 am

They all do it to some extent. At least we have competing parties that can call attention to abuses of the other side, except when they both have their hands in the cookie jar. In China and Russia, etc., the dictatorship owns the cookie jar.

It’s the age old quest for power, also money, wealth.

Jones
October 12, 2019 10:48 pm

Why would she advocate for measures that could also impact adversely on her?

Oh silly me….. they wouldn’t.

Apologies.

October 12, 2019 10:48 pm

There is a old saying in politics that you get the government that you deserve.

So who voted this “” Lady “” into such a position of power. ?

Seems to me that the USA needs a really severe winter to put some sensible thinking into the population come next election.

MJE VK5ELL

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Michael
October 12, 2019 11:13 pm

The warmists will just blame the severe winter on Global Warming, and fools will believe it.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
October 13, 2019 2:04 am

Exactly. Its all ‘climate change’ innit?

jtom
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
October 13, 2019 6:42 am

I think you will find that when people are freezing their arses off, the general sentiment will be, f*** Global Warming, I want heat, and I want it now.

Phil
October 12, 2019 10:58 pm

Terminal dementia. If you were to point out to her that fossil fuels are used to grow food, she would outlaw food. There is no thought involved with these totalitarians. Exporting natural gas to Europe has VERY important national security and strategic importance. Again, pure knee jerk policy. No thought to the consequences.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Phil
October 13, 2019 3:58 am

My favorite one is exporting wood chips from the Pacific Northwest to Great Britain for power generation and calling it “green energy.” GREEN! GREEN! You keep using that word; I do not think you know what it means!! The Green Blob is a blend of politics and religious fervor, no thought required!

Roger Knights
Reply to  Abolition Man
October 13, 2019 4:27 am

“My favorite one is exporting wood chips from the Pacific Northwest to Great Britain”

No, no—it would cost far too much to ship such bulky, low-value material across the country. The wood chips come from the southeast, mostly the Carolinas, AFAIK.

Steve
Reply to  Roger Knights
October 13, 2019 6:12 am

Not if we build a pipeline for those wood chips.

Or maybe a giant log flume from Washington to Massachusetts.

Hey, wait a minute, I think that solves the air travel CO2 emission problem too. We could just ride the log flume cross country rather than flying.

Joe B
Reply to  Steve
October 13, 2019 7:24 am

Steve
The iso-ne.com /isoexpress/ site has real time, 24/7 data for New England power generation.
As of this posting, natgas and nuclear are providing 86% of their electricity.
Wood chips are providing slightly more than wind (~2%) and trash burning – no joke – is double that at about 4%.

Scissor
Reply to  Roger Knights
October 13, 2019 6:23 am

And much from Canada too.

Patrick MJD
October 12, 2019 11:00 pm

Look up the origins of the word “Hysteria” and then understand why so many women are at the forefront of climate alarmism.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 13, 2019 6:47 am

2 close to the ‘trvth’. This gets to the heart of the thought of a repeal of the 19th amendment too …

JUST SAYING, because, asking at the prompting and behest of, you know, ‘a friend’.

WXcycles
October 12, 2019 11:45 pm

Fear not, this is the same sort of ignorant political nonsense that lost the Labor Party and the Greens the un-loseable election just a few months back. Come election day voters don’t go for this nutso stuff.

October 13, 2019 12:09 am

It’s Russian imports of gas that should be banned. How can a fine blue-eyes Aryan Democrat like Warren accept gas from her party’s eternal racial enemies the Russians?

Bostonians should instead recovery tea leaves from the bottom of their harbour. They could dry them out then burn them to stay warm.

RichardX
October 13, 2019 12:36 am

It’s really OK. Massachusetts voted for these politicians and voted against pipelines, fracking, the 21st century, etc., and they have to bear the consequences. It’s like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.
They’ve voted for power cuts. They’ve voted for old people freezing to death because they can’t heat their houses. But that’s OK. There are many excess Democrats in Massachusetts. They can afford to lose a hundred thousand or so oldies and still deliver the state to the Democrats. The oldies? Well they were past being productive and just consuming resources. Better to get rid of them. Standard socialist thought.

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 13, 2019 1:24 am

Actually, not exporting your energy bonanza is a good idea. Keep the stuff for your own use, except maybe export only for strategic purposes to allies. Self-sufficiency in energy will enable you to outcompete anybody in manufactured goods and food products.

David Chappell
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 13, 2019 2:13 am

But that is joined-up thinking…totally unacceptable.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 13, 2019 2:31 am

Shhhhhhhh! You and your facts.

MarkW
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
October 13, 2019 8:15 am

Ignorant opinions now count as facts?

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 13, 2019 7:01 am

re: “Self-sufficiency in energy”

We are intentionally “ham strung” here already; nuclear has been taken off the table. Even functioning plants have been taken out of service (Vermont Yankee), or, in the case of Shoreham, killed at the last minute (just before operation) by pols …

MarkW
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 13, 2019 8:14 am

What’s the difference between selling energy and selling food, or cars, or anything?
By your logic, exporting everything should be banned.
By your logic, every city and state should be totally self sufficient in everything.
After all, selling something to anybody just makes you poorer.

October 13, 2019 2:06 am

Forrest Gump has some advice for Liz Warren:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tldGgGFe194

– JPP

Chaswarnertoo
October 13, 2019 2:26 am

Time Fauxcahontas was sectioned, by surgeons……

kwinterkorn
October 13, 2019 3:18 am

Those who want to keep gas or other fuels off the international market and for the sole use of their own country are right-hearted, but wrong-headed.

Firstly, there is an astonishing abundance of natural gas all over the world. We will not run out in the next century and no one can see beyond that.

Secondly, alternate energy sources, especially nuclear, stand ready as substitutes for all the nations of the world, as soon as we get past the hysterical anti-nuke and other phobias that are limiting their development.

Finally, it would be best for Australia (and New England) to let the free market find the best distribution of the various energy sources. This would produce the most energy at the lowest prices and benefit all the parts of the Australian economy that are highly energy dependent, such as mining. New Englanders’ economy could use a break on energy supplies and prices as well.

The many limitations on energy production….on coal, gas, and nuclear, and even hydroelectric (try building a dam these days—the enviros will block you every which way)….are causing economic failure that is subtle and widespread, and keeping the poor poor and the middle from rising…subtle except for once in a while during cold weather extremes or fearful high winds (Northern California) when the rigidity and limits of the current system are exposed.

Scissor
Reply to  kwinterkorn
October 13, 2019 6:30 am

Yes and Warren is decidedly anti-nuclear.

If one is concerned about CO2 emissions, natural gas should be favored as it produces more energy with lower emissions than oil and especially coal. Nuclear is better. These are all reliable.

Warren does not support reliable energy production.

MarkW
Reply to  kwinterkorn
October 13, 2019 8:17 am

Free trade is a win/win for everyone.
The only ones who lose are those who wish to enjoy above market prices or wages, at the expense of everyone else.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  MarkW
October 13, 2019 9:25 am

Except no one has been doing free trade except in textbooks and U.S. trade policy to the benefit of all its military allies as a favor, some dating back to The Marshall Plan days.

MarkW
Reply to  ResourceGuy
October 13, 2019 8:03 pm

Trade doesn’t have to be 100% free in order to be beneficial.
After all an economy that’s 90% capitalist always outperform those that are 0% capitalist.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
October 14, 2019 7:40 am

That 100% capitalist would do even better goes without saying.

Abolition Man
October 13, 2019 3:50 am

I’ve heard it said that socialism is what we use in our families. One or both parents work to provide for their children. Sounds great, but what happens when a group of friends or in-laws come to visit and never leave! Hard to find moderation at the “FREE BEER!” party!
Communism is the system employed by social insects like ants and bees. The ruling elite; the queen and drones, get all they need while the workers slave all day for a pittance; no intelligence required or desired!
It’s a good thing our “modern” indoctrination system is taking care of that so efficiently. Students graduate now with little valid knowledge or information but we should look to them for the wisdom of their feelings! Most have never had a hard days work in their life and know little or nothing of the hard sciences; no wonder they predominantly believe in CAGW and this socialism garbage!
The real problem with both socialism AND communism is that neither provide a means for limiting the power of the sociopaths who are fundamentally drawn to positions of power like our bloated, federal bureaucracy. The American systems of checks and balances is being subverted by an unholy alliance between the MSM and our future communist overlords!

tty
October 13, 2019 3:58 am

Since Massachusett’s problems is due to insufficient pipeline capacity forbidding LNG export terminals is not only meaningless, but actually harmful, since there is no natural law preventing shipping LNG from a Texas terminal to Boston. It would almost dertainly be cheaper than shipping it from Russia or Qatar.

But it will probably never happen. It would show up the idiocy way too clearly.

Steve Ellis
Reply to  tty
October 13, 2019 4:56 am

The use of Russian natural gas in 2018 in Massachusetts was in part due to laws requiring use of American flagged ships to carry gas from some place such as Texas to Boston. I think the issue was that no such LNG tankers exist.

Joe B
Reply to  tty
October 13, 2019 6:33 am

tty

Jones Act legislation requires US built, US staffed ships to make intra US pickup/deliveries between ports such as Texas/New England.
No LNG carriers will ever be built in US.

MarkW
Reply to  Joe B
October 13, 2019 9:04 am

The Jones act stands as a perfect example of how government intervention usually hurts those it was intended to help.

Tom Abbott
October 13, 2019 5:09 am

From the article: “Warren’s campaign has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about her state’s past record struggling to meet energy demands following her state’s moves against pipelines.”

Her State may be struggling to meet energy demands again this winter. It’s getting cold out there! I hate cold weather! 🙂

When’s all that CO2-derived heat going to kick in?

Bruce Cobb
October 13, 2019 5:12 am

“We wouldn’t have seen any widespread outages absent coal,” Kevin McIntyre, former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Agency, told senators during a January 2018 meeting assessing how the grid responded to a recent spate of snowstorms.
Hmmm…., methinks he misspoke, essentially saying the opposite of what he meant. Obviously, they would have seen widespread outages without coal stepping in. The idiocy of using coal as a back-up source of power instead of as base power totally escapes these fuzzy-brained greenie bozos, but whatever. Notice too, the dig at coal piles being frozen. More idiocy. This wouldn’t happen if they were working coal piles instead of ones left idle for months, especially in winter.
Warren and her sidekick there -whats-his-name, Malarkey, of course is fully onboard the GND choo choo train to energy and economic hell, because they apparently would like to see the US go down the tubes. I view them as nothing short of traitors.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 13, 2019 6:51 am

re: “Hmmm…., methinks he misspoke, essentially saying the opposite of what he meant. ”

I choked on that too; got a ‘parsing error; logic’ error twice in a row and moved on after that …

It makes sense if written: “We would have seen widespread outages absent coal,

Лазо
October 13, 2019 6:10 am

Liz Warren: Exporting the misery of the energy poverty policies of the modern CPUSA/ Democrat Party to millions more by prohibiting the export of clean, abundant and inexpensive energy to the rest of the world. Way to go, Comrade Liz!

Kevin kilty
October 13, 2019 6:23 am

When a person advocates keeping a valuable material, such as fossil fuels, in the ground or prevents its export in hopes of keeping its price low locally, then what one is advocating is the prevention of current wealth production. This is non-economic thinking. Everyone bears some cost for this, but most people cannot recognize it; especially those who do not earn directly from the sale of such material.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
October 13, 2019 8:36 am

But, Peak!

Peak oil, peak gas, peak …. nuclear?

Then there is the (I think mis-named) “SunCell” ™ latest release-to-the-public lab run which showed 120 kW out for 25 kW input power:

https://brilliantlightpower.com/suncell-molten-metal-calorimeter-results/

Nota bene; Energy planners and investors in energy markets, weigh the outcome of this field of endeavor against other investment opportunities going forward, as surely something is bound to result in the way of an alternative energy source given recent developments showing actual *useful* amounts of energy production after years of continuing research and development.

Scissor
Reply to  _Jim
October 13, 2019 2:29 pm

Scammy.

Reply to  Scissor
October 13, 2019 3:24 pm

Idiot.

Reply to  Scissor
October 13, 2019 3:28 pm

Let me put this in another perspective: Right now, there is MORE proof that Mills’ theories are correct, than YOU actually exist in human form (see, YOU bay be a bot.)

Reply to  Scissor
October 13, 2019 3:31 pm

Let me put this in yet ANOTHER perspective: There is more analytical and lab PROOF that Mills’ theories are correct then there exists proof that global warming is real.

I realize that is a low bar, ut, it is nonetheless true.

Reply to  Scissor
October 13, 2019 3:44 pm

had you ever seen this list of pubs – or no?

http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2016/7/21/accountability

And as I’ve written before, let’s not be stupid about this, put some ‘mind’ behind a response, after having taken an honest look at some real lab testing testing for Hydrinos … Do you know ANYTHING about GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY?

https://www.reddit.com/r/BrilliantLightPower/comments/aw8r7i/gas_chromatographic_isolation_and_identification/

Scissor
Reply to  _Jim
October 13, 2019 5:09 pm

As a matter of fact, I do know a little about gas chromatography and I worked for the company that manufactured the TCD that BLP used.

It took me about 30 seconds to see that BLP does not know what they are doing, operating the detector outside of its specified operating range. It is not me that is the idiot.

Scissor
Reply to  _Jim
October 13, 2019 5:29 pm

It’s obvious that the person(s) doing the analytical work for BLP is incompetent. No serious chromatographer would publish a chromatogram in which methane is eluted in 50 minutes, tails and has a width at baseline of almost 10 minutes. It’s obvious that the analyzer is not being used properly and is producing rubbish.

A peak at 17 minutes was identified as carbon dioxide. Any competent gas chromatographer would know that CO2 is not eluted from molecular sieve columns, it is absorbed.

Here is a link to what a decent chromatogram that this type of column should produce: https://www.restek.com/chromatogram/view/GC_PC00166

Please notice the Gaussian peak shapes and relatively short retention times.

I found all those mistakes in the first 4 slides. This is ridiculous. BLP is a scam.

MarkW
Reply to  Scissor
October 14, 2019 7:42 am

I wonder how much commission _Jim is getting for each sucker he pulls in?

Joe B
October 13, 2019 6:47 am

Mr. Cobb
Yes, that was a mischaracterization of what occurred.
The few remaining coal burning plants (they are all gone, now) combined with the dual fuel plants (oil/natgas) and the dedicated oil burner in Maine (Wyman) bailed out New England by burning through virtually all 2 million barrels of stored fuel oil in 15 days.

One of the under reported stories of that brutal cold snap of almost 2 years ago was that 3 shipments of fuel oil were hastily shipped from overseas and that entire region was facing blackouts due to lack of fuel for their power plants.

The coal/oil percentage for power burn exceeded 40% during that 2 week stretch.
People up there have no clue of just how “close to the edge” things are should extended cold snaps hit the region.

Bruce Cobb
October 13, 2019 7:24 am

More energy idiocy combined with weapons-grade hypocrisy: the blockage of a major transmission line (1,090-megawatt) coming from Hydro Quebec called “Northern Pass”. It was first proposed in 2010, so most certainly could have been built before the energy crunch in 2018. Some of the objections were (supposedly) the effect such a line, with towers perhaps 100′ tall might have on scenery, and on tourism. Really? As opposed to the hulking, mostly-useless monsters built high on hills that can be seen for tens of miles?
That’s different, I guess, because they are helping to “save the planet”. They are now trying to get an alternate route through western Maine, but will likely run into more obstinacy. It’s almost as though folks want to freeze in the dark.

ResourceGuy
October 13, 2019 7:29 am

Okay, let McConnell bring it up for a vote in the Senate like he did for the GND to put Dems on the spot.

MarkW
October 13, 2019 7:58 am
Shoki Kaneda
October 13, 2019 10:02 am

Purely virtue signaling. She knows it hasn’t a snowball’s chance.

Fanakapan
October 13, 2019 11:55 am

Diminishing the supply, and therefore raising the price of keeping warm in the north east of the USA seems rather like a promise of no jam at all, as opposed to the usual political gambit of jam tomorrow ?

I’d be be prepared to cut Lizzie a little slack on her occasional distortions of events, it is after all a concept that any who have contact with the distaff crowd will be used to. Seeing some of her stuff from before she became a headliner in US politics seems to suggest she may have had some points worth considering.

However her current position only confirms that should one enter a Clowns Beauty Pageant, then it is required that one present as a Clown.

Gunga Din
October 13, 2019 12:37 pm

Warren needs a warden.

TedM
October 13, 2019 1:27 pm

More proof that you can’t change stupid.

Brian Valentine
October 13, 2019 4:11 pm

California, Massachusetts, and New York State are HOPELESS basket cases. That hasn’t always been the case.

The question is, how long will it be before the citizens of these states simply refuse to take Government-imposed suffering any longer? I have no idea.

Shoki Kaneda
Reply to  Brian Valentine
October 13, 2019 4:59 pm

Maybe they have lead in their water.

David Kelly
October 13, 2019 6:30 pm

I see an easy solution for Republican senators. Simply tack on an amendment prohibiting the importation of Russian gas and requiring all States be linked to the U.S. natural gas network… on the grounds that it would be: bad for the Russians, a necessary accommodation to gas producing states, necessary for national energy independence, in the interest of U.S. national security, and (wink) good for the environment.

Be fun to watch Warren & Markey’s maneuver to kill their own bill.

rwisrael
October 13, 2019 10:53 pm

So, after all, who IS really trying to help the Russian economy?

Steve Z
October 14, 2019 11:52 am

Common sense about energy seems to be sorely lacking east of the Hudson River in America. During the 2000’s, before the fracking revolution began, some were proposing LNG import terminals in Long Island Sound and Boston Harbor, but one was shut down by Connecticut Attorney General (now Senator) Dick Blumenthal, and the other by many leftists in MA, so a large LNG import terminal was built in New Brunswick, Canada, about 15 miles from the Maine border.

If those import terminals had been built then, after the fracking revolution in PA, those same terminals could have been re-purposed for export (although extra compression and refrigeration would have been required). Instead, with all the pipeline bans in New England and the fracking ban in NY state, Massachusetts has to import gas from Russia, of all places, while there is abundant gas in PA, just a few hundred miles away in the good ol’ USA.

If Warren wants to block natural gas exports, that’s a great way of “colluding” with Russia. After the Russian invasion of Crimea, there was a lot of talk about economic sanctions against Russia, but some Western European countries were “cool” to the idea because what if Russia cut off their gas supply in the winter? If we exported LNG to Western Europe, the USA and Europe could impose joint sanctions on Russia, without fear of reprisal from Russia.

If Warren proposes banning fracking, that would be a great way to lose the election. Thousands of formerly poor farmers in northern PA have gotten rich from fracking royalties, and a Democrat cannot win the presidency without PA and OH. Fracking for oil has also spread into New Mexico, which could flip that normally-blue state to Trump.

Amber
October 15, 2019 2:04 pm

They really have a self reflection problem.
They threaten coal workers last time and now they double down by threatening the entire fossil fuel energy sector .
Look the fake Indian is about to be passed by the billionaires running the Democrat puppet socks .
Warren acts like she has sucked back about 6 espressos and pumps out socialist clap trap every time she bounces around a stage .
The only one that sounds remotely sane is the one they hate . Gabbard .
I’m really going to miss Spartacus , Bernie the Red , and plastic forget me not Biden .
No wonder they are all in on the Schiff lie . How does Schiff even have a law licence ? Aren’t they supposed to not lie . A liar / leaker . Still waiting for that Russia gate Schiff proof .

%d bloggers like this: