Magnolia LNG (LNGLF) is the only other one I know of. There are in the very early stages of permitting etc. Land is already acquired in Lake Charles, LA. But yes, at least 3 years away to get where LNG is today.
That point is obvious to all thinking individuals who can analyze a historical situation. Everytime I turn about Obama is propoing spending more money. Latest examples, millions for Ebola and ISIS. It amused me that under sequesteration, Obama said he did not have the money for white house tours or basic training for the military, yet he could afford the Libya incursion, sending military to fight ebola withoiut authorization (is seeking that retroactively now) and funding Michelles lavish vacations. Those retrenchments were voluntary and designed to get favorable anti sequesteration from a cooperative media. He should have made the cuts in a lot more descretonaryi areas but then would have not got the PR he wanted nor fund the gige awayi programs like cell phones for everyone and internet access for everyone.
Don't have any references but in light of the EPAs new anti coal EPA regs and their obsession with carbon creation, I bet a lot less conversions to coal are taking place and when the full effect of those regs take effect coal is practically dead. The need for use in power plant and my theory that most vechicles, especially the large trucks, fleet vechicles and all high milage commercial vechicles that come home each night fkor refueling, will really up the demand for nat gas and put fracking into full tilt. Then add exporting, but will be 3 years or more before LNG has any company/competition. Not sure if any other entity has completed the permitting and financing phases yet but do know that no other company has started construction on a nat gas exporting plant. Figure 3 years to hire a contracting firm, get plans developed and then start construction and figure almost 3 years to comlete a plant and you can see how long LNG will have the field to itself. Won't get concerned till construction begins elsewhere plus 3 years. Heck corpus as much chance of being the second as any other and that entails competing with itself. LOL. And remember, since production is alreadyi sold, the higher price simply means a higher base revenue plus the kicker equals more money available to pay debt and divies. Remember, cost competition is not an issue as the product is already sold. I think another great investment field is the shipping industry, any idea which company maky be the best to transport LNG's export as well as the other plants opening. Europe needs other nat gas sources or it will return to warsaw pack dependency on Russia. I own GLOG big time and am looking at GLNG. Which I had bought the latter back at 30ish but thought it would take a few years. At the time, charters were at breakeven and ships were being idiled but boy did that company appreciate sooner than I expected. Did ride glog up. Any ideas.
Look you can disagree with what a poster says, BUT YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH ACTUALITY. Bottom line, over the year the pps has appreciated marked and those of use who held a lot of shares from the high teens and low 20s have made a lot of money. Bash all you want, pump all you want, but them are the facts and it must be frustrating looking in the window without stock, not participating in this gain, like a forelorn puppydog wanting the warmth and lovingness of the inside.
The bull case hasa lot more realty than your pathetic post.
Bookmark has oalmost 300 posts, mostly extreme fairydust. Don't pay any attention to bookmark's fairydust hype.
The price of nat gas is up to $4.45/mcf. Just a few weeks ago it was about $3.60/mcf. I guess the winter is here.
I read an article about power plants that use both coal and natural gas for electricity generation. As I recall, the power plant switches to coal (if they are permitted to) when natural gas gets too expensive. As I recall, the nat gas price switching point was around $5/mcf. Does anybody have any references on this?
You made my point I was making. Reagan was a conservative spender and would have had lower deficits if it were not for the Congress.
Well, the current Congress has not proposed a budget in a couple of years. At least Obama should have a budget. The House has proposed a proposed budget but Harry Reid has not brought it to vote, like hundreds of other bills passed by the House.
One thing for sure, Harry Reid will no longer holding up bills in Congress.
Love your analogy. Got news for you, when hou hae a bad goalie, the score runs up just like when you have a spend president with ffavorble Congress the costs run up. Fact is Obama never saw a plan he didn't want to spend money on.
Fact check. Reagan administration showed fiscal conservatism just like Obama has encouraged fiscal extranvagaze like his fiscal stimuli and money in the trough like food stamps and pell grants. Those grants may have had a noble purporse but were used my many to take a couple units, get the money and then drop out.
In my personal opinion cash should never be given to individiuals. Pell grants should be totally given to the educatioinal institution and dolled out as needed just like food stamps should be treansfered to cafeterrias. Efficiency and create a desire to get off the dole, not become generational.
My two cents but your thesis was flawed. With the proposals and veto power presidents do set the trend.
Jangle, learn a bit more about how our country works. Presidents "propose" budgets, Congress "approves" them. Memorize that fact and ignore newspaper headlines. I lived in those times and can tell you for a fact that every Reagan budget was rejected by the Democratic controlled Congress until billions were added to them. It is and always has been the responsibility of Congress to control the purse strings. Our so called journalists like to put it all on presidents but that's like blaming the goalie when his team sucks.
You still cannot understand that it takes two to tangle and you keep bringing it up, giving me something to respond to. I deserve high marks as I was right on just about every issue. But I will lave it here if you and others do.
Wish you would learn how to construct a proper sentence and be factually right just once. Must be a product of the public USA school system with tenured union teachers.
Jangle you cannot argue logic with an ignoramous. This is the same ignoramous who stated LNG was going way down, that foreign countries would not honor contracts, said total was a USA company, stated that Republican PACS spent the most money in total and has argued that the republican party is doomed. Someone that wrong, and keeps posting wrong info, and when challented has onlyi personalities and drivel to post, cannot be reasoned with.
Speaking as one who was right on all facets of the election, it was a repudiation of Obama and his policies, as he admitted before the election stating that the election was a referendum on his policies, and boy was he repudiated. LOL
Now the issue is whether the republicans can govern and that jury is out till 20l6. Meanwhile, go LNG
This is from Wikipedia listed under Reaganomics
"During the Reagan administration, federal receipts grew from $618 billion to $991 billion (an increase of 60%); while outlays grew from $746 billion to $1144 billion (an increase of 53%). According to a 1996 report of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, during Reagan's two terms, and through 1993, the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share of income taxes (not including payroll taxes) to the Federal government, while the lowest 50% of taxpayers paid a reduced share of income tax revenue. Personal income tax revenues declined from 9.4% GDP in 1981 to 8.3% GDP in 1989, while payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP during the same period."
The top 10% paid a increased share of the income taxes.
More from Wikipedia -
"The nominal national debt rose from $900 billion to $2.8 trillion during Reagan's tenure."
In 8 years of Reagan, his total deficits when up $1.9 trillion. Bush in 8 years had cumulative deficits of $6.1 billion. In Obama's first 4 years deficits were $6.06 trillion. Who is the bad guy here?
The so called liberal media is control by the same people the rich if you think their message is true then you are a first class idiot no amount of talk will ever convince you otherwise.
and that is a fact. so if you didn't buy early or now because your skeptic. you will regret it for the rest of your lives . you can bank on it. now I might be wrong but lets see where LNG is say October of 2015. between now and then anything can happen going up or down. but the closer we get to export WATCH OUT.
Herbert Hoover had the same policy trickle down economics it failed then it failed again under Reagan it only produced jobs that were poor paying with no benefits.
The deficit tripled under Reagan social security taxes raised arms given to the freedom fighters which later turned into the Taliban social security funds raided taxes raised nine times on the middle class taxes cut in half for the one percenters.