Joe Biden 2024 thread - Dark Brandon Where Art Thou?

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20402]

1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

Q4 GDP came in at 3.3%. Absolutely crushed estimates in the 2% range.

Im sure the 24 year olds with new Series 7 licenses will act rationally and good news on the economy will not mean red.

https://www.bea.gov/news/2024/gross-domestic-product-fourth-quarter-and-year-2023-advance-estimate

My 401k just became a 501k.

[jimmyjazz 45970]

That reminds me, I should check my 40.1K and see how it's doing.

[Dutchrudder 11141]

Pretty good looking chart the last couple of years. I'm sure inflation, illegal immigrants or something cancels it out though...

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33873]

the 2020 portion of that graph is fucking wild

[Dnaguy 12000]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

timely video

 

I’m an eggpert now!

Anyone? 

No?

I’ll see myself out…..

[cactusflinthead 27601]

 

Edited January 25 by cactusflinthead

[Hal Finney 174]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33873]

15 minutes ago, Hal Finney said:

 

that's awesome and all, but ffs put the hard hat on correctly so the trolls have little to work with. this is now just a layup for them

[gmr548 16580]

1 hour ago, Hal Finney said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

that's awesome and all, but ffs put the hard hat on correctly so the trolls have little to work with. this is now just a layup for them

Well the trolls like @Hal Finney think this is a slam dunk but in reality plenty of construction/trade workers wear hard hats backward at times, and the Biden team probably just wants to show the union stickers. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33873]

7 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

 

Well the trolls like @Hal Finney think this is a slam dunk but in reality plenty of construction/trade workers wear hard hats backward at times, and the Biden team probably just wants to show the union stickers. 

yes, you and I are smart enough to discern this, but we're not on the margins like a lot of mouth breathers are and little shit like that continues the perception that he is old and senile. it sucks, but that's where we are

[G650 14263]

Guys wear their hard hats backwards all the time. I actually flipped the suspension in mine around so the shell was backwards in the day

Edited January 26 by G650

[Hal Finney 174]

This is a bad idea. Natural gas use is going anywhere for decades. So instead of us participating, and profiting, others will benefit. Russia, Qatar (which houses Hamas leadership). Also if I had to bet, the net environmental benefit will not materialize. If there’s a shortfall in NG globally, then the rest of the world will substitute coal where necessary. Stupid. 
 

 

51 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

 

Well the trolls like @Hal Finney think this is a slam dunk but in reality plenty of construction/trade workers wear hard hats backward at times, and the Biden team probably just wants to show the union stickers. 

So, he’s like the Ken Griffey Jr of global leaders 

[SydneyCarton 48108]

1 hour ago, Hal Finney said:

This is a bad idea. Natural gas use is going anywhere for decades. So instead of us participating, and profiting, others will benefit. Russia, Qatar (which houses Hamas leadership). Also if I had to bet, the net environmental benefit will not materialize. If there’s a shortfall in NG globally, then the rest of the world will substitute coal where necessary. Stupid. 
 

 

So, he’s like the Ken Griffey Jr of global leaders 

Yup. This is a huge fucking mistake. Russia just proved why it is a mistake when it invaded Ukraine 2 short years. 

Why can't we stop doing stupid shit?

[David Dennison 18903]

Just out of curiosity, how much LNG do we currently export compared to other countries?

[bolverk 29683]

17 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yup. This is a huge fucking mistake. Russia just proved why it is a mistake when it invaded Ukraine 2 short years. 

Why can't we stop doing stupid shit?

Long-term, it might be a concern, depending on how long the "pause" lasts. Short-term, it doesn't sound like a big deal. I don't think this administration, which has gone to bat for Europe more than any other since the end of the Cold War, will be turning its back on Europe. See the bolded section below.

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Just out of curiosity, how much LNG do we currently export compared to other countries?

We're now the world's biggest exporter.

 

Worries in Europe Over the White House Move to Delay Gas Terminals
The Biden administration’s decision to review new liquefied natural gas projects for their impact on climate change could be a headache for overseas buyers.

The Biden administration’s decision to delay approval of new liquefied natural gas terminals in the United States has been hailed as a major victory for environmental advocacy groups, but it is creating unease outside the United States about future energy supplies.

“I think U.S. allies and trade partners will have some concerns about this, because in the past two years U.S. L.N.G. exports have been a real boon to global energy security,” said Ben Cahill, a senior fellow in the energy security and climate change program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research institution in Washington.

The Biden administration’s move on Friday to pause the permitting process for new liquefied natural gas export facilities is not expected to have an impact on global gas supplies soon. But it could create uncertainty, especially in Europe, which has only recently weathered a major energy shock after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine almost two years ago.

Interruptions of gas supplies from Russia in 2022 contributed to soaring energy prices in Europe, especially for electric power, that hurt businesses and consumers and pushed governments to spend heavily to ease energy bills. Tankers full of liquefied gas from the United States helped mitigate what could have been a dire situation.

Given this history, potential restrictions on gas supplies from the United States would be “a huge concern,” said Fredrik Persson, the president of BusinessEurope, the continent’s largest business group.

Over the last two years, an enormous surge in liquefied gas exports from the United States helped Europe largely replace flows of natural gas from Russia, which had been Europe’s mainstay supplier of the fuel. According to Kpler, a research firm, U.S. gas exports to Europe more than doubled from 2021 to 2022, to about 52 million metric tons, and then increased modestly in 2023. These shipments have “been key in stopping Russia from forcing Europe down on its knees with using energy as a geopolitical weapon,” Mr. Persson said.

The United States’ exports of liquefied natural gas have grown from almost scratch in recent years. It is now the world’s largest L.N.G. exporter, with more than 60 percent going to Europe last year. After the invasion of Ukraine, European countries including Germany, the Netherlands and Greece scrambled to build new L.N.G. terminals and lock up supply deals with the United States.

Doubts regarding the “stability” of liquefied gas supplies from the United States could put such plans at risk, “raising concerns of potential further price volatility” Didier Holleaux, president of Eurogas, an industry group, said in a statement.

Germany’s economy ministry said Friday that it was monitoring the situation in the United States “closely,” but declined to comment further. The security of the gas supply remains stable, the ministry said through a spokeswoman, adding that Germany now receives most of its natural gas from Norway.

To be clear, in making this move, the Biden administration seems unlikely to jeopardize supplies to customers outside the United States this year or anytime soon. The decision does not apply to current exports, and analysts say it will not stop a group of new L.N.G. projects that have already been approved and are under construction. These are likely to substantially boost the capacity of the United States to export gas in the coming years.

The administration says it wants time to determine whether additional L.N.G. projects, ones still on the drawing boards, would be in the public interest. Such analysis would include weighing the greenhouse gas emissions that future projects would produce, as well as their impact on the economy and national security. In a statement, President Biden said the pause on approvals “sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time.”

The Biden administration appears to be trying to reassure countries that have come to rely on U.S. natural gas. This pause will “not impact our ability to supply our allies in Europe, Asia or other recipients of already authorized U.S. exports,” the Department of Energy said Friday in a statement.

Analysts say that what may unsettle allies, especially in Europe, is the message that they may no longer be able to count so firmly on supplies from the United States in coming years. “What this really highlights for Europe is, you are running out of options,” said Henning Gloystein, a director for energy and climate change at Eurasia Group, a political risk firm.

While Russia does supply Europe with liquefied natural gas now, European leaders want to reduce those flows. The eastern Mediterranean looks doubtful as a major source in the future because of the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Aside from the United States, the other likely major producer of additional liquefied natural gas is Qatar, a tiny Middle Eastern emirate.

Mr. Gloystein said L.N.G. from the United States was particularly attractive for European buyers because the shipping distances from North America are relatively short and the terms that American suppliers provide are much more flexible than those of most other sources. For instance, they usually allow a buyer to easily resell gas, whereas other gas powers like Qatar often impose restrictions. “The U.S. is the one that matters,” he said.

[G650 14263]

Honestly, if we are still increasing capacity as the world's largest supplier, this seems fairly reasonable

[Hate 20108]

It’s really fucking stupid and doesn’t help the environment at all. It means coal plants are around much longer. Developing countries have no incentive to use LNG if they can’t get it. 

[Snake Diggity 4625]

Any chance this LNG move is some kind of negotiating consequence of the GOP tanking the border security deal?

[Hate 20108]

And my post doesn’t even address the sheer amount of money invested in some what were supposed to be scheduled projects. That money doesn’t come back if Biden decides to keep fucking over the US Energy sector. It’s fucking short sided and monumentally stupid. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33873]

*sighted

[G650 14263]

29 minutes ago, Hate said:

even address the sheer amount of money invested in some what were supposed to be scheduled projects

It said those are still going ahead

[gmr548 16580]

3 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

yes, you and I are smart enough to discern this, but we're not on the margins like a lot of mouth breathers are and little shit like that continues the perception that he is old and senile. it sucks, but that's where we are

Eh. Most people looking at that pic for 1-2 seconds probably don't even catch the hat thing. He's just looking for a rise.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33873]

4 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Eh. Most people looking at that pic for 1-2 seconds probably don't even catch the hat thing. He's just looking for a rise.

you obviously didn't read the twitter comments

[gmr548 16580]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

you obviously didn't read the twitter comments

Well no, I do not hate myself and Twitter is even less representative of reality than surly.

[bolverk 29683]

33 minutes ago, Hate said:

It’s really fucking stupid and doesn’t help the environment at all. It means coal plants are around much longer. Developing countries have no incentive to use LNG if they can’t get it. 

 

17 minutes ago, Hate said:

And my post doesn’t even address the sheer amount of money invested in some what were supposed to be scheduled projects. That money doesn’t come back if Biden decides to keep fucking over the US Energy sector. It’s fucking short sided and monumentally stupid. 

 

I don't know a whole helluva lot about the industry but some. This announced "pause" does not affect existing facilities, those under construction, or those that are approved.

According to the EIA, we have a grand total of 9 LNG facilities in the US. Two are import-only and located around Boston, and then these seven which have export capacity:

1. ELBA ISLAND (Savannah, GA) Export (Kinder Morgan)
2. CAMERON (Hackberry, LA) Export (Sempra Energy)
3. CALCASIEU PASS (Hackberry, LA) Export (Venture Global)
4. SABINE PASS (Sabine Pass, LA) Export (Cheniere)
5. CORPUS CHRISTI (Portland, TX) Export (Cheniere)
6. COVE POINT (Lusby, MD) Import/Export (Dominion Energy)
7. FREEPORT (Freeport, TX) Import/Export (Freeport)

Now, with just these seven, the US is now the largest LNG exporter in the world.

• Do we know how many are currently under construction?
• Do we know of others in the pipeline that have been approved?
• Where are they going? Any on the West Coast?
• In other words, how many more, regardless of this announced pause, are coming to market in the foreseeable future?
• How many scheduled projects are affected?

And as for your comment about coal consumption: About 60% of global consumption is concentrated in East and SE Asia (50.5% of consumption is China alone). Another 11.3% of consumption is in India. In other words, 70% of all coal consumed is from just a handful of countries.

• What are we doing to encourage them to switch from coal to natural gas?
• We don't have any terminals on the West Coast. Are any of the planned ones that might be affected on the West Coast?
• Would building new terminals be enough to get them to switch?
• Are we (the US) committed to eliminating coal within our own energy mix?

One final question, how else has Biden "fucked over the US Energy sector"? I mean, our oil production hit an all-time high last year.

[David Dennison 18903]

 

Quote

To be clear, in making this move, the Biden administration seems unlikely to jeopardize supplies to customers outside the United States this year or anytime soon. The decision does not apply to current exports, and analysts say it will not stop a group of new L.N.G. projects that have already been approved and are under construction. These are likely to substantially boost the capacity of the United States to export gas in the coming years.

This seems important.

Edited January 26 by David Dennison

[Js1 85372]

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

One final question, how else has Biden "fucked over the US Energy sector"?

Bc Fox said so. GREEN NEW DEAL!!!!1!!1!1!1!

[G650 14263]

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

One final question, how else has Biden "fucked over the US Energy sector"? I mean, our oil production hit an all-time high last year.

Yeah, this is one of the more bizarre criticisms I see. It seems we are crushing it by every extant data point

[bolverk 29683]

Just now, Js1 said:

Bc Fox said so. GREEN NEW DEAL!!!!1!!1!1!1!

There's probably a bunch of that. Put aside climate concerns for the sake of the argument, I honestly would like to know the real effects that this decision might have on exports and how it influences gas consumption abroad.  

[David Dennison 18903]

So what I'm hearing is, this isn't a huge fucking mistake after all.

[Js1 85372]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

So what I'm hearing is, this isn't a huge fucking mistake after all.

It’s not. Feels like a lot of people jumped to conclusions 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33873]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

It’s not. Feels like a lot of people jumped to conclusions 

here? gtfo

[Eastwood 4394]

LNG export facilities take literally years to go from proposal to FID to being online at full capacity. These facilities that are still being built were approved long ago. Under the Trump administration, EPA approval took ~150 days and it is 300+ under Biden. That’s just for EPA approval. A complete freeze on new approvals for just the election year would probably be a multiple year setback for the industry as a whole. We will maximize exports by 2026 and hit a ceiling that will quickly be eclipsed by Qatar (was #1 in exports until we passed them) and Russia. 

Look, I get it. Paris accords, fossil fuels bad with zero redeeming qualities and no way to make it work with our climate goals, yadda yadda. The reality is that natural gas is a bridge fuel to net zero. It is 60% cleaner than coal and a cheap transition fuel for developing countries. It’s dirt cheap here in the US and that’s why it became such a hot export. The most likely fallout of this is that countries who are hostile to the US or fund NGOs/terrorist organizations that are hostile to the US will reclaim lost market share and profit at our expense. Additionally, countries who need cheap energy will either delay shuttering coal plants they intended to replace with natural gas or even fire up new coal plants. And do you think Qatar and Russia have the same environmental regulations we do? Do you think they are monitoring for methane leaks like we are in the US? Limiting flaring? Protecting water sources around export facilities?

This may actually be a net negative for climate goals. It reeks of election year pandering and won’t serve overall global climate goals. It only soothes the handwringing at home. 

[bolverk 29683]

2 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

LNG export facilities take literally years to go from proposal to FID to being online at full capacity. These facilities that are still being built were approved long ago. Under the Trump administration, EPA approval took ~150 days and it is 300+ under Biden. That’s just for EPA approval. A complete freeze on new approvals for just the election year would probably be a multiple year setback for the industry as a whole. We will maximize exports by 2026 and hit a ceiling that will quickly be eclipsed by Qatar (was #1 in exports until we passed them) and Russia. 

Look, I get it. Paris accords, fossil fuels bad with zero redeeming qualities and no way to make it work with our climate goals, yadda yadda. The reality is that natural gas is a bridge fuel to net zero. It is 60% cleaner than coal and a cheap transition fuel for developing countries. It’s dirt cheap here in the US and that’s why it became such a hot export. The most likely fallout of this is that countries who are hostile to the US or fund NGOs/terrorist organizations that are hostile to the US will reclaim lost market share and profit at our expense. Additionally, countries who need cheap energy will either delay shuttering coal plants they intended to replace with natural gas or even fire up new coal plants. And do you think Qatar and Russia have the same environmental regulations we do? Do you think they are monitoring for methane leaks like we are in the US? Limiting flaring? Protecting water sources around export facilities?

This may actually be a net negative for climate goals. It reeks of election year pandering and won’t serve overall global climate goals. It only soothes the handwringing at home. 

Thanks for the thoughtful, logical response. I largely agree with everything you've posted. I'm not opposed at all to the idea that natural gas is a good, less-polluting bridge. 

What I would like to know is how many planned projects this decision affects. I understand that there's a significant timeline from planning to construction to operation -- almost a decade, I believe (maybe a slight exaggeration, but not by much). Would a project that's planned today be up and running by 2026 or even by the end of the decade?

Is this something we should be concerned about in the short term vis-a-vis Europe's energy situation? Or is this something that's more long-term?

[nbmishoid 949]

Impact would be 5 plus years down the road.   A whole new world by then.

[Eastwood 4394]

1 minute ago, bolverk said:

Thanks for the thoughtful, logical response. I largely agree with everything you've posted. I'm not opposed at all to the idea that natural gas is a good, less-polluting bridge. 

What I would like to know is how many planned projects this decision affects. I understand that there's a significant timeline from planning to construction to operation -- almost a decade, I believe (maybe a slight exaggeration, but not by much). Would a project that's planned today be up and running by 2026 or even by the end of the decade?

Is this something we should be concerned about in the short term vis-a-vis Europe's energy situation? Or is this something that's more long-term?

I don’t know the exact number of affected projects, but the fallout I am comfortable attesting to is that the longer this stays in place, the more investment sits on the sidelines to see how it shakes out. A project that could have been approved during the freeze would most likely be online by 2030. Possibly at early as 2027 depending on what stage the project was in at the time of freeze. 

As Hate mentioned, there are projects that have dollars already invested that are affected by this. Land purchased, contracts entered into, gas committed, pipe committed, etc. Upstream and midstream companies will now pull back on commitments, investors will want to wait before committing money to feasibility and economic analyses, land that would have otherwise been acquired in prime export locations may get purchased by other industries, and overall money just goes elsewhere and it most likely isn’t to green initiatives. 

[Hate 20108]

1 hour ago, G650 said:

It said those are still going ahead

Not if they don’t have DOE approval. Which those have been put on hold. 

[Eastwood 4394]

3 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

Impact would be 5 plus years down the road.   A whole new world by then.

I am of the opinion that this sentiment is more of a gamble than a lot of you think. 5 years ago was 2019. Natural gas demand has only increased since then. Renewables continue to earn market share domestically, but abroad is where the meat of the effect of this policy will have on global climate goals. Developing countries want cheap energy and care less than we do whether it is clean or not. LNG was our opportunity to incentivize a cleaner transition. 

[nbmishoid 949]

I understand.   I meant the political and climate change environment will be unpredictably different in 5 years.  

[gmr548 16580]

6 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

I understand.   I meant the political and climate change environment will be unpredictably different in 5 years.  

It'll be slightly more dysfunctional and 2023 will go from the warmest year on record to the third or fourth.

[bolverk 29683]

9 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

I don’t know the exact number of affected projects, but the fallout I am comfortable attesting to is that the longer this stays in place, the more investment sits on the sidelines to see how it shakes out. A project that could have been approved during the freeze would most likely be online by 2030. Possibly at early as 2027 depending on what stage the project was in at the time of freeze. 

As Hate mentioned, there are projects that have dollars already invested that are affected by this. Land purchased, contracts entered into, gas committed, pipe committed, etc. Upstream and midstream companies will now pull back on commitments, investors will want to wait before committing money to feasibility and economic analyses, land that would have otherwise been acquired in prime export locations may get purchased by other industries, and overall money just goes elsewhere and it most likely isn’t to green initiatives. 

 

You and I are in total agreement. As I said in my initial post, The downstream effects depend on how long this pause lasts. In the short term, I don't think it really affects Europe's energy security, which is my immediate concern. In the mid-term, we've got substantial new capacity coming online. Long-term, yeah, that's an issue.

[G650 14263]

35 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

LNG export facilities take literally years to go from proposal to FID to being online at full capacity. These facilities that are still being built were approved long ago. Under the Trump administration, EPA approval took ~150 days and it is 300+ under Biden. That’s just for EPA approval. A complete freeze on new approvals for just the election year would probably be a multiple year setback for the industry as a whole. We will maximize exports by 2026 and hit a ceiling that will quickly be eclipsed by Qatar (was #1 in exports until we passed them) and Russia. 

Look, I get it. Paris accords, fossil fuels bad with zero redeeming qualities and no way to make it work with our climate goals, yadda yadda. The reality is that natural gas is a bridge fuel to net zero. It is 60% cleaner than coal and a cheap transition fuel for developing countries. It’s dirt cheap here in the US and that’s why it became such a hot export. The most likely fallout of this is that countries who are hostile to the US or fund NGOs/terrorist organizations that are hostile to the US will reclaim lost market share and profit at our expense. Additionally, countries who need cheap energy will either delay shuttering coal plants they intended to replace with natural gas or even fire up new coal plants. And do you think Qatar and Russia have the same environmental regulations we do? Do you think they are monitoring for methane leaks like we are in the US? Limiting flaring? Protecting water sources around export facilities?

This may actually be a net negative for climate goals. It reeks of election year pandering and won’t serve overall global climate goals. It only soothes the handwringing at home. 

 

I'm not really staking a claim one way or another on this, but what I would need to make an informed opinion is some data based projection on the demand curve 10 years from now against US capacity at that time. Just offhand it seems we will be way ahead on the supply side from what I currently see.

[Hate 20108]

Which means it continues to be inexpensive. Developing countries can be incentivized to switch to LNG if they know it will continue to be inexpensive. 

[Pancho 44856]

 

 

[G650 14263]

5 minutes ago, Hate said:

Which means it continues to be inexpensive. Developing countries can be incentivized to switch to LNG if they know it will continue to be inexpensive. 

I mean that sounds great. I'm not sure that's remotely realistic personally but I am not dismissing it out of hand.

But if you are going to have a reasonable conversation in here about any of this you need to provide something substantive, not nonsense like whatever inane thing you said about our energy policy, which I am very satisfied with the past couple years. You need to provide actual figures and data. Otherwise people are just going to pile on you, and you'll bitch about the cloak room, and the circle goes round and round.

 

And I will reiterate, I don't have any opinion on this one way or another yet, there's not enough information yet to make a call

[bolverk 29683]

2 minutes ago, Hate said:

Which means it continues to be inexpensive. Developing countries can be incentivized to switch to LNG if they know it will continue to be inexpensive. 

Okay, but as G650 said, I'd like to see some data on our supply versus their demand. How substantial is this effect?

Also, I'd like to know how else Biden has "fucked over the US Energy industry"? 

• Oil production hit an all-time high last year.
• Natural gas production also hit an all-time high.
• Ditto for solar and wind.
• Nuclear energy is flat, but Biden's infrastructure bill invests $6 billion in that. 
• Coal is on the downswing, but we all agree that's a good thing, right?

Does putting in place some regs to monitor and lower methane emissions escaping from orphan wells and flares (have you been to West Texas lately?) constitute fucking over the energy industry? Does limiting wells on public lands do it? I'm genuinely curious about your statement.

['stache 21818]

15 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

 

Come on Ted Cruz, please, please, please come out and say spouses are off limits, please you dumb cuck.

[Hate 20108]

Sorry, the chart I wanted to post wouldn’t format correctly since I am doing this from my phone. See the wiki article posted below.

Edited January 26 by Hate

[Hal Finney 174]

6 minutes ago, G650 said:

I mean that sounds great. I'm not sure that's remotely realistic personally but I am not dismissing it out of hand.

But if you are going to have a reasonable conversation in here about any of this you need to provide something substantive, not nonsense like whatever inane thing you said about our energy policy, which I am very satisfied with the past couple years. You need to provide actual figures and data. Otherwise people are just going to pile on you, and you'll bitch about the cloak room, and the circle goes round and round.

 

And I will reiterate, I don't have any opinion on this one way or another yet, there's not enough information yet to make a call

 

 

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Okay, but as G650 said, I'd like to see some data on our supply versus their demand. How substantial is this effect?

Which group do you think has a better idea about the longer term demand for LNG globally? 
 

The producers in the marketplace allocating large amounts of capital long term, or this Presidential administration and its bureaucrats?

 

[Hate 20108]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#:~:text=Capital costs tend to be,thermal%2C offshore wind and nuclear.