Pangea applies to export LNG to non-Free Trade countries

My guess is that they want to export to China.

Exporting gas in the general direction of China - I like the sound of that.

I can’t think of a single reason why we shouldn’t make money from people who don’t want to make money from us.

The better guess is that they want to export to South America (except Colombia, Peru, and Chile, with which we have FTA’s).

Bout time Gondwana got some serious competition.

Why do we want to allow any of our energy resources exporyted? Sell our future now for our children’s poverty later? Eh?

If the US were Venezulua or Russia or China or France the gas could be considered “our” gas but it is not or at least for now it is not “ours”. In the US the gas is “mine” or “yours” that is to say it belongs to someone and that someone decides who to sell it to.

Would you propose keeping those who own the gas to keep from selling it as they see fit?

I’m all for it. Seems absurd to me that they have to ask permission.

Why is there no visible progress in utilizing the gas here. LPG stations could be placed along the interstates NOW. Autos could be converted and new car production could be encouraged now instead of phony MPG requirements for 2021.

It’s obvious there are NO real efforts to get us off Mid East oil till the last drop has been pumped and the last $ pumped out of the gasoline consuming taxpayer.

Would you propose keeping those who own the gas to keep from selling it as they see fit?

First, the gas probably does not "belong" to those who own the surface above it. Who does may be a corporation whose interests may not fit with that of myself, my progeny, or my country. In that case, I might well say "Yes." OPEC countries already do that.

Did we want to sell scrap iron to Japan back in the '20s and '30s? Did we still sell it to them in, say, December 8, 1941? Should we have sold it earlier? Hmmm. Liberty has limits.

What would you suggest if PRC bought out this nonrenewable national treasure against our national indebtedness to them, and started exporting it wholesale?

Corporations are owned by people who bought the mineral rights. Do you. Believe my ownership rights to gas are less because they are in a corporation?
Besides there are thousands who owned their land and their gas rights who recently sold or leased their land’s gas rights to a corporation. They did not sell that gas to fit the priorities of you or your progeny. As to whether it fits the country’s priorities, there is name for forcing individuals to submit to the common good. It is called Communism.

Your last paragraph makes no sense. Of the PRC buys anything they buy it from individuals (or individuls who are acting through corporations) and the proceeds go to the individuals and not to our national debt which is held by our government. The gas is going to be exported no matter who owns it. Just like we export grain, coal, aircraft, water, etc..

If you are so concerned about gas then start buying your own gas rights and lock it up for yourself and your progeny.

We should not sell goods to our enemies. So if Congresses passes a law declaring war then yes exports should be blocked. Then those who are harmed by that law should be compensated by the US taxpayer for their lose. Or do you think the sacrifice should only be borne by those who own gas and iron (and anything else) and not yourself?

Liberty has limits hmmm? I guess you know where and how to draw the lines and all you need is a little assistance from your friends in the US government to enforce those limits.

There has been visible progress without federal government funding:

http://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/

These are LNG stations for 18 wheelers by the company T. Boone Pickens founded. He’s been pushing for what you want for years.

Corporations are owned by people who bought the mineral rights. ...

Yes, but my point is that the corporation survives the people, and it has no morality. Its responsibility is simply to make profits for the next quarter. It may well be that it has no consideration for the future, if turning the greatest profit for this quarter is its own "suicide" today.

That is the underlying theme of the LPNG marketing that does not consider the future physical and economic health of the nation by the few (corporations) that have managed to corner the gas market, and sell it out from under the population under whose property it lies, and who are eventually going to need to buy it for themselves.

And if they see this, they are going to protest.

Your last paragraph makes no sense. Of the PRC buys anything they buy it from individuals (or individuls who are acting through corporations) and the proceeds go to the individuals and not to our national debt which is held by our government. The gas is going to be exported no matter who owns it. Just like we export grain, coal, aircraft, water, etc..

I recognize your point, and am not arguing against that. (But note that your list contains both renewable and irreplaceable quantities.) I was thinking not of private trading and profits, but of international balance of payments, which brings in Constitutional issues, where Congress has the power to:

- regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States
- coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,...

Of course, selling LPNG from our national economy to that of PRC will ameliorate the large negative balance of payments, but here's my problem:

If we sell so much of the non-renewable gas, we singularly or corporately now benefit, but will the citizens of the future have lost their heritage? This is not about selling gas to fellow citizens -- it is about selling it cheaply to a society who is philosophically our desperate enemy, not to be placated, and only for the profit of an entity that dies only on paper. Would that leave us heatless, sometime in the future?

In comparison, if somehow our air was capturable and non-renewable, suppose we sold our oxygen to a locality somewhere else on the planet. Would that make our land uninhabitable sometime farther on?

I know I haven't thought this all out, and maybe I'm wrong, but there seems to be something fishy about selling this gas to China if they are found to have enough of their own for the foreseeable future, but that our gas might be cheaper to acquire right now than to develop their own. Then after using up ours, they could then enjoy using up theirs for themselves. And there are a lot of mainland Chinese.

Furthermore, would the riches thus acquired help the energy brokers to perhaps gain control of our greed-prone politicians enough to intervene in other wealth-creating issues -- to their exclusive advantage, that is? Like our elite liberals are doing right now? (Soros, raise-the-taxes Buffet, green-peace Gates, stock-rolling Rothschilds, oil/booze reeking Bronfmans, etc).

We should not sell goods to our enemies. So if Congresses passes a law declaring war then yes exports should be blocked. Then those who are harmed by that law should be compensated by the US taxpayer for their lose. Or do you think the sacrifice should only be borne by those who own gas and iron (and anything else) and not yourself?

Well, before WWI and WWII the capitalists (and I deeply believe in capitalism, but have some sense of altruistic morality) sold transformable war materials to those who overnight became our enemies by proclamation of war, but who were our de facto enemies well before, as the storm clouds were gathering. This also becomes a Constitutional issue, that of Treason, to give aid or comfort to our national enemies through supplying them with any kind of commercial advantage or even physical comforts. Did we then compensate our entities whose profits were harmed by blocking trade with our adversaries? I doubt it. This was the luck of the draw and vicissitudes of business, who were putting their capital and commodities at a calculated risk, at an often obscene profits that contributed to eventual loss of men on the beaches of Tunis, France, Truk, and Iwo Jima. It would be hard to get me believe that our government compensated these risk-takers for lost busimess. So I can't see how this point of your argument is not taking on enough water to sink it, quickly.

Perhaps unwittingly you may have dodged another issue: that of essential and irreplaceable resources. At onetime, at least, it was deemed unlawful to export resources such as tungsten, chromium. cobalt, selenium, uranium, thorium, rare earths, etc. Blocking their loss is something, whether or not covered explicitly in our Constitution, that our government may justly use to indemnify our national interests. What if, despite being ubiquitously available today, LPNG was perceived to be an essential item for our future? That is NOT an issue of communism obliterating capitalism, it is seen as refusing to allow unbridled capitalism (laissez faire) devour itself, thus allowing anarchy to reign. Apparently, we have found that in our version of republicanism, some form of popular control of business entities is necessary for all. Again, that makes it a Constitutional issue, whether the Supreme Court finds penumbras in it or not. Liberty has limits, and those limits must abide a continually debated management.

Liberty has limits hmmm? I guess you know where and how to draw the lines and all you need is a little assistance from your friends in the US government to enforce those limits.

Well, if you show up on my property without my invitation, you'd better have a good reason or a quickly implemented exit strategy, because if not, either: (a) my friends in executive branch in the government will summarily remove you; or (b) I will do my best to bury you here on it. Your Liberty balance will have gone negative, and I will have a perfect reason to fully exercise mine. Is that not an answer to your point here? That can be applied more widely to show (as above) that liberty has limits, and is not free. Freedom taken beyond reasonableness is license, and eventually will not be tolerated. AFIK.

But more so, both you and I have an interest in seeing those chosen to execute the duties of being your/my democratically chosen representatives in a REPUBLICAN government body, that they would keep the thoughts of our Creator and our Founders watchfully secure without change or capricious misinterpretation; and that their concerns would not be just of the present (to keep getting reelected) but more to our future, that that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth (as Obama and his mentors would have it do).

Our children's future is a present commodity, drawing from investment in the past, and resting on absolute eternal truths, in Washington, D. C., and in every state capital, town council, and public school board around the nation. It is way past time, then, that in each and every case, those chosen or appointed to represent our will be neither heathen, lechers, drunks, libertines, sodomites, lesbians, abortionists, pederasts, islamists, rustic snobs, inveterate liars, liberal elitists, nor (God save us!) out-and-out traitors who have access to the halls of law-making, execution, interpretation, and indoctrination.

Is this not so?

Let them not then, I submit, be those who permit fracking and sacking of our non-renewable riches for exclusively personal advantage. Sell China wood, yes; coal, maybe; clean energy, no.

If you don’t sell the gas, then you have to flare it.

Bookmarking an important article and an interesting discussion.