Why say "could" and "critics say" when everyone agrees this is true? Some things are actual facts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/plans-to-increase-exports-of-liquefied-natural-gas-could-accelerate-fracking-boom-critics-say/2013/05/12/a758abe8-bae0-11e2-b537-ab47f0325f7c_story.html …
-
-
En réponse à @saeverley
@saeverley If you are right about the size of US reserves and the benefits of gas, US exports could eventually be pretty big.@levi_m1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @Ed_Crooks
@Ed_Crooks@saeverley yep. Inconsistent when ppl say "endless cheap supply" and "not much exports"1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @levi_m
@levi_m who says "endless cheap supply"? Isn't that an economic contradiction in and of itself?@Ed_Crooks@saeverley1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @scottlincicome
@levi_m I understand main pro-export arg to be that global production & domestic/export cost diff will limit exports@Ed_Crooks@saeverley1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @scottlincicome
@scottlincicome@ed_crooks@saeverley to me main pro-export argument is that we benefit from supporting an open trading system.1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @levi_m
@levi_m oh, I agree (and wrote as much). I meant "pro-export" rebuttal to the "export flood / skyrocketing price" arg@Ed_Crooks@saeverley1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @scottlincicome
@scottlincicome@ed_crooks@saeverley ah. I think main arg there is that liquefaction/transport/regas cost will impose limits1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime
@levi_m yep. That's def the main limit short-term, then new global supply adds another limit longer-term @Ed_Crooks @saeverley
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.
RTS. You didn't read the article, did you?