2016 Postmortem

TheBlackAdder

(28,234 posts)

31. Dang! Another Panama Canal article. This one ties US exports to the increased production from shale.

Sun Jun 26, 2016, 12:05 PM

Jun 2016

.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/newly-expanded-panama-canal-set-to-open-after-seven-year-process/

– US gas shipments –

Panama is also avidly eyeing the lucrative market of transporting liquefied natural gas between the United States and Asia, principally to Japan.

The ships carrying the gas were too big to use the old canal. With the expansion, they now can.

“When we started this expansion, we did not have on our radar that the United States was going to be a net exporter of gas and oil,” ACP deputy administrator Manuel Benitez Hawkins told journalists Saturday.

Now, with the US producing gas and oil from shale, American interest in using the canal has grown.

“That will add to the revenue and help us recoup” the massive investment, Benitez said.

Currently, some five percent of global maritime commercial traffic uses the canal, which provides a valuable shortcut between North America and Asia.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Fracking. Are you for it or against it? [View all] jillan Jun 2016 OP

Against. Also against coal mining (but not expecting it to end immediately) Alex4Martinez Jun 2016 #1

Most is for Export--Scheduled to be shipped off-shore via 10 LNG terminals on both coasts. TheBlackAdder Jun 2016 #15

Source ? This is fascinating if true. JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #29

Links... One of the reasons why the Panama Canal was widened, not just for superships, for US Export TheBlackAdder Jun 2016 #30

Dang! Another Panama Canal article. This one ties US exports to the increased production from shale. TheBlackAdder Jun 2016 #31

Other. JaneyVee Jun 2016 #2

with the kind of govt direction of a WWII type energy transformation advocated by Bernie ... cloudythescribbler Jun 2016 #3

What do you think "rapid" means? Adrahil Jun 2016 #7

that 20 years has been too slow -- we need a RAPID WWII type transformation cloudythescribbler Jun 2016 #10

"A few years". That's not technically possible. Adrahil Jun 2016 #12

how much can be accomplished in 'a few years' is indeed a technical question ... cloudythescribbler Jun 2016 #21

Yep, pretty much where I am. stevenleser Jun 2016 #33

Against - Exemptions for hydraulic fracturing under United States federal law PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #4

these exemptions (like those of Price/Anderson for nuclear) are obscene cloudythescribbler Jun 2016 #11

Those that support it are afraid to admit it. nm rhett o rick Jun 2016 #5

189 views and 28 votes. Yep, I believe you are correct. jillan Jun 2016 #8

I voted "For it" MohRokTah Jun 2016 #6

Simplistic poll for a simple answer. Just getting a feel. jillan Jun 2016 #9

The problem is that fracking cannot be regulated to the degree that PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #13

But of course. rhett o rick Jun 2016 #19

Earthquakes pottedplant Jun 2016 #27

What should a President do if the GOP agreed to fund alternative energy if fracking could continue? randome Jun 2016 #14

ummmm....how would we procreate? Evergreen Emerald Jun 2016 #16

Ideally I am against it. Realistically, I recognize it's unavoidable. KittyWampus Jun 2016 #17

+1. Unfortunately, such reasoned answers aren't acceptable nowadays. Question to me --Is natural gas Hoyt Jun 2016 #32

It's insane Red Mountain Jun 2016 #18

Kind of indifferent TheFarseer Jun 2016 #20

This isn't a yes or no question. BlueCheese Jun 2016 #22

Against. But understand why it's being used. joshcryer Jun 2016 #23

I am other, against it until Congress gets off their ass and passes the REGULATIONS for fracking. Sunlei Jun 2016 #24

Fracking sounds like a good way to contaminate ground water with--- John Poet Jun 2016 #25

It is the only thing keeping this area out of a full blown depression since we doc03 Jun 2016 #26

It's a bad question - and not realistic... Sancho Jun 2016 #28