Cannonpointer » 11 Mar 2025, 8:26 am » wrote: ↑ I read the claptrap you presented, stupe. Tell your **** story to the Germans. Their economy is shot because they are paying three times for energy what they were paying the Russians.
Now, there is a small bit of self-sabotage in that: they demand certain practices of their suppliers which has cut them off from the UAE. But at the end of the day, lying that you can ship gas as cheaply as you can pipe it is sucker talk. You are simply a retarded sucker who will believe whatever makes him feel good.
Ships aren't free. Insuring those ships is not free. Liquification is not free. Regasification is not free. Costs are passed on. Google, "Capitalism," you **** monkey.
Smelly Sue is a pootin peter puffer? Figures.

nefarious101 » 10 Mar 2025, 9:40 am » wrote: ↑ Sure Karen...
Spew your spew.....you're a war monger now?
You support killing 100,000's of men, women and children?....just as long as you get what you want?....it's fine right?
Tell me how stopping the war and stopping killing people is a bad idea....can't wait for that
I AM Karen...Bringer of war and death...as long as it's not mine

No, you are a joke, which is why you never post anything worth a ****.murdock » 11 Mar 2025, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑ ^^^fail...listen ya slimey ****, you don't like me, ban me, I don't give a ****. This place is a **** joke which is why I rarely post anything worth ****.
Hurry dick sucker, I've got more posts your spineless chicken **** *** can delete!! Hurry before your mommy sees you!Cannonpointer » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ No, you are a joke, which is why you never post anything worth a ****.
And it's slimy, not slimey. If you're going to insult someone, try not to look stupid doing it.
You are the one who didn't read it, fruitcake.*Beekeeper » 11 Mar 2025, 2:12 pm » wrote: ↑ Awwww. You licked the **** off your toilet paper too, huh??
It's DAMN OBVIOUS you failed to read the article. Scanned the first paragraph, MAYBE, but without a doubt, you never went past that.
SUCKERS like you THINK you have all the answers when CAPITALISM does work unlike that NAZI SOCIALISM you prefer over it all. If Germany is your ONLY example here, you don't have much. Since Merckel left, and even when she was there, Germany went to **** and now its more in the **** than ever before. Hell, they went totally stupid on electricity production, so what do you expect??
You are so kind.Cannonpointer » 11 Mar 2025, 7:35 pm » wrote: ↑ No, you are a joke, which is why you never post anything worth a ****.
And it's slimy, not slimey. If you're going to insult someone, try not to look stupid doing it.
Cannonpointer » 11 Mar 2025, 7:55 pm » wrote: ↑ You are the one who didn't read it, fruitcake.
It IS true that I scanned it - because the author is a rambler. That you believe a rambling opinion piece with no receipts or sources is evidence reflects on your intellect, there, Sparky.
That guy can run his hole all day, and it is still cheaper to pipe gas than it is to liquify it, ship it across an ocean, and regasify it. Are you even an adult, Skippy? On what planet do adults even TRY to argue that oceanic delivery isn't riskier and costlier than a pipe line - ESPECAILLY when the substance shipped has to be liquified and then regasified before it can be used? Are you a day drinker, you fruitcake?
LNG is at -240f. We burn stuff to cool it into cryogenic territory, use diesel powered boats to ship it to Europe where it is expanded and combusted generating electricity with loss of transmission to charge EV's. The carbon footrpint is staggering and multi layered. The good news is that Europe may try to find other scources of energy and give Trumpocalypse the finger.*Beekeeper » 12 Mar 2025, 4:38 am » wrote: ↑ A "rambler"?? And you took 3 paragraphs to try to make that point??
Fact is, with the COSTS of maintaining an AGING and decrepit pipeline, a LEAKING ONE that loses product, and the costs to BUILD A NEW ONE makes LNG more attractive PRICE WISE no matter what it takes to get it to the point of origin. NO ONE said it was cheaper, but well within the margin to be cost effective. But had you actually READ the article, you might have known that.
Gee, that's funny seeing how the SCIENTIFIC DATA refuses to play the little "**** game" you MANIPULATED IDIOTS want to play!!JohnnyYou » 12 Mar 2025, 4:59 am » wrote: ↑ LNG is at -240f. We burn stuff to cool it into cryogenic territory, use diesel powered boats to ship it to Europe where it is expanded and combusted generating electricity with loss of transmission to charge EV's. The carbon footrpint is staggering and multi layered. The good news is that Europe may try to find other scources of energy and give Trumpocalypse the finger.
The all in on drill baby drill burn baby burn is going to fry this planet like an egg on drugs in a frying pan. The kleptocratic energy tycoons don't give a phook. The meek will inherit a useless uninhabitable Earth and the Uber Elites will live in their Space Condos and eat Bill Gates Bug Burgers.
Check this out...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwwmfDIdZok
I read his arguments, fruitcake. And they were backed by hot air.*Beekeeper » 12 Mar 2025, 4:38 am » wrote: ↑ A "rambler"?? And you took 3 paragraphs to try to make that point??
Fact is, with the COSTS of maintaining an AGING and decrepit pipeline, a LEAKING ONE that loses product, and the costs to BUILD A NEW ONE makes LNG more attractive PRICE WISE no matter what it takes to get it to the point of origin. NO ONE said it was cheaper, but well within the margin to be cost effective. But had you actually READ the article, you might have known that.
Whining much about your butthurt??Cannonpointer » 12 Mar 2025, 7:54 pm » wrote: ↑ I read his arguments, fruitcake. And they were backed by hot air.
There simply does not exist a more expensive transit for petrochem than sea traffic. And there is no CHEAPER method than pipe.
Consider considering that you might be quite stupid and easily gulled by word salad and brickface.