The "Conservative Chronicles"

China Gets the Gas!

2012-02-09T05:36:00.000-08:00

PetroChina buys stake in Canada shale gas project

BO shakes hands with communist President Hu Jintao. It was so easy to
Scam the Americans! This black guy really hates whitey!

One more step in the decline of America!

China gets the gas that Obama rejects!
Remember the pipeline? Rejected to get elected.
There goes the gas, jobs and independence from foreign imports.
China is building up it's military to take us on and we are paying for it!
Brazil gets off shore drilling, now China gets the shale gas.
My question is and was fro some time.......
Are Americans Stupid?
I now think I have my answer! (Actually I know)
And as this is all happening the exorbitantly rich Liberals in Hollywood are moving to other countries to avoid the fall they had a part in causing.

China getting feet wet with B.C.'s shale gas

Communism takes one more step in strangling America

On the eve of Premier Christy Clark's announcement of a strategy to pro-mote the export of liquefied natural gas to Asian markets, a story out of Hong Kong provided a reminder of how fast things are moving in the volatile energy sector.

BY VANCOUVER SUN FEBRUARY 8, 2012 BE THE FIRST TO POST A COMMENT

On the eve of Premier Christy Clark's announcement of a strategy to pro-mote the export of liquefied natural gas to Asian markets, a story out of Hong Kong provided a reminder of how fast things are moving in the volatile energy sector.

"PetroChina buys Canadian shale stake," was the headline from the Reuters news agency last Thursday, atop the news that one of the big Chinese state-owned oil companies had bought a piece of the action here in B.C.

The Calgary Herald provided the context: "The large Chinese LNG importer has agreed to put money behind Royal Dutch Shell's shale gas development in northeastern B.C., which lowers development costs and nudges the early stage export concept for Kitimat closer to reality."

The point being that Petro-China had already invested in a Shell-backed proposal for an LNG terminal in Kitimat, the largest of three touted by Clark in the announcement she made Friday.

Now the Chinese were also paying an estimated $1 billion for a 20-per-cent stake in Shell's shale gas property in the north-east, source of the feed stock for the proposed LNG terminal.

But in addition to securing a potential supply of LNG, China had other designs. "PetroChina hopes to gain experience in management and production in the exploration and development of unconventional natural gas through its cooperation with Shell," a company representative confirmed to reporter Rebecca Penty of the Calgary Herald.

Chinese workers get ready to stick it to Unkle Sam!

Or as the Bloomberg news ser-vice headlined it: "PetroChina, Shell deepen ties for 'powerful' shale potential." Meaning not just their ties on this side of the Pacific, but in China as well.

For Shell is already involved in helping the Chinese national petroleum company develop that country's shale gas reserves, which are enormous. The partners invested $400 million in a joint venture that saw a dozen wells drilled last year with a projected two dozen more this year.

Reuters again: "China is set for a shale gas revolution which will surpass that seen in the U.S., [says] the chair of Sinopec, the country's second-largest oil company." That from a report out of the World Petroleum Congress in Qatar last December.

The Sinopec chair reckoned that it might take the rest of the decade. But given that the Chinese shale gas reserves were estimated (by the U.S. Energy Information Administration) to be "by far the largest in the world" it was only "a matter of timing."

Nor is China likely to put up as many environmental obstacles to the development of shale gas, a controversial process that involves injecting water and chemicals into shale formations deep within the earth.

"In New York and New Jersey, authorities have halted drilling in response to public unease, at least temporarily," the New York Times noted recently. "Such sentiments are unlikely to stand in the way of China, where 1.2 million people were moved to make way for the Three Gorges Dam."

Times reporter Joel Kirk-land visited one of the early Chinese shale gas drilling sites last fall and reported back on how the infant industry is get-ting a huge push from a driven government.

"Shale gas is among the largest onshore energy projects in China and it is treated as such by Beijing," he wrote. "Tap-ping the homegrown shale could buffer the economy from supply shocks ... and shale gas can be a formidable competitor for high-priced liquid natural gas shipments sloshing around the open seas."

Including, presumably, all those hypothetical shipments from still-on-the-drawing board LNG terminals in B.C. The first of the three is projected to be running by mid-decade, the second at about the same time with the Shell property to follow by 2020 at the earliest.

In which regard, consider the conclusion drawn by FACTS, a consulting firm specializing in Asian petroleum markets, in a report on shale gas and other so-called "unconventional" sources of LNG, presented to the Pacific Energy Summit in Indonesia this time last year.

"Though still in the early stages, China as well as Asia as a whole, could reap significant rewards from unconventional gas developments going forward," it noted, offering as a point of comparison, the five-fold increase in production over five years in the U.S.

"If Asia can replicate what happened in the U.S, there will be major implications for the global LNG market. After all, Asia currently accounts for over 60 per cent of LNG imports."

Every Saudi gallon pumped supports another terrorist.

Not straightaway, however. "The direct impact on LNG will be limited through 2020." Which, ahem, is about when the third of those B.C. terminals is hoped to be up and running.

All of which recalls some-thing Shell Canada president Lorraine Mitchelmore said last fall, by way of caution for every-one promoting LNG development in this country. "I'm not sure they understand the sense of urgency in front of us," she said.

"We have a very short window."

Her words ought to be posted on the wall for everyone in charge of implementing B.C.'s LNG strategy.

vpalmer@vancouversun.com

Who is Christina D. Romer? (Another Obama Looser!)

2012-02-05T06:40:00.000-08:00

February 4, 2012

Who is Christina D. Romer?

Joe and Christina have a laugh trying to figure out who is more clueless!

Christina D. Romer (née Duckworth; born December 25, 1958) is the Class of 1957 Garff B. Wilson Professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley and a former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration.[1][2]

As the administration presided over one of the biggest economic collapses in American history, She resigned from her role on the Council of Economic Advisers on September 3, 2010.[3]

After her nomination and before the Obama administration took office, Romer worked with economist Jared Bernstein to co-author the administration's plan for recovery from the 2008 recession.[4] In a January 2009 video presentation,[5] she discussed details of the job-creation package that the Obama administration submitted to Congress.

Romer was born in Alton, Illinois. She graduated from Glen Oak High School in Canton, Ohio, in June 1977. She obtained her bachelor's degree in economics from The College of William & Mary in 1981, and her Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1985. Upon completion of her doctorate, she started working as an assistant professor at Princeton University. In 1988 she moved to the University of California, Berkeley and was promoted to full professor in 1993.

These guys know much more than you do

She is a former vice president of the American Economic Association, a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship recipient, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a winner of the Berkeley Distinguished Teaching Award. Professor Romer is co-director of the Program in Monetary Economics at the National Bureau of Economic Research,[13] and was a member of the NBER Business Cycle Dating Committee until she resigned from this position on November 25, 2008.[14]

In 2008 Romer was set to join the Harvard faculty of economics, while her husband was offered a position at the university's Kennedy School of Government. However, the Romer's remained at Berkeley after Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard's president, vetoed her appointment.[15]Her decision resulted in substantial discussion within the discipline and in the mass media. The motivations for Faust's decision to block Romer's appointment remain unclear, though speculation has focused on an opposition among "New Classical" economists to her "New Keynesian" tendencies, or a reluctance to appoint MIT-trained faculty at Harvard.[16]

Editors note!

Do you notice something about Ms Romer?

She is typical of the Obama Administration.

Think about it. Who would you take business information and suggestions from? Christine Romer or Steven Jobs. Humm. Not a hard decision. C

Christine Romer displays a very unique trait, she never had a job! Never had to make payroll, worry about billings, regulations competition and anything else associated with starting and running a business.

No C Romer spent her life hiding in universities and high-end focus groups contemplating what others did wrong.

Shit, when it comes right down to it why don't we just ask her what it was like to walk on the moon while we are at it.

I learned early on when I went back for my second degree and having over 10 years of my own business experience that teachers are the last people you seek advice from.

Think of it. If we let our military or police force read about their craft would you want them protecting you?

How about that Pilot in your jet flying you to your next destination. Think experience helped him a bit.

Best of all do you think studying journals and kibitzing with other ivory tower types would have helped outCaptain C.B. Sully Sullenberger land his jet in the Hudson.

I can see her face now, turning red with indignation wanting to blurt out about how facts and figures reports and policies have helped everyone!

And then in some ways they might have but in the big view Pontificators like Romer all have one thing in common……

They are never held responsible for their actions. Actions have consequences.

If an ad agency does a lousy job they get fired

Factory puts out junk they go out of business and so on, you know the drill.

Look at apple computer vs Solyndra.

You don't need to be a genius to know the answer. Apple is self-supporting. Ford is self-supporting. Gm had to go on life support just to pay off the unions and now puts out crap that they can't even sell like the Volt.

Anyway it gets frustrating to see crap like Romer's article below without giving a little input.

What’s next, who'll be teaching skydiving? Hey If you what to take her advice, go do it just as long as it does not involve me. You pay the consequences its fine to me! But when government affects everyone including me I’m getting a little sick of the soft intellectual types and their failing policies.

Happier days prior to leaving Obama's disaster

__________________________________________________________

Do Manufacturers Need Special Treatment?

By CHRISTINA D. ROMER

(Editor's notes in Italics)

EVERYONE seems to be talking about a crisis in manufacturing. Workers, business leaders and politicians lament the decline of this traditionally central part of the American economy. President Obama, in his State of the Union address, singled out manufacturing for special tax breaks and support. Many go further, by urging trade restrictions or direct government investment in promising industries. (Solyndra)

A successful argument for a government manufacturing policy has to go beyond the feeling that it’s better to produce “real things” than services. American consumers value health care and haircuts as much as washing machines and hair dryers. And our earnings from exporting architectural plans for a building in Shanghai are as real as those from exporting cars to Canada. (Huh?)

The economic rationales for a policy aimed specifically at shoring up manufacturing largely fall into three categories. None are completely convincing:

MARKET FAILURES Government intervention can be justified on efficiency grounds if the free market won’t work well. For example, when competition in a market is limited, antitrust laws that prevent monopoly can be helpful.

(Weak statement any specific back up statements? Can you site any specific situations that justify this statement?)

In manufacturing, the market can malfunction if there are positive externalities across companies. That means that some benefits of a manufacturing plant go to companies other than the one deciding whether to build it. Clusters of manufacturing businesses can be more productive than an individual one. As a result, when an entrepreneur sets up a plant, some of the benefits accrue to other businesses in the area.

(Oh my god, this sounds like the shit they fed us in elementary economics. How about Boeing and right to work? Humm? Come on we all know you as a little smart come up with something useful in the real world hun!)

This argument could justify government subsidies or tax breaks. But largeclustering effects have been hard to find. A study by Professors Glenn Ellison ofM.I.T. and Edward Glaeser of Harvard showed that in many industries, businesses were only modestly more clustered than if they were allocated randomly — suggesting that the benefits, while real, may often be small.

(First of all, why do you have to announce the affiliation of each professor? why announce that they are professors? I'll tell you why, because then the average reader will say, Wow they are smart and in the in crowd, who am I to challenge what they are saying. By the way why are we beating to death this clustering shit? It's nothing new. Corning glass just shipped off 5000 jobs Ms Romer to where, a cluster in China. They built a flat screen glass manufacturing plant next to the factories that produce TV's in china.

(Interestingly between china's low cost of employment, the non exhausting Unions in china, no legacy costs and so on are why the plants were built, so cluster this!)

Moreover, the logic of clustering’s benefits is likely to apply outside manufacturing. Software development, insurance and entertainment are three service industries where we observe clustering and where positive externalitiesmay be large. Why single out manufacturing for special treatment?

(I'll tell you why dopey, Environmental regulations that’s why. Aside from the vile air pollution from Hollywood the industries above never have to worry about restrictive regulations, power costs, animal rights activists, minorities who want a piece of the action and union intrusions.)

A related argument for subsidizing manufacturing involves learning by doing. It takes time for a production process to become efficient.

(Jees! Henry ford wouldn't have ever known that if you hadn't pointed it out for him. That's an earthshaking finding, thanks for sharing it with me!)

But whether learning creates a role for government depends on whether the company taking the risk captures the eventual returns.

If the company that jumps in first and eventually succeeds reaps all the rewards, there’s not a market failure. The company needs to count the learning period aspart of the investment cost. And with well-functioning capital markets, it should be able to find investors without government help. (True nothing new, that's why investors are taxed at 15% on capital gains. They invest with already taxed $$$ and if they win they make $$$$ and if they loose they loose their own cash, not the American public's as in the case of Solyndria and many of the bogus government sponsored green businesses.) By the way why didn't GE pay any taxes? Hummm? Could it be that they are propping up a loosing state media beating Obama's drums and in return they get Tax breaks and windmill accounts?)

On the other hand, if an early entrant (we call them entrepreneurs) paves the way, but other companies come in later and snatch the rewards, government intervention could be helpful.

(Duh! Happens every day especially with software and green technology. China is the king of technology theft and the Obama administration wont sound a peep because we are in so much dept with them.)

In this situation, private entrepreneurs may not do as much early investment as would be good for the economy. Still, a study of the semiconductor industry found that although learning by doing was substantial, most of the rewards went to companies doing the early investing. And what spillovers there were, crossed national borders. (What? you'd think with all of that education you could at least speak in concrete terms, what are you saying, be specific!)

The possible externality of greatest concern may be national defense. The argument that we need a strong manufacturing base in case of war must be taken seriously. But it still doesn’t follow that all manufacturing deserves special treatment. Which industries are truly essential in a war effort? And might normal production in military industries, as well as existing supply arrangements with allies, provide adequate protection?

(Instead of asking questions you are the smart why don't you give us the answers we are seeking isn't that your job Ms Romer? oh I know, you are a professor and just paid to throw things out there for consideration! Hey! I'm just a dumb fuck with a web page, but the thing I've learned is that if I don't produce I don't eat! Ever hear of that in your travels. Unfortunately for your type, soft unchallenged and with no real responsibilities when you fail you pass on the buck, give another speech, go to another dinner, get another honorary doctorate.)

Without compelling evidence of special market failures in manufacturing, it might be better to enact policies that will make all American businesses and workers more productive and successful.

(How about Amtrak is that a compelling failure that would interest you? who are you writing this article for anyway liberals in Hollywood? by the way they are being shorted on funds why doesn't the government prop them up? They did in Germany? Got good results if I remember correctly Mrs. R. You know, if you had ever worked or if your buddy BO ever had a job you would possibly know that eating is a great incentive. You work, produce, get paid.

If the business needs to get things done and correctly they will pay for it, but now businesses are almost like country clubs, social experimental clubs, and objects of shakedowns by the Rainbow Collation.

It wasn't the government that made manufacturing great in this country. It wasn't the amount of happy gays, blacks or minorities feeling fulfilled that made the tanks we needed, it was the, dare I say the production line and innovation. Look into it you are a high paid intellectual type with time on her hands. Check out how innovations cut down manufacturing costs and helped reap market share. Business was tough and cutthroat Ms Romer it wasn't a pleasant woman’s knitting circle. It ain't social services. Oh by the way how, is the post office doing these days?)

President Obama mentioned some in his State of the Union address: expansion andenforcement of free trade agreements; public investment in basic science,infrastructure and education; and corporate tax reform. (Don’t we spend enough on these, yet the American students rate some of the lowest scores in the world when it comes to science and math)?

JOBS A key argument for encouraging manufacturing is to create jobs and reduce unemployment. Unfortunately, those effects are probably small.

(Another small-minded statement, obviously you still need to get from behind your mothers skirt. Businesses don't create jobs. Jobs are created out of needs. When you produce-a concept you might not be too familiar with, you need to complete tasks, another big word! If robotics can’t do it you hire people to fill the need. They get paid commensurate to what the job is worth and the skill needed. Hey ever watch Orange county choppers? Sure you did you don't need to admit it and go down a notch, but who would you pay more? Mikey who takes out the gabage or Jr. who actually designs the bikes? Which is the baggage? Let me know when you come up with an idea!)

Unemployment today is high, but not because of a decline in manufacturing. That decline has been going on for 30 years — and for most of the 1990s and 2000s, the unemployment rate was less than 6 percent.

(Check the numbers in the Bush years you going to tell me that unemployment was high? I guess government intervention into the housing market didn't have anything to do with the bust did it. Ever do a study on that? Remember Jimmy Carter, Red lining, fair housing, Barney Frank Chris Dodd, Country wide and so on?

Wahdt you don't? Well give it a thought and maybe you would be able to write a more compelling article. This was one of the most juvenile articles I’ve ever seen since college. Know wonder why you had to leave. Why don't you actually do a really neat experiment and get a job yourself? too hard. hum)

Today, we face a profound shortfall of demand. (Actually there is plenty of demand, there is in your words, a profound amount of international competition that we cant keep up with in the current business atmosphere.)

That truly is a terrible market failure, and it warrants government intervention.

Here we go again, government intervention Keynesian economics hold my hand commie socialism Alynskie will it ever end?

But we need actions that raise overall demand — like a tax cut for households so they have more take-home pay to spend, more aid to troubled state and local governments, and public investments in infrastructure. These are all things thatPresident Obama has advocated.

(It's a shame you are such a political whore! )

Number one there is and will always be demand, but if you are not working you can’t pay for it!

2) Households don't need tax cuts when they pay little of no taxes as it is. The rich who build businesses and take risks with their money and not the American peoples money need the incentive and breaks. Not many start up software companies have come out of the tax paying projects in Harlem or Philadelphia!

3) Public investment in infrastructure and fast trains rant going to turn things around and you know it. Take from to tom to pay Paul. Bernie Madoff was a shining example of government investment. In the end bills still have to be paid and who do tax cuts fit into this risky scheme Ms Romer?

By the way wasn't it BO that said that there weren’t as many shovel ready jobs?

A narrow tax cut for manufacturing is unlikely to raise aggregate demand significantly. By making our industrial goods cheaper, it might stimulate foreign demand, but probably not enough to make a dent in our unemployment rate. On the other hand, more aggressive monetary policy that lowered the price of the dollar would stimulate all our exports, and so have far more impact. (Actually you mean lower the value of the dollar don't we get a little thing called inflation from that?)

At the same time, plant shutdowns by large manufacturing companies leave huge holes in local job markets, and moving is very costly for dislocated workers with ties to their communities. There’s surely a role for government to help these devastated areas. (So what is it, any ideas or is this just another example of non-committed spouting by the socialist intelligentsia?)

One little-emphasized component of the president’s manufacturing plan is $6 billion of tax credits for any type of company investing in communities that have suffered the closing of a military base or another major job loss. A spate of new research suggests that such “place-based” policies may be effective in raising local employment and wages.

(Why is everything with you may be, could be should be and so on? That's because of your inexperience and need to tote the line you don't have an answer. Do you think these ideas are new? You have to be ashamed of yourself, but we know you're not. You get paid if things work out or not. Obfuscation is your job and Mr. union type dopey bastard will shake his head in agreement and say we need mo Govment! We'll gist pay fer it rum Obamz stash!

INCOME DISTRIBUTION A final argument for supporting manufacturing is (Where was your first argument?) distributional.

Manufacturing jobs are seen as one of the few sources of well-paying jobs for less-educated workers. Indeed, in the four decades after World War II, manufacturing jobs paid more than other jobs for given skills.

But that is much less true today. Increased international competition has forced American manufacturers to reduce costs. As a result, the pay premium for low-skilled workers in manufacturing is smaller than it once was.

Today, manufacturing wages are high largely because production is capital-intensive and technologically sophisticated. As a result, educational requirements have risen. Now, more than half of manufacturing workers have some college education, up from just over 20 percent in 1969.

There are sectors where workers with good educations could earn good wages if the economy were healthy. Why focus on manufacturing to create such jobs? Instead, government could make it easier for workers to get the education needed for high-skilled jobs in many fields — and encourage business formation wherever entrepreneurs see a promising opportunity.

If increasing income equality is the goal, it might be wiser to put money into infrastructure than to subsidize manufacturing. Construction also pays good wages, but with lower educational requirements.

And America’s infrastructure needs are enormous. Or, we could redistribute income through the tax code — economists’ traditional tool.

AS an economic historian, I appreciate what manufacturing has contributed to the United States. It was the engine of growth that allowed us to win two world wars and provided millions of families with a ticket to the middle class. But public policy needs to go beyond sentiment and history. It should be based on hard evidence of market failures, and reliable data on the proposals’ impact on jobs andincome inequality.

So far, a persuasive case for a manufacturing policy remains to be made,while that for many other economic policies is well established.

(Probably one of the worst articles I’ve ever read. If I had to greed you on content quality of thought and situations you get an F and that would be generous. Considering your pay grade you should be able to site-specific incidents that support your vacuous and airy theories. You haven't added anything new to the conversation. No new ideas no experienced based suggestions. Essentially you are like a cheap consulting firm telling the watchmaker how to wind his watch. My suggestion as a lower echelon peon is to give your subject matter some thought and consideration. Come with a well thought out article that comes up with something that is new fresh and makes sense! With all of your degrees and accolades give them something to be proud of! Let them be able to point to you and say, Hum now here stands a giant in her field!

You ain't making the grade honey! And guess what. Romney won’t have any place for losers like you next election!

Christina D. Romer is an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, andwas the chairwoman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. (She stepped down prior to being fired)