TransCanada (TRP) plans to hold a non-binding public solicitation of interest to ask Alaska's...

This news story has 8 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »

saratogahawk Comments (964)
 
I vote my shares YES. The US energy policy is a disaster. If we can't do it here then send the gas to Asia. At least Alaska can make some money at it along with Canada. I'm buying Canadian oils and gas stocks now since Kitimat will have an LNG plant and will send gas to Asia at much better prices. Unfortunately that is bad news for the US but then it seems that some politicians don't care about our future.
30 Jul 2012, 03:50 PM Reply Like

Hendershott Comments (1055)
 
Why would this be bad news for the US?
30 Jul 2012, 04:12 PM Reply Like

saratogahawk Comments (964)
 
Hendershott, so much of our energy supply comes from Canada that pushing them away to Asia has the serious potential to affect the US down the road. It certainly will pressure gas companies in the US to move product to Asia if they have an LNG plant in Kitimat and can get to it.
30 Jul 2012, 04:19 PM Reply Like

Hendershott Comments (1055)
 
I don't think we need any more NG, Why would anyone ship the stuff here at these prices? We only have one LNG shipping terminal approved and it's on the wrong coast for processing NG from western Canada. The original pipeline to ship NG from the North Slope to the US was conceived when circumstances were much different. Before the advent of huge shale finds in the US. It was permitted in 08 and hasn't been pursued. Market forces, nothing to do with any government policy, or lack thereof. By the way, if the international market for NG or LNG gets flooded with product, these plants will be a problem. Chinere (LNG) was originally formed to import LNG to this country.
30 Jul 2012, 05:21 PM Reply Like

Whitehawk Comments (2761)
 
Showing the demand for an LNG export market....
30 Jul 2012, 03:52 PM Reply Like

auto44 Comments (2534)
 
Makes a hell of a lot more sense than shipping it here to our already flooded n.g.markets. I am guessing it will require a shorter pipeline also. Makes no sense to drill for gas there if the market is here.
30 Jul 2012, 07:20 PM Reply Like

rattar Comments (13)
 
This seams to be the correct choice with Obama's view on energy. What needs to happen is a change in the up coming election's.Only then would we have free enterprise and a welcome approach to energy flow in the U.S.A. Which would bring a growth and jobs,a
thriving economy. Than leading to more revenue collected by the government without raising taxes on anyone The bottom line VOTE for a change that will help all Americans! We need a change in the tax code that is clear and fair.
31 Jul 2012, 10:29 AM Reply Like

Hendershott Comments (1055)
 
I believe you are way too optimistic about change in the government, tax code, an energy policy and jobs no matter who wins the Presidential election. We elect presidents, not kings. Congress will still be riddled with political money, favors owed, moneyed constituencies to be dealt with, backroom deals, sweetheart real estate and tax transactions. "There are two things that are important in politics. One of them is money and I can't remember the other one" These people are by and large, not there to help the population, except for the part of the population that throws a lot of money at them. Romney, Boehner, McConnell, Rove, Norquist et al are no different. They do not have your best interest at heart any more than the Democrats, maybe less so.
1 Aug 2012, 12:45 PM Reply Like